ts.ucla.edu] on behalf of Christopher Lund
[l...@wayne.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:59 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Yes (to Marty.) I’m someone inclined toward Marty’s view, and I think the
empiric
e sex, or a wide range of other things.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:07 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
...@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:02 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
But that is invoking a non-Jewish standard of "Jewishness" (and I speak as
someone intensely exasperated by refusal to acknowledge any distinction between
&q
But that is invoking a non-Jewish standard of "Jewishness" (and I speak as someone intensely exasperated by refusal to acknowledge any distinction between "ethnic" and "religious" Jewishness.*) Someone can say "I spit on G_d, I spit on Torah, I spit on halakhah."; He can spend Sabbath behind a de
man
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:19 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
Eugene's tattoo example is very helpful for teeing up what has seemed to
me to be the important distinction here (one I've tried to stress in my
earl
lve physical injury or threat of injury (and I mean
> “injury” here to include physical alterations, such as tattoos).
>
> ** **
>
> Eugene
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun..
re to include physical
alterations, such as tattoos).
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:07 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject
ionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:45 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
>
> ** **
>
> If Smith's "hybrid rights" expl
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
This has been a very interesting discussion. I confess that at this point,
I am quite confused about the meaning of "best interests of the child." I
understand it is a complex, context-driven, and m
I am with Paul in my confusion, and will add only a further question. If
we accept the principle that the best interests of the child prevails, does
that mean that judges and not parents will always have the decisive say?
(As a parent, for example, I think I am always acting in the best interest
o
This has been a very interesting discussion. I confess that at this point, I am
quite confused about the meaning of "best interests of the child." I understand
it is a complex, context-driven, and multivalent test. But it would certainly
help to understand the foundational values and defaults
, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Friedman, Howard M.
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 3:47 pm
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Many would argue that it is in the "best interest of the ch
PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
>
> I am wondering if Marci thinks Troxel v. Granville (unconstitutional for
> legislature to provide for grandparent visitation rights over objection of
> custodial parent
: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 11:28 pm
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I agree that the danger to infants from full immersion baptism is very
low and
perhaps zero; the hypothetical was that it happened in "a handful of cases,"
but
I think that's just a hypothetical.
?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:45 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I agree that the danger to infants from full immersion baptism is very
low and perhaps zero; the hypothetical was that it happened in "a handful of
cases," but I think that's just a hypoth
ic Rassbach
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:43 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
>
>
> Eugene --
>
> I don't think this makes sense because it posits an impossible universe of
> zero-risk pare
sberg
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Let me try again. The discussion has focused on the rights of the parents and
of the state. The children have come into the discussion only as objects o
> claim no actuarial expertise on the matter.
>
> Eric
>
>
> From:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
ference
>> > with parental rights. And I imagine that the danger to infants from either
>> > circumcision or full immersion baptism is far lower than driving them
>> > around town, though I claim no actuarial expertise on the matter.
>> >
>> > Eric
>> &
nce with parental rights. And I imagine that the danger to infants
>> from either circumcision or full immersion baptism is far lower than
>> driving them around town, though I claim no actuarial expertise on the
>> matter.
>> >
>> > Eric
>> >
>> >
cla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
If Smith's "hybrid rights" explanation of Yoder is all there is ag
) or
> > alter their own bodies (in the circumcision example) for the sake of their
> > religious beliefs, or for that matter for the sake of their secular
> > beliefs. But why does it follow that they should have the right to impose
> > such risks on others, even others to who
If Smith's "hybrid rights" explanation of Yoder is all there is against my
argument that religious motivation should add or subtract nothing from
parental rights to engage in particular child-rearing practices, I'll
happily rest my case. All I'm suggesting is that once we have a general
set of co
(310)506-4667
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
Our ordinary, wide-spread, and long-stan
cultural or religious bias on the question of risk?
Howard
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental
to infants
> from either circumcision or full immersion baptism is far lower than
> driving them around town, though I claim no actuarial expertise on the
> matter.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> religionlaw-b
issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
In the context of abuse of children, religion just does not and should not
matter to the state. There are three general cases:
1. The conduct is abusive per se (e.g., repeated and heavy beatings of a
child). We don't
Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
In the context of abuse of children, religion just does not and should not
matter to the state. There are three general cases:
1.
__
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Parental rights
> ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:50 AM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
>
> I think Howard's baptism example helps
f Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I thought we were long past the argument that the only basis for protecting
religious liberty was that the state had a favorable perspective
in=ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-bounces+aebrownstein=ucdavis@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Ira
Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Parental rights and physical conduct
I think Howard's baptism ex
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Friedman, Howard M.
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:52 AM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
>
> ** **
>
> What
olokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
I appreciate Howard’s point, but the question is: Why should
some children who by definition do not share a religio
nd. That conclusion dictates the outcome here.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Paren
: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:52 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
What has been absent from all of the discussion on this issue is the importance
to Jewish belief of circumcision while the son is an infant. This ceremony at
8-days
olokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 10:57 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Parental rights and physical conduct
This raises a fascinating and practically very important
question (because there are more than 10 times as many American parents who
authorize circumc
I don't know why we should be limited to the particulars of Supreme Court
decisions when we think about this. I suggest that the approach I outlined
is deeply embedded in the statutory and judge-made law of all the states.
And, if I'm right about, then the relevant constitutional doctrines of
subs
This raises a fascinating and practically very important
question (because there are more than 10 times as many American parents who
authorize circumcision for nonreligious reasons than for religious reasons):
Do Meyer/Pierce rights extend to the right to raise one's child in th
40 matches
Mail list logo
