Can someone shed light on why Justice Stevens in Boerne viewed RFRA as a violation of the Establishment Clause but raised no EC problem with RLUIPA in Cutter or RFRA in Gonzales? In Boerne he wrote that RFRA "provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment." Shouldn't this understanding have led him to also object in Cutter and Gonzales? The answer's probably staring me in the face but I don't see it. Thanks.
Kevin Pybas Missouri State University
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] 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.
