Intragroup Discourse on Intragroup Protections in Muslim-Majority Countries

Many Muslim-majority countries do not provide adequate protection for dissent of any sorts—religious, social, or political. In the realm of religious dissent, these countries persecute not just non-Muslims, but in fact, the persecution is harshest and most frequent against Muslim dissenters. This paper explores how protection for intragroup dissent in these countries is the first and most crucial step in protecting dissent more broadly and lays out both the current state of affairs and several avenues for reform

Religious Liberty Interest Convergence

Americans are deeply polarized on a plethora of issues. One of the most prominent areas of polarization is religious liberty, which in recent years has increasingly pitted conservative, white Christians against a range of marginalized minorities, particularly Muslims. The divide threatens Muslims’ rights and the vitality of religious liberty more broadly. This Article assesses the extent to which self-interest— especially the self-interest of the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court—can help depolarize religious liberty. Professor Derrick Bell’s theory of “interest convergence” helps connect different self-interests that, in turn, enable issue-specific coalitions strong enough to effect serious cultural and legal change. Bell used interest convergence theory to analyze judicial decision-making during the civil rights movement. Other scholars have built upon Bell’s original thesis about Black people’s rights by extending interest convergence to other racial minorities. This Article is the first to consider the implications of interest convergence not just for religious minorities but specifically the status of religious minorities in today’s politicized religious liberty landscape. In so doing, it aims to formulate a theory of “religious liberty interest convergence.” Specifically, this Article applies Bell’s framework to two recent Supreme Court cases. It uses interest convergence theory to explain the rulings against Muslim claimants in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and for Muslim claimants in Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020). The Article concludes by assessing the relevance of religious liberty interest convergence to political coalition-building. In both the judicial and coalition-building contexts, relying on self-interest helps create openings where openings may not otherwise be possible

Intragroup Discourse on Intragroup Protections in Muslim-Majority Countries

Many Muslim-majority countries do not provide adequate protection for dissent of any sorts—religious, social, or political. In the realm of religious dissent, these countries persecute not just non-Muslims, but in fact, the persecution is harshest and most frequent against Muslim dissenters. This paper explores how protection for intragroup dissent in these countries is the first and most crucial step in protecting dissent more broadly and lays out both the current state of affairs and several avenues for reform

A Religious Double Standard: Post-9/11 Challenges to Muslims’ Religious Land Usage

Muslims in the United States face real limits on their religious freedom. Numerous influential individuals and organizations even posit that Islam is not a religion and that, therefore, Muslims do not have rights to religious freedom. The claim is that Islam is a political ideology that is intent on taking over the country and subverting Americans’ constitutional rights. This narrative has gained momentum since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and continues to be amplified and disseminated by a well-funded cadre of anti-Muslim agitators. One area where its effects can be seen clearly is in religious land use, where a concerted effort to deprive Muslims of basic rights frustrates the aims and principles of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

Evolution toward Neutrality: Evolution Disclaimers, Establishment Jurisprudence Confusions, and a Proposal of Untainted Fruits of a Poisonous Tree

This Article deals with the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolutionary theory in American public schools, with a specific focus on disclaimers read by teachers before they teach evolution. With the rise of religious fundamentalism and the correspondent change in the American socio-legal climate, questions of religion and interpretation of the Religion Clauses of the U.S. Constitution have become increasingly pertinent. In particular, the precise relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is of special importance with religious groups now more vocal in their articulation of their free exercise rights. The current form of disclaimer either mentions specific religious theories about origins as alternatives to evolution, or denigrates evolutionary theory in more indirect ways. Because such disclaimers are clearly antithetical to the neutrality concerns of the Establishment Clause, they have been held unconstitutional by all courts to date, including the December 2005 Kitzmiller case in Dover, Pennsylvania. However, this Article suggests that striking down the disclaimers without providing alternative responses to the legitimate free exercise concerns involved may violate the Free Exercise Clause. As a way of negotiating free exercise and establishment concerns, this Article proposes a generalized disclaimer: one that does not single out evolutionary theory for special treatment, but rather addresses scientific inquiry as a whole. Generalized disclaimers neither discriminate among religion, or between religion and non-religion, or between scientific theories. This Article will then go on to discuss whether such generalized disclaimers can ever be constitutional, despite their origins in the evolution controversy. That is, are they poisoned by their roots, or can they be purged of this poison if they become sufficiently neutral in form? This Article will conclude that the formally neutral generalized disclaimers should be upheld on constitutional grounds

Third Session: Freedom of Religion and Expression

This panel will explore the implications of various cases on the freedom of expression and religion. Professor Ravitch’s article goes in depth on religious freedom claims and, focusing on government employees, he will explain when accommodation for specific religious freedoms are appropriate and when they conflict with the rights of others. Professor Katz’s article discusses the connection between the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage and the religious freedoms of individuals and entities who oppose same-sex marriage and same-sex relations on religious grounds. In Asma T. Uddin’s article, she examines the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris and focuses on the distinction between provocation and incitement to imminent violence for line drawing between protected and unprotected speech. Professor SpearIt’s article explores Muslims in America and their use of hip hop culture to voice a long list of radical critiques of the criminal justice system