Dear Marci,
With all due respect, and conceding that the opinion carefully avoids deciding
every question that might arise, I think it is not consistent with the
opinion's reasoning -- and its emphasis on history, and the Kedroff etc. cases
-- to limit it to selection-criteria cases.For
Rick--I meant by clergy whatever the Court is saying is a minister I
did not intend ordained clergy.
Do we still disagree?
Marci
On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Rick Garnett wrote:
Dear Marci,
I think you are right about the second sentence, but I disagree with your
second. The
I think that if the government decided to give a religion-neutral
charitable donation voucher that congregants could give to their church, to
the ACLU, to a private school (secular or religious), or anyone else, that
would be just as constitutional as the religion-neutral charitable
I assumed that the reference to tortious conduct left open cases like
Bollard. This is another important aspect of the Court refusing to make the
ministerial exception, whatever its scope,
a jurisdictional bar.
Marci
On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Ira Lupu wrote:
Does the line of
A whole host of laws are now thrown into limbo as a result of the decision
-
For example NY Workers Compensation Law exempts the following from the
mandatory coverage provisions-
The applicant is a nonprofit (under IRS rules) with NO compensated
individuals providing services except for
It seems to me that Justice Scalia not only meant what he said
in Smith, but signed on in Hosanna-Tabor to an opinion that followed what
Justice Scalia said. Scalia in Smith:
The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars
application of a neutral,
The ministerial exception raises very deep questions about the nature of
religion and its relation to everything else. Must it rest on the theory
of two realms? Doug Laycock's reference to the child in school
illustrates these questions. If the word God were removed from the
Pledge, the child
I have no doubt whatsoever that Doug is sincere when he talks about his
commitment to civil liberties more generally, but Hosanna-Tabor is the
clearest case to date showing
that religious liberty is a zero sum game. For increases in the rights of
religious organizations, there are concomitant
Most constitutionally protected liberties are a zero sum game in Marci's sense.
They impose a cost on the general public or particular third parties by
preventing laws that often protect or benefit people from being fully
implemented. There is no free lunch and rights are expensive political
No. I'm saying that government funding questions regarding religious
institutions require a multi-factor analysis and the fact that the government
funding is distributed through vouchers is only one factor to be considered in
the analysis. Are you saying that because taxpayers receive
Well, for one thing, it sounds a little like the government's position
that the Court should balance the State's interest in each case rather
than apply an exception as such at all. Conversely, the Church might
say that whether the nation is acting under God is a matter that will
have
Dear Bruce,
As you say, these are deep and interesting questions. For what it's worth, I
don't think the only or best alternative to a warranted for prudential reasons
carve-out from the state's otherwise applicable authority view of the
ministerial exception is an absolutist two realms
Eugene,
I don't see the 1 for 1 tax credit or the mailing subsidy as intermediate
cases. A 1 for 1 credit is not simply a case of the govt leaving part of my
earnings alone so that I can devote them to another sphere, so to speak, or
devote them to what some would call mediating institutions.
13 matches
Mail list logo
