I honestly can't recall, although I didn't think he had, so this is not too
much of a loaded question -- but where in Smith does Justice Scalia
"expressly" carve out the ministerial exception?
Best,
Paul Horwitz
Visiting Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:32:49 EST
In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court
nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed
perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a Congregationalist polity
even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or Presbyterian in
their polity). If this isn't the application of secular norms, then
what is it?
As to the post-Wolf cases, it is difficult to argue that they can be
easily reconciled, there being a real difference on the precise question
of secular norms. I think that the law is anything but clear,
post-Wolf.
One more point, the property dispute cases involving Eastern Orthodox
Churches certainly reflect secular norms -- a dislike of communism, for
openers.
Even Justice Scalia expressly carved out the Ministerial Exception in
Employment Div. v. Smith (neutral laws of general applicability
analysis)...it is a
little dfifficult to respond to your "sense" that the Court applied secular
norms without you referring to specific cases from which you derive that
sense....
Donald C. Clark, Jr.
2333 Waukegan Road
Suite 160
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
847-236-0900
847-236-0909 (fax)
This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments
are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or
protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in or attached to this message is strictly
prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to
this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
******************************************************************************
**************************
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the
IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein
(including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
herein.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
