I know this isn't exactly what you asked, Eugene, but I think one thing you
might want to consider saying about RFRA is that in some situations if RFRA
prevents the government from imposing anti-discrimination requirements on
religious groups as a condition for receiving subsidies -- while
Read the legislative history behind RFRA from beginning to end --the
administration of illegal drugs to children by religious groupsis not
there. It is awholesale reconstruction of history to
believethat Congress considered the issue in any way, shape, or
form. The vast majority, i.e.,
Title: Message
I think
that's quite right atleast as to #3. Yet I take it that this issue
arises in some measure with regard to all religious accommodations for
expressive activities, no? As others on the list have pointed out when
I've raised similar arguments, a religious accommodation
Title: Message
I dont know the answer to all of
these questions either. My instinct
in trying to develop doctrinal parameters for Free Exercise, Establishment
Clause, and Free Speech rules, as well as legislative accommodations of
religion, is to define many religious activities and
I will just note that Congress has the
discretion to decide how to handle the matter. You just dont agree with
the approach that Congress took.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
10:48 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject:
Given that RFRA was a response to a
decision that dealt with drug use, it seems unlikely that it never crossed
Congress collective mind that the Act would be applied in cases
involving drugs. But even if your point about post hoc justification were
true, then it seems equally post-hoc to
First, children's issues with religious entities are not
"tug-on-the-heart-strings." They are real, and you betray your preference
for religiousentities at all costsover children's welfare with such
verbiage.
Second, how do you propose the court on remandtake into account the
fact that
Doug--The nine-day trial for the preliminary
injunctioninvolved only the information generated by the parties.
Thoseinterests in the United States who could have expanded the inquiry
had no way to become part of the discourse, as they would have in the
legislature. Thus, I am certain
