Cattle-prod wielding rabbi kidnappers fail to convince court they were just practicing their faith

[brooklynite]

The Washington Post:

The holy man’s words were blunt, the subtlety and pretext all peeled off. “What we are going to be doing is kidnapping a guy for a couple of hours and beating him up and torturing him and then getting him to give you the get,” Rabbi Mendel Epstein told his two visitors.

“We take an electric cattle prod,” the bearded man continued later in the conversation on Aug. 14, 2013, according to court documents. “If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move … You put it on certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know.”

Epstein believed the guest across the desk from him in his home office in Lakewood, N.J., was desperate, an Orthodox Jewish woman trapped in an unloving marriage because her husband refused to grant her a get, a religious document in the Jewish faith granting the dissolution of a marriage. Without it she’d be agunah, or chained to the union, unable to remarry. But now, with her brother, she was seeking guidance from Epstein on another, less talked-about option. There were situations when a group of rabbis and “tough guys” could force a husband to sign a get, the rabbi explained.

[guillaumeb]

1. This sounds like a bizarre movie scenario.

Recommended because of the title.

[Bretton Garcia]

2. In the Washington Post; a highly respected newspaper

Last edited Fri Jul 21, 2017, 04:26 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a useful test of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

"For the last year, the rabbis’ attorneys have been pressing an appeal. In part, they’ve hoped to upend the conviction by pitting church against state, teeing up a familiar question about when spiritual practice trumps the secular law. Citing the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the rabbis argued the government is barred from engaging in anything that burdens an individual’s religious practice and here that’s exactly what the Orthodox holy men were doing. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit finally ruled in favor of government. Crime, the three judge panel unanimously ruled, can’t be shoved beneath the umbrella of religious practice."

[guillaumeb]

3. Merely a comment on the bizarre title.

Separation of church and state is supposedly enshrined in US history.

[Bretton Garcia]

4. Supposedly

The Religious restoration act though, RFRA, has been only partially dropped. And remains it seems, partially in force. Giving religions rights that others don't have. Special religious privileges are supposed to stand. Unless the government offers "compelling" reasons why not.

[guillaumeb]

5. Differing views of what "separation of church and state" mean. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

6. Any Gov favors to any religion "establishes" it somewhat.

Violating the Establishment clause.

In my present strict reading of the Constitution.

[guillaumeb]

7. I agree with your reading, but given that it is likely that neither of us

is a SCOTUS member, we are at the mercy of the SCOTUS and politicians from both parties who like to cater to religious voters.

My view is that religious institutions should be treated the same as any other institutions. No exemption from property taxes, no special dispensation from any laws that affect us all.

[Bretton Garcia]

8. Thanks.. Good idea.

That means that RFRA though, needs to be even further reduced. Though having been rewritten once, it is now clearly vulnerable.

On this legal matter, Rug, our albeit "crusty" local lawyer stand-in, might have been useful. Any news whether he will return?

[guillaumeb]

9. He is still listed as "under review".

So it all must depend on how long the review process takes.