148 research outputs found
Attempting to Engage in Socially Coherent Dialogue About Religious Liberty and Equality
(Excerpt)
Most book reviews reflect the reviewerâs final conclusions about the authorâs finished work. This review is more of a snapshot of the lengthy dialogue I have been engaged in for several months with Nelson Tebbe, the author of the book being reviewed. The symposium conference organized by the St. Johnâs Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development in September 2016, invited several church-state scholars to comment on a draft manuscript of Nelson Tebbeâs forthcoming book, Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age. However, the book was not fully completed when this multi-participant dialogue began
The Multiple Sources and Dimensions of Religion-State Frameworks in Liberal Constitutions
Article published in the Michigan State Law Review
Constitutional Myopia: The Supreme Court\u27s Blindness to Religious Liberty and Religious Equality Values in Town of Greece v. Galloway
It is difficult to analyze a Supreme Court decision that is as fundamentally misguided and unpersuasive as last termâs decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the case upholding state-sponsored prayers before Town Board Meetings. In attempting to do so in this Article, I critically evaluate the Courtâs repeated failures to adequately address the serious religious equality and religious liberty issues presented in this case. With regard to religious equality concerns, for example, the Court all but completely ignores the Townâs discrimination in favor of established organized churches and against minorities with too few adherents to organize a congregation in the Town, nonaffiliated spiritual residents of the community, and nonreligious residents. Even worse, the Court suggests that allowing low level functionaries to develop informal and imprecise criteria to determine who should be invited to offer prayers at board meetings without adopting a policy or providing any guidance on how these decisions should be reached somehow immunizes the Town from serious constitutional scrutiny. Instead, I argue that this lack of guidelines and policy itself should be understood to violate the First Amendment because it so obviously increases the risk of biased and discriminatory conduct.
The Courtâs discussion of plaintiffsâ religious liberty concerns is even more untenable. Plaintiffs argued that if a government official or deliberative body has the discretionary authority to make decisions that will seriously impact the needs and interests of individuals or small groups of citizens, it is intrinsically coercive for those officials to ask these citizens to engage in a religious exercise such as a prayer before they submit their arguments or petitions to government decisionmakers. In order to reject these claims, Justice Kennedy describes an understanding of social reality that is difficult to believe and impossible to share. Perhaps most egregiously, Kennedyâs analysis treats prayer as if it is some kind of abstract ceremonial activity instead of what it is for most Americansâa personal, meaningful communication between the individual and G-D.
The Article concludes with a discussion of the possible implications of this decision for the constitutional protection of religious liberty and equality in other contexts and circumstances
Decent Respect for Religious Liberty and Religious Equality: Justice O\u27Connor\u27s Interpretation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, A
Taking Free Exercise Rights Seriously
March 30, 2006
Professor Alan E. Brownstein, University of California, Davis School of Law
Presented by: Center for Professional Ethics
William A. Brahms Lecture on Law and Religion
Constitutional law does not take free exercise rights seriously. Creating a more complex free exercise jurisprudence âą How do we balance religious exercise against conflicting state interests? Professor Brownstein is an expert on church-state issues and has also written extensively on freedom of speech, privacy and autonomy rights and other constitutional law subjects. His articles have been published in numerous academic journals, including the Stanford Law Review. Professor Brownstein teaches Constitutional Law, Law and Religion, and Torts at the UC Davis School of Law, is a frequent lecturer at academic conferences and in law related programs before civic, legal, religious and educational groups. He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1977
Hate Speech and Harassment: The Constitutionality of Campus Codes that Prohibit Racial Insults
Harmonizing the Heavenly and Earthly Spheres: The Fragmentation and Synthesis of Religion, Equality, and Speech in the Constitution
- âŠ