Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T21:48:38.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Imperfect Vocabulary of Religious Liberty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2015

Marci A. Hamilton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 2009 , pp. 221 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2009

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

1. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

2. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).

3. Wis. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205(1972).

4. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb (2000) invalidated by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

5. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc (2000).

6. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 241-49 (Douglas, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part).

7. See Laycock, Douglas, Summary and Synthesis: The Crisis in Religious Liberty, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 841 (1992)Google Scholar; Laycock, Douglas, The Supreme Court's Assault on Free Exercise, and the Amicus Brief that was Never Filed, 8 J.L. & Religion 99 (1990)Google Scholar; Laycock, Douglas, The Remnants of Free Exercise, 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1Google Scholar; McConnell, Michael, Should Congress Pass Legislation Restoring the Broader Interpretation of Free Exercise of Religion?, 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 181 (1992)Google Scholar; McConnell, Michael, Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to the Critics, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 685 (1992)Google Scholar; McConnell, Michael, A Response to Professor Marshall, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 329 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McConnell, Michael, Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1109 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. See, e.g., Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987); Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988).

9. See, e.g., Hamilton, Marci, The Connecticut Supreme Court Reaches the Right Decision In a Case Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (02 5, 2008)Google Scholar (see FindLaw), http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20080205.html; Hamilton, Marci, When Churches Seek to Host Tent Cities of Homeless Persons, Can Localities Deny a Permit? The Controversy in Washington State, and What State Legislators Should Do About It (03 8, 2007)Google Scholarsee FindLaw, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20070308.html.

10. City of Boeme v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

11. Hamilton, Marci A., God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law ch. 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. In response to Employment Div. v. Smith, Congress exempted the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian person for bona fide religious purposes. 42 U.S.C. § 1996a (2000). Moreover, in the text of the statute itself, Congress recognized that by that time “at least 28 States have enacted laws which are similar to, or are in conformance with, the Federal regulation which protects the ceremonial use of peyote by Indian religious practitioners[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1996a(a)(3) (2000).

13. Following the decision in Goldman v. Weinberger for example, Congress enacted legislation which allowed members of the military to wear religious apparel while in uniform unless it would interfere with duties or is not “neat and conservative.” 10 U.S.C. § 774 (2000).

14. During Prohibition, the Volstead Act expressly allowed sacramental wine. National Prohibition (Volstead) Act, Pub. L. No. 66, Ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305 (1919) (repealed 1933 by U.S. Const. Amend. XXI).

15. 494 U.S. at 890.

16. See, e.g., Moore-Emmett, Andrea, God's Brothel: The Extortion of Sex for Salvation in Contemporary Mormon and Christian Fundamentalist Polygamy and the Stories of 18 Women Who Escaped (Pince-Nez Press 2004)Google Scholar; Jessop, Carolyn & Palmer, Laura, Escape (Broadway Books 2007)Google Scholar; Spencer, Irene, Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife (Center Street 2007)Google Scholar; Western, Carole A., Inside the World of Warren Jeffs: The Power in Polygamy (Wyndham House Publ'g 2007)Google Scholar.

17. See, e.g., Loving v. Va., 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (holding that anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment).