I don't disagree with the major thrust of what you say, except that I wonder whether judges will avoid "intruding" in other categories of cases.
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation? There are no post-Wolf cases in the Supreme Court. They have repeatedly denied cert, letting lower courts apply and abuse Wolf however they want. Some state courts have indeed imposed congregational polities on hierarchical churches, at least with respect to property ownership. The Russian Orthodox case in Massachusetts may be the most absurd of these. But there is very little of this judicial intrusion, even in the lower courts, in minister cases, and virtually none outside the context of sexual harassment. Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court > nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed > perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a Congregationalist polity > even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or Presbyterian in > their polity). If this isn't the application of secular norms, then > what is it? > > As to the post-Wolf cases, it is difficult to argue that they can be > easily reconciled, there being a real difference on the precise question > of secular norms. I think that the law is anything but clear, > post-Wolf. > > One more point, the property dispute cases involving Eastern Orthodox > Churches certainly reflect secular norms -- a dislike of communism, for > openers. > Even Justice Scalia expressly carved out the Ministerial Exception in > Employment Div. v. Smith (neutral laws of general applicability > analysis)...it is a > little dfifficult to respond to your "sense" that the Court applied secular > norms without you referring to specific cases from which you derive > that sense.... > > Donald C. Clark, Jr. > 2333 Waukegan Road > Suite 160 > Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 > 847-236-0900 > 847-236-0909 (fax) > > > This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments > are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or > protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the > information contained in or attached to this message is strictly > prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to > this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. > > > ************************************************************************ ****** > ************************** > > IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the > IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein > (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, > marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter > herein. > Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713
_______________________________________________ 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.
