RFRA and drawing blood for DNA database

[Volokh, Eugene]

    (1)  I would think that unless you hunt people, you can quite
sincerely both hunt and conscientiously object to war.  Now it may well
be that some denominations object to both; my vague sense is that
Quakers have.  But of course people might belong to other denominations,
or to less orthodox versions of a denomination.  I know enough Jews who
refuse to eat pork for religious reasons, but don't strictly keep
kosher; I would assume that many a Quaker refuses to kill people but
might be willing to hunt animals.
 
    (2)  I recognize, of course, that some facts may be quite relevant
though not dispositive.  But my point was that *highly addictive*
behavior is not very probative of sincere belief, precisely because
addictions routinely and notoriously lead people to do things that they
know are wrong.
 
    Eugene
 
________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 1:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: RFRA and drawing blood for DNA database



	While I agree that IV drug use does not determine the issue of
sincerity, it is certainly relevant to that issue.  I do not understand
the court to be saying much more than that here.  On the broader issue,
how do we treat sincerity of The Scarlet Letter type where actions are
so at odds with professions of belief?  One of the questions related to
getting conscientious objector status was famously "do you hunt?" 
	
	Steve
	
	
	
	On Dec 19, 2007 4:38 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
wrote:
	

		       (1)  I was hoping we could change the subject
line, simply to be
		more accurate -- the Ninth Circuit remanded for further
proceedings on
		the RFRA claim, but I think it did not hold that the
RFRA claim will
		prevail, even as to drawing blood.
		
		       (2)  I don't think that IV drug use is a
particularly strong
		indicator that a person lacks a sincere belief in the
impropriety of
		piercing the skin.  Addicts notoriously do things that
they know are 
		wrong; an addict may sincerely believe that it's wrong
to steal, and yet
		nonetheless steal to support his addiction -- this
doesn't of course
		make his theft proper, but it also doesn't make his
condemnation of 
		theft insincere.  Likewise, an alcoholic can sincerely
believe in the
		tenets of an anti-alcohol religious belief system, and
feel very guilty
		about violating those tenets even though he consistently
violates them. 
		
		       Eugene
		_______________________________________________
		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. 
		




	-- 
	Prof. Steven Jamar
	Howard University School of Law 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071219/b1e1c498/attachment.htm