Religion-only accommodation question

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

There are too many to  name here, but faith-healing exemptions exist for both 
criminal and civil  liability in many states.  An article published a few 
years ago  documented over 200 preventable deaths of children due to 
faith-healing.   Churches facing clergy abuse lawsuits (the Roman Catholic Church and  the 
Jehovahs Witnesses have the most litigation at this time) are using  First 
Amendment arguments to avoid discovery in both civil cases and criminal  
investigations.  States like Missouri and WIsconsin, among others, have  shielded 
churches from civil liability in clergy abuse cases.  
The purpose of my book, God vs the Gavel (Cambridge June 2005), is to  
document many of the harms that religious entities have levied and to explain  how 
they have used the First Amendment and legislative accommodation to avoid  
social responsibility and liability.
 
Marci
 
 
 

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 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050408/86aafb8d/attachment.html