The essential rights and liberties of religion in the American constitutional experiment

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 371-443

  Witte Jr , John ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344443235     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (544)

1. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Six Baptist Associations Represented at Chesterfield, Va. (Nov. 21, 1808), in THE COMPLETE JEFFERSON, CONTAINING HIS MAJOR WRITINGS 538 (Saul K. Padover ed., 1943);
2. see SIDNEY E. MEAD, THE LIVELY EXPERIMENT: THE SHAPING OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA (1963).
3. See, e.g., Letter of January 23, 1808, in 11 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 7 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1904) (arguing against state involvement in religion);
4. Autobiography, in 1 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 71 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1904);
5. see also Thomas Jefferson, Notes for a Speech in the Virginia House of Delegates, in 1 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 537-39 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1950) (arguing that the 1785 Virginia statute establishing religious freedom "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination").
6. For examples of prototypes, see the religious liberty clauses cast in the aftermath of the Dutch Reformation in the 1570s and 1580s, collected in TEXTS CONCERNING THE REVOLT OF THE NETHERLANDS (E.H. Kossmann & A.F. Mellink trans. & eds., 1974)
7. with discussion in O.J. Dejong, Union and Religion, in THE LOW COUNTRIES HISTORY YEARBOOK 29 (1981)
8. GERHARD GULDNER, DAS TOLERANZ-PROBLEM IN DEN NIEDERLANDEN IM AUSGANG DES 16 JAHRHUNDERTS [THE PROBLEM OF TOLERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS AT THE END OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY] (1968).
9. For other European prototypes, see Karl Schwarz, Der Begriff Exercitium Religionis Privatum, [The Concept of Private Religious Exercise], 105 ZEITSCHRIFT DER SAVIGNY-STIFTUNG (KAN. AB.) 495 (1988);
10. Brian Tierney, Religious Rights: A Historical Perspective, in RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES 17-46 (John Witte, Jr. &Johan D. van der Vyver eds., 1996) [hereinafter Witte & van der Vyver eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES].
11. James Madison, an equally important architect of the American experiment, was aware of these Dutch prototypes. See, e.g., Letter from James Madison to Rev. [Jasper] Adams (1832), in 9 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 484-88 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910) ("Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining a liberal toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for granted that an exclusive & intolerant establishment was essential. . . . It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test").
12. U.S. CONST. amend. I ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .").
13. The only other explicit constitutional provision, the prohibition against religious test oaths, U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 3, cl. 2, has been subject to only modest judicial interpretation. See Gerald V. Bradley, The No Religious Test Clause and the Constitution of Religious Liberty: A Machine That Has Gone of Itself, 37 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 674 (1987);
14. Michael E. Smith, The Special Place of Religion in the Constitution, 1983 SUP. CT. REV. 83.
15. Elhanan Winchester, A Century Sermon on the Glorious Revolution, in POLITICAL SERMONS OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING ERA, 1730-1805, at 969, 988-99 (Ellis Sandoz ed., 1991) [hereinafter POLITICAL SERMONS].
16. EZRA STILES, THE UNITED STATES ELEVATED TO GLORY AND HONOR 55 (1793) (with modernized spelling and italics in original removed).
17. See infra notes 83-85, 159-66 and accompanying text.
18. See, e.g., LEONARD W. LEVY, BLASPHEMY: VERBAL OFFENSE AGAINST THE SACRED FROM MOSES TO SALMAN RUSHDIE 568 (1993) ("We have become not only a free society, but also a numb society. We are beyond outrage.");
19. Harold J. Berman, Some Reflections on the Differences Between Soviet and American Concepts of Relations Between Church and State, 5(2) CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC'Y Q. 12 (1984) ("Today it is by no means clear that the experiment [proposed by Jefferson] has succeeded.").
20. See, e.g., Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994) (state's creation of a single public school district within an exclusively Satmar Hasidic community violates establishment clause); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (ecumenical prayer by a Jewish rabbi at public middle school graduation ceremony violates establishment clause); Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) (rejecting free exercise claim of a military officer to wear his yarmulke on duty).
21. See, e.g., Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (denial of unemployment compensation to native American discharged for use of sacramental peyote, a proscribed narcotic, does not violate free exercise clause); Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (construction of road through section of national forest regarded as sacred ground by three tribes does not violate free exercise clause); Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) (administration's use of social security number does not violate free exercise rights of native American, who believes such use would impair his child's spirit).
22. See, e.g., O'Lone v. Estate of Shabbaz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (denying special free exercise accommodation for Muslim prisoner to engage in collective Friday worship).
23. See generally Michael W. McConnell, Religious Freedom at a Crossroads, 59 U. CHI. L. REV. 115 (1992);
24. John Witte, Jr., The Integration of Religious Liberty, 90 MICH. L. REV. 1363 (1992).
25. Mary Ann Glendon & Raul F. Yanes, Structural Free Exercise, 90 MICH. L. REV. 477, 478 (1991);
26. see also Mary Ann Glendon, Law, Communities, and the Religious Freedom Language of the Constitution, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 672 (1992).
27. See Ira C. Lupu, The Lingering Death of Separationism, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 230, 237-50 (1993) (arguing that the Court has "retreated" on establishment clause cases since 1980 by its growing judicial deference to legislatures);
28. Stuart D. Poppel, Federalism, Fundamental Fairness, and the Religion Clauses, 25 CUMB. L. REV. 247, 272-85 (1995) (suggesting that the principle of federalism, adduced in recent cases, demands greater room for such "experimentation" by the states).
29. See, e.g., American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1996 (1988) (amended 1994); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (West 1994); Military Apparel Act, 10 U.S.C. § 774 (1994); Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 4071-74 (1994); see also discussion infra notes 261-64 and accompanying text.
30. See generally Angela C. Carmella, State Constitutional Protection of Religious Exercise: An Emerging Post-Smith Jurisprudence, 1993 B.Y.U. L. REV. 275;
31. Thomas C. Berg, What Hath Congress Wrought? An Interpretive Guide to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 39 VILL. L. REV. 1 (1994).
32. FRANCIS BACON, The Great Instauration, in THE NEW ORGANON AND RELATED WRITINGS 7-16 (Fulton H. Anderson ed., 1960).
33. FRANCIS BACON, Aphorisms Book One, in THE NEW ORGANON AND RELATED WRITINGS, supra note 18, §§ 70, 82, 103, 104, at 67-69, 78-80, 97-98.
34. See generally Barbara Shapiro, Sir Francis Bacon and the Mid-Seventeenth Century Movement for Law Reform, 24 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 331 (1980).
35. The phrase comes from a 1744 tract of Elisha Williams, a Puritan jurist and theologian, who served as rector of Yale University, military chaplain, judge of the Connecticut Supreme Court, and representative to the Connecticut General Assembly. See ELISHA WILLIAMS, THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF PROTESTANTS: A SEASONABLE PLEA FOR THE LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, AND THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, WITHOUT ANY CONTROUL FROM HUMAN AUTHORITY (1744) [hereinafter ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES]. James Madison also spoke of "essential rights" and liberties of religion in the First Session of Congress.
36. See, e.g., 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 784 (Joseph Gales, Sr. ed., 1834); see also infra notes 87-89 and accompanying text.
37. For analysis of these debates in context, see infra notes 78-166 and accompanying text. For various interpretations, see, e.g., MICHAEL J. MALBIN, RELIGION AND POLITICS: THE INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1978);
38. Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and History of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1409, 1473 (1990);
39. Douglas Laycock, "Non-Preferential" Aid to Religion: A False Claim About Original Intent, 27 WM. & MARY L. REV. 875 (1986);
40. Rodney K. Smith, Getting Off on the Wrong Foot and Back on Again: A Reexamination of the History of the Framing of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and a Critique of the Reynolds and Everson Decisions, 20 WAKE FOREST L REV. 569 (1984);
41. Walter Berns, Religion and the Founding Principle, in THE MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 204 (Robert H. Horwitz ed., 3d ed. 1986).
42. Letter from James Madison to Thomas Richie (Sept. 15, 1821), in 3 LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 228 (1821).
43. For similar sentiments, see Letter from James Madison to Major Henry Lee (June 25, 1824), in 3 LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 442 (1821);
44. 5 ANNALS OF CONG. 776 (1834) (where Madison writes: "As the instrument came from [the drafter] it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through their several State conventions.").
45. See generally B.N. Ong, James Madison on Constitutional Interpretation, 3 BENCHMARK 18 (1987);
46. H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 HARV. L. REV. 885 (1985).
47. For other classifications of the framers' perspectives, see, e.g., ARLIN M. ADAMS & CHARLES J. EMMERICH, A NATION DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 21-31 (1990) (distinguishing enlightenment separationists, political centrists, and pietistic separationists);
48. H. JEFFERSON POWELL, THE MORAL TRADITION OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM: A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION 52-86 (1993) (contrasting enlightenment, civic republican, Protestant, and common law traditions of constitutionalism); McConnell, supra note 22, at 1430-55 (contrasting Lockeian-Jeffersonian, various evangelical, and Madisonian views).
49. For a taxonomy of ideological and theological schools of thought, see, e.g., William W. Fisher III, Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860, 39 EMORY L.J. 65, 71-82 (1990).
50. See generally JOHN R. HOWE, JR., THE CHANGING POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JOHN ADAMS (1966).
51. See generally MARTHA LOU LEMMON STOHLMAN, JOHN WITHERSPOON: PARSON, POLITICIAN, PATRIOT (1976);
52. JOHN WITHERSPOON, THE SELECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN WITHERSPOON (Thomas Miller ed., 1990).
53. See the notes and samples in JONATHAN EDWARDS, ETHICAL WRITINGS (Paul Ramsey ed., 1989).
54. See WILLIAM L. MILLER, THE FIRST LIBERTY: RELIGION AND THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (1986).
55. See ADAMS & EMMERICH, supra note 24, at 21-22, 31.
56. See John Witte, Jr., Moderate Religious Liberty in the Theology of John Calvin, in RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN WESTERN THOUGHT (Noel B. Reynolds & W. Cole Durham, Jr. eds., forthcoming 1996).
57. Portions of the following section are drawn from John Witte, Jr., Blest Be the Ties that Bind: Covenant and Community in Puritan Thought, 36 EMORY L.J. 579-601 (1987);
58. John Witte, Jr., How to Govern a City on a Hill: The Early Puritan Contribution to American Constitutionalism, 39 EMORY L.J. 41-64 (1990).
59. For samples of Puritan writings, see THE PURITANS (Perry Miller & Thomas H. Johnson eds., 1938)
60. PURITAN POLITICAL IDEAS, 1558-1794 (Edmund S. Morgan ed., 1965).
61. The Puritan contribution to the American tradition of religious liberty, though generally ignored by current commentators, was well understood in the eighteenth century. See, e.g., JOHN ADAMS, DISSERTATION ON THE CANON AND THE FEUDAL LAW (1765),
62. reprinted in 1 PAPERS OF JOHN ADAMS 115-16 (R. Taylor et al. eds., 1977) (describing the Puritans as "apostles of religious liberty" who were the first in America "to establish a government of the church more consistent with the scriptures, and a government of the state more agreable to the dignity of humane nature");
63. JOSEPH PRIESTLY, AN ADDRESS TO PROTESTANT DISSENTERS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS 5-6 (1774) (arguing that "[r]eligious liberty . . . cannot be maintained except on the basis of civil liberty" and that "the Puritans and Nonconformists were equally distinguished for their noble and strenuous exertions in favour of them both").
64. See, e.g., THE LAWS AND LIBERTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 18-20 (Max Farrand ed., Harvard Univ. Press, photo. reprint 1929) (Cambridge 1648);
65. The Cambridge Platform, 1648, in THE CREEDS AND PLATFORMS OF CONGREGATIONALISM 194, 234-37 (Williston Walker ed., 1960).
66. Quoted in T.H. BREEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE GOOD RULER, 1630-1730, at 42 n.24 (1970).
67. Letter from John Cotton to Lord Say and Seal (1636), in THE PURITANS, supra note 32, at 209.
68. URIAN OAKES, NEW-ENGLAND PLEADED WITH, AND PRESSED TO CONSIDER THE THINGS WHICH CONCERN HER PEACE 49 (1673).
69. See generally EMIL OBERHOLZER, DELINQUENT SAINTS: DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN THE EARLY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES OF MASSACHUSETTS (1956);
70. Ronald A. Bosco, Lectures at the Pillory: The Early American Execution Sermon, 30 AM. Q. 156 (1978) (describing the practice of New England preachers of offering lectures on the importance of moral and legal principles on the occasion of public executions).
71. See generally HARRY S. STOUT, THE NEW ENGLAND SOUL: PREACHING AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND (1986);
72. DONALD WEBER, RHETORIC AND HISTORY IN REVOLUTIONARY NEW ENGLAND (1988).
73. See further the collection of sermons in THE PULPIT OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (John W. Thornton ed., 1860),
74. updated and expanded in POLITICAL SERMONS, supra note 6.
75. See generally THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY, 1636-1638 (David D. Hall ed., 1968);
76. EDMUND S. MORGAN, ROGER WILLIAMS: THE CHURCH AND THE STATE (1967).
77. NATHANIEL WARD, THE SIMPLE COBLER OF AGGAWAM IN AMERICA 43 (5th ed. 1713).
78. See generally WILLIAM G. MCLOUCHLIN, NEW ENGLAND DISSENT 1630-1833 (1971).
79. See THE COMPLETE WRITINGS OF ROGER WILLIAMS (1963)
80. with analysis in EDWIN S. GAUSTAD, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE: ROGER WILLIAMS IN AMERICA (1991);
81. Timothy L. Hall, Roger Williams and the Foundations of Religious Liberty, 71 B.U. L. REV. 455 (1991).
82. Though he has been lionized in recent histories of religious liberty in America and was embraced by the eighteenth century Baptist leader Isaac Backus, Roger Williams was not so well known nor so well liked in later eighteenth century evangelical circles. See, e.g., WALLACE COYLE, ROGER WILLIAMS: A REFERENCE GUIDE 1-7 (1977); GAUSTAD, supra, at 19-207, 220-21.
83. See A COLLECTION OF THE WORKS OF WILLIAM PENN (1726)
84. with analysis of the contents and effect of his views in J. WILLIAM FROST, A PERFECT FREEDOM: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN PENNSYLVANIA (1990).
85. Though his writings were better known to eighteenth century evangelicals than those of Williams, Penn's views on religious liberty also enjoyed only modest authority and influence. See id. at 10-13; James Wilson, The Study of Law in the United States, in 1 THE WORKS OF JAMES WILSON 67, 71-72 (R.G. McCloskey ed., 1967) (lamenting the habitual disregard for Penn's views among his peers).
86. On the broad range of evangelical views respecting religion and politics, church and state, and religious liberty, see THOMAS J. CURRY, THE FIRST FREEDOMS: CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT 134-222 (1986);
87. WILLIAM G. MCLOUGHLIN, ISAAC BACKUS AND THE AMERICAN PIETISTIC TRADITION (Oscar Handlin ed., 1967);
88. William G. McLoughlin, The Great Awakening as a Key to the American Revolution, in PREACHERS & POLITICIANS: TWO ESSAYS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 1 (Jack P. Greene & William G. McLoughlin eds., 1977); MILLER, supra note 29.
89. For representative evangelical writings, see ISAAC BACKUS, ISAAC BACKUS ON CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM: PAMPHLETS, 1754-1789 (William G. McLoughlin ed., 1968) [hereinafter BACKUS, CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM];
90. JOHN LELAND, THE WRITINGS OF THE LATE ELDER JOHN LELAND (1845);
91. THE GREAT AWAKENING: DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE CRISIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (Alan Heimart & Perry Miller eds., 1967);
92. CHARLES F. JAMES, DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN VIRGINIA (repr. ed. 1971).
93. ROGER WILLIAMS, MR. COTTONS LETTER LATELY PRINTED, EXAMINED AND ANSWERED (1644),
94. reprinted in 1 THE COMPLETE WRITINGS OF ROGER WILLIAMS, supra note 43, at 392.
95. JACK NIPS [JOHN LELAND], THE YANKEE SPY (1794),
96. reprinted in 2 AMERICAN POLITICAL WRITING DURING THE FOUNDING ERA 1760-1805, at 971, 989 (Charles Hyneman & Donald S. Lutz eds., 1983).
97. LELAND, supra note 45, at 118; see also McConnell, supra note 22, at 1437-43.
98. Isaac Backus, Draft for a Bill of Rights for the Massachusetts Constitution (1779), in BACKUS, CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM, supra note 45, at 487.
99. Israel Evans, A Sermon Delivered at Concord, Before the Hon. General Court of the State of New Hampshire at the Annual Election (1791), in POLITICAL SERMONS, supra note 6, at 1062-63.
100. Declaration of the Virginia Association of Baptists (Dec. 25, 1776), in 1 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, supra note 2, at 660-61.
101. On enlightenment views, see generally HENRY F. MAY, THE ENLIGHTENMENT IN AMERICA (1976);
102. THE AMERICAN ENLIGHTENMENT (Adrienne Koch ed., 1965);
103. R. SHER, SCOTLAND AND AMERICA IN THE AGE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT (1990);
104. PAUL M. SPURLIN, THE FRENCH ENLIGHTENMENT IN AMERICA: ESSAYS ON THE TIMES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS (1984).
105. Letter from James Madison to Edward Livingston (July 10, 1822), in 9 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 3, at 102.
106. Letter from James Madison to Rev. [Jasper] Adams, in 9 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 3, at 484, 487. Madison's notion of a wavering "line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority" that avails little in "un-essentials" is a more telling metaphor to describe the enlightenment position than the more famous Jefferson's metaphor of a high and impregnable "wall of separation between church and state."
107. See infra notes 143-44 & 265-67 and accompanying text on Jefferson's wall; see also Sidney E. Mead, Neither Church nor State: Reflections on James Madison's "Line of Separation", 10 J. CHURCH & ST. 349 (1968).
108. 1 THE COMPLETE A WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE 292 (Philip S. Foner ed., 1945).
109. JAMES MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS (1785),
110. reprinted in 8 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 298 (Robert A. Rutland & William M.E. Rachal eds., 1973) [hereinafter MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE].
111. In his Detached Memoranda (circa 1817), Madison highlights his distaste for corporate organized religions by criticizing laws that allowed ecclesiastical bodies to incorporate, to be exempt from taxation, to accumulate property, and to gain political access through legislative chaplains and other means. See Elizabeth Fleet, Madison's "Detached Memoranda", 3 WM. & MARY Q. 553-54 (1946).
112. VA. BILL OF RIGHTS of 1776, art XVI, reprinted in 1 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 56, at 175.
113. 12 THE STATUTES AT LARGE BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA 84-86 (William W. Hening ed., 1823) [hereinafter VIRGINIA STATUTES].
114. See Paul G. Kauper & Stephen C. Ellis, Religious Corporations and the Law, 71 MICH. L. REV. 1499, 1529-33 (1973).
115. See H.J. ECKENRODE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN VIRGINIA: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVOLUTION 116 (1910).
116. 2 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, supra note 2, at 555-58; ADAMS & EMMERICH, supra note 24, at 23-24.
117. On civic republican views, see NATHAN O. HATCH, THE SACRED CAUSE OF LIBERTY (1977);
118. GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 1776-1787 (1969);
119. the critical summary of more recent literature in Richard H. Fallon, Jr., What Is Republicanism, and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 HARV. L. REV. 1695 (1989).
120. Letter from George Washington to the Clergy of Different Denominations Residing In and Near the City of Philadelphia (Mar. 3,1797), in 36 THE WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1745-1799, at 416 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1931).
121. Letter from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (1798), in 9 LIFE AND WORKS OF JOHN ADAMS 229 (1854).
122. Timothy Dwight, The Duty of Americans, at the Present Crisis, Illustrated in a Discourse, Preached on the Fourth of July, 1798 (1798), in POLITICAL SERMONS, supra note 6, at 1365, 1380.
123. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: REPRESENTATIVE SELECTIONS 203 (Chester E. Jorgenson & Frank L. Mott eds., 1932);
124. see Martin E. Marry, On a Medial Moraine: Religious Dimensions of American Constitutionalism, 39 EMORY L.J. 9, 16-17 (1990).
125. See ROBERT N. BELLAH, THE BROKEN COVENANT: AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION IN TIME OF TRIAL (1975);
126. SIDNEY E. MEAD, THE OLD RELIGION IN THE BRAVE NEW WORLD: REFLECTIONS ON THE RELATION BETWEEN CHRISTENDOM AND THE REPUBLIC (1977);
127. ELLIS SANDOZ, A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS: POLITICAL THEORY, RELIGION, AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDING (1990).
128. See generally SANFORD LEVINSON, CONSTITUTIONAL FAITH (1988);
129. W. Tarver Rountree, Jr., Constitutionalism as the American Religion: The Good Portion, 39 EMORY L.J. 203-07 (1990).
130. NATHAN STRONG, ELECTION SERMON 15 (1790).
131. Oliver Ellsworth, Report of the Committee to Whom Was Referred the Petition of Simeon Brown and Others . . . . (1802), in 11 THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 371, 373 (Christopher Collier ed., 1967);
132. see William Casto, Oliver Ellsworth's Calvinism: A Biographical Essay on Religion and Political Psychology in the Early Republic, 36 J. CHURCH & ST. 506, 525 (1994);
133. see also Joseph McKeen, Sermon Preached on the Public Fast in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 15, 17-18 (1793): Though some modern politicians may think religion of no importance to the state, it is clear that the experience of all ages and nations is against them. . . . The more, therefore, that the principles of piety, benevolence, and virtue are diffused among a people, the milder may their government and laws be, and the more liberty are they capable of enjoying because they govern themselves. But if there be little or no regard to religion or virtue among a people, they will not govern themselves, nor willingly submit to any laws, which lay restraint upon their passions; and consequently they must be wretched or be governed by force: they cannot bear freedom, they must be slaves.
134. See CHESTER J. ANTIEAU ET AL., FREEDOM FROM FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT: FORMATION AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES 62-91 (1964);
135. John Witte, Jr., Tax Exemption of Church Property: Historical Anomaly or Valid Constitutional Practice, 64 S. CAL. L. REV. 363, 368-95 (1991).
136. CONSTITUTION OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OF 1780, pt. I, art II.
137. Id. amend. of 1833, art. XXI (replacing pt. I, art. III in the 1780 Constitution).
138. Id. pt. I, art. XVIII.
139. See generally ISAAC A. CORNELISON, THE RELATION OF RELIGION TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A STATE WITHOUT A CHURCH, BUT NOT WITHOUT A RELIGION (1895).
140. Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, ch. 8, art III, 1 Stat. 50, 52 (1789).
141. ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21 passim.
142. Robert T. Handy, Why it Took 150 Years for Supreme Court Church-State Cases to Escalate, in AN UNSETTLED ARENA: RELIGION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS 52, 54-55 (Ronald C. White & Albright G. Zimmermann eds., 1990).
143. Quoted in Edwin S. Gaustad, Colonial Religion and Liberty of Conscience, in THE VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: ITS EVOLUTION AND CONSEQUENCES IN AMERICAN HISTORY 23, 39 (Merrill D. Peterson & Robert C. Vaughan eds., 1988). On early nineteenth century New England patterns and practices of religious establishment, see infra notes 170-71 and accompanying text.
144. The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, part I, article II, for example, guaranteed that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." For similar provisions, see VT. CONST. of 1793, ch. I, art. III (1796); N.H. CONST. of 1794, pt. I, arts. IV-V. When it adopted a constitution in 1818, Connecticut provided expansively: "Sec. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this state. . . . Sec. 4. No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship." CONN. CONST. of 1818, art I, §§ 3-4.
145. See MILLER, supra note 29; THE FIRST FREEDOM: RELIGION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (James E. Wood, Jr. ed., 1990).
146. Thomas Jefferson, Freedom of Religion at the University of Virginia (Oct. 7, 1822), in THE COMPLETE JEFFERSON, supra note 1, at 958.
147. JONATHAN PARSONS, FREEDOM FROM CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL SLAVERY 10 (1774).
148. MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 7 at 301, para. 11 at 302.
149. For a good collection of prevailing sentiments, see THE PALLADIUM OF CONSCIENCE, OR, THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DISPLAYED, ASSERTED AND ESTABLISHED, AGREEABLE TO ITS TRUE AND GENUINE PRINCIPLES ABOVE THE BACK OF ALL PETTY TYRANTS, WHO ATTEMPT TO LORD IT OVER THE HUMAN KIND (1773) (a source frequently reprinted in the young republic).
150. VA. BILL OF RIGHTS of 1776, art. XVI.
151. Quoted in ANSON P. STOKES & LEO PFEFFER, CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES 61 (rev. one vol. ed. 1964).
152. See, e.g., McConnell, supra note 22, at 1455-87. For a catalogue of such terms, see JOHN MELLEN, THE GREAT AND HAPPY DOCTRINE OF LIBERTY 17-18 (1795);
153. AMOS ADAMS, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AN INVALUABLE BLESSING 39-40, 45-46 (1768);
154. A MANUAL OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (3d ed. 1767).
155. ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21, at 42;
156. see also JOHN LATHORP, A DISCOURSE ON THE PEACE 29 (1784).
157. The phrase "divine right of private judgment" in matters of religion was commonplace in the eighteenth century. See, e.g., HUGH FISHER, THE DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, SET IN A TRUE LIGHT (reprint 1790; 1731).
158. ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21, at 7-8.
159. JOHN LELAND, THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE INALIENABLE (1791),
160. reprinted in POLITICAL SERMONS, supra note 6, at 1079;
161. see also ISSAC BACKUS, AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (1773),
162. reprinted in POLITICAL SERMONS, supra note 6, at 327; Evans, supra note 50, at 1063.
163. This theory of "religious voluntarism," though consistently espoused by enlightenment and evangelical proponents, was a more recent importation into Puritan theology. Traditionally, Puritans and other Calvinists had emphasized the doctrines of predestination and "birthright" religion, which left less room for voluntary personal choice. For the shifts in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century Puritan thought to a voluntarist theory, see E. BROOKS HOLIFIELD, THE COVENANT SEALED: THE DEVELOPMENT OF PURITAN SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN OLD AND NEW ENGLAND, 1570-1720 (1974);
164. E. BROOKS HOLIFIELD, THE ERA OF PERSUASION: AMERICAN THOUGHT AND CULTURE, 1521-1680 (1989).
165. STILES, supra note 7, at 56.
166. WORCESTRIENSIS, NUMBER IV (1776), reprinted in 1 AMERICAN POLITICAL WRITING DURING THE FOUNDING ERA 1760-1805, supra note 47, at 449. The typical caveat follows: "provided it does not issue in oven acts of treason against the state undermining the peace and good order of society." Id.
167. MELLEN, supra note 89, at 17 (emphasis added).
168. Id. at 20.
169. See, e.g., PARSONS, supra note 84, at 7-10; BACKUS, APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, supra note 92.
170. HENRY CUMINGS, A SERMON PREACHED AT BILLERICA (Dec. 15, 1796) 12-13 (1797);
171. see also Thomas Jefferson, Draft of Bill Exempting Dissenters from Contributing to the Support of the Church (Nov. 30, 1776), in 5 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION 74 (Philip Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987) (arguing that dissenters be "totally free and exempt from all Levies Taxes and Impositions whatever towards supporting and maintaining the [established Anglican] church" as a means of ensuring "equal liberty as well religious as civil" to all "good People"). These arguments for exemptions from civil impositions were sometimes extended to claiming "exemptions" and "immunities" from the jurisdiction, discipline, and confessional statements of a local church.
172. See, e.g., ISAAC FOSTER, A DEFENCE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (1780) (a 192 page tract arguing for exemptions from compliance with the imposition of a new confession, the Saybrook Platform, in a local church).
173. CUMINGS, supra note 99, at 13.
174. See Carol Weisbrod, Comment on Curry and Firmage Articles, 7 J.L. & RELIGION 315, 320-21 (1989) (arguing for such presumptive accommodation of religious scruples, without express mention in legislation and without necessity for judicial intervention).
175. Letter to the Religious Society Called Quakers (Oct. 1789), in GEORGE WASHINGTON ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING: SELECTIONS FROM WASHINGTON'S LETTERS 11 (Edward F. Humphrey ed., 1932).
176. For contrary sentiments, see, e.g., MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 4 (arguing that equality was compromised by granting certain religious groups "peculiar exemptions"). Even early writers who thought exemptions were necessary to protect religious rights and liberties were fully aware that such guarantees could be abused. Thus, on the one hand, they insisted that liberty of conscience could not be used to excuse breaches of the peace or of the public order - a caveat that found its way into almost all state constitutions. On the other hand, they insisted that liberty of conscience not be used as to support sham claims to shirk one's civil duties. In the same passage where he defends the importance of religious exemption, for example, Henry Cumings writes: [T]o admit the plea of conscience, when urged, in order to excuse persons from contributing, in any way, to the necessary defence, support, and well-being of the community to which they belong, would evidently be inconsistent with civil union and terminate in the abolition of society, as it would encourage people to sanctify their sordid selfishness and avarice by the sacred name, conscience, in order to free themselves from a share in the public expences [sic]. CUMINGS, supra note 99, at 13-14. It was thus assumed that the conscientious objector would pay for his replacement and the oath-forsaker would provide other guarantees of veracity.
177. See Philip A. Hamburger, A Constitutional Right of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 915 (1992);
178. Ellis M. West, The Right to Religion-Based Exemptions in Early America: The Case of Conscientious Objectors to Conscription, 10 J.L. & RELIGION 367 (1994);
179. William P. Marshall, The Case Against the Constitutionally Compelled Free Exercise Exemption, 40 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 357 (1990);
180. Kurt T. Lash, The Second Adoption of the Free Exercise Clause: Religious Exemptions Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 88 NW. U. L. REV. 1106 (1994);
181. Michael W. McConnell, Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to the Critics, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 685 (1992).
182. For good summaries of these state developments, see CHESTER ANTIEAU ET AL., RELIGION UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS (1965);
183. John K. Wilson, Religion Under the State Constitutions, 1776-1800, 32 J. CHURCH & ST. 753 (1990).
184. DEL. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS of 1776, § 2.
185. PA. CONST. of 1776, art. II, art VIII.
186. N.Y. CONST. of 1777, art. XXXVIII.
187. N.J. CONST. of 1776, art. XVIII.
188. See, e.g., 3 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 703 (1833); ADAMS & EMMERICH, supra note 24, at 61-62.
189. Virginia Version (June 27, 1788), in 2 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 380 (1894).
190. James Madison's First Proposal, introduced in the House on June 7, 1789, in 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, supra note 21, at 434.
191. Draft proposed by Fisher Ames of Massachusetts on August 20, 1789 for debate in the House, in 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, supra note 21, at 766.
192. Indeed the prevailing assumption in the House Debates of August 15, 1789 about the religion clauses was, in Representative Carroll's words, that "the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand" and that "many sects have concurred in [the] opinion that they are not well secured under the present Constitution," lacking a bill of rights. Id. at 730.
193. WILLIAM PENN, THE GREAT CASE OF LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE (1670),
194. reprinted in 1 A COLLECTION OF THE WORKS OF WILLIAM PENN, supra note 44, at 443, 447.
195. MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 1;
196. see also LEVI HART, LIBERTY DESCRIBED AND RECOMMENDED 14-15 (1775) (distinguishing religious liberty, ecclesiastical liberty, and spiritual liberty).
197. Cf. infra notes 183-87, 202 & 334 and accompanying text (discussing the belief versus act dualism).
198. For contemporaneous European understandings of the phrase, which were known to some eighteenth century American writers, see SCHWARZ, supra note 3.
199. See, e.g., ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21, at 46-65;
200. BACKUS, CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM, supra note 45, at 345-65; PARSONS, supra note 84, at 14-15; STILES, supra note 7, at 55-99; ADAMS, supra note 89, at 38-46.
201. See HART, supra note 116, at 14; BACKUS, CHURCH, STATE, AND CALMNISNI, supra note 45, at 348-49;
202. A DECLARATION OF CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN MARYLAND,
203. quoted in 1 ANSON P. STOKES, CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES 741 (1950).
204. VA. CONST. of 1776, § 16.
205. GA. CONST. of 1777, art LVI.
206. BACKUS, CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM, supra note 45, at 317;
207. see also, e.g., THE FREEMAN'S REMONSTRANCE AGAINST AN ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT 13 (1777).
208. ISAAC BACKUS, TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL 3 (1781).
209. For comparable sentiments, see JOHN R. BOLLES, A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF PERSECUTIONS, IN BOSTON AND CONNECTICUT GOVERNMENTS 47, 59 (1758).
210. George Washington also expressed comparable sentiments to Roman Catholics, Quakers, Jews, and other religious minorities in the young republic. See, e.g., Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of the City of Savannah (May 1790), in GEORGE WASHINGTON ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING, supra note 102, at 12: May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressers, and planted them in the promised land . . . still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven, and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people, whose God is Jehovah.
211. THOMAS JEFFERSON, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, in 5 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION, supra note 99, at 79, 80; see also STILES, supra note 7, at 55-56;
212. THOMAS PAINE, COMMON SENSE (1776),
213. reprinted in THE LIFE AND MAJOR WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE 4 (Philip S. Foner ed., 1945).
214. James Madison, Debates (June 12, 1788), in 3 THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 330 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 1836); see Smith, supra note 22, at 576-79;
215. Christopher L. Eisgruber, Madison's Wager: Religious Liberty in the Constitutional Order, 89 NW. U. L. REV. 347, 373 (1995);
216. see also Letter from Benjamin Rush to John Armstrong (Mar. 19, 1783), in 5 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION, supra note 99, at 78. Religion is best supported under the patronage of particular societies. . . . Religion could not long be maintained in the world without forms and the distinctions of sects. The weaknesses of human nature require them. The distinction of sects is as necessary . . . towards the perfection and government of the whole as regiments and brigades are in an army.
217. See ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21, at 40-42; STILES, supra note 7, at 55.
218. See, e.g., 1 THE WORKS OF JAMES WILSON, supra note 44, at 197.
219. See generally WILSON C. MCWILLIAMS, THE IDEA OF FRATERNITY IN AMERICA 112-23 (1973);
220. CLINTON L. ROSSITER, THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 204 (1963).
221. For earlier pluralist theories rooted in the work of the sixteenth century Dutch political theorist Johannes Althusius and in Puritan covenant theology, see respectively CARL J. FRIEDRICH, TRENDS OF FEDERALISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE 11-25 (1968), and Witte, supra note 32, at 581-82.
222. Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams (Oct. 29, 1775), quoted in HOWE, supra note 26, at 156-57.
223. See THE FEDERALIST No. 10 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (where Madison foreshadowed this argument about the virtues of religious pluralism). In a pure democracy, he warned that "[a] zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points" may lead persons to "mutual animosity," and render them "much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for the common good." Id. at 79. In a federalist republic, however, [t]he influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. Id. at 84;
224. see also ADAMS & EMMERICH, supra note 24, at 43-51 (regarding the linkage of pluralism and federalism); Glendon & Yanes, supra note 14, at 537-39 (arguing for a "structural approach" to the religion clause that takes fuller account of the role of institutional and associational dimensions of religion in a democratic society); cf. Mark Tushnet, The Emerging Principle of Accommodation of Religion (Dubitante), 76 GEO. L.J. 1691, 1695-97 (1988) (warning of the dangers of majoritarianism even where Madison's views of political and religious pluralism are respected).
225. MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 8;
226. see also id. para. 4 (arguing that the general assessment bill in Virginia "violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens [and] by granting others peculiar exemptions"); Paul J. Weber, James Madison and Religious Equality, 44 REV. POL. 163 (1982).
227. For comparable sentiments, see, e.g., THE FREEMAN'S REMONSTRANCE, supra note 123, at 5, 10-13 (arguing that "every society of Christians [should be] allowed full, equal, and impartial liberty," and that it is contrary to "scripture, reason, and experience [that] one society of Christians should be raised to domination over all the rest").
228. Though the principal concern of eighteenth century writers was to protect equality of religions before the law, this principle was also on occasion designed to protect nonreligious persons, particularly in furnishing financial support for religious causes. Thus, for example, in protesting the general assessments in Virginia, Madison wrote: Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal tide to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man. MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 4 (emphasis added and footnote omitted).
229. N.J. CONST. of 1776, art. XIX.
230. Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules of the Delaware Senate, § 3 and amend. (1776).
231. MD. CONST. of 1776, § XXXIII.
232. VA. CONST. of 1776, § 16.
233. N.Y. CONST. of 1777, art. XXXVIII.
234. MASS. CONST. of 1780, amend. XI. Originally, the guarantee applied only to "every denomination of Christians." Id. art III.
235. James Madison's First Proposal (June 8, 1789), in 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, supra note 21, at 434.
236. Version first rejected by the Senate, then reconsidered and passed by the Senate, on September 3, 1789. 1 JOURNAL OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE SENATE 70 (1802).
237. This version was rejected by the Senate on September 3, 1789. Id.
238. Argument made in support of Amendment to Article I, section 10 in 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, supra note 21, at 783-84. Madison argued: "If there was any reason to restrain the Government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments." Id. His initial proposed amendment to Congress of June 8, 1789 sought to make the protection of equality and liberty of conscience universal, and the disestablishment guarantee binding on the federal government alone: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id. at 434.
239. ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, supra note 21, at 46.
240. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802), in 8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 113 (H.A. Washington ed., 1854) (emphasis added).
241. Id. at 114. Jefferson's use of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter to Baptists might well have been simply an attempt to use an ingratiating metaphor first expressed in America by Roger Williams and well known in Baptist and other Free Church circles of the day. See MARK DEWOLFE HOWE, THE GARDEN AND THE WILDERNESS: RELIGION AND THE GOVERNMENT IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 1-3 (1965). So far as I know, the phrase appears nowhere else in Jefferson's writings. A more apt phrase to capture this concept of separationism might well be Madison's "wavering line of separation between the rights of religion and Civil government." See supra note 54 and accompanying text.
242. See, e.g., Laycock, supra note 22; LEO PFEFFER, CHURCH, STATE, AND FREEDOM (rev. ed. 1967);
243. LEONARD W. LEVY, THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: RELIGION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1986).
244. Letter from James Madison to Edward Livingston (July 10, 1822), in 5 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION, supra note 99, at 105-06;
245. see also MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 9 ("Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it [the general assessment for religion] differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last step in the career of intolerance.").
246. See, e.g., THE FREEMAN'S REMONSTRANCE, supra note 123, at 5-11;
247. ISAAC BACKUS, THE INFINITE IMPORTANCE OF THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH, AND OF A SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD, OPENED AND DEMONSTRATED 15-31 (2d ed. 1791);
248. ISAAC BACKUS, POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY FORBIDS THE USE OF SECULAR FORCE IN RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS (1779).
249. See sources cited supra notes 37-39 & 68-72.
250. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller (1808), in 11 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 428-29 (Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904).
251. 1 JOURNAL OF SENATE, supra note 139, at 77 (version sent from Senate to House on Sept. 9, 1789).
252. N.J. CONST. of 1776, art. XIX.
253. Version first rejected by the Senate, then reconsidered and passed by the Senate, on Sep-tember 3, 1789. 1 JOURNAL OF SENATE, supra note 139, at 116.
254. Version defeated by the Senate on September 3, 1789. Id.
255. Version rejected by the Senate on September 3, 1789. Id. at 117.
256. MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, para. 5.
257. THOMAS PAINE, RIGHTS OF MAN, ptl (1791), in 5 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION, supra note 99, at 95-96.
258. PA. CONST. of 1776, art. II.
259. For illustrative eighteenth century texts, see 2 THE COMPACT EDITION OF THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2512 (1971) (under the term "respect").
260. See ADAMS & EMMERICH, supra note 24, at 37-40, 70-73; Glendon & Yanes, supra note 14, at 540-41; Richard John Neuhaus, A New Order of Religious Freedom, in CHRISTIANITY AND DEMOCRACY IN GLOBAL CONTEXT 101-10 (John Witte, Jr. ed., 1993).
261. See infra notes 196-99 and accompanying text.
262. Some writers have also argued that passage of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause introduced the first incorporation. See Lash, supra note 104; Poppel, supra note 15, at 254-56.
263. See ANTIEAU ET AL., supra note 72, at 132-33, 162-63; WILBUR G. KATZ, RELIGION AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS 9-10 (1964).
264. See generally ANTIEAU ET AL., supra note 72; GERARD V. BRADLEY, CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS IN AMERICA (1987); KATZ, supra note 162.
265. Passed on October 31, 1785, reprinted in MADISON, MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE, supra note 56, at 399-401.
266. The act was a slightly revised version of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (June 12, 1779), which had been twice defeated while he was Governor.
267. See CHARLES F. JAMES, DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN VIRGINIA 68-141 (1900).
268. See supra notes 87-89 & 115-41 and accompanying text.
269. See supra notes 149-58.
270. For multiple editions of these state constitutions, see THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS, COLONIAL CHARTERS, AND OTHER ORGANIC LAWS (Francis N. Thorpe ed., 1909).
271. For a comprehensive collection of relevant constitutional clauses on religion, see CHESTER J. ANTIEAU ET AL., RELIGION UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS app. at 173-239 (1965).
272. On the emerging plurality of American religion, see generally MARTIN E. MARTY, PILGRIMS IN THEIR OWN LAND: 500 YEARS OF RELIGION IN AMERICA (1984).
273. See ECKENRODE, supra note 61, at 116-55; Kauper & Ellis, supra note 60, at 1529-33. In Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43 (1815), the United States Supreme Court declared invalid the confiscation of church property in Alexandria authorized by Virginia statutes of 1798 and 1801.
274. See, e.g., JAMES ELLIS, A NARRATIVE OF THE RISE, PROGRESS, AND ISSUE OF THE LATE LAW-SUITS RELATIVE TO PROPERTY HELD AND DEVOTED TO PIOUS USES IN THE FIRST PRECINCT IN REHOBOTH (1795);
275. JOHN COSENS OGDEN, A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL OPPRESSIONS IN NEW-ENGLAND AND VERMONT (1799).
276. For illustrative cases, see MARK DEWOLFE HOWE, CASES ON CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES 27-83 (1952).
277. See also JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., THE BELIEVERS AND THE POWTRS THAT ARE 139-60 (1987).
278. See generally MORTON BORDEN, JEWS, TURKS, AND INFIDELS (1984);
279. LAWRENCE H. FUCHS, THE AMERICAN KALEIDESCOPE: RACE, ETHNICITY, AND THE CIVIC CULTURE (1990);
280. JOHN HIGHAM, STRANGERS IN THE LAND: PATTERNS OF AMERICAN NATIVISM, 1860-1925 (1955).
281. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892).
282. Id. at 465-72.
283. See Harold J. Berman, Religion and Law: The First Amendment in Historical Perspective, 35 EMORY L.J. 777 (1986); ANTIEAU, ET AL., supra note 105; CORNELISON, supra note 76;
284. PHILIP SCHAFF, CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, OR THE AMERICAN IDEA OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND ITS PRACTICAL EFFECTS (1888); STOKES & PFEFFER, supra note 88;
285. CARL ZOLLMANN, AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW (1917).
286. ZOLLMANN, supra note 175.
287. See 2 THE WORKS OF JAMES WILSON, supra note 44, at 671
288. (citing WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 59 (1765) (where Blackstone writes "Christianity is part of the laws of England")).
289. For examples of these nineteenth century sentiments in America, see HAROLD J. BERMAN, FAITH AND ORDER: THE RECONCILIATION OF LAW AND RELIGION 209-19 (1993).
290. For a good sampling, see NOONAN, supra note 171, at 127-232; ANTIEAU, ET AL., supra note 105, at 1-110; HOWE, supra note 171.
291. See, e.g., 2 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 597 (2d ed. 1851); Permoli v. Municipality No. 1, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 589, 609 (1845) ("The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws.").
292. See Alfred W. Meyer, The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 64 HARV. L. REV. 939 (1951);
293. F. William O'Brien, The Blaine Amendment 1875-1876, 41 U. DET. L. REV. 137 (1963);
294. see also F. William O'Brien, The States and "No Establishment": Proposed Amendments to the Constititution Since 1798, 4 WASHBURN L.J. 183 (1965) (listing 16 failed attempts to introduce such amendments to the United States Constitution).
295. Today, there is ample agitation for Congress to pass an amendment to reintroduce prayer in public schools and to pass an amendment protecting religious equality. See generally Derek Davis, Editorial: Assessing the Proposed Religious Equality Amendment, 37 J. CHURCH & ST. 493 (1995).
296. Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U.S. 377 (1887); Smith v. Swormstedt, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 288 (1853); Permoli v. Municipality No. 1, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 589 (1845); Vidal v. Mayor of Philadelphia, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 127 (1844); Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43 (1815).
297. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879). For a discussion of Jefferson's view, see supra notes 144-45 and accompanying text.
298. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 164.
299. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890). For a similar result, see Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946).
300. Davis, 133 U.S. at 336-37.
301. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890).
302. For criticisms, see Smith, supra note 5; Marci A. Hamilton, The Belief/Conduct Paradigm in the Supreme Court's Free Exercise Jurisprudence: A Theological Account of the Failure to Protect Religious Conduct, 54 OHIO ST. L.J. 713 (1993).
303. Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899).
304. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908).
305. Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1 (1929); Bouldin v. Alexander, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 131 (1872); Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872).
306. Order of St. Benedict v. Steinhauser, 234 U.S. 640 (1914).
307. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
308. Cochran v. Louisiana St. Bd. of Educ., 281 U.S. 370 (1930); Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
309. Watson, 80 U.S. at 728-29.
310. Bouldin, 82 U.S. at 139-40. Justice Strong elaborates these sentiments in his TWO LECTURES UPON THE RELATIONS OF CIVIL LAW TO CHURCH POLITY, DISCIPLINE, AND PROPERTY (1875).
311. 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
312. 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
313. Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303. The Court had hinted at its intentions in the dicta of two earlier cases. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court indicated that the Fourteenth Amendment liberty clause includes the right to "worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience." Id. at 399. In Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), the Court indicated more directly that this same liberty clause includes "the right to entertain the beliefs, to adhere to the principles and to teach the doctrines" of pacifism. Id. at 262. In concurrence, Justice Cardozo put the matter more generically: "I assume for present purposes that the religious liberty protected by the First Amendment against invasion by the nation is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against invasion by the states." Id. at 265 (Cardozo, J., concurring).
314. See Poppel, supra note 15, at 254-60, 272-85.
315. Good collections are provided in NOONAN, supra note 171; ROBERT T. MILLER & RONALD B. FLOWERS, TOWARD BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY: CHURCH, STATE, AND THE SUPREME COURT (4th ed. 1992 & Supp. 1993). Good summaries are provided in Glendon & Yanes, supra note 14;
316. JOHN H. GARVTEY & FREDERICK SHAUER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT: A READER 428-633 (2d ed. 1996);
317. Ira C. Lupu, The Lingering Death of Separationism, 62 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 230 (1994);
318. Douglas Laycock, A Survey of Religious Liberty in the United States, 47 OHIO ST. L.J. 409 (1986);
319. Michael W. McConnell, Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision, 57 U. CHI. L. REV. 1109 (1990);
320. Carl H. Esbeck, Table of United States Supreme Court Decisions Relating to Religious Liberty, 1789-1994, 10 J.L. & RELIGION 573 (1994).
321. See infra notes 249-58.
322. Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303-04.
323. Id. at 310.
324. Minersville Sch. Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594 (1940), rev'd. West Virginia St. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
325. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 624.
326. Zorach v. C;auson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). Though this case is generally read as an establishment clause case, Justice Douglas reviewed the practice under both religion clauses, finding no violation. With respect to the free exercise clause, he wrote: "It takes obtuse reasoning to inject any issue of the 'free exercise' of religion into the present case. No one is forced to go to the religious classroom and no religious exercise or instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools. A student need not take religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious devotions if any." Id. at 311.
327. Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946). This case also turned on the test oath clause of Article VI.
328. First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles, 357 U.S. 545 (1957).
329. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). But cf. In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945) (religiously scrupulous applicant received no free exercise right to exemption from an oath required to stand for the bar).
330. Girouard, 328 U.S. at 68. See supra notes 181-87 and accompanying text (on Mormon polygamy cases).
331. Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 104 (1943); Jones v. Opelika (II), 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943); Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418 (1943).
332. Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953).
333. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941) (upholding general parade permit, offered on a sliding fee scale, for all processions).
334. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (breach of peace conviction for Jehovah's Witness using "fighting words" upheld against free speech and free exercise challenge); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (child labor statute upheld against free exercise claims of both parent and minor arrested for religious soliciting).
335. Gobitis, 310 U.S. at 593.
336. Everson, 330 U.S. at 16.
337. Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952).
338. Id. at 116.
339. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
340. Id. at 406.
341. Id.
342. See Douglas Laycock, The Remnants of Free Exercise, 1990 SUP. CT. REV. 1, 17-18.
343. Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 411 (Douglas, J., concurring).
344. Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981).
345. Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 480 U.S. 136 (1987) (free exercise claimant who converted to Seventh Day Adventist Sabbatarian beliefs two years after employment).
346. Frazee v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., 489 U.S. 829 (1989) (free exercise claimant who had a "personal professed religious belief" in Sabbath as a day of rest, though not a day of worship).
347. Thomas, 450 U.S. at 717-18. This same principle had, earlier, been denied to Jewish groups who sought free exercise exemptions from Sunday blue laws. Their argument was that state law prohibited Sunday work, religious law prohibited Saturday work. This put Jewish merchants and workers at a general commercial disadvantage, and required kosher establishments to be closed to Jewish communities for two days, instead of one. The Court was not convinced that such regulations burdened "Jewish religion" per se. See Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Mkt., 366 U.S. 617 (1961); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961); see also Two Guys from Harrison Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582 (1961) (holding that Sunday legislation did not violate the establishment clause). After these cases, most states revised their Sabbath day laws. See generally Barbara J. Redman, Sabbatarian Accommodation in the Supreme Court, 33 J. CHURCH & ST. 495 (1991);
348. Jerome A. Barron, Sunday in North America, 79 HARV. L. REV. 42 (1965).
349. McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 626 (1978) (quoting 5 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 3, at 288.
350. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). This "equal access" principle, which was based on both free exercise and free speech grounds, was later extended to public high schools. See Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074 (1994), which was upheld against establishment clause challenge in Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
351. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 113 S. Ct. 2141 (1993); see also Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987) (holding that the free speech clause prohibits a ban on "First Amendment activities," including religious solicitation in an airport). But cf. Lee v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (holding that regulations of religious solicitation in a limited forum like an airport need only satisfy "reasonableness" standards).
352. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995). This case was decided on free speech grounds.
353. NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, 440 U.S. 490 (1979); see also Saint Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota, 451 U.S. 772 (1981) (applying the Federal Unemployment Tax Act to church schools).
354. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding Civil Rights Act provision for religious discrimination by religious employers). The Civil Rights Act bans religious discrimination by private, nonreligious employers, which the Court has held requires "reasonable accommodations" of employee's religious needs, at no more than "de minimis" cost. Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977); Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1987); see David L. Gregory, The Role of Religion in the Secular Workplace, 4 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 749 (1990);
355. Ira C. Lupu, Free Exercise Exemption and Religious Institutions: The Case of Employment Discrimination, 67 B.U. L. REV. 391 (1987).
356. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969); Serbian East Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976). But see Maryland Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367 (1970) (allowing resolution of some property disputes not involving "doctrinal controversy"); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) (allowing secular disputes within the church to be resolved using "neutral principles of law").
357. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 724-25. See generally Louis Sirico, Jr., Church Property Disputes: Churches as Secular and Alien Institutions, 55 FORDHAM L. REV. 335 (1986);
358. Frederick M. Gedicks, Toward A Constitutional Jurisprudence of Religious Group Rights, 1989 WIS. L. REV. 99.
359. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
360. Id. at 216-18.
361. Lupu, supra note 15, at 230. For Lupu's critical review of these cases, see Ira C. Lupu, Where Rights Begin: The Problem of Burdens on the Free Exercise of Religion, 102 HARV. L. REV. 933 (1989).
362. Jehovah's Witnesses v. King County Hosp., 390 U.S. 598 (1968).
363. United States v. American Friends Serv. Comm., 419 U.S. 7 (1974).
364. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982).
365. Heffron v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (1981).
366. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990).
367. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
368. Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985).
369. Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680 (1989).
370. Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990).
371. See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (decided on free speech grounds). The initial "equal access" case, Widmar v. Vincent, was decided on free exercise and free speech grounds. 454 U.S. 263, 276 (1981).
372. 475 U.S. 503 (1986).
373. 482 U.S. 342 (1987); see id. at 348.
374. 485 U.S. 439 (1988).
375. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 (1988 & Supp. V 1993). The Act provides, in pertinent part: It shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian . . . including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. See generally HANDBOOK OF AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (Christopher Vecsey ed., 1991);
376. Ann E. Beeson, Dances With Justice: Peyotism in the Courts, 41 EMORY L.J. 1121 (1992).
377. Lyng, 485 U.S. at 447; see also id. at 451 (recognizing "devastating effects on traditional Indian religious practices").
378. Id. at 451-52 (citations omitted).
379. 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
380. Id. at 879 (quoting United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n.3 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring)).
381. For critical commentary, see Stephen L. Carter, The Resurrection of Religious Freedom?, 107 HARV. L. REV. 118 (1993);
382. Douglas Laycock, Summary and Synthesis: The Crisis in Religious Liberty, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 841 (1992);
383. Steven D. Smith, The Rise and Fall of Religious Freedom in Constitutional Discourse, 140 U. PA. L. REV. 149 (1991);
384. Michael W. McConnell, Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision, 57 U. CHI. L. REV. 1109 (1990).
385. See Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 TEX. L. REV. 209 (1994); Berg, supra note 17;
386. The James R. Browning Symposium for 1994: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 56 MONT. L. REV. 1 (1995).
387. 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
388. Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (Supp. V 1993)).
389. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 (Supp. V 1993).
390. See especially the recent articles by the Act's principal draftsman, Douglas Laycock, supra notes 222 & 257-58; Douglas Laycock, RFKA, Congress, and the Ratchet, 56 MONT. L. REV. 145 (1995); Laycock & Thomas, supra note 258; see also Flores v. City of Boerne, Texas, No. 95-50306, 1996 WL 23205 (5th Cir.Jan. 23, 1996) (upholding the constitutionality of RFRA).
391. See Marci A. Hamilton, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Letting the Fox into the Henhouse under the Cover of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 16 CARDOZO L. REV. 357 (1994);
392. Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is Unconstitutional, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 437 (1994).
393. See supra note 16.
394. Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
395. Id. at 8-15, 33-43.
396. For a searching critique, see HOWE, supra note 144, ch. 1.
397. Indeed, 29 of the 40 plus Supreme Court cases heard under the establishment clause since Everson have involved questions of education.
398. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
399. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
400. Abington Township Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
401. Chamberlin v. Dade County Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 377 U.S. 402 (1964).
402. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
403. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
404. Board of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968).
405. 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
406. 397 U.S. 664 (1970).
407. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13.
408. Id.
409. Levitt v. Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472 (1973); see also New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 (1977).
410. Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980).
411. Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983).
412. Committee for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973); see also Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973).
413. Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975). For some exceptions, see Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 (1977).
414. Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).
415. Grand Rapids Sen. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
416. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
417. Treen v. Karen B., 455 U.S. 913 (1982).
418. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
419. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
420. Board of Educ. v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994).
421. Roemer v. Board of Pub. Works, 426 U.S. 736 (1976).
422. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
423. Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973).
424. Witters v. Washington Dep't of Servs. for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986); see also Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., 113 S. Ct. 2462 (1993).
425. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982).
426. Estate of Thorton v. Caldor, 472 U.S. 703 (1985).
427. Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989).
428. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988).
429. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987).
430. Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
431. Today, in fact, the Lemon test is moribund, if not dead. See Michael Stokes Paulsen, Lemon is Dead, 43 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 795 (1993);
432. David O. Conkle, Lemon Lives, 43 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 865 (1993);
433. see also Carl H. Esbeck, The Lemon Test: Should it be Retained, Reformulated, or Rejected?, 4 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 513 (1990).
434. Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 607 (citing Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985)). For the use of "neutrality" as an organizing First Amendment principle, see Douglas Laycock, Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion, 39 DEPAUL L. REV. 993 (1990).
435. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
436. Id. at 792 (quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952)).
437. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
438. Id. at 685.
439. Id. at 678, 687. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Court imposed limits on this sweeping rule, holding that a creche prominently displayed in a county court house, undiluted with other secular symbols, containing verbal religious messages, and with no obvious redeeming commercial value could not be countenanced. In the same case, however, it upheld display of a menorah that was located in a less public place of the county courthouse, was buffered by a Christmas tree, and had no verbal religious messages.
440. See Thomas C. Berg, Slouching Towards Secularism: A Comment on Kiryas Joel School District v. Grumet, 44 EMORY L.J. 433 (1995).
441. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 627 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
442. Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2497 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
443. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J., concurring)).
444. Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2497.
445. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct. 2510, 2525 (1995).
446. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 623-37 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
447. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 687-94 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
448. Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2518.
449. Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2522.
450. Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2497 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
451. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 678).
452. See supra note 143-44 (on Jefferson's comparable reading).
453. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 589.
454. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 657 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part, dissenting in part).
455. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 587.
456. Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2500 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
457. See Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2487-88; Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 2240 (1993) (Souter, J., concurring).
458. See Justice Souter's illustrations in Weisman, 505 U.S. at 618-19; and Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2488.
459. Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2491.
460. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct. 2510, 2539 (1995).
461. Id.
462. Id. (quoting School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 385 (1985)).
463. See PHILIP KURLAND, RELIGION AND LAW (1962).
464. See Walz v. Tax Comm'r, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). For a searching analysis of the neutrality principle, see Douglas Laycock, The Benefits of the Establishment Clause, 42 DEPAUL L. REV. 373 (1992).
465. See, e.g., FREDERICK M. GEDICKS, THE RHETORIC OF CHURCH AND STATE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RELIGION CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE 25-80 (1995);
466. STEPHEN L. CARTER, THE CULTURE OF DISBELIEF: HOW AMERICAN POLITICS AND LAW TRIVIALIZE RELIGIOUS DEVOTION (1993);
467. Alan Freeman & Elizabeth Mensch, The Public-Private Distinction in American Life and Law, 36 BUFF. L. REV. 237 (1987); see also supra notes 183-87 & 202 and accompanying text (discussing a dualistic belief versus act line-drawing in free exercise jurisprudence).
468. See McConnell, Accommodation of Religion, supra note 104; Arlin M. Adams & Sarah B. Gordon, The Doctrine of Accommodation in the Jurisprudence of the Religion Clauses, 37 DEPAUL L. REV. 317 (1988).
469. See supra note 131 and accompanying text; see also Laycock, supra note 333, at 376; Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 115 S. Ct 2510, 2535-37 (1995) (Souter, J., dissenting).
470. See supra notes 149-58 and accompanying text.
471. See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 623 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
472. See, e.g., Steven D. Smith, Symbols, Perceptions, and Doctrinal Illusions: Establishment Neutrality and the "No Endorsement" Test, 86 MICH. L. REV. 266 (1987);
473. Donald L. Beschle, The Conservative as Liberal: The Religion Clauses, Liberal Neutrality, and the Approach of Justice O'Connor, 62 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 151 (1987).
474. See, e.g., Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2526 (including only a passing quotation about the "reasonable observer"); Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 283 (1990) (rejecting inquiry into legislative intent, and not referring to the "reasonable observer" standard).
475. See John Underwood Lewis, Sir Edward Coke (1552-1633): His Theory of "Artificial Reason" as a Context for Modem Basic Legal Theory, 84 L.Q. REV. 330 (1968).
476. See supra notes 251-54 and accompanying text.
477. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 83 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
478. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1 (1881).
479. See Witte, Tax Exemption of Church Property, supra note 72.
480. See Lupu, The Lingering Death of Separatism, supra note 200;
481. Douglas Laycock, Toward a General Theory of the Religion Clauses: The Case of Church Labor Relations and the Right to Church Autonomy, 81 COLUM. L. REV. 1373 (1981).
482. See sources supra note 235.
483. See Kauper & Ellis, supra note 60; Angela C. Carmella, Houses of Worship and Religious Liberty: Constitutional Limits to Landmark Preservation and Architectural Review, 36 VILL. L. REV. 401 (1981);
484. Angela C. Carmella, Landmark Preservation of Church Property, 34 CATH. LAW. 41 (1991);
485. Angela C. Carmela, Liberty and Equality: Paradigms for the Protection of Religious Property Use, 37 J. CHURCH & ST. 573 (1995);
486. Laurie Reynolds, Zoning the Church: The Police Power Versus the First Amendment, 64 B.U. L. REV. 767 (1985).
487. See sources cited supra notes 229-31.
488. See Laycock, supra note 303.
489. Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2498-500 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also Rosenberger, 115 S. Ct. at 2525-28 (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("Reliance on categorical platitudes is unavailing. . . . When bedrock principles collide, they test the limits of categorical obstinacy and expose the flaws and dangers of a Grand Unified Theory that may turn out to be neither grand nor unified.").
490. For provocative prototypes, see Carl H. Esbeck, A Restatement of the Supreme Court's Law of Religious Freedom: Coherence, Conflict, or Chaos?, 70 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 581 (1995);
491. JESSE H. CHOPER, SECURING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RELIGION CLAUSES (1995).
492. For an earlier effort, see THE WILLIAMSBURG CHARTER: A NATIONAL CELEBRATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CLAUSES (June 25, 1988),
493. reprinted in ARTICLES OF FAITH, ARTICLES OF PEACE: THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CLAUSES AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY 123 (James Davison Hunter & Os Guinness eds., 1990).
494. See also Symposium on the Williamsburg Charter, 8 J.L. & RELIGION 1 (1990).
495. See sources cited supra note 180 (regarding attempts at religious liberty amendments).
496. Kiryas Joel, 114 S. Ct. at 2515 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
497. For illustrations of attempts to introduce it into American law, see, e.g., W. Cole Durham, Jr. & Alexander Dushku, Traditionalism, Secularism and the Transformative Dimension of Religious Institutions, 1993 B.Y.U. L. REV. 421.
498. For a masterful summary, see Natan Lerner, Religious Human Rights Under the United Nations, in RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES 79-134 (Johan D. van der Vyver & John Witte, Jr. eds., 1996) [hereinafter van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES].
499. See, e.g., John H. Mansfield, The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and Foreign Relations, 36 DEPAUL L. REV. 1 (1986);
500. J. BRUCE NICHOLS, THE UNEASY ALLIANCE (1988).
501. On the prevailing statutory and case law of the European community, see T. Jeremy Gunn, Adjudicating Rights of Conscience Under the European Convention on Human Rights, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 305-30.
502. For a good illustration, see Lourens M. DuPlessis, Religious Human Rights in South Africa, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 441-66 (offering a refined "hermeneutical strategy" to interpret new provisions on religious liberty in the South African constitution).
503. See also infra notes 367-71 & 374.
504. On group rights at international law, see Lerner, supra note 356 and Dinah Shelton & Alexandre Kiss, A Draft Model Law on Freedom of Religion, With Commentary, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 559-92.
505. On implications of this law for the United States, see W. Cole Durham, Jr., Treatment of Religious Minorities in the United States, in THE LEGAL STATUS OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 323 (European Consortium for Church-State Research, 1994).
506. See generally Clovis C. Morrisson, Jr., Margin of Appreciation in European Human Rights Law, 6 REVUE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME 263 (1973).
507. See Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im et al., Universality vs. Relativism in Human Rights, in RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 31-59 (John Kelsay & Sumner B. Twiss eds., 1994).
508. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A, U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) [hereinafter 1966 Covenant].
509. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. Res. 55, U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 51, at 171, U.N. Doc. A/ 36/51 (1982) [hereinafter 1981 Declaration].
510. Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting 1986 of Representatives of the Participating States of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Held on the Basis of the Provisions of the Final Act Relating to the Follow-Up to the Conference, Jan. 17, 1989, 28 I.L.M. 527 [hereinafter Vienna Concluding Document].
511. See Lerner, supra note 356, at 91-93; Karl Josef Partsch, Freedom of Conscience and Expression and Political Freedom, in THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS 209 (Louis Henkin ed., 1981);
512. Alexandre C. Kiss, Permissible Limitations on Rights, in THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS 290 (Louis Henkin ed., 1981).
513. 1966 Covenant, supra note 364, art. 4(3).
514. See U.N. GAOR Hum. Rts. Comm., General Comment No. 22(48) concerning Article 18, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 4 (1993) [hereinafter Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22(48)]; see also W. Cole Durham, Jr., Perspectives on Religious Liberty: A Comparative Framework, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 1, 25-36 (similarly interpreting the comparable language of Article 9 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms).
515. See, e.g., Communication No. 172/1984, S.W.M. Broeks v. The Netherlands, U.N. GAOR Hum. Rts. Comm., 29th Sess., Supp. No. 40, at 139 U.N. Doc. A/42/40 (1987) (expressing the view of the U.N. Human Rights Committee in S.W.M. Broeks v. The Netherlands).
516. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22(48), supra note 369.
517. Id.
518. The following paragraphs are adapted from W. Cole Durham et al., The Future of Religious Liberty in Russia: Report of the De Burght Conference on Pending Russian Legislation Restricting Religious Liberty, 8 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 1, 17-20 (1994).
519. This "affirmative religious action" by states is especially advocated by Eastern Europea and African writers. See Harold J. Berman, Religious Rights in Russia at a Time of Tumultuous Transition: A Historical Theory, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 285;
520. Tamás Földesi, The Main Problems of Religious Freedom in Eastern Europe, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 243;
521. Makau wa Mutua, Limitations on Religious Rights: Problematizing Religious Freedom in the African Context, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 417.
522. See, e.g., Irwin Cotler, Jewish NGOs and Religious Human Rights: A Case Study, in Witte & van der Vyver eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: REUGIOUS PERSPECTIVES, supra note 3, at 235; Földesi, supra note 374; Mutua, supra note 374;
523. Martin Heckel, The Impact of Religious Rules on Public Life in Germany, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 191.
524. See, e.g., Paul E. Sigmund, Religious Human Rights in Latin America, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 467.
525. See Said Arjomand, Religious Human Rights and the Principle of Legal Pluralism in the Middle East, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 331.
526. See Cotler, supra note 375; Asher Maoz, Religious Human Rights in the State of Israel, in van der Vyver & Witte eds., RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES, supra note 356, at 349.
527. See supra notes 202-47 and accompanying text.
528. See supra notes 182-87 and accompanying text.
529. See supra notes 249-58 and accompanying text.
530. See supra notes 229-31 and accompanying text.
531. See supra notes 182-87 and accompanying text; see also Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) (upholding federal ban on transporting plural wives across state boundaries).
532. See supra note 227.
533. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabbaz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).
534. See supra notes 251-58 and accompanying text.
535. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979); see supra notes 194-95, 217-18 & 232-35 and accompanying text.
536. 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
537. See Lerner, supra note 356, at 103-06. But such discrimination, even on religious grounds, might well run afoul of the international Declaration and Convention on Racial Discrimination.
538. See generally NATAN LERNER, GROUP RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION AT INTERNATIONAL LAW (1991).
539. See, e.g., Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987); Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 719-20 (1981); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 270-75 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 409-10 (1963).
540. See supra notes 268-73 & 279-91 and accompanying text.
541. See Witte, supra note 72, at 402-07.
542. RUDOLF OTTO, THE IDEA OF THE HOLY: AN INQUIRY INTO THE NON-RATIONAL FACTOR OF THE IDEA OF THE DIVINE AND ITS RELATION TO THE RATIONAL (2d ed. 1950).
543. See RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN NATIONS AND RELIGIONS vii (Leonard Swidler ed., 1986). The Special Rapporteur on religious liberty, Elizabeth Odio-Benito, has written similarly that religion is "an explanation of the meaning of life and how to live accordingly. Every religion has at least a creed, a code of action, and a cult." U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/26, at 4.
544. See supra notes 18-20.