Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

[Jean Dudley]

*blink*
OK, this guy wins the "Most Creative Deadbeat Dad of the Year" award.

Forgive me, Eugene, but there is a limit to my ability to suspend  
disbelief.  I simply find myself able to assume that this guy is  
sincere.  I might be able to swallow it if he were to send a check to  
the mother of his children for the amount that he is in arrears  
instead of handing it over to the court.

OK, ok, I'll give it my best shot:  He should not prevail because he  
is not ordered to submit to the dictates of the beast bearing the  
number 666, he is being ordered to comply with *Federal Statute 42  
USC Sec. 666*.  Simply having a sequential number does not make a law  
the Beast of Revelations 13.

Somebody kindly relieve me of my ignorance;  is there any reason why  
Human Services can't use an argument against Sherrod's claim based on  
further context from the quoted text?  Specifically, can the attorney  
point out that since Human Services has not required Mr. Sherrod to  
receive the mark of the beast on his hand or forehead, they cannot  
possibly be the beast?  CF: "He causes all, both small and great,  
rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand  
or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who  
has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”  
Revelation 13:16-17

Just askin'.
Jean Dudley

On Jul 31, 2008, at Thu, Jul 31,  12:46 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> 	Sherrod v. Tenn. Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 WL 2894691 (Tenn.
> Ct. App.), involves a father who refused to pay his child support,
> partly because "Mr. Sherrod states that he is a Born Again  
> Christian and
> a Sunday School teacher and that he is greatly disturbed that DHS is
> attempting to compel him to submit to an order which relies for its
> authority upon a federal statute, 42 USC sec. 666.  He cites us to the
> Book of Revelations, where the number 666 is associated with the 'Mark
> of the Beast' and the end of days."
>
> 	Assume Sherrod is sincere, not implausible given his willingness
> to fight the matter at trial and on appeal over $1,188 in arrearages
> (granted, he's litigating pro se, but this presumably has taken a good
> deal of time and effort, and some money, on his part).  Assume also  
> that
> a strict scrutiny regime applies.  (Whether because Sherrod didn't  
> raise
> RFRA or whether because for some reason RFRA is inapplicable givne the
> procedural posture, this particular court applied the Smith approach.)
>
> 	Should Sherrod prevail?  I take it that the government could
> just reenact 42 USC sec. 666 as 42 USC sec. something-else, and thus
> alleviate the burden on Sherrod's religion; does that make  
> enforcing 42
> USC 666 not the least restrictive alternative?  Or are alternatives  
> that
> involve having Congress take the time and effort to renumber a statute
> (or enact a duplicate copy) just too burdensome to be considered as  
> part
> of the least restrictive alternative inquiry (or are otherwise  
> improper
> for consideration).
>
> 	I should say, by the way, that I don't think Sherrod should win
> as a matter of principles, nor do I think it likely that he would in
> fact win even under a RFRA-like regime.  But that's partly because I
> support Smith, and while I support statutory RFRAs, I think strict
> scrutiny is the wrong standard for them to use.  So I wanted to probe
> what ought to happen under a Sherbert/Yoder regime, as honestly  
> applied.
>
> 	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.