Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

3. What Even Constitutes Religion?

Author : James N. Szymalak

Published in: Expanding Public Employee Religious Accommodation and Its Threat to Administrative Legitimacy

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

From either a legal or sociological perspective, defining what constitutes religion is extremely challenging, and often contentious. For many, “religion” likely resembles their own, or widely known, religious beliefs and practices, and they are often unaware of just how amorphous the legal definition has to be to avoid Establishment Clause concerns.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter The Obligation to Accommodate

next chapter Expanding Religious Accommodation

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, in Selected Writings of Thomas Paine 362 (Richard Emery Roberts ed., 1945).

Steven D. Smith, What Does Religion Have to Do With Freedom of Conscience? 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 911, 911–12 (2005). In addition to the authors cited in this section, see also Nathan S. Chapman, Disentangling Conscience and Religion, 2013 Univ. of Ill. L. Rev. 1457 (2013); Lucien J. Dhooge, The Equivalence of Religion and Conscience, 31 Notre Dame J. of Law, Ethics & Policy 253 (2017).

Id. at 912 (citing Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of the Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1481–84 (1990)).

Id.

See Garry Wills, Head and Heart, American Christianities 223–35 (2007) (quoting Madison’s The Federalist No. 51: “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights. It consists in the one case the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects”). Compare Martha Nussbaum who states: “It seems clear, however, that the text the framers chose does make religion (whatever that includes) special for the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, fair or unfair. Perhaps non-religious commitments were thought to be sufficiently protected by the Free Speech and Press Clauses.” Martha C. Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience 102 (2008).

Noah Feldman, The Intellectual Origins of the Establishment Clause, 77 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 346, 356 (2002) (summarizing Aquinas view of conscience).

Andrew Koppelman, Conscience, Volitional Necessity, and Religious Exemptions, 15 Legal Theory 215, 228 (2009) (citing John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration 26 (James H. Tully ed., Hacket, 1983) (1689)).

Steven D. Smith, The Tenuous Case for Conscience, 10 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 325, 328 (2005).

Martha C. Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience 19 (2008).

Id.

Andrew Koppelman, Conscience, Volitional Necessity, and Religious Exemptions, 15 Legal Theory 215, 217 (2009) (citing Thomas E. Hill, Jr., Four Conceptions of Conscience, in Nomos XL: Integrity and Conscience 14 (1998)).

Id. at 216.

Id.

Jeffrey Omar Usman, Defining Religion: The Struggle to Define Religion Under the First Amendment and the Contributions and Insights of Other Disciplines of Study Including Theology, Psychology, Sociology, the Arts, and Anthropology, 83 N. D. L. Rev. 123, 140 (2007).

George C. Freeman, III, The Misguided Search for the Constitutional Definition of “Religion”, 71 Geo. L. J. 1519, 1565 (1983).

Kent Greenwalt, Religion as a Concept in Constitutional Law, 72 Calif. L. Rev. 753, 763 (1984).

See Jonathan Weiss, Privilege, Posture and Protection “Religion” in the Law, 73 Yale L. J. 593, 604 (1964).

Usman, supra, note 15, at 146. Interestingly, Usman discovered an IRS General Counsel Memorandum also finding it an Establishment Clause violation for a government entity to define religion:

It appears that the two religious clauses of the First Amendment define “religious freedom” but do not establish a definition of “religion” within recognized parameters. An attempt to define religion, even for purposes of statutory construction, violates the “establishment” clause since it necessarily delineates and, therefore, limits what can and cannot be a religion. Gen. Couns. Mem. 36,993. (February 3, 1977)

Timothy L. Hall, The Sacred and the Profane: A First Amendment Definition of Religion, 61 Tex. L. Rev. 139, 160 (1982).

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 162 (1878) (the Court found that polygamy was a religious practice and not a religious belief; therefore, it was subject to legitimate state regulation).

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890).

United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 633–34 (1931) (Hughes, C.J., dissenting).

Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).

Id. at 495 (emphasis added).

Id. at 495, footnote 11.

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. at 165 (quoting 50 U.S.C. app. §456(j) (1958)) (alteration in original).

United States v. Seeger, at 166.

Welsh, supra, note 28, at 340.

Id.

Id. at 355–56.

Id.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972).

Id. at 216.

Id.

592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979).

662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981).

Malnak, 592 F.2d at 209.

Id.

Id. at 210.

United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1996).

Id. at 1483.

Id. at 1483–84.

Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1227 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience 31 (1910)).

Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 681–82 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994)) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88–352, §§701–716, 78 Stat. 241, 253–66 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§2000e–2000e–15 (2000)).

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92–261, §701(j), 86 Stat. 103 (1972) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j)).

29 C.F.R. Section 1605. 1 (2009).

For excellent reviews of alternative approaches to defining religion, see generally Jesse H. Choper, Defining “Religion” in the First Amendment, 1982 U. Ill. L. Rev. 579 (1982); Kent Greenwalt, Religion as a Concept in Constitutional Law, 72 Calif. L. Rev. 753 (1984); Bette Novit Evans, Contradictory Demands on the First Amendment Religion Clauses: Having It Both Ways, 30 J. Church & St. 463 (1988); James M. Donovan, God Is as God Does: Law, Anthropology, and the Definition of “Religion”, 6 Seton Hall Const. L. J. 23, 89 (1995); Jeffrey Omar Usman, Defining Religion: The Struggle to Define Religion Under the First Amendment and the Contributions and Insights of Other Disciplines of Study Including Theology, Psychology, Sociology, the Arts, and Anthropology, 83 N. D. L. Rev. 123 (2007); Joshua Mitchell, Religion Is Not a Preference, 69 J. of Politics 351 (2007); and Daniel A. Seeger, Reconciling Religious Faith and Democratic Practice: The Problem of the Elusive Definition of Religion, 84 North Dakota L. Rev. 98 (2008).

Jay D. Wexler, Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response, 84 Washington University L. Rev. 63, 67 (2006).

See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 735–46 (M. D. Pa. 2005) (proof that ID is science is central to constitutional analysis and ID proponents’ were unable to prove ID is science, so ID cannot constitutionally be promoted by public schools).

Jay D. Wexler, Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response, 84 Washington University L. Rev. 63, 67 (2006).

For purposes of this example, discussion of whether alcoholism is a disability subject to accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act will not be addressed.

See Rebecca French, Shopping for Religion: The Change in Everyday Religious Practice and Its Importance to the Law, 51 Buff. L. Rev. 127, 184–87 (2003) (discussing how courts have treated AA as religion and citing Alexander v. Schenk, 118 F. Supp. 2d 298 (N.D.N.Y., 2000); Rauser v. Horn, 43 Fed. Appx. 523 (Table) (3rd Cir. 2002); In re Garcia, 108 Wash.App. 1053, 2001 WL 1338424 (2001); DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397 (2d Cir. 2001); Bausch v. Sumiec, 139 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (E. D. Wis., 2001); and Cox v. Miller, 154 F. Supp. 2d 787 (S.D.N.Y., 2001)).

Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths: Eastern, New Age Beliefs Widespread, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 7–8 (December 2009).

Wright v. Wright, No. 647, 2011 (Del., July 10, 2012).

Chosen 300 Ministries, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 12-3159 (2012 E.D. PA)

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36125, at 5–6 (N.D. Ca., March 20, 2015).

American Humanist Association v. United States, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1283 (D. Or., 2014).

Jehovah. v. Clarke, 792 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 2015).

Id. at note 1.

Peter Holley, Pagan Priest Wins Right to Wear Goat Horns in License Photo, Saying They Are “Religious Attire,” The Washington Post, December 17, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/17/maine-man-wins-right-to-wear-goat-horns-in-license-photo-saying-they-are-religious-attire/?utm_term=.52cd13f8c14a (last visited March 18, 2018).

Ben Chapman, Petition to Scrap New £5 Note Due to Use of Animal Fat Gathers 90,000, Signatures, The Independent, November 29, 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/new-5-pound-note-animal-fat-petition-fiver-not-vegetarian-friendly-tallow-a7445646.html (last visited March 18, 2018).

Title: What Even Constitutes Religion?
Author: James N. Szymalak
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Expanding Public Employee Religious Accommodation and Its Threat to Administrative Legitimacy
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97830-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-97831-4

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97831-4_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner