🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <326ACBC7.71C8@pond.com>, treeman@pond.com wrote:

> Jake wrote
> :as applied to Amish children, whose parents don't want their
> children to exposed to "intellectual and scientific accomplishments,
> self-distinction, competitiveness, and social life with other students,"
> ::::
> WRONG CONCEPT:
> I come from Amish decent and you have a bad concept.  I am not Amish but
> do not use chemical pesticides on trees lawns and gardens of clients.  I
> only eat organic fruit and veggies and eat no meat with hormones.  They
> so called intellectual and scientific accomplishments which have been
> passed onto the Amish is a disgrace.  Those poor people have been so
> mislead by the chemical industry.  Their soil depleted or depleting. 
> Wrong fruit trees wrong places.  Forced into force production of trees. 
> I could go on and on and will if asked to but, Jake you are writing
> things about a people you have know knowledge of what has really been
> going on.  I have studied this for ten years and am presently trying
> with many other people to try to get back to their old ways.  It was
> close to sustainable agriculture at one time but modern science has
> changed all of that. 

Hey, I'm really happy for you, but it is completely irrelevant to what I
said.  I quoted the Supreme Court's opinion in a prominent Free Excercise
case.  The Court was saying that even if the Amish did not want their
children going to school because of X, Y, and Z, and X, Y, and Z fit under
religious beliefs, forcing such children to go to school violates the Free
Excercise Clause.  The opinion makes it clear that the Court was not so
hot on X, Y, and Z.  You here claim that you love X, Y, and Z.  But that's
really quite irrelevant since the Free Excercise Clause is thought to
protect *all* religious belief, not just religious belief the Supreme
Court deems reasonable.  And from the case I cited, that clause also
protects the right of parents to indoctrinate their children into pretty
much whatever belief system they will.
 
> Now breastfeeding.  I am not bothered when woman breast feed in front of
> me.  I know I am going to be hung to the cross for saying this but I
> like woman and really like womens breast (any size breast).  But I am
> thankful that is the way I feel.  One day at a time. 

Again, I am perfectly happy for you.  I am not bothered by the lost volume
seller rule in contract damages.  What either statement has to do with
what I was saying, however, is completely beyond me.  I simply made the
case that we do not give juries free reign in determining what is
"unreasonable" in terms of "religious abuse," and doing so would raise
First Amendment problems.  I said nothing here about breastfeeding, the
national drinking age, or anything else.

-- 
Jake Minas
Columbia Law School
jam81@columbia.edu