Abstract and Keywords
While the opening words of the U.S. Bill of Rights symbolize national commitment to religious liberty by stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” its parameters and interpretations remain a much-heated debate to many constitutional litigants, scholars, historians, groups, and individuals. Traditionally, the U.S. Bill of Rights was understood to encompass two separate guarantees. The Establishment Clause protects the citizens from state-sponsored or imposed religious obligations, while the Free Exercise Clause protects religious expression from state penalties. Regardless of the guarantees afforded by the constitution, countless debates on the meaning of religious establishment and the meaning of free exercise still surround the Bill. This article analyzes the contemporary free exercise jurisprudence by linking each major issue to the ambiguity of the constitutional language. For instance, the current debate on the status of neutral laws that incidentally burden religion is rooted in the interpretations of “prohibiting” a religious exercise, and the debate on the exemptions from such laws are rooted in the differing interpretations of the words “no law.” The analysis of the issues herein do not adhere to the order of the appearance of the words in the free exercise clause; rather, it follows an order that highlights the logic of constitutional arguments.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.