This is a statement of their preferred public policy not constitutional law.
Marci
On Apr 13, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
The Conference of Catholic Bishops just issued this major Statement on
Religious Liberty:
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, but I don't think that
makes the purpose religious, or makes the effect primarily the advancement of
religion (whatever primary effect might mean); it just suggests that the
policy might prove counterproductive relative to the secular
Well, Ellis was arguing that “the issue” was whether “RFRA and
RLUIPA ... are secular in purpose and effect.” I read Cutter as concluding
that they are, though indeed particular accommodations implemented out of a
desire to avoid RLUIPA litigation might not be.
Cutter only addressed the facial Establishment Clause attack on the prison
provisions of RLUIPA. It did not protect any particular program or exemption
from attack
Marci
On Apr 12, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
Maybe it would and maybe it
I'm sorry there haven't been more responses to this thread. May I point out
that Mirror of Justice has, unsurprisingly, had some very interesting
discussions of the statement in the last few days. I don't agree with all of
them but have found the discussion excellent.
For myself, I find the
