Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:11:24.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF RELIGION: RESPONSE TO READERS - The Distinctiveness of Religion in American Law: Rethinking Religion Clause Jurisprudence. By Kathleen A. Brady. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pp. 354. $39.99 (paper). ISBN: 978-1107016507.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2018

Kathleen A. Brady
Kathleen A. Brady*
Affiliation:
Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Emory University
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.'

Keywords

religion clausesfree exerciseestablishmentneutrality
Type
Book Review Roundtable
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 518 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2018 

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

Cases Cited

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986).Google Scholar
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetary Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988).Google Scholar
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).Google Scholar
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2004).Google Scholar
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).Google Scholar
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, 472 U.S. 703 (1985).Google Scholar
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015).Google Scholar
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).Google Scholar
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).Google Scholar
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).Google Scholar
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1981).Google Scholar
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).Google Scholar
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).Google Scholar
Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016).Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Berg, Thomas C.. “Partly Acculturated Religion: A Case for Accommodation of Religious Non-Profits.” Notre Dame Law Review 91, no. 4 (2016): 1341–74.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas C.. “Progressive Arguments for Religious Organizational Freedom: Reflections on the HHS Mandate.” Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, no. 21 (2013): 279–333.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas C.. “The New Attacks on Religious Freedom Legislation, and Why They Are Wrong.” In “Symposium: State and Federal Religious Liberty Legislation: Is It Necessary? Is It Constitutional? Is It Good Policy?,” special issue, Cardozo Law Review 21, no. 2–3 (1999): 415–54.Google Scholar
Bradley, Gerard V., ed. Challenges to Religious Liberty in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Bradley, Gerard V.. “Beguiled: Free Exercise Exemptions and the Siren Song of Liberalism.” Hofstra Law Review 20, no. 2 (1991): 245–319.Google Scholar
Carmella, Angela. “After Hobby Lobby: The ‘Religious For-Profit’ and the Limits of the Autonomy Doctrine.” Missouri Law Review 80, no. 2 (2015): 381–449.Google Scholar
Carmella, Angela. “Exemptions and the Establishment Clause.” In “Symposium: Twenty Years after Employment Division v. Smith: Assessing the Twentieth Century's Landmark Case on the Free Exercise of Religion and How It Changed History,” special issue, Cardozo Law Review 32, no. 5 (2011): 1731–54.Google Scholar
DeGirolami, Marc O.. “Religious Accommodation, Religious Tradition, and Political Polarization.” In “Symposium: Law and Religion in an Increasingly Polarized America,” special issue, Lewis and Clark Law Review 20, no. 4 (2017): 1127–55.Google Scholar
DeGirolami, Marc O.. “Substantial Burdens Imply Central Beliefs.” Illinois Law Review Online (May 28, 2016):19–26. https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DeGirolami.pdf.Google Scholar
DeGirolami, Marc O.. The Tragedy of Religious Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark. “One Cheer for Hobby Lobby: Improbable Alternatives, Truly Strict Scrutiny, and Third-Party Employee Burdens.” Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 38, no. 1 (2015): 153–76.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark. “‘Substantial’ Burdens: How Courts May (and Why They Must) Judge Religious Burdens under RFRA.” George Washington Law Review 85, no. 1 (2017): 94–151.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark and Koppelman, Andrew. “The Costs of the Public Good of Religion Should Be Borne by the Public.” Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc, no. 67 (2014): 185–87. https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/enbanc/roundtable/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark and Koppelman, Andrew. “Invisible Women: Why an Exemption for Hobby Lobby Would Violate the Establishment Clause.” Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc, no. 67 (2014): 51–66. https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/enbanc/roundtable/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark and Van Tassell, Rebecca G.. “Of Burdens and Baselines: Hobby Lobby’s Puzzling Footnote 37.” In The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty. Edited by Schwartzman, Micah, Flanders, Chad, and Robinson, Zoë, 323–41, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick Mark and Van Tassell, Rebecca G.. “RFRA Exemptions from the Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation of Religion.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 49, no. 1 (2014): 343–84.Google Scholar
Moreland, Michael P.. “Institutional Conscience and Religious Freedom: Why Freedom of Conscience Is Bad for ‘Church Autonomy.’” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 7, no. 1 (2009): 217–36.Google Scholar
Moreland, Michael P.. “Religious Free Exercise and Anti-Discrimination Law.” Albany Law Review 70, no. 4 (2007): 1417–23.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “Two Concepts of Religious Liberty: The Natural Rights and Moral Autonomy Approaches to the Free Exercise of Religion.” American Political Science Review 110, no. 2 (2016): 369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “Church and State in the Founding-Era State Constitutions.” American Political Thought 4, no. 1 (2015): 1–38.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. “The Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause: The Evidence from the First Congress.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 31, no. 3 (2008): 1083–1120.Google Scholar
Witte, John Jr. and Nichols, Joel. Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Witte, John Jr. and Green, M. Christian, eds. Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar