Recent Threads

[Brownstein, Alan]

I think Doug is right when he writes that "The reality of any religion
lies not in formal doctrine but in the social 
understanding, practices, and lived experience of its faithful," for a
lot of reasons, but one of them is this.

Assume that there is a religious practice as to which there some
uncertainty as to whether it is formally obligatory, but, in fact, it is
treated very seriously and observed by the members of a particular
faith. Assume also that the failure of a public university to grant an
exemption for this practice from some rule or requirement imposes
serious costs on believers. One consequence of the denial of the sought
after exemption is that this university will cease to be a viable
educational option for members of this faith. I would find it hard to
accept the argument that a public university that Mormons, or Jews or
Moslems do not attend because of the burdens its requirements impose on
their religious practices does not raise a free exercise issue solely
because the mandatory nature of the practices in question is disputed.

This, by the way, is also one of the reasons I think religious
exemptions are distinct from some of the secular grounds for seeking an
exemption raised in earlier posts. The denial of religious exemptions
impacts an entire community and limits their participation in public
institutions. 

Alan Brownstein

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:05 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Recent Threads

Some Christians proselytize; some don't.  Same with atheists.

There is clearly a hostile secular reaction to evangelical activism and 
political influence; it is visible in our politics and in some of the 
resistance to free exercise claims, and it shows up statistically in a 
surge of people reporting no religion in surveys about religious 
belief.  It's not a reaction to the Christian Reconstructionists, who 
are numerically trivial.  But many of the folks having the reaction 
can't tell the difference between the conservative values voters and 
the Christian Reconstructionists.

The mission is a central religious experience in Mormonism. What Fred 
Gedicks described is the social understanding of the faith.  The 
reality of any religion lies not in formal doctrine but in the social 
understanding, practices, and lived experience of its faithful.  That 
smart people on this list can doubt whether the Mormon mission is 
religious dramatically illustrates what is wrong with the 
compelled/motivated distinction.

I agree -- and have testified -- that the religious motivation must be 
substantial or primary and not just lurking in the background 
somewhere.  That means the resulting line is one of degree and not a 
bright line.  But to say the Mormon mission is not distinguishable from 
any other reason for taking a year off is like saying that because 1 
isn't much different from 2, and 2 isn't much different from 3, and so 
on -- that 1 is indistinguishable from 100 or a hundred trillion or any 
other number.

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

_______________________________________________
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.