Doug's position was enunciated by courts grappling under sherbet with
claims for sacred marijuana use
marc
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:30 PM
To:
Howard Friedman writes: Except for its greater attractiveness, why is
this different than prisons granting special religious diets-which many
routinely do? Or does the greater pressure to feign (or adopt) a particular
religious belief because of the attractiveness of the option make a
I would only add two caveats to Doug's point. First, in some cases (although
not this one), it may be possible for the religious liberty claimant to give up
what I call the surplus secular benefit he receives when a religious liberty
accommodation that coincides with self interest is granted.
Examples of Alan's first point are alternative service for conscientious
objectors to military service, which appears in a Rhode Island statute of 1673
and in the 20th-century draft laws, and in the less attractive form of money
payments in many 18th and 19th century draft laws, and the
