Nonbelievers

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1111-1180

  Tebbe, Nelson ^a  

^a BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855903831     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (200)

1. See, e.g., Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 681-80 (7th Cir. 2005)
2. 1 Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution: Free Exercise and Fairness 147-53 (2006);
3. Douglas Laycock, Religious Liberty as Liberty, 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 313, 326-28 (1996).
4. Barack Obama, President of the United States, Inaugural Address (Jan. 20, 2009) (transcript available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/ 20textobama.html).
5. Daniel E. Slotnik, At Mayor's Breakfast, 'Interfaith' Means Atheists, Too, Posting to City Room, N.Y. Times (Jan. 7, 2010, 10:02 A.M.), http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/atheists-attend-mayors- interfaithbreakfast- for-the-first-time/
6. See, e.g., Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006);
7. Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006);
8. Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004);
9. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007);
10. Victor J. Stenger, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (2009).
11. See generally Paul Horwitz, The Agnostic Age xiv (2011);
12. Peter Berkowitz, The New New Atheism, Wall St. J., July 16, 2007, at A13.
13. See, e.g., Laurie Goodstein, More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops, N.Y. Times, Apr. 26, 2009, at A1
14. G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Ranks of Atheists Grow, Get Organized, The Christian Sci. Monitor, June 28, 2009, at 22.
15. On campuses, the Secular Student Alliance reported that it had forty-two chapters in 2003 and 146 in 2009.Atheism, N.Y. Times (Apr. 27, 2009), http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atheism/index. html.
16. See James C. McKinley Jr., For Atheist Ads on Buses, Equally Mobile Reaction, N.Y. Times, Dec. 14, 2010, at A19
17. Daniel E. Slotnik, For the Holidays, an Atheism Billboard, Posting to City Room, N.Y. Times (Nov. 29, 2010, 8:00 A.M.), http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes. com/2010/11/29/for-the-holidaysan-atheism-billboard/
18. But see Wells v. City and County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1136-38, 1153 (10th Cir. 2001)
19. See also Debra Cassens Weiss, Courthouse Holiday Display Includes 'Star Wars' Message and Atheist Contributions, A.B.A. J., (Dec. 13, 2010), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/courthouse-holiday-display-includes-star- wars-character-and-atheist-contrib.
20. see also Brady Gillihan, Atheist Group Wins Battle to Place Ads on City Buses, Herald-Times (July 28, 2009), http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/ 2009/07/28/news.qp-8620169.sto.
21. See, e.g., Penny Edgell et al., Atheists as "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society, 71 Am. Soc. Rev. 211, 217 (2006)
22. 42 U.S.C.§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (2006).
23. See also Norman Dorsen, The Religion Clauses and Nonbelievers, 27 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 863, 867-68 (1986).
24. Caroline Mala Corbin, Nonbelievers and Government Speech, 97 Iowa L. Rev. (forthcoming 2011)
25. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions 87 (Wendy Doniger ed., 1999)
26. 1 The Encyclopedia of Religion 479-80 (Mircea Eliade ed., 1987) (entry by George Alfred James)
27. The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion 88 (Jonathan Z. Smith ed., 1995) (
28. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Psychology 31 (1915).
29. Oxford English Dictionary (last visited Aug. 21, 2011), http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/49206?redirectedFrom=deist#. Understood this way, deism does not fall within my subject matter here.
30. see also The Brights' Principles, The Vision, The Brights' Net, http://www.the-brights.net/vision/principles.html (last visited Mar. 3, 2011)
31. see Abner S. Greene, The Political Balance of the Religion Clauses, 102 Yale L.J. 1611, 1640-41 (1993).
32. Michael Hout & Claude S. Fischer, Why Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generation, 67 Am. Soc. Rev. 165, 166-67, 173-75 (2002).
33. Barry A. Kosmin & Ariela Keysar, American Religious Identification Survey: Summary Report: March 2009 at 8 (2009) [hereinafter ARIS] (2.3%);
34. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Religious Affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic 162 (2008) [hereinafter Pew] (5%);
35. Rodney Stark, What Americans Really Believe: New Findings from the Baylor Surveys of Religion 117 (2008) [hereinafter Baylor] (4%).
36. See also The Ass'n of Religion Data Archives, http://www.thearda.com/ quickstats/qs-63.asp (reporting on the Baylor Religion Survey, Wave 2, 2007) (last visited Mar. 3, 2011).
37. Neil Gross & Solon Simmons, The Religiosity of American College and University Professors, 70 Soc. Religion 101, 113 (2009).
38. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle, Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics, 54 Soc. Probs. 289, 293, 296 (2007);
39. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). For a scholarly approach to nonestablishment that resembles the endorsement test.
40. See Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, Religious Freedom and the Constitution 122-24 (2007).
41. Jeffrey M. Jones, Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates, Gallup News Service (Feb. 20, 2007), http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold- presidentialcandidates.aspx#1.
42. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of Am., 742 F. Supp. 1413, 1434 app. C (N.D. Ill. 1990).
43. Quoting P. Edwards, "Atheism," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 174-75 (P. Edwards ed., 1967).
44. See Richard Cimino & Christopher Smith, Secular Humanism and Atheism Beyond Progressive Secularism, 68 Soc. Religion 407, 411 (2007).
45. For a depiction of American spirituality that is consonant with this shift, see Gary Laderman, Sacred & Profane: ARIS Survey Gets 'Re ligion', Misses Boat, available at http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/ 1209/sacred%26profane%3A-aris-survey-gets-%E2%80%98religion%E2%80%99-misses- boat/.
46. See Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, We Are All Religious Now. Again., 76 Soc. Res. 1181, 1192-94 (2009) [hereinafter Sullivan, Religious].
47. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Requiem for the Establishment Clause, 25 Const. Comment. 309, 315-16 (2009) [hereinafter Sullivan, Establishment Clause].
48. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age 3 (2007).
49. 36 U.S.C. 302 (2006).
50. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983).
51. Supreme Court of the United States, The Court and Its Procedures, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx (last visited June 28, 2011).
52. Douglas Laycock, Formal, Substantive and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion, 39 DePaul L. Rev. 993, 1001-06 (1990) (substantive neutrality).
53. See, e.g., 2 Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution: Establishment and Fairness 1-15 (2008);
54. Steven H. Shiffrin, The Religious Left and Church-State Relations 9-60 (2009) [hereinafter Shiffrin, Relations] (describing and defending the "pluralistic foundations of the religion clauses");
55. Alan Brownstein, Why Conservatives, and Others, Have Trouble Supporting the Meaningful Enforcement of Free Exercise Rights, 33 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 925, 929 (2010).
56. Steven H. Shiffrin, The Pluralistic Foundations of the Religion Clauses, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 9, 41 (2004) [hereinafter Shiffrin, Foundations](defending a similar thesis with respect to the Establishment Clause alone);
57. Marc O. DeGirolami, Tragic Historicism: A Theory of Religious Liberty 3-6 (Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished manuscript, on file with the Virginia Law Review Association).
58. See generally Nelson Tebbe, Smith in Theory and Practice, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 2055, 2062-66 (2011).
59. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403 (1963) (asking whether the disqualification of a claimant from employment benefits "imposes any burden" on religious practice).
60. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533-34 (1993).
61. Emp't Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 901-02 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
62. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 698 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).
63. Smith, 494 U.S. at 886 n.3 (citing equal protection cases);
64. Nelson Tebbe & Robert L. Tsai, Constitutional Borrowing, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 459, 479-80 (2010).
65. Smith, 494 U.S. at 885.
66. Warning against allowing each free exercise claimant to "become a law unto himself" (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 167 (1878).
67. See, e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 700 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (arguing that no simple rule or test can adequately resolve difficult antiestablishment cases);
68. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, The Impossibility of Religious Freedom 8 (2005);
69. Steven D. Smith, Discourse in the Dusk: The Twilight of Religious Freedom?, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1869, 1871 (2009).
70. Reviewing 2 Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution: Establishment and Fairness (2009).
71. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 187 (1965).
72. See, e.g., Martin Riesebrodt, The Promise of Salvation: A Theory of Religion 72 (2010).
73. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures 90 (1973) (emphasizing the social utility of language).
74. Other examples of works that stand within the functionalist line of thinking arguably include Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice 66-75 (1990).
75. Thomas Luckmann, The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society 51-56 (1967)
76. A possible exception is James Beckford, who advances a "social constructionist" conception of religion. James A. Beckford, Social Theory & Religion 3 (2003).
77. Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam 29 (1993).
78. Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion After September 11, at 1-2 (2003).
79. See also Jonathan Z. Smith, Religion, Religions, Religious, in Critical Terms for Religious Studies 269, 281 (Mark C. Taylor, ed., 1998) [hereinafter Smith, Religion].
80. Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown xi (1982).
81. Greenawalt built on the approach of Judge Adams of the Third Circuit. In Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 207-09 (3rd Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring).
82. See also Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1032 (3d Cir. 1981) (Adams, J.).
83. See Nelson Tebbe, Eclecticism, 25 Const. Comment. 317 (2008).
84. Reviewing 2 Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution: Establishment and Fairness (2008)
85. Brian Leiter, Foundations of Religious Liberty: Toleration or Respect?, 47 San Diego L. Rev. 935, 957-59 (2010) (noting that "no principled argument" supports treating religion as special in law);
86. Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion?, 25 Const. Comment. 1, 2, 15 (2008) (defining religion narrowly and arguing there are no good principled reasons to tolerate religion as such).
87. For instance, the probable nonbelievers in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 164-66 (1965), and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1970), were given conscientious-objector status even though the statute limited relief from conscription to religious pacifists. Eisgruber and Sager would extend this approach to all deep commitments.
88. Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1970), were given conscientious-objector status even though the statute limited relief from conscription to religious pacifists. Eisgruber and Sager would extend this approach to all deep commitments.
89. For instance, Justice Stevens has argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") violates the Establishment Clause because it gives special protection to religious landowners as against "atheist" landowners. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536-37 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring). Some theorists have argued against exemptions for any group, in several contexts.
90. See, e.g., Stephen G. Gey, Why is Religion Special?: Reconsidering the Accommodation of Religion Under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 75, 79 (1990).
91. See, e.g., Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, The Vulnerability of Conscience: The Constitutional Basis for Protecting Religious Conduct, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1245, 1270 (1994) (criticizing the textual argument for special constitutional treatment of religion);
92. Andrew Koppelman, Is it Fair to Give Religion Special Treatment?, 2006 U. Ill. L. Rev. 571, 577-78.
93. But see Michael W. McConnell, The Problem of Singling Out Religion, 50 DePaul L. Rev. 1, 9-10, 12-16 (2000) (making the textual argument).
94. Philip B. Kurland, Religion and the Law: Of Church and State and the Supreme Court 17-18 (1962).
95. See Michael E. Smith, The Special Place of Religion in the Constitution, 1983 Sup. Ct. Rev. 83;
96. They address the definition of religion, and argue that it should not matter in any detailed way for legal analysis, in Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, Does It Matter What Religion Is?, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 807, 829-30 (2009).
97. See Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 307 (3d Cir. 2006) ("The ministerial exception, as we conceive of it, operates to bar any claim, the resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to select who will perform particular spiritual functions.");
98. See Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d. 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2000).
99. But see McKelvey v. Pierce, 800 A.2d 840, 851 (N.J. 2002).
100. Marci A. Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law 190-91 (2005).
101. For a similar argument, see Andrew Koppelman & Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right To Discriminate? How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association 142 n.26 (2009).
102. McConnell et al., Religion and the Constitution 318 (2d ed. 2006) (citing cases).
103. For an interesting treatment of their theory of government endorsement, see Abner S. Greene, Three Theories of Religious Equality ⋯ and of Exemptions, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 963, 980-81 (2009).
104. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 734-35 (2005) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("The evil of discriminating today against atheists, polytheists, and believers in unconcerned deities, is in my view a direct descendent of the evil of discriminating among Christian sects. The Establishment Clause thus forbids it ⋯ .") (citation and quotation marks omitted);
105. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1984).
106. Interestingly, Justice Scalia has suggested that Ten Commandments displays are constitutional even if they endorse belief over nonbelief. McCreary v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 893 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J. and Thomas, J.).
107. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).
108. See, e.g., B.H. Hartogensis, Denial of Equal Rights to Religious Minorities and Non-Believers in the United States, 39 Yale L.J. 659, 668 (1929);
109. Paul Kaufman, Disbelieving Nonbelievers: Atheism, Competence, and Credibility in the Turn of the Century American Courtroom, 15 Yale J.L. & Human. 395, 403 (2003);
110. Charles E. Rushing, The First Amendment and Civil Disabilities Imposed Upon Atheists, 3 Duke B.J. 137, 138 (1952).
111. See, e.g., Carver v. United States, 164 U.S. 694, 697 (1897);
112. See, e.g., State v. Mercer, 61 A. 220, 221 (Md. 1905);
113. See, e.g., Pountain v. Pountain, 503 S.E.2d 757, 761 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) (granting custody to a mother in part because of the father's agnosticism);
114. Eugene Volokh, Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 631, 727-28 (2006) (citing additional cases);
115. Agnostic Man Claims Religious Bias Cost Him Custody, USA Today (Dec. 5, 2010), http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-12-05-agnostic05-ST-N.htm.
116. See, e.g., In re Adoption of E, 279 A.2d 785, 791 (N.J. 1971).
117. See, e.g., Neela Banerjee, Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led To Threats, N.Y. Times, Apr. 26, 2008, at A14.
118. See, e.g., Young v. Sw. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 509 F.2d 140, 141, 144 (5th Cir. 1975).
119. U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights, Religious Discrimination: A Neglected Issue 94-96 (1979) (statement of Charles Reams, Jr., President, Humanist Association of the National Capital Area) (describing additional instances);
120. Richard H. Sander & Jane Yakowitz, The Secret of My Success: How Status, Prestige and School Performance Shape Legal Careers 38 (Oct. 22, 2010) (unpublished manuscript, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1640058).
121. See, e.g., Gail Merel, The Protection of Individual Choice: A Consistent Understanding of Religion Under the First Amendment, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 805, 813 (1978);
122. Alan E. Brownstein, Harmonizing the Heavenly and Earthly Spheres: The Fragmentation and Synthesis of Religion, Equality, and Speech in the Constitution, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 89, 112 n.109.
123. Carl H. Esbeck, Religion and the First Amendment: Some Causes of the Recent Confusion, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 883, 896-97 (2001);
124. John H. Garvey, An Anti Liberal Argument for Religious Freedom, 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 275, 288-89 (1996) (suggesting that antidiscrimination rules would be among those that apply to nonbelievers).
125. Judge Wood, writing for the court in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005).
126. 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
127. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000bb-2000bb-4 (2006);
128. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (2006).
129. Christopher C. Lund, Religious Liberty After Gonzales: A Look at State RFRAs, 55 S.D. L. Rev. 466, 467-69, 477 & n.67 (2010) (citing statutes but observing that they are rarely used);
130. Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Expressive Association and Government Subsidies, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1919, 1950 & n.116 (2006) (listing state court constructions of state free exercise provisions).
131. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 164-65 (1965) (citing 50 U.S.C. app. 456(j) (1958));
132. See also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339-41 (1970).Congress defined religion to mean: [A] belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [excluding] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
133. Seeger, 380 U.S. at 172 (quoting the statute).
134. See Historical and Statutory Notes, 50 U.S.C.A. app. 456, at 110 (1990).
135. See Welsh, 398 U.S. at 335 (quoting the statute). I thank Kent Greenawalt for pointing out this change in the law.
136. Welsh, 398 U.S. at 345 (Harlan, J., concurring in the result).
137. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972).
138. Michael McConnell, Accommodation of Religion, 1985 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 10-11.
139. Douglas Laycock, The Religious Exemption Debate, 11 Rutgers J.L. & Religion 139, 170-71 (2009).
140. Thomas Berg, Minority Religions and the Religion Clauses, 82 Wash. U. L.Q. 919, 976 (2004).
141. Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 793-94 (7th Cir. 2008).
142. See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2005).
143. See Wells v. City and County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2001) (rejecting that claim).
144. Soc'y for Ethical Culture in the City of N.Y. v. Spatt, 51 N.Y.2d 449, 924 (1980).
145. Religion Clause Blog, School Excuses Atheist Student From Reading Bible as Literature (Dec. 17, 2009), http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/12/ school-excusesatheist-student-from.html.
146. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 187 (1965).
147. Humanism and its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 (2003), http://www.americanhumanist.org/system/ storage/63/238/HumanismandItsAspirations.pdf.
148. See Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 716 (1981);
149. Samuel J. Levine, The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine: An Introduction, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 793, 795 (2009).
150. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 714-15 (1976);
151. Richard W. Garnett, A Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine: What Are We Talking About?, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 837, 855-56 (2009). What follows in the text relies on Garnett's summary of the doctrine.
152. Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. at 715 (noting that courts are "singularly ill equipped" to resolve intrafaith disputes concerning doctrine);
153. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. at 714-15 n.8;
154. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729 (1871).
155. See Andrew Koppelman, The Troublesome Religious Roots of Religious Neutrality, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 865, 869-70 (2009);
156. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 625 (1971).
157. Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 650 (2000).
158. Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005).
159. See Richard W. Garnett, Religious Liberty, Church Autonomy, and the Structure of Freedom, in Christianity and Human Rights: an Introduction 267 (John Witte, Jr. & Frank S. Alexander eds., 2010);
160. Mark DeWolfe Howe, Foreword: Political Theory and the Nature of Liberty, 67 Harv. L. Rev. 91, 94 (1953);
161. Richard W. Garnett, Do Churches Matter? Towards an Institutional Understanding of the Religion Clauses, 53 Vill. L. Rev. 273, 274 (2008);
162. Paul Horwitz, Churches as First Amendment Institutions: Of Sovereignty and Spheres, 44 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 79, 83-84 (2009);
163. Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Secular Government, Religious People 1-3 (unpublished book manuscript, on file with the Virginia Law Review Association).
164. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 726 (1871);
165. See also Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969) (suggesting a grounding in the "First Amendment");
166. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 107 (1952).
167. See Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 698 (1976).
168. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602-03 (1979).
169. Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 680 (1970).
170. See 26 U.S.C. 6033(a)(3) (2006) (exempting churches from ordinary tax return filing requirements).
171. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a) (2006) (Title VII). The ministerial exemption doctrine also allows them to select clergy on other grounds, such as sex or gender.
172. For a general discussion and critique, see Caroline Mala Corbin, Above the Law? The Constitutionality of the Ministerial Exemption from Antidiscrimination Law, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 1965 (2007).
173. Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Courts, Clergy, and Congregations: Disputes Between Religious Institutions and Their Leaders, 7 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 119, 127-28 (2009).
174. See Corp. of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 336 (1987).
175. See Kathleen A. Brady, Religious Organizations and Free Exercise: The Surprising Lessons of Smith, 2004 BYU L. Rev. 1633, 1636, 1677-79.
176. For a recent example, see Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop, 627 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The ministerial exemption likely has constitutional status, though some courts have grounded it in employment discrimination statutes.
177. See, e.g., Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F.3d 472, 475 (7th Cir. 2008). Some courts have refused to extend it to cases of sexual harassment.
178. See, e.g., Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 969 (9th Cir. 2004).
179. See EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Sch., 597 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 1783 (2011).
180. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729 (1871).
181. Ira C. Lupu & Robert Tuttle, The Distinctive Place of Religious Entities in Our Constitutional Order, 47 Vill. L. Rev. 37, 91-92 (2002).
182. See Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 306-07 (3d Cir. 2006).
183. See, e.g., Carl H. Esbeck, Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic, 2004 BYU L. Rev. 1385, 1392;
184. Douglas Laycock, Church Autonomy Revisited, 7 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 253, 258 (2009) (emphasizing historical arguments);
185. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 728-29 (1871).
186. See, e.g., Richard W. Garnett, The Freedom of the Church, 4 J. Cath. Soc. Thought 59, Notre Dame Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-12, at 18 (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=916336 ("[I]t would seem crucial to the success of any proposed translation or incorporation of the libertas ecclesiae principle into our law that churches not be assimilated and reduced to such [voluntary] associations.") [hereinafter Garnett, Freedom];
187. Friends from Vermont tell me that this is conceivable. Cf. Linnemeir v. Bd. of Trs., 260 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2001) (remarking that a state university could not adopt a policy of promoting atheism).
188. See, e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).
189. See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 598 (1992);
190. Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
191. See McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 893 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
192. See Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 31 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the judgment);
193. On the role of localism in Establishment Clause cases, see Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Federalism and Faith, 56 Emory L.J. 19, 60-105 (2006);
194. Adam M. Samaha, Endorsement Retires: From Religious Symbols to Anti-Sorting Principles, 2005 Sup. Ct. Rev. 135;
195. Richard C. Schragger, The Role of the Local in the Doctrine and Discourse of Religious Liberty, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1810 (2004).
196. See Newdow, 542 U.S. at 31 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the judgment).
197. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 606 (Kennedy, J.).
198. See, e.g., Smith v. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 827 F.2d 684, 694 (11th Cir. 1987).
199. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 643-44 (2002).
200. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 857 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (controlling opinion) (adhering "to the rule that we have applied in the context of textbook lending programs: To establish a First Amendment violation, plaintiffs must prove that the aid in question actually is, or has been, used for religious purposes").