Religion, Conscience, and the Law

doi:10.1017/9781108883856.025

21 - Religion, Conscience, and the Law

Reasons, Bases, and Limits for Exemptions

from Part III - Applied Topics in Law and Conscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2021

R. Kent Greenawalt

Edited by

Jeffrey B. Hammond and

Helen M. Alvare

Show author details

Jeffrey B. Hammond: Affiliation:
Faulkner University
Helen M. Alvare: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Kent Greenawalt discusses the permissibility, scope, and rationale for law to provide exemptions to protect religious and nonreligious conscience in the United States. It may be difficult for the law to determine which sentiments amount to conscience given differences in individuals’ perception and the strength of their convictions. Even the notion of a religious conscience is complex. Religious citizens’ conclusions about matters of interest to religion may proceed from both religion and reason, or only from reason. It is not clear what should count as religious, given differences between denominations and their ideas over time. There are a host of factors bearing on the permissibility and wisdom of granting exemptions, determining their scope, and deciding whether to extend protections to nonreligious conscience. A first principle is the importance of respect for others and for tolerance in a democracy. These questions about exemptions can be considered by looking closely at contested issues, like objection to the military draft, laws governing the manner of killing animals, ingestion of banned substances, abortion, and objection to insurance mandates concerning contraceptives.

Keywords

abortion nonreligious conscience contraceptive mandate exemptions military draft nondiscrimination same-sex marriage substantial burden tolerance

Type: Chapter
Information: Christianity and the Laws of Conscience
An Introduction
, pp. 414 - 434

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108883856.025 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Recommended Reading

Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).Google Scholar

Gedicks, Frederick Mark. “An Unfirm Foundation: The Regrettable Indefensibility of Religious Exemptions.” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Journal 20 (1998): 555–74.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, Kent. When Free Exercise and Nonestablisment Conflict. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, Kent. Exemptions: Necessary, Justified or Misguided? Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, Kent. “Religious Toleration and Claims of Conscience.” Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 21 (2013): 449–86.Google Scholar

Hamilton, Marci A., and Seligsohn, Lana. “Religion Governed by the Rule of Law.” Human Rights 39, no. 2 (Jan. 2013): 7, 10.Google Scholar

Koppelman, Andrew. “You Can’t Hurry Love: Why Antidiscrimination Protections for Gay People Should Have Religious Exemptions.” Brooklyn Law Review 72, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 125–46.Google Scholar

Laycock, Douglas. “Regulatory Exemptions of Religious Behavior and the Original Understanding of the Establishment Clause.” Notre Dame Law Review 81, no. 5 (June 2006): 1793–1842.Google Scholar

Laycock, Douglas. Religious Liberty, 5 vols. Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2018.Google Scholar

Laycock, Douglas, Picarello, Anthony R. Jr., and Wilson, Robin Fretwell, eds. Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.Google Scholar

Lund, Christopher. “Religion Is Special Enough,” Virginia Law Review 103 (May 2017): 481–524.Google Scholar

McConnell, Michael W. “Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to the Critics.” George Washington Law Review 60 (1992): 642–85.Google Scholar

McConnell, Michael W. “The Problem of Singling Out Religion.” DePaul Law Review 50, no. 1 (Fall 2000): 1–47.Google Scholar

Schwartzman, Micah. “What if Religion Is Not Special?” The University of Chicago Law Review 79, no. 4 (Fall 2012): 1351–1427.Google Scholar

Schwartzman, Micah, Tebbe, Nelson, and Schragger, Richard. “The Costs of Conscience.” Kentucky Law Journal 106, no. 4 (2017–18): 781–812.Google Scholar

Seeger v. U.S., 380 U.S. 163 (1965).Google Scholar

Welsh v. U.S., 398 U.S. 333 (1970).Google Scholar