The principle of separation (Erin)

While I agree, generally, this is the road to Sharia and polygamy and female genital mutliation. Where'e the line?

Muslims have been practicing such things for centuries and have a rational basis (i.e. a rational basis from the worldview) for following them. You may not think it's rational, but they do. So, tell me where you draw the line and why?

I stopped reading at "conduct that can seem extremely dubious to people outside of a faith tradition can often be an important ritual for believers."

Some of 'em think snake-handling is an important ritual. Nobody should let 'em get away with it if somebody gets hurt. This post is a FAIL, Erin.

Erin, I believe "fail" was used not in the schoolteacherish sense, but in the definition a la mode of the internet. I suggest you look it up in Urban Dictionary or some such easily accessible location. I just gleaned a few moment of amusement from checking out their versions of "epic fail," but decided not to post them here. I find some neologisms very enjoyable and handy. You might too. ; )

Re the Amish: first of all, I daresay you wouldn't be aware of any such texts, because I doubt that you've investigated the Amish canon. Probably no one else who isn't Amish has, either, including me. However, I can certainly imagine such a community claiming immunity on the grounds that their religious values with regard to internal discipline did not permit secular investigation or interrogation of their authorities. The Catholic church did this for many years, and got away with it.

Your snake-handling example does not address the issue, because the handler in that case is apparently not bringing a complaint. Should he get bitten and die after being encouraged by the church elders, however, I think his widow would have a good case to bring for criminal negligence. If you're going to take the approach that what consenting adults do of their own volition should not be forbidden by law . . . well, more power to you, but you'll have to retract quite a few arguments you've made on other topics.

Hmm,

"theoretically be tried without mentioning religion, the imposition of tort liability for engaging in religious activity to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."

See, especially given the reference to "millstones" on the (currently) first post on what was once upon a time Rod's blog, I'm struggling to see how one would prevent just the same reasoning applying to the abuse of children by RCC clerics. As an Irish Catholic, I've seen a massive diminution in the respect afforded to the parish priest in the community, in his centrality to its functionings. The realisation of priestly liability for the outrages that have taken place over the years has caused a *decisive* "chilling effect", leading to directly to the abandonment of most people's "core beliefs" about the role of the social role of the clergy.

But, as devout a Catholic as I try and be, I can't for the life of me see why anybody might think this was a *bad* thing.

I think I see what you're saying about the vagueness of claims for "mental anguish," Erin. I don't understand how that works in suits brought against secular defendants, but I know that the courts make those decisions somehow, so I don't see why they couldn't work it out for religious defendants as well. I don't think you can put circumcision in the same category with being frightened by immersion, because circumcision involves real physical damage for which consent was not given. I think circumcision probably will become less common as more men decide they would have preferred to stay intact. I'm sorry if it disturbs Jews, but honestly, I can't see why boys should be subjected to circumcision for religious reasons any more than girls.

To leave the touchy issue of the Catholic church aside for the moment, let's take a look at the Children of God, a/k/a The Family. Child abuse of the most horrendous nature was very much a documented part of their religious teaching and practice. "Mental suffering" doesn't even begin to describe what these children went through-- see the case of Ricky Rodriguez, for example. What about the case of a child who is killed by beatings or other "discipline" administered for religious reasons as taught by religious leaders--see the cases of Christopher Forder and Sean Paddock, for instance. If it causes a chilling effect to say that you can't sexually abuse your child in the name of God, or beat him senseless with plumber's pipe, well, so be it, I say.

Once again, conservatives work to hold the corporate [in this case, a corporate church] less than responsible for their actions.

The chilling effect is where people (mostly non-legal in expertise) decide that one case and its decision is the once-and-done precedent for all such cases.

Precedent is a part of the decision process in any case. It can and will hold lesser or greater influence over a case that has lesser or greater resemblance to the case that established the precedent.

Every case is different. Given the chance to hear it, every judge will approach every case as containing differences.

I hasten to point out that while being well-read, I am also non-legal in expertise. What I do that many seem to not do is actually listen and comprehend when legal experts talk.

Oh, and yes, I need more coffee.