I can't refrain from asking the snarky question as to whether anyone believes
that the decision of the Supreme Court to decide or to dump the case will
represent a "principled" elaboration of mootness doctrine, as against 1) a
desire by Gorsuch and the other four to announce their solicitude for
I am taking the liberty of posting a column that I wrote in Sept. 2014 for the
Al Jazeera Web site that touches on the shifting politics of religious freedom.
Perhaps we can even hope for some kind of detente between right and left
(though I’m not holding my breath). But Jeff Sessions is cert
I note for the record, with fully snarky intentions, that I know of no
imaginative rendering of Moses or Jesus that depicts them in suits, nor is it
my impression that modern Popes dress gender appropriately.
The argument basically boils down to "customer's" veto, and I see no difference
betwee
Does anyone seriously believe that the Supreme Court is capable of offering a
“constitutional definition of religion” that would not instantly be ridiculed
by a variety of academic students of religion (whether theologicans,
philosophers, historians, anthropologists, or sociologists), not to men
Is it fair to say that Eugene is presenting a minimum rationality account of
the state interest here. No doubt he is correct that there are marginal
benefits to feeling confident in water--which I lament that I never have--but
that is true also, say, with regard to the benefits of eating broccol
As is obvious, all "neutrality" principles depend on agreement on the baseline.
When I was teaching courses on the Constitution and the welfare state, I often
began with the UAW food stamp case, in which the majority solemnly asserted
that Congress was simply trying to "level the playing field"
For what it's worth, I want to endorse the comments of Mark Graber and Marty re
the dispositive importance of the fact that we're living in a welfare state
that was probably literally unimaginable to Madison and his friends.
Rehnquist's dissent in Thomas makes this point.
Also for what it's wor
Shouldn't we admit that "play in the joints" is simply a euphemism for judicial
balancing between the competing notions of no establishment, on the one hand,
and free exercise+equality on the other. Neither makes sense as maximalist
theory. The former would prohibit police protection, the latter
ionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject:
ng to pay for 14 of them.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
To what extent is it either required or ethically questionable to point out, if
one is objecting to conclusion “a” above, to point out that any such doctrine
would req
To what extent is it either required or ethically questionable to point out, if
one is objecting to conclusion “a” above, to point out that any such doctrine
would require “sovereign states” to pony money up to Moslem schools, including,
say, madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia in order to teach var
Is it at all relevant that we're talking about $250,000 instead of, say,
$25,000 for a more modest chapel. And it sounds as this is an attempt to curry
favor not only with Moslem passengers (perfectly appropriate), but also
specifically with the Emirate Airline, which one presumes is Islamic in
Roberta Kwall makes an excellent point. Who among us can really be confident of
what drives people? Whether Kim Davis is or is not in good faith should be
irrelevant. Her demand for accommodation is excessive with regard to the social
costs inflicted on innocent third parties. If the costs were
p://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html>
Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinso
Fortunately, this very sensible policy is the result of political prudence and
not adversarial litigation.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Brian Landsberg
mailto:blandsb...@pacific.edu>> wrote:
Yes, the policy, though unstated, dates back at least to the early 1970’s.
I realize I really am a babe in the woods in this area, and I am learning a lot
from the discussion. But how long should applicants for marriage be expected
to wait to sort out what seem to me to be increasingly abstruse questions of
Kentucky state and constitutional law. After all, as someone
ological system, or ...?
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
With regard to Roberta Kwall's interesting post: what if the case being taught
were Bob Jones? Would she (or the rest of us) teach that their a
thor=345249
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
on behalf of Levinson, Sanford V
[slevin...@law.utexas.edu<mailto:s
. The magnitude is different; the principle is the same.
Steve Jamar
On Sep 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
I do find myself wondering how much the reaction to Ms. Davis is simply a proxy
for our politics. Consider, eg, the efforts by
I do find myself wondering how much the reaction to Ms. Davis is simply a proxy
for our politics. Consider, eg, the efforts by some of the conservative pols
who support Ms. Davis (like Ted Cruz) to go after "sanctuary cities). I suspect
that many of us support such sanctuaries against our Dracon
systems, and many of our secular fellow citizens, have drawn.
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Law & Relig
My iPhone unhelpfully changed "machines" to "chimes"! I am unaware of "killing
chimes" at least at present.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
If we take all of these absurd
If we take all of these absurd (to us) complicity claims seriously, then I
still want to know why a religious pacifist is required to pay taxes that
empirically finance killings chimes or anti-capital punishment adherents
financing what Blackmun called the machinery of death. This really IS the
Marty's Balkanization post is, as usual, remarkably illuminating on the legal
issues under Kentucky law. As I read it, I found myself thinking of the statues
on public property cases, where the claim, as in the Texas Ten Commandments
case is that the observer will attribute to the state the spee
Would a capacious interpretation of the Kentucky RFRA Law in effect allow state
officials to nullify federal law? Scalia is looking more prescient in Smith
every day!
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 3, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Conkle, Daniel O.
mailto:con...@indiana.edu>> wrote:
Thanks, Marty. M
7;t read RFRA to extend to nonreligion. The RFRA claims
he recognizes -- those of two employees of MfL who want coverage without
contraception -- are based on their religion. MfL's own claim is upheld on EPC
grounds.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.u
So, is the argument that RFRA would be unconstitutional if it protected only
"religious freedom," so that we a) expand it to protect any and all claims of
"conscience," even if based on admittedly non-religious grounds and b) we must
assume as well that Congress would prefer this solution to one
Obviously, my lament is that O'Connor's opinion did NOT replace Scalia's as the
majority opinion in Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 14, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
What Eugene’s argument does is simply reinforce my
s exemption regimes, I just
don't see how assumptions about what "common carrier" "just means" resolve the
religious exemption analysis.
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun
ses.
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Ca
les, which led to different results
in different states.
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:58 PM
@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision
A non-rhetorical question: i
I note from reading the New York Times story that the baker apparently offered
to sell other goods in lieu of baking a designated "wedding cake."
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
A non-rhetoric
A non-rhetorical question: is there any model that would justify refusing to
sell an in embellished product--say a cupcake--to someone whose potential
use--at a same sex wedding, at a tryst with one's heterosexual lover, or
whatever--you disapproved of on religious grounds? An obvious question
Actually, what we label "natural law" is a figment in the West of Greek
imagination, since the arguments can be found in Plato and Aristotle, even if
they were most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas. And, alas, Jewish and, I
presume Islamic, law is thoroughly homophobic. None of this affects my
Will the Supreme Court follow the election returns? A bit more seriously, this
is a tribute to the beneficent possibilities inherent in direct democracy.
(Prop. 8 is not so
Inspiring, but can there be any real doubt that there would be a different
result today? Or, for that matter, that a nati
at would be offensive to all Catholics. LDS teachings on marriage in this
regard are just as central to our faith as the doctrine of Transubstantiation
is to Catholics.
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
Isn't it foolish in
Isn't it foolish in the extreme to assert that "time and culture" are not part
and parcel of the history of all religious movements, even if one concedes,
perhaps for reasons of tact, that they are not "simply" such products. (I
frankly have no idea what secularists actually mean by that concess
A person
might suggest that it is evidence of the religious sincerity of the lonely
business-owner who does not want to be left without discretion.
Art Spitzer
Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...
Barney Frank was in Austin this evening talking about his new book. Not
surprisingly, Indiana and Arkansas came up. Not only did he emphasize the
crucial role played by business in pushing back against religious
conservatives, but he also made the very shrewd point that businesses often
actuall
Most of us no long bother to differentiate “freedom of speech” from “freedom of
expression,” but I think this is an excellent occasion to do so. I inclined to
believe that customers should not have the right to force bakers to engage in
what ordinary language would define as “speech” that offen
If one treats the issue as "state mandated art" (in the absence of conditional
funding, at least), I agree with Mark S. Am I correct in assuming that Mark's
caveat doesn't apply to the wedding cake, at least if we're talking about "off
the rack" cakes? I assume also this wouldn't apply to the c
'64 Act in
support of it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
You may be right. I was using the term more metaphorically to refer to any
business that is open to the public.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2015, at 6:48
27;re covered by many state civil
rights acts. Am I in fact missing something?
Best,
Rich
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
I think Prof. Chen is substantially correct, but I believe, more than ever,
that it's the kind of p
I think Prof. Chen is substantially correct, but I believe, more than ever,
that it's the kind of problem that can ( and should) be handled outside legal
constraints. Why would I want to hire a wedding photographer who so clearly
won't view the day as affirmatively special? Ditto the band? But
Non-Jews are under no obligation not to eat pork (or adhere to almost all of
the other 612 mitzvot). So there is no stigma attached to any non-Jew who wants
to buy a ham at a kosher butchery. That can't be said with regard to the
florist who refuses to sell a bouquet for use at a same-sex marria
Our ostensibly federalism-loving new governor, Greg Abbott, who is obsessed
with suing the Obama Administration for overreach, began his administration by
giving a speech denouncing local communities in Texas—it goes without saying
that he hates Austin, though not only Austin—and demanding that
Please substitute the words "no readers" for "new readers" in the missive
below. My apologies for the error.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote:
I'm afraid that what the sta
I'm afraid that what the state RFRA legislation is doing is encouraging, on the
part of its supporters, an extravagant view of "religious liberty" (just read
some of the material in the Austin, TX newspapers) that will then breed anger
and frustration when "liberal" and "secular" judges interpre
I'll believe this is a serious issue when the Court holds that limiting the
priesthood or rabbinate to men violates Title VII, but not a day before. I
detect some demagoguery in Oklahoma legislature--shocking I'm sure.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Brad Pardee
mailto:bp51...
Congratulations. I'd like to organize a mini-symposium about the book on
Balkinization. Do you think you could arrange with Oxford to send copies of
the book to, say, 8-10 people who would in effect be reviewing it there?
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bou
But isn’t the central question protecting “free exercise” when there are
arguably significant third-party consequences? Inevitably, we return to the
problem at the heart of Mill’s On Liberty: Can we really identify a category
of acts that do not inflict harm on third parties. What about suic
For what it’s worth, I agree completely with Chip. Although he’s obviously a
first-rate lawyer, he is also channeling in this message the finding of most
political scientists, i.e., that legislators care far, far more about being
re-elected and remaining in good graces with their political part
I’m still not certain what Perry’s position is re the Jehovah’s Witness
children, where the adverse consequences are “internalized” to the child.
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Perry Dane
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 10
usion or cancer treatment
cases. Of course, there's a free rider issue here, of sorts. But should be
object to free-riding in principle, or only in the sort of free-riding that
threatens the provision of the public good at issue?
Perry
On 02/01/2015 6:19 pm, Levinson, Sanford V wrote:
This is certainly thoughtful. But what about the Jehovah's Witnesses cases re
transfusions? Are we necessarily to prefer the interests of the religious
parents over the health and safety of the child? Or do we simply say that the
risk of measles, polio, tetanus etc. isn't so serious as the co
pid enough to invoke the language we had used, not
the doctrine we had been applying in fact. If you really wanted to
re-instantiate the jurisprudence as it existed pre-Smith, you should have
chosen much different language.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...
I don't share Chip's seeming consternation. Is this any different from
references to "an unusually stupid law" (Stewart as I recall in Griswold,
though it might have been Black, who also distanced himself) or Thomas in
Lawrence or, for that matter, Holmes in Lochner, depending on whether one
th
Paul is correct on all counts. I'd be even stronger in emphasizing that none of
the current justices has ever seen the inside of a courtroom while representing
an " ordinary" criminal defendant. Presidents disproportionately appoint
prosecutors and disdain defense lawyers. To engage in zealous
roved of their foreseeable legal views -- views
that were in part shaped by their Catholicism, to be sure, but surely Bush was
indifferent to the question of what the various sources of their jurisprudence
might be.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law
It's not only that HHS may be "less than trustworthy" (assuming, arguendo, that
is the case). I think the more important point is that the Supreme Court
quite regularly makes decisions on the basis of surmises and their own view of
reality that have little or no support in any serious empirica
"peasants" with pitchforks.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message ----
From: "Levinson, Sanford V"
Date:07/06/2014 11:13 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academ
I think that once one is "hearing from government" offensive theological views,
the Establishment Clause is fully implicated. It is prudence, and nothing else,
that "legitimizes" "In God We Trust." (That's why the court had to invent an
implausible standing doctrine to avoid deciding in Newdow'
em?
> Jon
>
>> On 2014-07-01 22:22, Levinson, Sanford V wrote:
>> I do not understand why the complicity with evil rationale doesn't
>> apply to taxpayers ( like Thoreau). The argument against is either
>> that it would unduly burden the state to
The danger, though, is not only
over-accommodation (a real danger, I readily admit) -- on the other side it can
be under-accommodation, or simply the exercise of power.
Richard Dougherty
University of Dallas
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu
extent this decision reflects continuing
picque at Congress overturning Smith by enacting RFRA - and the court is trying
to get it repealed or changed by the surest way -by enforcing it strictly - as
pointed out by Abraham Lincoln.
Steve
On Jul 5, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:s
Marty writes that the “mess . . . is a function of the increasingly
implausible theories of complicity being offered by the plaintiffs' lawyers --
which the Court has invited with its capacious understanding of what
constitutes a "religious question" beyond the ken of civil authorities to
eval
Marty,
Your post is unusually amazing. What I'm curious about is whether any of the
Justices have any real knowledge, let alone expertise, about ERISA. I remember
John Langbein's dismay when Ginsburg praised Rehnquist for his "fairness" in
distributing ERISA cases. It was clear that she (and pr
rracial couple before
deciding the issue. For a good overview, see Peggy Pascoe, What Comes
Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America.
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On B
I do not understand why the complicity with evil rationale doesn't apply to
taxpayers ( like Thoreau). The argument against is either that it would unduly
burden the state to set up a c.o. system for tax protesters or that it would
invite strategic misrepresentation. Are these sufficiently "comp
That is, of course, a deep problem. People can sincerely believe absolutely
crazy things.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "Scarberry, Mark"
mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
Maybe this is a "constitutional fact," like NY Times actual malice. We need to
be c
ence," and experience teaches that the nation
obeys the law. At least mostly, and at least so far. And Congress can amend
RFRA if The People don't like it.
Art Spitzer
Warning: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
ol of Law
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:28 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby
This is a good question. AS I read the opinion it tends to rely on the fact
that the insurance providers will be required to provide the coverage “for
free” (given that it will overall cost less to cover than would pregnancies),
so that the government must allocate not a single new penny. If,
ail: tcb...@stthomas.edu
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author='261564
Weblog: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf
g: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Levinson, Sanford V [slevin...@law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Sunday, J
Unlike Jon, I believe RFRA was constitutional, but, as I've posted earlier, I
regret ever more every day that Rehnquist did not assign the opinion to
O'Connor, whose opinion at the time at detested because of what I thought was
her lassitude on what counted as a compelling interest, but that is
ar to that given by the New Jersey appellate
court?
Eugene
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Law & Relig
OK, I’ll bite; Religious exemptions, at the end of the day, honor beliefs
that secularists by definition must regard as “irrational,” i.e., incapable of
being defended by reference to “standard-model” scientific argument. There may
be good reasons for allowing such exemption in the name of pr
10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:12 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Reply To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript
I stand thoroughly correcte
What if, in 1990, Chief Justice Rehnquist had assigned the opinion in Smith to
O'Connor instead of Scalia? The result in the instant case, of course, would
have been the same, but instead of junking the Free Exercise Clause, as Scalia
basically did, the argument would have been that Oregon had
Braunfeld did not sell meat. From the opinion: "Appellants are merchants in
Philadelphia who engage in the retail sale of clothing and home furnishings
within the proscription of the statute in issue."
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Levinson, Sanford V
mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.e
Is Hobby Lobby in the position of claiming a "right" to enlist in the armed
forces, but, at the same time, to avoid being assigned duties that violate
their religious views? I assume the general answer to such a request is "you
don't have to enlist, but if you do, then you have to do it on the
With regard to Braunfield, given that the customers are a distinct subset of
people who want Kosher meat, isn't the argument more that they are decidedly
inconvenienced by being unable to shop on Sunday (which is just another day to
them), but NOT that they will refrain from buying kosher meat f
ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA
I almost apologize for br
I almost apologize for bringing this up, but I think that a key phrase in
Mark's post is "they sincerely think the drugs they must provide will sometimes
cause abortions." It is not simply Marty's point that they are not being
forced to provide them (any more than would be the case, of course,
With regard to exclusions and "sincere religious belief," dare I point out that
Orthodox Judaism is full of such exclusions, especially based on gender and
marital status. The ultra-Orthodox in Israel are basically insisting on
segregated buses lest males be corrupted by a female presence (part
I agree with Greg's last paragraph. A legal system that relies only on
legality is doomed.
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sisk, Gregory C.
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:25 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academi
I fail to see the point of this debate with regard to the constitutionality of
the ACA and the contraceptive policy embedded in it. Is the Supreme Court to
serve as a "super-legislature" and decide what policies are "optimal" and
"suboptimal"? I suppose that the logic of "compelling interests"
I confess that I find "sincerity" relatively unimportant analytically, though
it is obviously relevant, as a political matter, when there may be great
incentives to "game the system" by proclaiming beliefs one does not "in fact"
have, such as the recent spate of alleged conversions to Kashrut-ob
If one is obligated by law to do X, then it doesn't count as legal robbery,
period, unless the law itself is unconstitutional. That, after all, is the
debate involving the NSA, how much of what is objectionable is illegal and how
much is perfectly legal (albeit objectionable from one or another
I cannot help but wonder what Alan's view is of the recent Utah polygamy case.
It does seem to me that the arguments he so eloquently makes below should apply
(easiest case) to adult "old-Mormons" who continue to believe that their
religion encourages (compels?) multiple marriages. In this ins
This is very helpful. For Rick's argument, I still think the central question
is why we would accommodate, even if the costs are relatively low, someone with
religious objections, say, to working on an assembly line producing munitions,
but not a secularist with a very tender conscience. (As a
Prediction: They won't get it!!
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:22 PM
To: Religionlaw
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
Sa
ofessor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Friday, December 06,
As I've said earlier, I'm sympathetic to Richard's argument inasmuch as
confession is in fact part of a complex (required) sacramental process. But
the point is that (I think) that's relatively unusual, certainly not present,
so far as I am aware, in Judaism, for example. Am I correct in beli
I’m genuinely curious: Do we have any idea which denominations impose a duty
on their clergy to preserve confidentiality? Every Sunday I read in the Style
section of the Times of couples who are married by someone who has been
licensed by the Universal Church (I think it’s called) to perform w
acity as a spiritual advisor. The person seeking that counsel need not
necessarily be a co-communicant. I don't think this is just hair-splitting.
It's not analogous to a statement that men as well as women can seek medical
care for pregnancy.
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:56 PM, "Levinson, San
Free speech doctrine, for better or worse, presumably protects (almost)
everyone. What is distinctive about the "clergy-penitent privilege" is that it
protects only a particular subset of people, i.e., those who claim some
religious identity, as against secularists who have the same desire to u
Greg’s argument is obviously quite eloquent. But I think it is telling that it
is really predicated on Catholic theology, including the “sacramental” nature
of confession and the joint duty of the penitent/sinner to confess and of the
priest to keep the confession confidential. And, of course,
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
