Religion-only accommodation question

[Samuel V]

So far as I know, there is no authority for a religion-based defense
to a claim of "sexual abuse."

The cases are split, however, as to whether there is a First Amendment
defense to a claim of "negligent hiring," "negligent retention," or
"negligent ordination," which claims seek to impose liabilty on an
institution which did not itself engage in or direct the sexual abuse.
 Such claims amount to a contention that the relgious institution
failed to organize itself in the manner in which a reasonable person
would have organized his church.

Some cases, I think correctly, conclude that such claims violate the
free exercise of religion, and violate the establishment clause by
getting the state involved in deciding how a church should be run.

Sam Ventola
Denver, Colorado

On Apr 8, 2005 10:08 AM, Lund, Christopher <cclund at central.uh.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>             I don't know much about this and want to learn more.  Are
> religious institutions really able to use judicial or legislative exemptions
> to defend themselves against crimes of physical or sexual abuse?  It seemed
> to me that virtually any harm to others was enough to get your judicial
> claim for exemption quickly denied or your existing legislative exemption
> deemed unconstitutional.  What concrete examples are there where religious
> entities have used religion-only accommodations (legislative or judicial) to
> pull off such harm?  (I know that religious entities can use
> religion-neutral laws or accommodations to harm people, but that's true for
> all groups, not just religious ones.  And I know that religious entities
> have sometimes tried to use religion-only accommodations to impose harm on
> others, but in the examples I have seen, they always lose.)
> 
>  
> 
>             Chris
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hamilton02 at aol.com [mailto:Hamilton02 at aol.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:15 AM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Religion-only accommodation question
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Labeling religions "majoritarian" and "minority" is both bootstrapping and
> inaccurate.  There is no majority religion in the United States.  For your
> purposes, I would think the better classification would be politically
> powerful and politically powerless.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Religions have been responsible for a great deal of harm in world history,
> including now.  I am not at all referring to the harm engendered between
> faiths, but rather the actual harm inflicted on third parties by religious
> entities, where the religious entities employ the First Amendment and/or
> general religious liberty principles to insulate themselves from
> responsibility to the common good.  Land use is part of it, but not the
> largest or most important part.  The most significant victims of religious
> entities in my world view are the thousands upon thousands of children who
> have suffered (1) childhood sexual abuse by trusted clergy,  (2) permanent
> disability or death through faith-healing, and (3) physical abuse.  The law
> has been orchestrated as a shield around these entities (through expansive
> readings of the First Amendment or legislative accommodation that fails to
> take into account the needs of the child).  These are harms that are
> worldwide, and not even close to being eradicated.  Had the law been applied
> to religious entities as Smith prescribes and had legislators acted as
> filters rather than ciphers, there would be many fewer victims.  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Marci
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Of course majoritiarian religion has harmed minority religions.  On this
> precise point reasonable people cannot disagree.  Where we part company is
> over your claim that religions, generally, majoritarian or otherwise, harm
> people. 
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
> 
>