Re: Mezuzah Suit Sparks Ruckus, Impassioned 7th Cir. Dissent
Thank you for including the link, and the suggestion to read the comments. To say that I am horrified at some of them is a great understatement. Once again I'm realizing how well-informed and open-minded the people I tend to associate with are, and how unrepresentative of the nation NYC is. Some of the ignorance in the comments was shocking enough, but the anti-Semitism completely took me by surprise. I'm relieved that Judge Wood, at least, understood the complete significance of a rule that would prohibit anyone in a condo complex from putting up a mezuzah. -Renee **Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus0005000112) ___ 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.
Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle?
A few responses in this thread suggest that the father converted to Wicca after the divorce (or at least, after he got married). I haven't hunted down the decisions here, so maybe it is in fact a part of the history here. I'm thinking that it's more likely an assumption -- and an incorrect one. It's not that unusual for someone of a more traditional faith to marry a Wiccan, and for it to not be an issue in the marriage ... unless/until the marriage ends. At that point it becomes an issue during custody proceedings -- even though it was never an issue before or during the marriage. Yes, even to the extent that the child had previously (i.e., before the separation/divorce) been permitted to attend Wiccan rituals and events. Also, while I could see that attending a bonfire could be frightening to a child who'd never been to one before (which, by the way, would also be true in a secular context -- some towns still have annual bonfires that are *quite* large, not to mention the Federal government itself), the court didn't restrict the father from bringing the child to only that type of event. Instead the restriction was on any ceremony connected to their religious practices. This would include even a private, household ceremony honoring the changing of the seasons, or the full moon, or just giving praise to the gods for some wonderful thing that had happened. That's incredibly restrictive, to a level that I can't imagine a judge imposing in the context of any other religious faith. Would someone be willing to share the relevant citations to save me a bit of search time? -Renee -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 4:22 pm Subject: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle? A recent New York state appellate court decision upheld a father's petition for overnight visitation, but stressed that this was done only because the father and his fiancee agreed to refrain from exposing the child to any ceremony connected to their religious practices, and because the Family Court could mandate, in the visitation order, protections against her exposure to any aspect of the lifestyle of the father and his fiancée which could confuse the child's faith formation. I tracked down the trial court decision, and it turns out the father's and his fiancée's lifestyle and religious practices were Wiccan. The trial court concluded that the child (age 10 at the time of the appellate court's decision) is too young to understand that different lifestyles or religions are not necessarily worse than what she is accustomed to; they are merely different. For her, at her age, different equates to frightening. So when her father and her father's fiancé[e] take her to a bonfire to celebrate a Solstice, and she hears drums beating and observes people dancing, she becomes upset and scared. There was no further discussion in the trial court order of any more serious harm to the child, though of course there's always the change that some evidence was introduced at trial but wasn't relied on in the order. Given this, should it be permissible for a court to protect the child from becoming upset and scared by ordering that a parent not expos[e the child] to any aspect of [the parent's] lifestyle ... which could confuse the child's faith formation? Eugene ___ 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. More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Ed wrote: But I don't think that gay liberation requires forcing churches and religious organizations to change either their personal beliefs or their actions *within the confines of those organizations* We certainly want to prevent such people from imposing their beliefs on the private behavior of gays (and the rest of us, in a wide range of other ways as well); but we undermine our principled position if we then seek to have government impose restrictions on their private behavior (as opposed to the laws they advocate). Ed's post has helped put some thoughts in order for me. It's my impression that conservative religionists are concerned that secular recognition of gay marriage and other rights would force them to acknowledge and condone relationships that they believe are morally wrong. Perhaps this is true -- but it's not the first time that's happened. It's taken me several days to come up with a similar situation, but I finally have. People have been using interracial marriage as a comparison -- I've come up with one that's much more straightforward: equal treatment of women. There were, and I believe still are, some very conservative sects (the ones I'm the most familiar with are Jewish, having spent many years living and working in NYC) that believe that women should not act or be treated in ways that are equal to men. Even more mainstream sectsbelieve that interactions between men and women should be very strictly restricted. I have no doubt that Title VII led to some very heated discussions among those adherents. If they wanted to runa business of any substantial size (and therefore profitability), they would be forced not only to hire women, but to hire women who most likely did not conform to their standards of proper dress for women. They would be forced to interact with women at other companies. They would undoubtedly face situations where female strangers would expect to shake hands with them. Allin all, it was undoubtedly a great change from what they were used to. Over the years, though, they've adapted. Yes, some of their adaptation has been to form more insular communities and neighborhoods, so they can limit their interactions with "the outside world" to some extent. But others have simply gotten used to the new way of things. Yes, I'm sure (albeit without proof) that some discrimination is happening -- or at least discouagement of people who don't "fit" from continuing in the hiring process -- but it's on a very small scale. The religious sects survived, the people practicing them adapted, and women play a greater role in the marketplace than they did 40 years ago. And today, I don't hear anyone screaming (in the US at least) that forcing employers to treat women equally trod on the rights of religious groups and prevented them from living according to their convictions. -Renee ___ 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.
Re: N.Y. Court Rejects Employers' Challenge to ContraceptionLaw
Richard Dougherty wrote: I'm not sure why the coverage for Viagra is related to covering contraception, though... Because both relate quite directly to reproduction. One thing no one has metioned is that not all prescription contraceptives are prescribed/used primarilyas contraceptives -- they're frequently used to regulate hormones and menstruation. Sorefusing to payisn't just about contraception -- it's about women'shealth,full stop. -Renee ___ 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.
Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case
With regard to the judge's commentary, what I find the most disturbing is thatthis particular judge -- a Bush appointee with pretty firm "conservative" credentials -- felt it necessary to preemptively defend not just his decision, but himself, in his opinion. What does that say for the current social climate andprinciplesof judicial independence? As for determining what is or is not "science," judges do that all the time when they decide whether or not to allow expert testimony. -Renee ___ 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.
Re: Religious Polygamy
Does anyone know how this works in the real world? In other words, how do the plural marriages actually occur, and how is it that they violate criminal bigamy laws? In the plural marriagesI know of (none of which are in a Mormon context) the group or multiple commitments are done through purely religious ceremonies (not legal). In some cases some of the partners are legally married to each other, but not in all. The only way I can think of in which these unions could violate criminal bigamy laws is if the non-legally married parties(at least one of whom was legally married to a third person)were to live in, or go to, a common law marriage state and present themselves as married (assuming that there still are common law marriage states -- that's not something I've thought much about since law school), becoming married under common law. Here's another bit that you may find interesting in the context of an exam question: I have heard that there used to be (and may still be)an interestingloophole in NJ's domestic partnership law. The law required that, for a partnership to be valid, neither party could currently be part of another domestic partnership. It mentioned nothing about currently being married to another person. -Renee ___ 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.
