Apologies to all for the invitation that my (not-so-)Smartphone somehow just sent to the listserve for a non-existent event.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "Levinson, Sanford V" <slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: I am certainly drawn to be protective of religious acts “essential to their faith.” The problem, of course, comes with the radical pluralism of American religious life, and our (perhaps admirable) propensity to allow each individual more-or-less carte blanche (unless it involves smoking marijuana) as to what those “essentials are.” And, of course, one still has to explain why claims of conscience that are “essential to one’s own notion living with integrity” are not protected. sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 10:53 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties I think the history of the privilege is that it was first protected for Catholics, because of its sacramental nature and the very strong teaching, and then extended to other faiths by analogy and to avoid what looked to some like denominational discrimination. I’m pretty sure about that chronology; I’m inferring the causation without having done the historical work to verify it. The peyote service is the central act of worship in the Native American Church; I don’t know if they use the word sacrament. But Smith and Black (the other plaintiff) were not members of the church; they were exploring. It is generally illusory to enact toleration, and say that religious minorities can live among you, if you then prosecute them for acts essential to their faith. The force of that point is weaker with respect to less important religious practices, although I think it never goes to zero. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor 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, 2013 11:18 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties 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 believing that the ingestion of peyote was in fact a sacramental aspect of the Native American church? sandy
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
