Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Traditional And Minority Religions Fare In The Courts: Empirical Evidence From Religious Liberty Cases, Gregory C. Sisk
How Traditional And Minority Religions Fare In The Courts: Empirical Evidence From Religious Liberty Cases, Gregory C. Sisk
University of Colorado Law Review
There is an enduring legal myth that members of minority religious groups face a decidedly uphill battle in securing accommodation for or even tolerance of unconventional religious practices, expression, or values from the courts. According to conventional wisdom, traditional Christian believers may anticipate a more hospitable welcome from the judiciary when asserting claims of conscience or religious liberty. However based upon an empirical study of religious liberty decisions in the federal courts, the proposition that minority religions are less successful with their claims was found to be without empirical support, at least in the modern era and in the lower …
Child Custody, Religious Practices, And Conscience, Kent Greenwalt
Child Custody, Religious Practices, And Conscience, Kent Greenwalt
University of Colorado Law Review
This article asks to what extent considerations relating to religion should figure in custody disputes. One inquiry is whether the kind of religious life that a parent plans for his or her child should figure in the decision whether to grant custody to that parent. The article focuses on a religious life that involves very substantial deprivation no after-school activities, no television, no pets, no reading except schoolwork and the Bible-from an ordinary secular perspective. A second inquiry is whether one parent of a divorced couple should be able to prevent the other parent from exposing a child to various …
What Does Religion Have To Do With Freedom Of Conscience?, Steven D. Smith
What Does Religion Have To Do With Freedom Of Conscience?, Steven D. Smith
University of Colorado Law Review
Although the framers of the First Amendment chose to protect "the free exercise of religion" and deleted language about 'freedom of conscience, " a widely-held modern assumption maintains that constitutional protection should extend to conscience generally, not just to religious exercise. But is this extension defensible? This article considers three classic rationales for religious freedom-the "separate spheres" rationale, the 'futility" rationale, and the "higher duties" rationale-and asks whether they justify protection of non-religious conscience. The article concludes that all of the classic rationales are vulnerable to serious objections. However, a somewhat different rationale, which might be called the "personhood" rationale, …