Colleagues - Two quick things: First, as Eduardo has said, the "cooperation with evil" question is tricky and (he and I agree) debatable and debated among informed Catholics. In my view, though (as Marty and I have discussed a few times), it is incomplete to think about the burden the mandate might impose on Notre Dame's religious exercise only in "cooperation" terms (and Fr Jenkins, Notre Dame's President, has not so limited his account). RFRA protects more that a religiously motivated desire to avoid (what the claimant regards as) wrongdoing.
Next, I hope that I am not the only one who is taken aback by Prof. Hamilton's entirely unsupported but repeated claim that those (admittedly not that many) who embrace and follow the Catholic Church's proposals regarding sexuality "typically" have "10-20" children? I cannot think of a constructive purpose that this strange claim could serve in this or any other discussion. Rick Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2014, at 2:23 PM, "Marci Hamilton" <hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote: There is a doubt however about what American Catholics believe. They overwhelmingly reject the church teaching against contraception. They don't think they are sinners as Mark suggested. They reject it. Every poll supports that as does the fact that it is rare to find a Catholic family w 10-20 children in the US. The teaching is one thing: the belief is another in the US. This is not an idle observation. ND has inserted itself into the spotlight by asserting beliefs that most Americans know Catholics reject-in theory and in practice. On Marty's point--the fact that the government gives for-profits a pass on abortion does not show they have a conscience. It shows religious abortion opponents had political clout. Your reasoning strikes me as backward. I think Marty and the SG are on the stronger ground here If the Court finds they have such rights, the slippery slope is perpendicular to the ground. Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton On Feb 16, 2014, at 3:45 PM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> wrote: No doubt the Board and senior administration speaks for Notre Dame. But on faith and morals, they may (and may be expected to or required to) take their guidance from the bishops. There is no doubt what the Church’s teaching is, and no doubt that teaching is sincere. What I said was that Notre Dame’s leadership may sincerely feel obliged to follow that teaching in their official capacity as leaders of a Catholic institution, whatever they may do in their private life. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, as opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant? And that the actions of its co-religionist officials are irrelevant to proof of the organization's beliefs? Why don't the practices of Notre Dame's officials prove insincerity in this case? (I'm assuming that they don't have the 10-20 children typically incident to not using birth control and that they follow the vast majority of American Catholics in rejecting the belief against contraception). How can they claim a right not to provide contraception for their employees/students in their health plan because of complicity if they are using it themselves? To provide an analogy: In the prison cases, you can test a prisoner's sincerity when he demands kosher food (because it's better than the usual fare), and claims a conversion to Judaism, but they find pork rinds in his cell, it is assumed he is not sincere and does not receive the accommodation (a state prison general counsel provided this example for me) Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
