date:20060311

The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."Here and here.  Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 
   "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
		 Yahoo! Mail 
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread RJLipkin






In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the 
  only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the 
  Archdiocese has to obey its conscience.
Isn't this precisely symmetrical to 
religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition 
tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays 
is not? 

Bobby

Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Kosher slaughter

2006-03-11 Thread Friedman, Howard M.







I think that there is some 
disconnect between your question and the NYT article. I think the issue is 
not whether Congress could declare a cruel method of slaughter used for 
religious purposes illegal. I think it pretty clearly could do so under Smith, 
just as it couldpresumably declare all slaughtering of animals cruel and 
require that Americans become vegetarians. The issue is whether or not 
kosher slaughter is humane. And on that, I think the general conclusion 
over the years has been that it is humane, or at least as humane as the pain 
caused in rendering animals unconscious before they are slaughtered in 
non-kosher slaughtering. 

Here is a good backgrounder 
on the issue and PETAS's complaint: http://www.jewfaq.org/peta.htm. 
It points out that PETA's original complaint was not that kosher slaughtering is 
inhmumane, but that AgriProcessors was not complying with the rules of kosher 
slaughter. There seems to be debate over that-- but it is at least clear that 
the objectionable activity after the first cutting is not required by kosher 
slaughter rules.

By the way, the issue has nothing to do with "glatt kosher" vs. 
merely "kosher" slaughtering. They both kill the animal in the same way. 
The difference is what lung conditions found in inspecting the animals after 
slaughter call for rejecting the animal as kosher.

-- Howard Friedman


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
behalf of Sanford LevinsonSent: Fri 3/10/2006 9:55 PMTo: 
Law  Religion issues for Law Academics; Law  Religion issues for Law 
AcademicsSubject: RE: Kosher slaughter


From today's NYTimes (comments at conclusion)

March 10, 2006

Inquiry Finds Lax Federal Inspections at Kosher Meat Plant 
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

An internal report from the Agriculture Department has found that one of the 
nation's leading kosher slaughterhouses violated animal cruelty laws and that 
government inspectors not only failed to stop the inhumane practices but also 
took improper gifts of meat from plant managers.
Also, some of the plant's 10 inspectors made faulty inspections of carcasses, 
failed to correct unsanitary conditions and were seen sleeping and playing 
computer games on the job, said the report, by the agency's inspector general. 
It was provided to The New York Times by the animal-rights group People for the 
Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Conditions at the plant  AgriProcessors Inc. of Postville, Iowa  created a 
controversy in late 2004, when PETA released a videotape taken clandestinely 
inside. It showed that after steers were cut by a ritual slaughterer, other 
workers pulled out the animals' tracheas with a hook to speed bleeding. In the 
tape, animals were shown staggering around the killing pen with their windpipes 
dangling out, slamming their heads against walls and soundlessly trying to 
bellow. One animal took three minutes to stop moving.
The scenes caused a furor among Jewish organizations around the world. Some 
accused PETA of promoting anti-Semitic libels that kosher slaughter is torture. 
But others were angry with AgriProcessors for violating the spirit of religious 
laws requiring that animals be killed without suffering.
Soon after, the plant changed its practices under pressure from the 
Agriculture Department, the Orthodox Union kosher certification authority and 
Israel's chief rabbinate.
In September, the department told the plant that in light of those changes, 
"legal action will not be instituted at this time," but warned that future 
violations could lead to it. 
AgriProcessors is the country's largest producer of meat certified glatt 
kosher, the highest standard for cleanliness under kosher law. ("Glatt" means 
smooth, or free of the lung blemishes that might indicate disease.) Employing 
700 people and selling under the brands Aaron's Best, Rubashkin's and Iowa's 
Best Beef, it is the only American plant allowed to export to Israel. 
After a six-month investigation, the Agriculture Department suspended one of 
its own inspectors for 14 days and gave warning letters to two others, a 
department spokesman said. He declined to describe which offenses brought which 
punishments.
The inspector general's office gave its report to federal prosecutors, but 
"based on the information presented to us, we decided there was not a 
prosecutable case," said Robert Teig, a lawyer in the United States attorney's 
office for the northern district of Iowa.
The investigation ended last April, but the report was released to PETA only 
after months of appeals under the Freedom of Information Act. The group will 
release it today on its Web sites, including GoVeg.com.
PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, said the Agriculture Department "should 
fire all the inspectors who accepted gifts and did nothing about these egregious 
abuses of the animals whom they are supposed to protect." Bruce Freidrich, a 
PETA spokesman, added that the punishment "indicates yet again that the U.S.D.A. 
is completely uninterested in enforcing

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread Susan Brassfield Cogan



At 07:32 AM 3/11/2006, you wrote:
In a message dated
3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:


This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was
the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer,
but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience.


 Isn't this precisely symmetrical to
religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that
opposition to interracial adoption is irrational while opposition to
adoption by gays is not? 

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
in my opinion it *is* precisely symmetrical because interracial marriages
were considered immoral. The arguments against gay marriage are entirely
recycled from another era.
Susan




---
Author of
Murder on the Waterfront

http://tinyurl.com/87m54 
Jubilee, A Novel

http://tinyurl.com/9x6m9 
The Pocket Darwin

http://www.nuuf.org/darwin1.html
And Much More:

http://www.coganbooks.net


___
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: Boy Scouts, Expressive Association, Government Benefits, Religious Discrimination, Etc.

2006-03-11 Thread Christopher C. Lund

Both of you are objecting to the disaster language.  Sorry, I'm a little 
prone to hyperbole.  But I didn't think the importance of religious staffing 
was all that controverted.  Charitable choice's proponents obviously believe 
in it.  And its opponents believe in it too: they usually rely on the 
importance of religious staffing (in conjunction with the discrimination 
argument) to argue against funding religious institutions altogether.


You both write as if religious groups must act in a completely secular 
fashion when giving services, and therefore there is no added loss by losing 
the right to discriminate.  But religious providers are not forced to 
refrain from religious speech, take down religious icons, or generally 
conceal their religious identities.  They are allowed to be religious -- and 
perhaps the central part of an non-profit being religious is it having staff 
who are themselves religious.  That was the point of charitable choice.  
They are required to provide entirely secular services to the public of 
course -- but that won't stop from thinking of themselves, their 
institution, and their work as religious.


Professor Brownstein, you write, As for the argument that most religious 
employers do not discrimiante on the basis of religion in hiring and that 
people of different religious faiths would not want to work for an employer 
that wants to discriminate against them -- well we don't lose much
of anything if those organizations are told that they can't discriminate in 
hiring. Either they don't want to discriminate anyway or no one from a 
different faith will seek work with their program whether they discriminate 
or not.


This suggests that the most important thing should be the equal funding of 
religious and secular institutions.  The hiring issue is not all that 
important, because if religious staffing is guaranteed, employees won't face 
too much of a burden.  And if it isn't, religious employers won't be too 
hurt.  Maybe.  But I think the would-be employee and the religious employer 
are in different positions.  Religious employers often have small 
denominational constituencies.  So if you have a Jewish (or Muslim) 
Community Center in Pittsburgh that has to accept all employees, it will 
quickly lose its Jewish (or Muslim) nature.  On the other hand, because 
religious employers make up such a small fraction of government providers, 
potential employees have other options (not to even include the social 
service jobs with employers that are not government providers).  This 
argument doesn't wholly convince me -- employers of course generally have 
much more power than employees -- but I don't think it's trivial.


Finally, as regards beneficiary discrimination: I really don't know if there 
is a _constitutional_ prohibition on beneficiary discrimination.  The 
state-action argument still seems weak.  Perhaps one can argue that the 
state is more responsible for private discrimination in beneficaries than in 
hiring because assisting beneficaries was the point of its program in the 
first place.  But I'm not sure.  I'm definitely open to the idea, but it 
seems like it will require the breaking of new doctrinal ground



From: Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics 
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Boy Scouts, Expressive Association, Government 
Benefits,Religious Discrimination, Etc.

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:49:06 -0500

Thanks again for the thoughtful response, Christopher.  A few quick 
reactions:


1.  It's not only about equality, because virtually none of these programs 
treats all applicants equally:  Some are favored over others for a variety 
of subjective reasons.  And the EC question therefore is whether it's ok for 
government administrators, when making discretionary decisions as to which 
organizations get the competitive $$, to be indifferent to the fact that 
some applicants, but not others, discriminate on the basis of religion.


2.  You write that religious organizations should not be able to use 
government resources to discriminate against beneficiaries . . . but I do 
think they should retain the right to discriminate in their staffing.  I 
know that this distinction tracks many people's instincts on this question 
-- and perhaps it's the ideal policy distinction -- but what's the good 
argument that the Constitution draws a similar distinction?  If the EC 
doesn't bar the use of the government dollars to discriminate in employment, 
why would it bar the use of those same dollars to discriminate w/r/t 
beneficiaries?  (BTW, charitable choice does not categorically draw the 
line this way:  Several state and local programs continue to prohibit 
employment discrimination.)


3.  Taking away a religious organization's right to religiously staff seems 
like a disaster.  Why is that the case, with respect to a social-services

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

I believe the Church properly sees race as irrelevant to sexuality and family formation. But homosexuality is much different from race.Here is the current Pope's position on adoption by homosexual couples:But a conflict between the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts and Beacon Hill has been evolving for several decades, as state policy makers have adopted an increasingly expansive view of gay rights, starting with a nondiscrimination measure in 1989 and culminating in 2004, when Massachusetts became the only state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage  .  At the same time, the Vatican, often guided by the theologian who is now Pope Benedict XVI, became increasingly alarmed at the growing tolerance of homosexuality in the West, and in 2003 Benedict issued a doctrinal statement opposing same-sex unions and declaring that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions!
  would
 actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." Link.Obviously, millions ofreasonable people of good will believe that Benedict XVI is acting rationally and in good faith. My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of the adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make.Cheers, Rick Duncan[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience.  Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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.  Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will !
 not be
 pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
		Relax. Yahoo! Mail 
virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal

Whoops! The link in my previous post to the Pope's views about homosexual adoption did not work. Here is the correctedlink.Cheers, Rick[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the
Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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 memb!
ers can
(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread RJLipkin






In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty 
  issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, 
  the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose 
  to get out of the adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. 
  That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a 
  religious body to make. (boldface 
added)

We know that religions 
evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 
once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such 
changes have occurredin other religions also. If so, why is this the "only 
decision" for a Church to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to 
rethink the Church's opinion of this matter? I'm not suggesting that the 
Catholic church is likely to do so, but then what is it about the Catholic 
Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions generally) that make it 
impossible for them to respond to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic 
morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's examine the issue." My 
question is not onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but 
what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?

Bobby

Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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





I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame
for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be
able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:

  The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the
Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children
to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency
would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their
full human development."
  
  
  
  Here
and here.
  
  
  
  

  Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
   
  
  
  
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
  
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--The Prisoner
  
   		
   Yahoo! Mail
  Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. 
  

___
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 of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

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: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI.Cheers, Rick !

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of the adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make.
(boldface added)We know that religions evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurredin other religions also. If so, why is this the "only decision" for a Church to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to rethink the Church's opinion of this matter? I'm not suggesting that the Catholic church is likely to do so, but then what is it about the Catholic Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions generally) that make it impossible for them to respond to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's examine the issue." My question is not onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?!

BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or!
Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Relax. Yahoo! Mail
virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___
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

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

Paul: If Catholic priests were required to perform or directly facilitate executions as acondition of visiting prisoners, my guess isthe Churchwould indeed withdraw from prison ministry. This is what the state of Massachusetts is doing to CC in the adoption area--it is requiring CC to arrange for adoptions by homosexuals as a condition of having an adoption ministry in the state.All you opponents of the Solomon Amendment ought to be able to understand how an organization could be strongly opposed to facilitating a moral evil. Your position concerning faciliting "immoral" military recruiters is the same as the Church's position concerning facilitating "immoral" adoptions.Cheers, Rick  Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I wonder if !
 the
 Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."!
  
   Here and here.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner  Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.   ___  !
 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/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.--   Paul Finkelman  Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law  University of Tulsa College of Law  3120 East 4th Place  Tulsa, OK   74104-3189918-631-3706 (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.  Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --T!
 he
 Prisoner
	
		 Yahoo! Mail 
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread Steven Jamar

Slavery was prevalent in biblical times and many references were cited to support slavery. And so, Rick, are you saying that you will only join a church that sides with the South in the Civil War on the slavery issue because the Bible says so? Or is it that interpretations have changed or that permission is not the same as mandate?It seems to me that at the very least homosexuality existed in Biblical times and that should tell us that it is something pretty normal across a big population.So far as religion and law are concerned, isn't this an area where we see a serious disconnect and problems with faith-based grants supporting what is unconstitutional in some instances and supporting what is against public policy (including health policy) in others?SteveOn Mar 11, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race, strikes at the very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if it adopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:My point--which focused only on the religious liberty issue-- was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of the adoption ministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make. (boldface added)We know that religions evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurred in other religions also. If so, why is this the "only decision" for a Church to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to rethink the Church's opinion of this matter? I'm not suggesting that the Catholic church is likely to do so, but then what is it about the Catholic Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions generally) that make it impossible for them to respond to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's examine the issue." My question is not only whether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?! Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"When I grow up, I too will go to faraway places, and when I grow old, I too will live by the sea.""That is all very well, little Alice," said her grandfather, "but there is a third thing you

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread RJLipkin






In a message dated 3/11/2006 12:27:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 
  issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral 
  teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to 
  be for Benedict XVI.
Rick, isn't the 
question--at least for religionists--what are "God's moral teachings" and who 
gets to decide this? I too am not a Catholic theologian, but a Catholic once 
told me that the Pope became infallible in the 16th or 17th century. If so, the 
choice of Pope as the authoritative interpreter of Catholic faith and morals was 
not a feature of the original Church and is arguably man, not God,made. 


Perhaps there's too great a 
gulf here, but I try to understand those who condemn homosexuality as immoral, 
and if I were compelled to do so, I suppose I could construct a relatively 
plausible argument against same-sex marriage. I wonder whether Christians (and 
here again I speak as an outsider) who cherish love and understanding can 
construct a relatively plausible argument that includes homosexuality as part of 
the "essence of the Created Order."

As for "Christianity" I am 
certainly incompetent to attempt to explicate its meaning. But wasn't 
slavery and segregation argued for on the same grounds as being required by 
Christianity?

I suppose Rick 
mightfind tedious the argument comparing the condemnation of same-sex 
marriage with the condemnation ofmiscegenation.The comparison 
overlooks, of course, what he takes to bea morally relevant difference 
between the two. But it's difficult for many of us to appreciate what this 
relevant difference is on moral grounds. And so the gulf probably is too 
wide.

One final point. The 
use of "secular elites," in my view, is unfair. There are many 
Christians--even Catholics--who reject the Pope's morality, and many secularists 
who agree with it. I doubt that theproponents and opponents of same-sex 
marriage can be clearly distinguishedas secularists and 
religionists.

Bobby

Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal

Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut.
saying men should not lie down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far
more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how
to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality
is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics?

Rick Duncan wrote:

I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered
thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family
were no longer true. In my opinion,my church would no longer be a "Christian"
church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is
happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether
we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular
elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI.

Cheers, Rick

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty issue--was
that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must
obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of
the adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is
clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body
to make. (boldface added)

We know that religions evolve even in fundamental ways.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I
think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurredin
other religions also. If so, why is this the "only decision" for a Church
to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to rethink the Church's opinion
of this matter? I'm not suggesting that the Catholic church is likely to
do so, but then what is it about the Catholic Church (and perhaps certain
kinds of religions generally) that make it impossible for them to respond
to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic morality with the attitude expressed
by "Well, let's examine the issue." My question is not onlywhether should
the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from
taking this proposal seriously?!

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
___
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.

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or!
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--The Prisoner

Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus
scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

___
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 of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189

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

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

Catholics are not being asked to be gay by helping with adoptions, and they
do "facilitate executions" by helping prepare the person for death. The
church helps arrange executions by offering confession etc. to people who
are about to be executed. Why does the church focus on one line in Lev.
repeated in Deut. and then also apply to to women as well as men.

Rick Duncan wrote:

Paul: If Catholic priests were required to perform or directly facilitate
executions as acondition of visiting prisoners, my guess isthe Churchwould
indeed withdraw from prison ministry. This is what the state of Massachusetts
is doing to CC in the adoption area--it is requiring CC to arrange for adoptions
by homosexuals as a condition of having an adoption ministry in the state.

All you opponents of the Solomon Amendment ought to be able to understand
how an organization could be strongly opposed to facilitating a moral evil.
Your position concerning faciliting "immoral" military recruiters is the
same as the Church's position concerning facilitating "immoral" adoptions.

Cheers, Rick

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I
wonder if ! the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame
for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be
able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent.

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:

The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by
the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children
to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency
would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their
full human development."!

Here
and here.

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--The Prisoner

Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
___ !
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/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.

-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189918-631-3706 (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.

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--T! he Prisoner

Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

___
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 of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread Steven Jamar

I suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as taught in the old testament . . . .As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as obviously correct and consistent positions.I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others -- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two differences: private v. public; and it is the military.SteveOn Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not lie down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics? Rick Duncan wrote: Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race, strikes at the very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if it adopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point--which focused only on the religious liberty issue-- was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of the adoption ministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make. (boldface added) We know that religions evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurred in other religions also. If so, why is this the "only decision" for a Church to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to rethink the Church's opinion of this matter? I'm not suggesting that the Catholic church is likely to do so, but then what is it about the Catholic Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions generally) that make it impossible for them to respond to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's examine the issue." My question is not only whether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?! Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware___ 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ___
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 of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

2006-03-11 Thread Will Esser

Paul,Yourcomparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples). In your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison system. Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital punishment. I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision. People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values first.WillPaul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be !
 used to
 place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."Here and here.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner  Yahoo! MailUse Photomail to share photos without annoying attachme!
 nts.   ___  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/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.--   Paul Finkelman  Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law  University of Tulsa College of Law  3120 East 4th Place  Tulsa, OK   74104-3189918-631-3706 (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.Will Esser  --- Ad Majorem Dei GloriamParker Poe Adams  BernsteinCharlotte, North CarolinaWe can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light.Plato (428-345 B.C.)___
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

Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite 
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause.  See the Society 
of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination 
by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.  
 
So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate?  Maybe they 
figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a 
constitutional right to gay marriage.  If that's the reason, that sort of 
restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more 
widely.  If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less 
admirable.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will Esser
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Paul,
 
Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of 
the Church.  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the 
state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with 
which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples).  In 
your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls 
of those in the prison system.  Such action is not in any sense active 
participation in capital punishment.  
 
I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.  People 
may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is 
ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values 
first.
 
Will

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the 
prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment?  It would be a 
shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to 
be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:


The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by 
the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the 
government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children 
with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that 
''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would 
actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their 
condition of dependency would be ! used to place them in an environment that is 
not conducive to their full human development.
 
Here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
  and here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/
 .




Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
 

When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either 
Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, 
debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner


Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail 
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com
  to share photos without annoying attachme! nts. 



  ___  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/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.


--   Paul Finkelman  Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law  University 
of Tulsa College of Law  3120 East 4th Place  Tulsa, OK   74104-3189
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

Re: Catholic Charities Issue




Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability 
to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the 
business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its 
religious exercise?


- Original Message - 
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" 
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities 
Issue
Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite 
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. See the 
Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status 
discrimination by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting. 
So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than 
litigate? Maybe they figured they would just make bad law with that claim 
in the court that found a constitutional right to gay marriage. If that's 
the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of what claims to file should 
be practiced a lot more widely. If that just didn't think about the state 
law, that's much less admirable.Douglas 
LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, 
TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
(fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
behalf of Will EsserSent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PMTo: Law  Religion 
issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities 
IssuePaul,Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't 
reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities 
withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to 
actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing 
children for adoption with gay couples). In your example, there is no 
conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison 
system. Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital 
punishment. I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic 
Charities for its decision. People may disagree with the rationale for the 
decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization 
placing its religious values first.WillPaul Finkelman 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for 
the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would 
be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not 
to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 
Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The Boston Globe has 
two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption 
services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules 
requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its 
sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by 
persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these 
children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! used to 
place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human 
development."Here http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ and here http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/ .Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of 
Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 
68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow 
either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand 
Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, 
debriefed, or numbered." --The 
PrisonerYahoo! MailUse Photomail 
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com to share photos without annoying attachme! nts. 
 
___ 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 of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th 
Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 
(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

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

to the extent the Church helps the prison system keep order in the prison;
helps prepare priosners for death the church is complicitous in executions.
The problem is the church is willing to take a stand on issues that politically
appeal to the church adn not others; it is like the Catholic Bishop who campaigned
against John Kerry for his position on abortion, but is not ready to take
a stand on politicians who support the death penalty. The hypocrisy is pretty
clear.

Will Esser wrote:

Paul,

Yourcomparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on
the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena,
because the state mandate would require it to actively participate
in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption
with gay couples). In your example, there is no conflict for the Church
in ministering to the souls of those in the prison system. Such action is
not in any sense active participation in capital punishment.

I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.
People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision
is ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values
first.

Will

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I
wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame
for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be
able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent.

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:

The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by
the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children
to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency
would be ! used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to
their full human development."

Here
and here.

Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--The Prisoner

Yahoo! Mail
Use
Photomail to share photos without annoying attachme! nts.
___ 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/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.

-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189918-631-3706 (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.

Will Esser --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Parker Poe Adams Bernstein
Charlotte, North Carolina

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato (428-345 B.C.)

___
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 of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
To

RE: Catholic Charities Issue

It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's 
not for profit.  I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.  
Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to 
sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities for secular 
reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious liberty 
guarantees.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in adoption 
services (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) 
result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite 
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause.  See the Society 
of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination 
by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.  
 
So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate?  Maybe they 
figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a 
constitutional right to gay marriage.  If that's the reason, that sort of 
restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more 
widely.  If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less 
admirable.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  on behalf of Will Esser
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Paul,
 
Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of 
the Church.  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the 
state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with 
which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples).  In 
your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls 
of those in the prison system.  Such action is not in any sense active 
participation in capital punishment.  
 
I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.  People 
may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is 
ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values 
first.
 
Will

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison 
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment?  It would be a shame for 
those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to 
talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:


The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese 
to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's 
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual 
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to 
be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence 
to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! 
used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human 
development.

Here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
   and here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/
  .




Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902


When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or 
Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or 
numbered. --The Prisoner


Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail 
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com
 
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com
   to share photos without annoying

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

Doug  Marty: I think CC had two reasons to withdraw rather than litigate. One is they were indeed concerned about their chances of winningthis free exercise issuein the Mass courts. Second, they were facing discrimination themselves from the United Way and other funding agencies that are selectively tolerant (i.e. "you better be tolerant to gays or we will be intolerant toward your funding requests").Another good reason not to give to the United Way. Of course, the best reason not to give to the United Way isto protest theiruse coercion (through employers) to gain "contributions" from employees.RickMarty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?  - Original Message -   From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu  Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM  Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue  Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting. So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate? Maybe they figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a constitutional right to gay marriage. If that's the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more widely. If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less admirable.Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX
 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will EsserSent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities IssuePaul,Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples). In your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison system. Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital punishment. I'm entirely with Rick in!
  saluting
 Catholic Charities for its decision. People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values first.WillPaul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual !
 couples
 despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."Here http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ and here http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/ .Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska Co!
 llege of
 Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The PrisonerYahoo! MailUse Photomail http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com to share photos without annoying attachme! nts.  ___ 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

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)ttheology on list. Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so much what the Bible says is evil that definesmarriage as a one-flesh, dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the goodof marriage and of true sexual union.Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or homosexual families are displayed asan ideal of sexual union and family life? In its adoption ministry, the Church is concerned about what is the good of family life for children, not whether to stone sinners for sexual sins.RickSteven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as t!
aught in
the old testament . . . .As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as obviously correct and consistent positions.I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others -- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two differences: private v. public; and it is the military.Steve On Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not li!
e down
with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics?Rick Duncan wrote:Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church woul!
d no
longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI.Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case. It chose to get out of the adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make. (boldface added) We know that religions evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurredin other religions also. If so, why is this the "only decision" for a Church to make? Why isn't another conceivable position to rethink the Church's opinion of this ma!
tter? I'm
not suggesting that the Catholic church is likely to do so, but then what is it about the Catholic Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions generally) that make it impossible for them to respond to changes in law, customs, or non-Catholic morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's examine the issue." My question is not onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?! BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ___ To

RE: Catholic Charities Issue

2006-03-11 Thread Alan Brownstein

I suppose I should know the answer to this question, but I don't. Is it 
permissible for mothers or parents who give a baby up for adoption to have the 
baby placed with adoptive parents of the biological parents' faith -- or to not 
have the baby placed with adoptive parents who are gay? If those choices are 
possible -- would it be permissible for a NGO to facilitate the biological 
parents' decision?
 
Alan Brownstein



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 11:57 AM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's 
not for profit.  I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.  
Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to 
sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities for secular 
reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious liberty 
guarantees.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in adoption 
services (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) 
result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite 
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause.  See the Society 
of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination 
by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.  
 
So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate?  Maybe they 
figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a 
constitutional right to gay marriage.  If that's the reason, that sort of 
restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more 
widely.  If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less 
admirable.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  on behalf of Will Esser
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Paul,
 
Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of 
the Church.  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the 
state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with 
which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples).  In 
your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls 
of those in the prison system.  Such action is not in any sense active 
participation in capital punishment.  
 
I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.  People 
may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is 
ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values 
first.
 
Will

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison 
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment?  It would be a shame for 
those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to 
talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:


The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese 
to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's 
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual 
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to 
be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence 
to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! 
used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human 
development.

Here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
   and here 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/

Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

2006-03-11 Thread Steven Jamar

On Mar 11, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)t theology on list.      Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so much what the Bible says is evil that defines marriage as a one-flesh, dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the good of marriage and of true sexual union.     Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or homosexual families are  displayed as an ideal of sexual union and family life? None that I know of.  On the other hand, all the birthday parties have bad things associated with them, so I guess we should not celebrate birthdays -- I guess we should all become JWs.But, if we can agree that there are various opinions and interpretations of the Bible's dictates on how to treat GLBT people, then it seems to me that your essential predicate for accommodation and funding of groups that frustrate rather than support the purposes of the funding falls by the boards.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him.  An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."Benjamin Franklin ___
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 Not Bending the Knee to Baal




Well, as long as Rick is invoking what "many 
students of the Bible" think about "true" sexual union, I think it's worth 
pointing out that in his original post in this thread, Rick quoted the first 
five paragraphs of today's Boston globe story. But there's a sixth 
paragraph, too, which Rick neglected to show us. It reads as 
follows:

  Eight members of Catholic Charities board later 
  stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board 
  had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay 
  households for adoptions. 
Apparently those 42 members of the Catholic Charities Board are not 
the sorts of "students of the Bible" that Rick has in mind.

P.S. Just to be clear -- I am 
not suggesting that Catholic Charities should abide by the (unanimous) 
judgment of its Board, rather than the decree of the Bishops.


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Rick Duncan 
  To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Not 
  Bending the Knee to Baal
  
  I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)ttheology on list. 
  
  
  Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so 
  much what the Bible says is evil that definesmarriage as a one-flesh, 
  dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the 
  goodof marriage and of true sexual union.
  
  Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or 
  homosexual families are displayed asan ideal of sexual union and 
  family life? In its adoption ministry, the Church is concerned about what is 
  the good of family life for children, not whether to stone sinners for sexual 
  sins.
  
  RickSteven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  I 
suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as t! aught in the 
old testament . . . . 

As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. 
Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as 
obviously correct and consistent positions.

I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one 
does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others 
-- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial 
discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two 
differences: private v. public; and it is the military.

Steve


On Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is 
  one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not li! e down with 
  men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the 
  execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt 
  offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so 
  central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about 
  politics?Rick Duncan wrote:
  
Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a 
very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon 
my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike 
race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from 
Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy 
churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings 
about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my 
opinion,my church woul! d no longer be a "Christian" church if 
itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is 
happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is 
whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings 
of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be 
for Benedict XVI.

Cheers, Rick
! 


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty 
issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God 
or Caesar, the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in 
this case. It chose to get out of the adoptionministry rather 
than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right 
decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make. 
(boldface added)
  We know that 
  religions evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church of Jesus Christ 
  of Latter Day Saints once had a prohibition (I think) against blacks 
  becoming bishops. I suspect such changes have occurredin other 
  religions also. If so, why is this the "only

Re: Catholic Charities Issue




I didn't mean to question the sincere religious 
motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is 
following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts 
prevents CC from doing, and whether andhowthat 
particularlegal restriction imposes a substantial burden on 
the religious exercise of the Church or of those involved in CC. 
Presumably, as Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions 
among Church adherents, right? 

I'm asking this not to make a point, but because 
I'm genuining curious about what state law prohibits and how that restriction 
impinges on religious liberty.

- Original Message - 
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" 
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities 
Issue
It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes 
that it's not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the 
church. Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it 
costs money to sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities 
for secular reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious 
liberty guarantees.Douglas 
LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, 
TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
(fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
behalf of Marty LedermanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PMTo: Law  
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities 
IssueDoug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in 
"adoption services" (which I assume means being in the business of arranging 
adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its religious 
exercise?- Original Message - From: "Douglas 
Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PMSubject: RE: Catholic 
Charities IssueApplication of this law to Catholic Charities should 
have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise 
Clause. See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on 
marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of which I am 
forgetting. So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather 
than litigate? Maybe they figured they would just make bad law with that 
claim in the court that found a constitutional right to gay marriage. If 
that's the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of what claims to file 
should be practiced a lot more widely. If that just didn't think about the 
state law, that's much less admirable.Douglas 
LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, 
TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
(fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will EsserSent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PMTo: 
Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities 
IssuePaul,Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't 
reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities 
withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to 
actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing 
children for adoption with gay couples). In your example, there is no 
conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison 
system. Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital 
punishment. I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic 
Charities for its decision. People may disagree with the rationale for the 
decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization 
placing its religious values first.WillPaul Finkelman 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support 
for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It 
would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in 
prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be 
consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The 
Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to 
end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's 
antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual 
couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to 
be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence 
to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! 
used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human 
development."Here http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/  and here

Re: Catholic Charities Issue




Uh, that would be "genuinely curious." 
Sorry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Marty Lederman 
  To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
  Academics 
  Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Catholic Charities 
  Issue
  
  I didn't mean to question the sincere religious 
  motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is 
  following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts 
  prevents CC from doing, and whether andhowthat 
  particularlegal restriction imposes a substantial burden 
  on the religious exercise of the Church or of those involved in CC. 
  Presumably, as Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions 
  among Church adherents, right? 
  
  I'm asking this not to make a point, but because 
  I'm genuining curious about what state law prohibits and how that restriction 
  impinges on religious liberty.
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" 
  religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
  Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Catholic Charities 
  Issue
  It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes 
  that it's not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the 
  church. Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it 
  costs money to sustain them or because other groups engage in similar 
  activities for secular reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of 
  escaping religious liberty 
  guarantees.Douglas LaycockUniversity of 
  Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 
  78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
  (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  on behalf of Marty LedermanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PMTo: Law  
  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities 
  IssueDoug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage 
  in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the business of 
  arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its religious 
  exercise?- Original Message - From: 
  "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
  mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PMSubject: RE: 
  Catholic Charities IssueApplication of this law to Catholic 
  Charities should have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts 
  Free Exercise Clause. See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a 
  mid-90s case on marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of which 
  I am forgetting. So why did Catholic Charities surrender 
  rather than litigate? Maybe they figured they would just make bad law 
  with that claim in the court that found a constitutional right to gay 
  marriage. If that's the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of 
  what claims to file should be practiced a lot more widely. If that just 
  didn't think about the state law, that's much less 
  admirable.Douglas LaycockUniversity of 
  Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 
  78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
  (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will EsserSent: Sat 3/11/2006 
  12:35 PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: 
  Catholic Charities IssuePaul,Your comparison doesn't 
  fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. 
  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate 
  would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it 
  disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples). In your 
  example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of 
  those in the prison system. Such action is not in any sense active 
  participation in capital punishment. I'm entirely with 
  Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision. People may 
  disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is ultimately 
  an act of a religious organization placing its religious values 
  first.WillPaul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support 
  for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It 
  would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in 
  prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be 
  consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The 
  Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to 
  end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's 
  antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with 
  homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing 
  children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

2006-03-11 Thread Richard Dougherty

While I don't have an immediate answer to Marty's qusetion, I want to commend 
him and others who have focused on the legal question involved.  As for the 
posters who want to use the issue as a vehicle for criticizing the Church for 
its postition, and lecture it on how to reform its theology while at the same 
time revealing palpable ignorance of its theology, I can only say that I am 
embarrassed.
Richard Dougherty

-- Original Message --
From: Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date:  Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:33:36 -0500

I didn't mean to question the sincere religious motivation of Catholic 
Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is following).  I was simply curious 
what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts prevents CC from doing, and whether 
and how that particular legal restriction imposes a substantial burden on the 
religious exercise of the Church or of those involved in CC.  Presumably, as 
Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions among Church 
adherents, right?  

I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I'm genuining curious about 
what state law prohibits and how that restriction impinges on religious 
liberty.
 
- Original Message - 
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that 
it's not for profit.  I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.  
Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to 
sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities for secular 
reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious liberty 
guarantees.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in adoption 
services (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) 
result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite 
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause.  See the Society 
of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination 
by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.  
 
So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate?  Maybe they 
figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a 
constitutional right to gay marriage.  If that's the reason, that sort of 
restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more 
widely.  If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less 
admirable.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  on behalf of Will Esser
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Paul,
 
Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part 
of the Church.  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because 
the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act 
with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples). 
 In your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the 
souls of those in the prison system.  Such action is not in any sense active 
participation in capital punishment.  
 
I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.  
People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is 
ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values 
first.
 
Will

Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:

I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison 
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment?  It would be a shame for 
those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to 
talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 

Paul Finkelman

Rick Duncan wrote:


The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection of news reports, but I think the problem is that CC's entire adoption program concerns finding homes forhard-to-adopt children in state custody. The state pays CC a grant to find homes for children in state custody, subject to the non-discrimination requirement. Thus, the state controls the kids and the money. Please correct me if I'm wrong.RickMarty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Uh, that would be "genuinely curious." Sorry- Original Message -   From: Marty Lederman   To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics   Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33 PM  Subject: Re: Catholic Charities IssueI didn't mean to question the sincere religious motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts prevents CC from doing, and whether andhowthat particularlegal restriction imposes a substantial burden on the religious ex!
 ercise of
 the Church or of those involved in CC. Presumably, as Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions among Church adherents, right? I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I'm genuining curious about what state law prohibits and how that restriction impinges on religious liberty.- Original Message -   From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu  Sent:
 Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 PM  Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue  It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church. Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities for secular reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious liberty guarantees.Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty LedermanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities IssueDoug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?- Original Message - From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PMSubject: RE: Catholic Charities IssueApplication of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting. So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate? Maybe they figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a constitutional right to gay marriage. If that's the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more widely. If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less admirable.Douglas
 LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 (fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will EsserSent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities IssuePaul,Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption wi!
 th gay
 couples). In your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison system. Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital punishment. I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision. People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values first.WillPaul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame for those on death!
  row not
 to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. Paul FinkelmanRick Duncan wrote:The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than

Re: Catholic Charities Issue

2006-03-11 Thread Hamilton02




What this disputere: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger of 
any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its 
programs. Government funding always comes with strings. In general, 
Catholic Charities gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 14% from 
private, with the vast majority of that coming from charities like United 
Way. A tiny portion is paid by Catholics.I would assume that 
onits own dime, CC can facilitate adoptions, but feel free to correct that 
assumption. 

The question is whether it is going to accept the condition placed on it by 
the government's money.CC is not required to take the government's 
money, right?This is the Solomon Amendment -- private institution 
that has become dependent on government largesse insists that it is entitled to 
that largesse and that the government should have no power to place strings on 
the money. There is no First Amendment problem and certainly no 
"substantial burden" under RFRA. If "substantial burden" means that 
religious entities can force the government to give them money on their own 
terms, we are quite literally on the other side of Alice's looking glass.

Marci


___
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




If this is a government funded program,the broad 
reading of Locke v. Davey implies that the government is free to give 
the money, withhold the money, give the money with strings, or discriminate 
against religion in the allocation of funds. The narrow reading is that 
this unlimited power applies only funding the training of clergy. But even 
before Davey, Rust v. Sullivan and similar cases from which 
Davey is derived give government broad power to define the service it 
wants funded. 

Massachusettslaw might turn out to be different, but 
if Catholic Charities was looking at these federal precedents and quite possibly 
an absence of state precedents on the conditional funding questions, it is easy 
to see why they didn't sue. 

The government's power to define the programs it wants 
to fund need not lead to the untrammeled government power arguably approved in 
Davey. But even without Davey, and on a highly 
protective view of free exercise, there is probably government power to prohibit 
discrimination amongbeneficiaries of government spending programs. 
If that is right, the only question would be whether the adoptive parents are 
beneficiaries, or only the children. My intuiton is that both are 
beneficiaries.

Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law 
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
 512-232-1341 
(phone)
 512-471-6988 
(fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick 
DuncanSent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:32 PMTo: Law  
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities 
Issue

Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection 
of news reports, but I think the problem is that CC's entire adoption program 
concerns finding homes forhard-to-adopt children in state custody. The 
state pays CC a grant to find homes for children in state custody, subject to 
the non-discrimination requirement. Thus, the state controls the kids and the 
money. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

RickMarty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  

  Uh, that would be "genuinely curious." 
  Sorry
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Marty Lederman 
To: Law  Religion issues for Law 
Academics 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33 
PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities 
Issue

I didn't mean to question the sincere religious 
motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is 
following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that 
Massachusetts prevents CC from doing, and whether andhowthat 
particularlegal restriction imposes a substantial burden 
on the religious ex! ercise of the Church or of those involved in CC. 
Presumably, as Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions 
among Church adherents, right? 

I'm asking this not to make a point, but 
because I'm genuining curious about what state law prohibits and how that 
restriction impinges on religious liberty.

- Original Message - 
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law  Religion issues for Law 
Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 
PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities 
Issue
It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes 
that it's not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to 
the church. Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, 
because it costs money to sustain them or because other groups engage in 
similar activities for secular reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means 
of escaping religious liberty 
guarantees.Douglas LaycockUniversity 
of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 
78705512-232-1341512-471-6988 
(fax)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty LedermanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 
PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: 
Catholic Charities IssueDoug, under Massachusetts law would CC's 
inability to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in 
the business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its 
religious exercise?- Original Message - 
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: "Law  Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PMSubject: RE: 
Catholic Charities IssueApplication of this law to Catholic 
Charities should have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts 
Free Exercise Clause. See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a 
mid-90s case on marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of 
which I am forgetting. So why did Catholic Charities 
surrender rather than litigate? Maybe they figured they would just 
make bad law with that claim in the

RE: Catholic Charities Issue

2006-03-11 Thread Alan Brownstein

If the program works in the way that Rick describes, the next question I would 
ask is this. Is it the case that as a result of Catholic Charities position, 
some kids would stay in state custody for a longer period of time -- or may 
never get adopted -- because Catholic Charities will not consider gay parents 
as possible parents for these children. Or is it the case that there are 
several NGOs working in this area, and that one NGO, like Catholic Charities, 
could focus on finding homes for these kids among certain sections of the 
state's population, while other NGOs could focus their attention on other 
constituencies -- so that Catholic Charities' refusal to place children with 
gay couples would not restrict the opportunity of children to be adopted -- nor 
would it interfere with the opportunity of gay couples to adopt children.
 
I don't suggest that the answer to this question resolves the problem -- but it 
clarifies some of the interests that are at stake. In my judgement, 
facilitating the adoption of these children is a compelling state interest as 
is allowing parents the state deems qualified to adopt children the opportunity 
to do so. 
 
Notwithstanding that legal conclusion, a religious organization that disagrees 
with the state's policy judgments may conclude that the dictates of its faith 
preclude it from participating in such a program. In that circumstance, one 
should hardly be surprised that it refuses to continue to participate in the 
program. 
 
Alan Brownstein



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 3:31 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection of 
news reports, but I think the problem is that CC's entire adoption program 
concerns finding homes for hard-to-adopt children in state custody. The state 
pays CC a grant to find homes for children in state custody, subject to the 
non-discrimination requirement. Thus, the state controls the kids and the 
money. 
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Rick
 
winmail.dat___
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

I think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust, says "this is our program, take it or leave it." CC says, "okay, we'll leave it." CC loses a part of its ministry, the state loses one of its best adoption-service providers, and the kids stay in state custody longer (and, for some, perhaps permanently, since CC was extra good at placing hard-to-place children).This is why some of us fight so hard against gay rights and gay marriage--gay rights/marriage are incompatible (at least in certain situations)with religious liberty. As in Massachusetts, the state has to choose between religious liberty and gay rights. Some states choose gay rights. I choose religious liberty. I was born and raised in Massachusetts, but I couldn't live there now (and I don't think I even care to visit--not even if I had Monster seats at fenway).Cheers, Rick Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What this disputere: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger of any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its programs. Government funding always comes with strings. In general, Catholic Charities gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 14% from private, with the vast majority of that coming from charities like United Way. A tiny portion is paid by Catholics.I would assume that onits own dime, CC can facilitate adoptions, but feel free to correct that assumption. The question is whether it is going to accept the condition placed on it by the government's money.&!
nbsp;CC
is not required to take the government's money, right?This is the Solomon Amendment -- private institution that has become dependent on government largesse insists that it is entitled to that largesse and that the government should have no power to place strings on the money. There is no First Amendment problem and certainly no "substantial burden" under RFRA. If "substantial burden" means that religious entities can force the government to give them money on their own terms, we are quite literally on the other side of Alice's looking glass.Marci Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will
not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
___
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

RE: Catholic Charities Issue





It is not at all impossible 
to have both gay rights and religious liberty. It is just that the gay 
rights activists mostly refuse to recognize religious liberty (at least if any 
gay rights issue is in anyway implicated), and the more conservative religious 
liberty activists mostly refuse to recognize gay rights. Both sides want 
the symbolic victory of having the state declare the other side wrong, and both 
sides want to be assured they will never have to litigate a case at the boundary 
between the two freedoms.

Alan Brownstein sketched a 
perfectly sensible way to resolve the Massachusetts dispute in a way that 
protects both sides -- gay parents would be free to adopt through other 
state-funded agencies, and Catholic Charities would be free not to place 
children with gay parents. More generally, strong gay rights legislation 
with strong religious liberty exceptions would protect both sides. 



Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
behalf of Rick DuncanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 8:22 PMTo: Law 
 Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic 
Charities Issue

I think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust, 
says "this is our program, take it or leave it." CC says, "okay, we'll 
leave it." CC loses a part of its ministry, the state loses one of its 
best adoption-service providers, and the kids stay in state custody longer (and, 
for some, perhaps permanently, since CC was extra good at placing hard-to-place 
children).

This is why some of us fight so hard against gay rights and gay 
marriage--gay rights/marriage are incompatible (at least in certain 
situations)with religious liberty. As in Massachusetts, the state has to 
choose between religious liberty and gay rights. 

Some states choose gay rights. I choose religious liberty. I was born and 
raised in Massachusetts, but I couldn't live there now (and I don't think I even 
care to visit--not even if I had Monster seats at fenway).

Cheers, Rick Duncan 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  What this disputere: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger 
  of any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its 
  programs. Government funding always comes with strings. In 
  general, Catholic Charities gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 
  14% from private, with the vast majority of that coming from charities like 
  United Way. A tiny portion is paid by Catholics.I would 
  assume that onits own dime, CC can facilitate adoptions, but feel free 
  to correct that assumption. 
  
  The question is whether it is going to accept the condition placed on it 
  by the government's money.! nbsp;CC is not required to take the 
  government's money, right?This is the Solomon Amendment -- private 
  institution that has become dependent on government largesse insists that it 
  is entitled to that largesse and that the government should have no power to 
  place strings on the money. There is no First Amendment problem and 
  certainly no "substantial burden" under RFRA. If "substantial burden" 
  means that religious entities can force the government to give them money on 
  their own terms, we are quite literally on the other side of Alice's looking 
  glass.
  
  Marci
  
  

Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College 
of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or 
Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be 
pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The 
Prisoner


Yahoo! MailBring photos to life! New 
PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 
___
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

2006-03-11 Thread Alan Brownstein

Not only isn't it impossible to have both gay rights and religious liberty, the 
core of both sets of claims have  common foundations. It makes no more sense 
for a gay activist to insist that a religious person should ignore the duties 
he or she owes to G-d (a duty that, I believe, arises out of love and 
principle) -- because the religious person can not reasonably be asked to do 
that -- than it does for a religious person to insist that a gay person should 
deny the love he (or she) shares with another person who he wants to spend his 
life with  -- because the gay person can not reasonably be asked to do that.
 
Alan Brownstein  



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 7:42 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics; Law  Religion issues for Law 
Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue


It is not at all impossible to have both gay rights and religious liberty.  It 
is just that the gay rights activists mostly refuse to recognize religious 
liberty (at least if any gay rights issue is in anyway implicated), and the 
more conservative religious liberty activists mostly refuse to recognize gay 
rights.  Both sides want the symbolic victory of having the state declare the 
other side wrong, and both sides want to be assured they will never have to 
litigate a case at the boundary between the two freedoms.
 
Alan Brownstein sketched a perfectly sensible way to resolve the Massachusetts 
dispute in a way that protects both sides -- gay parents would be free to adopt 
through other state-funded agencies, and Catholic Charities would be free not 
to place children with gay parents.  More generally, strong gay rights 
legislation with strong religious liberty exceptions would protect both sides.  
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 8:22 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue


I think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust,  says this is our 
program, take it or leave it. CC says, okay, we'll leave it.  CC loses a 
part of its ministry, the state loses one of its best adoption-service 
providers, and the kids stay in state custody longer (and, for some, perhaps 
permanently, since CC was extra good at placing hard-to-place children).
 
This is why some of us fight so hard against gay rights and gay marriage--gay 
rights/marriage are incompatible (at least in certain situations) with 
religious liberty. As in Massachusetts, the state has to choose between 
religious liberty and gay rights. 
 
Some states choose gay rights. I choose religious liberty. I was born and 
raised in Massachusetts, but I couldn't live there now (and I don't think I 
even care to visit--not even if I had Monster seats at fenway).
 
Cheers, Rick Duncan 
 


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What this dispute re: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger of 
any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its programs.  
Government funding always comes with strings.  In general, Catholic Charities 
gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 14% from private, with the 
vast majority of that coming from charities like United Way.  A tiny portion is 
paid by Catholics.  I would assume that on its own dime, CC can facilitate 
adoptions, but feel free to correct that assumption.  
 
The question is whether it is going to accept the condition placed on 
it by the government's money. ! nbsp;CC is not required to take the 
government's money, right?  This is the Solomon Amendment -- private 
institution that has become dependent on government largesse insists that it is 
entitled to that largesse and that the government should have no power to place 
strings on the money.  There is no First Amendment problem and certainly no 
substantial burden under RFRA.  If substantial burden means that religious 
entities can force the government to give them money on their own terms, we are 
quite literally on the other side of Alice's looking glass.
 
Marci
 
 



Rick Duncan 
Welpton Professor of Law 
University of Nebraska College of Law 
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
 

When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or 
Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or 
numbered. --The Prisoner



Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail 
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39174/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com
 makes sharing a breeze. 
winmail.dat___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

RE: Catholic Charities Issue