Download Free Free Exercise Of Religion In The Liberal Polity Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Free Exercise Of Religion In The Liberal Polity and write the review.

This book addresses the challenge of providing for the free exercise of religion without allowing religious exercise by some individuals and groups to impinge upon the conscientious convictions of others. State neutrality toward religion is impossible, because neutrality means inattention to religion for some, but leveling the playing field through accommodations or exemptions for others. Both formal and substantive neutrality have a place in addressing particular conflicts. One such example is public funding for religiously affiliated social service programs, for which neither type of neutrality is satisfactory and thus some restrictions are justifiable; conversely, private voluntary organizations that do not receive direct public funding should be allowed wide latitude regarding their practices. This title also examines the expansive free exercise claims that are now made by those who argue that following the law impinges upon their beliefs, as exemplified by the ministerial exception and the Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court cases. It concludes by analyzing the relationship between neutrality and marriage as a civil status, which impacts a variety of commitment types and plural marriage.
Cécile Laborde argues that religion is more than a statement of belief or a moral code. It refers to comprehensive ways of life, theories of justice, modes of association, and vulnerable collective identities. By disaggregating these dimensions, she addresses questions about whether Western secularism and religion can be applied more universally.
Examining the law and public policy relating to religious liberty in Western liberal democracies, this book contains a detailed analysis of the history, rationale, scope, and limits of religious freedom from (but not restricted to) an evangelical Christian perspective. Focussing on United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and EU, it studies the interaction between law and religion at several different levels, looking at the key debates that have arisen. Divided into three parts, the book begins by contrasting the liberal and Christian rationales for and understandings of religious freedom. It then explores central thematic issues: the types of constitutional frameworks within which any right to religious exercise must operate; the varieties of paradigmatic relationships between organized religion and the state; the meaning of 'religion'; the limitations upon individual and institutional religious behaviour; and the domestic and international legal mechanisms that have evolved to address religious conduct. The final part explores key subject areas where current religious freedom controversies have arisen: employment; education; parental rights and childrearing; controls on pro-religious and anti-religious expression; medical treatment; and religious group (church) autonomy. This new edition is fully updated with the growing case law in the area, and features increased coverage of Islam and the flashpoint debates surrounding the accommodation of Muslim beliefs and practices in Anglophone nations.
In the battles over religion and politics in America, both liberals and conservatives often appeal to history. Liberals claim that the Founders separated church and state. But for much of American history, David Sehat writes, Protestant Christianity was intimately intertwined with the state. Yet the past was not the Christian utopia that conservatives imagine either. Instead, a Protestant moral establishment prevailed, using government power to punish free thinkers and religious dissidents. In The Myth of American Religious Freedom, Sehat provides an eye-opening history of religion in public life, overturning our most cherished myths. Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, which had limited authority. The Protestant moral establishment ruled on the state level. Using moral laws to uphold religious power, religious partisans enforced a moral and religious orthodoxy against Catholics, Jews, Mormons, agnostics, and others. Not until 1940 did the U.S. Supreme Court extend the First Amendment to the states. As the Supreme Court began to dismantle the connections between religion and government, Sehat argues, religious conservatives mobilized to maintain their power and began the culture wars of the last fifty years. To trace the rise and fall of this Protestant establishment, Sehat focuses on a series of dissenters--abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, socialist Eugene V. Debs, and many others. Shattering myths held by both the left and right, David Sehat forces us to rethink some of our most deeply held beliefs. By showing the bad history used on both sides, he denies partisans a safe refuge with the Founders.
"This book puts forward the most sophisticated and subtle treatment available on the relation between religion and politics and church (synagogue, mosque, temple) and state. Thiemann has taken our impoverished discourse on these matters to new heights and higher ground." --Cornel West. [from back cover.]
A controversial defense of religious convictions in political activities.
Religious Free Exercise and Contemporary American Politics explains why the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) had to undergo a major metamorphosis in order to win approval. The book uses this episode as a window onto the dynamics of modern constitutional politics, specifically the constitutional politics of free exercise. The book argues that, although free exercise of religion remains an important value in American politics, it has been severely buffeted by both liberal individualism and identity politics. The former equates religious "choice" with all other types.
In Religion in Politics, Michael Perry addresses a fundamental question: what role may religious arguments play, if any, either in public debate about what political choices to make or as a basis of political choice?