RFRA and drawing blood for DNA database

[Steven Jamar]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>     (1)  I would think that unless you hunt people, you can quite  
> sincerely both hunt and conscientiously object to war.

Of course.  Indeed, the relevance seems quite remote to me.  But in  
those days the CO status inquiry of at least some draft boards tended  
to focus heavily on pacifism and on non-violent tendencies in general  
and hunting is not exactly non-violent.  Even I concede that it is  
indeed a relevant question.  But for some draft boards the rule as  
applied was reputed to be that if you were a hunter you could not be  
a CO.  Indeed, if you had taken a firearms safety class (what the NRA  
used to spend most of its time doing), you could not be a CO.

(I had a high draft number as things turned out and so was never put  
to the test.)

> 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.

I agree.  But not irrelevant either.

>
>     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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!"

"Auntie Mame" by Patrick Dennis

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                          http://iipsj.com/SDJ/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071219/d18a33e4/attachment.htm