1986•bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

The Concept of Religion in State Constitutions

Kent Greenawalt

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

A year and a half ago an article of mine was published on religion as a concept in constitutional law. The article concerned how courts should approach decisions about whether a belief, practice, organization, or classification is religious. The article did not address, except in passing, what the constitutional standards under the free exercise and establishment clauses should be if something that is religious is aided or inhibited in some way. Since in most cases arising under the religion clauses, the presence of something religious is not itself disputed, my article concerned only a small slice of religion cases.\nMy comments on state constitutional law were limited to one early sentence in a sixty-page analysis. I said, simply and boldly, "Though my discussion deals explicitly only with clauses of the federal constitution, it applies to state provisions as well." That foolhardy simplification was sufficient to attract the attention of Professor Williams, who invited me to speak to you. After a few exchanges about whether I really had anything useful to say, here I am. I believe that my remarks will have some interest, but we should be aware that this subject is pretty marginal to state development of standards for religious liberty and nonestablishment.\nThe two central questions I address are the following:\n(1) If my claims about interpreting the federal constitution are sound, are they also intrinsically sound for state constitutions that contain different language?\n(2) Is it always, or sometimes, essentially self-defeating for state courts to define religion in a way different from what is embodied in federal law?

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A year and a half ago an article of mine was published on religion as a concept in constitutional law. The article concerned how courts should approach decisions about whether a belief, practice, organization, or classification is religious. The article did not address, except in passing, what the constitutional standards under the free exercise and establishment clauses should be if something that is religious is aided or inhibited in some way. Since in most cases arising under the religion clauses, the presence of something religious is not itself disputed, my article concerned only a small slice of religion cases.\nMy comments on state constitutional law were limited to one early sentence in a sixty-page analysis. I said, simply and boldly, "Though my discussion deals explicitly only with clauses of the federal constitution, it applies to state provisions as well." That foolhardy simplification was sufficient to attract the attention of Professor Williams, who invited me to speak to you. After a few exchanges about whether I really had anything useful to say, here I am. I believe that my remarks will have some interest, but we should be aware that this subject is pretty marginal to state development of standards for religious liberty and nonestablishment.\nThe two central questions I address are the following:\n(1) If my claims about interpreting the federal constitution are sound, are they also intrinsically sound for state constitutions that contain different language?\n(2) Is it always, or sometimes, essentially self-defeating for state courts to define religion in a way different from what is embodied in federal law?

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A year and a half ago an article of mine was published on religion as a concept in constitutional law. The article concerned how courts should approach decisions about whether a belief, practice, organization, or classification is religious. The article did not address, except in passing, what the constitutional standards under the free exercise and establishment clauses should be if something that is religious is aided or inhibited in some way. Since in most cases arising under the religion clauses, the presence of something religious is not itself disputed, my article concerned only a small slice of religion cases.\nMy comments on state constitutional law were limited to one early sentence in a sixty-page analysis. I said, simply and boldly, "Though my discussion deals explicitly only with clauses of the federal constitution, it applies to state provisions as well." That foolhardy simplification was sufficient to attract the attention of Professor Williams, who invited me to speak to you. After a few exchanges about whether I really had anything useful to say, here I am. I believe that my remarks will have some interest, but we should be aware that this subject is pretty marginal to state development of standards for religious liberty and nonestablishment.\nThe two central questions I address are the following:\n(1) If my claims about interpreting the federal constitution are sound, are they also intrinsically sound for state constitutions that contain different language?\n(2) Is it always, or sometimes, essentially self-defeating for state courts to define religion in a way different from what is embodied in federal law?

Key concepts: State (computer science), Political science, Epistemology, Law and economics, Philosophy, Sociology, Mathematics, Algorithm

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Concept of Religion in State Constitutions — Research Paper | ScholarLens