Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?

[Paul Horwitz]

I honestly can't recall, although I didn't think he had, so this is not too 
much of a loaded question -- but where in Smith does Justice Scalia 
"expressly" carve out the ministerial exception?

Best,

Paul Horwitz
Visiting Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School


>From: Lawyer2974 at aol.com
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:32:49 EST
>
>In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:
>That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court
>nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed
>perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a Congregationalist polity
>even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or Presbyterian in
>their polity).  If this isn't the application of secular norms, then
>what is it?
>
>As to the post-Wolf cases, it is difficult to argue that they can be
>easily reconciled, there being a real difference on the precise question
>of secular norms.  I think that the law is anything but clear,
>post-Wolf.
>
>One more point, the property dispute cases involving Eastern Orthodox
>Churches certainly reflect secular norms -- a dislike of communism, for
>openers.
>Even Justice Scalia expressly carved out the Ministerial Exception in
>Employment Div. v. Smith (neutral laws of general applicability 
>analysis)...it is a
>little dfifficult to respond to your "sense" that the Court applied secular
>norms without you referring to specific cases from which you derive that 
>sense....
>
>Donald C. Clark, Jr.
>2333 Waukegan Road
>Suite 160
>Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
>847-236-0900
>847-236-0909 (fax)
>
>
>This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments
>are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or
>protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
>information contained in or attached to this message is strictly
>prohibited.  Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to
>this message, and then delete it from your system.  Thank you.
>
>
>******************************************************************************
>**************************
>
>IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:  To comply with requirements imposed by the
>IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein
>(including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not
>intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i)
>avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
>marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>herein.


>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.