Justice Stevens

[Kevin Pybas]

Can someone shed light on why Justice Stevens in Boerne viewed RFRA as a
violation of the Establishment Clause but raised no EC problem with RLUIPA
in Cutter or RFRA in Gonzales?  In Boerne he wrote that RFRA "provided the
Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This
governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden
by the First Amendment."   Shouldn't this understanding have led him to also
object in Cutter and Gonzales?  The answer's probably staring me in the face
but I don't see it.  Thanks.

 

Kevin Pybas

Missouri State University

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080623/9d9abe52/attachment.htm