Doesn't that render the Free Exercise clause powerless as a guarantor
of religious freedom? Suppose, for instance, we were talking about freedom
of speech instead of the free exercise of religion. I can't
imagine that the legislature would be able to outlaw any type of speech
they wanted to as long as it was in a neutral and generally applicable law, and
that people would have to lobby the legislature for an accomodation to be able
to have the freedom of speech they thought the Constitution already
provided. Rather, the legislature would need to be able to justify to the
court why the outlawing of a type of speech was not an unconstitutional
infringement on an explicitly Constitutionally protected freedom. Why
would the Free Exercise clause have less weight and power to protect than the
Free Speech clause? Tell me what I'm missing in your understanding of what
the Free Exercise clause actually protects.
Brad
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.