I'm having trouble understanding how choice is helpful. Ultimately,
one chooses to believe in god or not.
Susan
Brownstein, Alan wrote:
Part, but certainly not all, of the response to Marty’s thoughtful
comment has to do with the way we define obligation and choice.
Sometimes religiously
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Hmm -- why is this so? First, I've seen very few cases in which
a judge finds a religious claimant to be insincere. My sense is that
judges tend to try to avoid doing this, partly because reading people's
minds on such issues seems even more unreliable,
In a message dated 8/30/2007 4:13:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the mission must be completed before the individual is 26
Just out of curiosity, how would this apply to converts older than
26?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener
No idea. Maybe they can serve at any point. If I get a chance, I'll ask
him.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:46 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Mormon Student,
I think this argument proves too much. This sort of triangulation can be used
to attack all religious exemption claims. Take the strongest claim for
exemption you can imagine * say the claim for peyote in Smith. You can always
posit a weak religious claim for the exact same thing * say a
Judges are reluctant to decide sincerity, but they are not
reluctant to get rid of marginal claims. He may say the belief is not
sincere. More likely, he may say the belief is not religious. He may
find that a fairly weak interest is compelling. He may dismiss the
claim on some procedural or
Isn't it possible to argue that government service (the military) and
community service are fundamentally different then just wanting to go
off and spread your faith? You might argue that selling the faith is
no different than selling any other product and the university can say
we do not allow
