Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
Paul,you bring up somegood points. Actually both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses are violated. Furthermore, the Religious Test Clause is often violated as well when a government job or license is part of the ultimatum to attend. Below is a link to the major court opinions, an article from the Duke Law Journal, and a book by attorney, Stanton Peele: http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/courtopinions.html http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785 http://www.peele.net/bookstore/resisting.html This is one of the most blatant violations of religious liberty in the world today, and I hope the members of this group will take a close look at it. I have lots of info on this. Perhaps I should start a new thread here on 12-step coercion. Tommy Perkins Founder, 12 Step Coercion Watch http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch/ This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious. I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free exercise one.I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing him to associate with African Americans and to be part of their culture for a few Sundays, on the theory, I suppose, that if he gets to know blacks he won't hate them (I think this is a dumb theory, but that is beside the point). It is not "establishing" the black church as a religion for the state.He is being forced to associate with blacks, and therefore is losing his freedom of association (or non-association) but that can happen whenever you get convicted; you go to jail and associate with people who might not want to hang out with.But, let us suppose, for arguments sake, that this person was a member of a faith which prohibited him from attending the religious worship of others. Then it would seem to me that his free exercise rights were being violated. At that point I think the court could be required to give him some other "alternative sentence" -- such as go tutor in a mostly black school for a month; go live in a dorm at an HBCU for a month, etc. OR the court could just send him to the slammer for a disorderly conduct.Paul Finkelman ___ 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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
Paul, thatÂ’s a good point. Actually both the free exercise and establishment clauses are violated. Furthermore, the religious test clause is often violated as well when a government job or license is part of the ultimatum to attend. Below is a link to the major court opinions, an article from the Duke Law Journal, and a book by attorney, Stanton Peele: http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/courtopinions.html http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785 http://www.peele.net/bookstore/resisting.html This is one of the most blatant violations of religious liberty in the world today, and I hope the members of this group will take a close look at it. I have lots of info on this. Perhaps I should start a new thread here on 12-step coercion. Tommy Perkins Founder, 12 Step Coercion Watch http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch/ This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious. I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free exercise one. I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing him to associate with African Americans and to be part of their culture for a few Sundays, on the theory, I suppose, that if he gets to know blacks he won't hate them (I think this is a dumb theory, but that is beside the point). It is not establishing the black church as a religion for the state. He is being forced to associate with blacks, and therefore is losing his freedom of association (or non-association) but that can happen whenever you get convicted; you go to jail and associate with people who might not want to hang out with. But, let us suppose, for arguments sake, that this person was a member of a faith which prohibited him from attending the religious worship of others. Then it would seem to me that his free exercise rights were being violated. At that point I think the court could be required to give him some other alternative sentence -- such as go tutor in a mostly black school for a month; go live in a dorm at an HBCU for a month, etc. OR the court could just send him to the slammer for a disorderly conduct. Paul Finkelman ___ 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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
The cases concerning government coercion to participate in AA/NA -- there have been several, in both the 2nd and the 7th appellate districts, all of which have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs -- are not at all inapplicable. Forcing someone (under threat of jail) to sit in a room where religious exercises are conducted and religious conversion is the expected and intended purpose (which is what 12-step meetings and treatments do) is clearly an Establishment Clause violation. The other side of the coin, as demonstrated in many of the 12-step coercion cases, is giving special privileges to people who demonstrate ostensible compliance with, or acceptance of, particular religious teachings. One of the foremost such cases was Griffin v. Coughlin, referenced and excerpted below. http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I96_0137.htm A.A.'s Twelve Steps/Twelve Traditions volume, describing the spiritual evolution of atheists and agnostics through working the 12 steps, states: 'Consequently, in Step Three, we turned our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. For the time being, we who were atheists or agnostics discovered that our own group, or A.A. as a whole, would suffice as a higher power. Beginning with Step Four, we commenced to search out the things in ourselves which had brought us to physical, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy' (A.A. Twelve Steps/Twelve Traditions, at 107) * * * 'So, practicing these Steps, we had spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubted themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the spiritual angle, and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name' (id., at 109 [emphasis supplied]). The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In working the 12 steps, participants become actively involved in seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for removal of shortcomings. These expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of law, religious exercise for Establishment Clause purposes, no less than the nondenominational prayer in Engel v Vitale (370 US 421), that is, a solemn avowal of divine faith and a supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious (id., at 424 [emphasis supplied]; see also, Lee v Weisman, 505 US __, __, 112 S Ct 2649, 2664 [Blackmun, J., concurring]). Similarly, no matter how much a judge might feel it would be rehabilitative to sentence a white racist to spend time in a black environment, any such sentence cannot include ordering the defendant to sit in a church service. ~Rita --- Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have generally been struck down on Establishment Clause grounds. The theory there isn't establishing as a religion for the state as such, but rather violation of the no coercion rule of Establishment Clause caselaw. The claimant hasn't been required to show any religious objection to the behavior (as he would be under the Free Exercise Clause); as with the graduates in Lee v. Weisman, it has been enough that he show that he was being coerced into engaging in a religious practice. And giving someone the option of participating in a religious practice or going to jail (or staying longer in jail) has been treated as coercion. Am I mistaken about those cases? Do people think those cases are mistaken? Do they think the cases are inapplicable here? Eugene __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious. I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free exercise one. I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing him to associate with African Americans and to be part of their culture for a few Sundays, on the theory, I suppose, that if he gets to know blacks he won't hate them (I think this is a dumb theory, but that is beside the point). It is not establishing the black church as a religion for the state. He is being forced to associate with blacks, and therefore is losing his freedom of association (or non-association) but that can happen whenever you get convicted; you go to jail and associate with people who might not want to hang out with. But, let us suppose, for arguments sake, that this person was a member of a faith which prohibited him from attending the religious worship of others. Then it would seem to me that his free exercise rights were being violated. At that point I think the court could be required to give him some other alternative sentence -- such as go tutor in a mostly black school for a month; go live in a dorm at an HBCU for a month, etc. OR the court could just send him to the slammer for a disorderly conduct. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Wouldn't there be an Establishment Clause problem, though? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:35 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi
RE: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have generally been struck down on Establishment Clause grounds. The theory there isn't establishing as a religion for the state as such, but rather violation of the no coercion rule of Establishment Clause caselaw. The claimant hasn't been required to show any religious objection to the behavior (as he would be under the Free Exercise Clause); as with the graduates in Lee v. Weisman, it has been enough that he show that he was being coerced into engaging in a religious practice. And giving someone the option of participating in a religious practice or going to jail (or staying longer in jail) has been treated as coercion. Am I mistaken about those cases? Do people think those cases are mistaken? Do they think the cases are inapplicable here? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:52 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious. I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free exercise one. I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing him to associate with African Americans and to be part of their culture for a few Sundays, on the theory, I suppose, that if he gets to know blacks he won't hate them (I think this is a dumb theory, but that is beside the point). It is not establishing the black church as a religion for the state. He is being forced to associate with blacks, and therefore is losing his freedom of association (or non-association) but that can happen whenever you get convicted; you go to jail and associate with people who might not want to hang out with. But, let us suppose, for arguments sake, that this person was a member of a faith which prohibited him from attending the religious worship of others. Then it would seem to me that his free exercise rights were being violated. At that point I think the court could be required to give him some other alternative sentence -- such as go tutor in a mostly black school for a month; go live in a dorm at an HBCU for a month, etc. OR the court could just send him to the slammer for a disorderly conduct. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Wouldn't there be an Establishment Clause problem, though? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:35 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http
Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
That is interesting; I recall talking to a judge a couple of years ago who sentenced people to AA as part of their therapy; I agree completely that "church or jail" is an unconstitutional option. Volokh, Eugene wrote: As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have generally been struck down on Establishment Clause grounds. The theory there isn't "establishing as a religion for the state" as such, but rather violation of the "no coercion" rule of Establishment Clause caselaw. The claimant hasn't been required to show any religious objection to the behavior (as he would be under the Free Exercise Clause); as with the graduates in Lee v. Weisman, it has been enough that he show that he was being coerced into engaging in a religious practice. And giving someone the option of participating in a religious practice or going to jail (or staying longer in jail) has been treated as coercion. Am I mistaken about those cases? Do people think those cases are mistaken? Do they think the cases are inapplicable here? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:52 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: "Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church" This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious. I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free exercise one. I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing him to associate with African Americans and to be part of their culture for a few Sundays, on the theory, I suppose, that if he gets to know blacks he won't hate them (I think this is a dumb theory, but that is beside the point). It is not "establishing" the black church as a religion for the state. He is being forced to associate with blacks, and therefore is losing his freedom of association (or non-association) but that can happen whenever you get convicted; you go to jail and associate with people who might not want to hang out with. But, let us suppose, for arguments sake, that this person was a member of a faith which prohibited him from attending the religious worship of others. Then it would seem to me that his free exercise rights were being violated. At that point I think the court could be required to give him some other "alternative sentence" -- such as go tutor in a mostly black school for a month; go live in a dorm at an HBCU for a month, etc. OR the court could just send him to the slammer for a disorderly conduct. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Wouldn't there be an Establishment Clause problem, though? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:35 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: "Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church" Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] "using racial slurs.") Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, "Church don't change everybody." ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
All prosy dull society sinnersWho chatter and bleat and boreAre sent to hear sermonsFrom mystical GermansWho preach from ten till four.The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable barrier to the exercise of judicial imagination. Pity. On 1/17/06, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let the punishment fit the crime?Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional?(I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ 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. --Paul FinkelmanChapman Distinguished ProfessorUniversity of Tulsa College of Law3120 East 4th PlaceTulsa, Oklahoma74104-2499918-631-3706 (office)918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. -- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
What about the ban on cruel or unusual punishment? At 07:50 PM 1/17/06 -0500, you wrote: All prosy dull society sinners Who chatter and bleat and bore Are sent to hear sermons From mystical Germans Who preach from ten till four. The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable barrier to the exercise of judicial imagination. Pity. On 1/17/06, Paul Finkelman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.htmlhttp://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06 ___ 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: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
--- Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have generally been struck down on Establishment Clause grounds. The theory there isn't establishing as a religion for the state as such, but rather violation of the no coercion rule of Establishment Clause caselaw. The claimant hasn't been required to show any religious objection to the behavior (as he would be under the Free Exercise Clause); as with the graduates in Lee v. Weisman, it has been enough that he show that he was being coerced into engaging in a religious practice. And giving someone the option of participating in a religious practice or going to jail (or staying longer in jail) has been treated as coercion. Am I mistaken about those cases? Do people think those cases are mistaken? Do they think the cases are inapplicable here? Eugene The cases concerning government coercion to participate in AA/NA -- there have been several, in both the 2nd and the 7th appellate districts, all of which have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs -- are not at all inapplicable. Forcing someone (under threat of jail) to sit in a room where religious exercises are conducted and religious conversion is the expected and intended purpose (which is what 12-step meetings and treatments do) is clearly an Establishment Clause violation. The other side of the coin, as demonstrated in many of the 12-step coercion cases, is giving special privileges to people who demonstrate ostensible compliance with, or acceptance of, particular religious teachings. One of the foremost such cases was Griffin v. Coughlin, referenced and excerpted below. http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I96_0137.htm A.A.'s Twelve Steps/Twelve Traditions volume, describing the spiritual evolution of atheists and agnostics through working the 12 steps, states: 'Consequently, in Step Three, we turned our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. For the time being, we who were atheists or agnostics discovered that our own group, or A.A. as a whole, would suffice as a higher power. Beginning with Step Four, we commenced to search out the things in ourselves which had brought us to physical, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy' (A.A. Twelve Steps/Twelve Traditions, at 107) * * * 'So, practicing these Steps, we had spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubted themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the spiritual angle, and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name' (id., at 109 [emphasis supplied]). The foregoing demonstrates beyond peradventure that doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In working the 12 steps, participants become actively involved in seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for removal of shortcomings. These expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of law, religious exercise for Establishment Clause purposes, no less than the nondenominational prayer in Engel v Vitale (370 US 421), that is, a solemn avowal of divine faith and a supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious (id., at 424 [emphasis supplied]; see also, Lee v Weisman, 505 US __, __, 112 S Ct 2649, 2664 [Blackmun, J., concurring]). Similarly, no matter how much a judge might feel it would be rehabilitative to sentence a white racist to spend time in a black environment, any such sentence cannot include ordering the defendant to sit in a church service. ~Rita __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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.
