Eugene wrote on 11/21/2005 11:18:15 AM:
> For instance, does it mean "Congress shall make no law totally
> prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced"? If so,
> Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not
> prohibiting religion generally, only one religion.
For those who would see Eugene's hypotethical example as something that would never happen, this is, in fact, the "logic" used by the the Fifth Circuit in the case of Xiaodong Li, whose request for asylum was inexplicably opposed by the US Attorney General's office.
http://www.usaforunhcr.org/usaforunhcr/archives.cfm?ID=3298&catID=2)
According to the article, the Circuit felt there was no persecution involved "[b]ecause the Chinese government tolerates Christianity, so long as it's practiced in a registered group". For this, the Circuit (as well as the the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Dept. of Homeland Security) was roundly, and rightly, excoriated. If the Free Exercise clause was interpreted according to the above hypothetical, though, it would not only vindicate the Circuit Court but it would establish the same freedomless standard for U.S. citizens.
Thankfully, the Dept. of Homeland Security has withdrawn its appeal, and the Fifth Circuit has vacated its decision.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/012/8.20.html
Brad
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
