Casuistical Free Exercise Jurisprudence
A Summary and Some Conclusions
Perceptions of authoritarian injustice or of anarchical laxity are just as harmful to the integrity of the justice system as actual impropriety. Casuistry offers clear, definable paradigmatic limits to the free exercise right, and places the burden of proof on both the state and the religious adherent. This book proposes that a casuistical free exercise analysis, while not perfect, protects the courts’ integrity by offering a fairer and more just process for resolving the conflict of principles that lies at the heart of free exercise cases. To those who would reject casuistry as a new element without precedent, and as an arbitrary choice without any foundation or authority, the book notes that casuistry is quintessentially the process used in common law decision making, and actually has been used in deciding a significant number of major free exercise cases by the U.S. Supreme Court. What casuistry requires of the courts is a searching scrutiny with discernment and a willingness to make, explain, and justify these decisions to a fearful public and to a faithful “people of the wilderness.”
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.