] on behalf of Christopher Lund
[l...@wayne.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:59 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Yes (to Marty.) I’m someone inclined toward Marty’s view, and I think the
empirical question of regret is very
?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:45 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights
, Jul 5, 2012 11:28 pm
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I agree that the danger to infants from full immersion baptism is very
low and
perhaps zero; the hypothetical was that it happened in a handful of cases,
but
I think that's just a hypothetical. As to what burdens
Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I am wondering if Marci thinks Troxel v. Granville (unconstitutional for
legislature to provide for grandparent visitation rights over objection of
custodial parent) is correctly decided, or consistent with her views. Her
assertion
) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Friedman, Howard M. howard.fried...@utoledo.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 3:47 pm
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Many would argue
This has been a very interesting discussion. I confess that at this point, I am
quite confused about the meaning of best interests of the child. I understand
it is a complex, context-driven, and multivalent test. But it would certainly
help to understand the foundational values and defaults
I am with Paul in my confusion, and will add only a further question. If
we accept the principle that the best interests of the child prevails, does
that mean that judges and not parents will always have the decisive say?
(As a parent, for example, I think I am always acting in the best interest
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
This has been a very interesting discussion. I confess that at this point,
I am quite confused about the meaning of best interests of the child. I
understand it is a complex, context-driven, and multivalent test. But it
would certainly help
Academics
*Subject:* Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
** **
If Smith's hybrid rights explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should add or subtract nothing from
parental rights to engage in particular child-rearing practices, I'll
happily
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:07 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Yes, I'm feeling some of the same confusion as Paul.
I don't know
:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Lund
*Sent:* Friday, July 06, 2012 9:07 AM
*To:* 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
*Subject:* RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
** **
Yes, I’m feeling some
for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
Eugene's tattoo example is very helpful for teeing up what has seemed to
me to be the important distinction here (one I've tried to stress in my
earlier posts):
I think one big reason that most of us, unlike Eugene, are opposed
But that is invoking a non-Jewish standard of Jewishness (and I speak as someone intensely exasperated by refusal to acknowledge any distinction between ethnic and religious Jewishness.*) Someone can say I spit on G_d, I spit on Torah, I spit on halakhah.; He can spend Sabbath behind a desk, and
...@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:02 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
But that is invoking a non-Jewish standard of Jewishness (and I speak as
someone intensely exasperated by refusal to acknowledge any distinction between
ethnic
of other things.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:07 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I don't know why we should be limited
This raises a fascinating and practically very important
question (because there are more than 10 times as many American parents who
authorize circumcision for nonreligious reasons than for religious reasons):
Do Meyer/Pierce rights extend to the right to raise one's child in
I don't know why we should be limited to the particulars of Supreme Court
decisions when we think about this. I suggest that the approach I outlined
is deeply embedded in the statutory and judge-made law of all the states.
And, if I'm right about, then the relevant constitutional doctrines of
, Eugene
Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 10:57 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Parental rights and physical conduct
This raises a fascinating and practically very important
question (because there are more than 10 times as many American parents who
authorize circumcision
, July 05, 2012 8:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
What has been absent from all of the discussion on this issue is the importance
to Jewish belief of circumcision while the son is an infant. This ceremony at
8-days of age (except
.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I don't know why we
, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I appreciate Howard’s point, but the question is: Why should
some children who by definition do not share a religious belief
Of *Friedman, Howard M.
*Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:52 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
** **
What has been absent from all of the discussion on this issue is the
importance to Jewish belief of circumcision while the son
@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-bounces+aebrownstein=ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira
Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I think Howard's baptism example helps make my
: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I thought we were long past the argument that the only basis for protecting
religious liberty was that the state had a favorable perspective on the
religious belief
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I think Howard's baptism example helps make my point, not his. No one
thinks that full immersion of children in water for a very brief time
(e.g., long enough to quickly rinse shampoo out of their hair
, 2012 2:42 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
In the context of abuse of children, religion just does not and should not
matter to the state. There are three general cases:
1. The conduct is abusive per se (e.g., repeated and heavy
Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
In the context of abuse of children, religion just does not and should not
matter to the state. There are three general cases:
1. The conduct is abusive per se (e.g., repeated and heavy beatings of a
child). We don't and should not care
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [
vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I
on the question of risk?
Howard
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:59 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I would like
If Smith's hybrid rights explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should add or subtract nothing from
parental rights to engage in particular child-rearing practices, I'll
happily rest my case. All I'm suggesting is that once we have a general
set of
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
[vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
If Smith's hybrid rights explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I appreciate Howard’s point, but the question is: Why
should some children who by definition do not share a religious belief
drown – or otherwise be injured – for the sake of the beliefs
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
[vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I appreciate Howard’s point
-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M.
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
What has been absent from all of the discussion on this issue
, July 05, 2012 11:35 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Let me try again. The discussion has focused on the rights of the parents and
of the state. The children have come into the discussion only as objects of
control or protection
9:43 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Eugene --
I don't think this makes sense because it posits an impossible universe of
zero-risk parenting. It is far riskier to drive your child on the freeway
(not to
mention take him
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I agree that the danger to infants from full immersion baptism is very
low and perhaps zero; the hypothetical was that it happened in a handful of
cases, but I think that's just a hypothetical. As to what
38 matches
Mail list logo
