Request for Information

[Thomas C. Berg]

To the extent your question is whether the "burden" term
only involves effects on mandatory religious practices as
opposed to religiously motivated behavior, there's a lot on
that, including Judge Posner's opinion in Mack v. O'Leary
(1996), Chip Lupu's 1989 Harvard Law Review article on
burdens, Doug Laycock's 1990 Supreme Court Review article,
my 1994 Villanova article on RFRA, and others.

To the extent your question is whether there's a difference
between the government (a) forcing one to perform a
religiously forbidden act, versus (b) forbidding one from
performing a religiously required act:  the only article
I've seen discussing that distinction is J. Morris Clark's
1963 Harvard article on "Guidelines for the Free Exercise
Clause."  I can't see why the distinction should make a
difference for constitutional purposes.

Tom Berg




On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:42:38 -0600 Steven Resnicoff
<sresnico at CONDOR.DEPAUL.EDU> wrote:

> I need to find information (articles, as well as archived e-mail
> or web-site discussions) as to whether or not there is a difference from a
> constitutional or RFRA (federal or state) perspective as to whether a
> burdened religious practice is one that is: (1) "required" by the religion
> versus favored by the religion; or (2) proscribed by the religion versus
> merely disfavored by the religion.
>
> I would appreciate your help.
>
> Thanks,
>         Steve
>
> *********************************
> Prof. Steven H. Resnicoff
> DePaul University College of Law
> sresnico at condor.depaul.edu
> Voice - 312/362-8137 (office)
>         773/973-2335 (home)
> Facsimile - 312/362-5448

-----------------------------------------
Thomas C. Berg, Cumberland Law School
Samford University
Email: tcberg at samford.edu