The Distinctive Place of Religious Entities in Our Constitutional Order

Ira C. Lupu, R. Tuttle
{"title":"The Distinctive Place of Religious Entities in Our Constitutional Order","authors":"Ira C. Lupu, R. Tuttle","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.270481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although much has been written on the special place of \"religion\" in American law, there has been considerably less commentary on the distinctive quality of religious institutions as compared with their secular counterparts. The current law of the Religion Clauses, and the characteristics of institutions as compared to religiously motivated individuals, however, suggest that institutions deserve discrete attention. In this paper, a revised version of the Donald Giannella Memorial Lecture recently delivered at Villanova Law School, the authors focus on three different legal contexts in which questions of distinctiveness of religious institutions arise - their exemption from civil rights law with respect to the employment of clergy, their exemption from historic preservation law with respect to noncommercial real property, and their inclusion in programs of government financial support for privately delivered social services (a/k/a charitable choice). The paper develops a taxonomy of scholarly and judicial positions on such questions, including Religionists (who tend to favor whatever helps such institutions), Secularists (who tend to disfavor whatever helps religious entities), Separationists (who tend to favor distinctive treatment of such institutions, whether it helps or hurts them), and Neutralists (who tend to disfavor such distinctive treatment). In connection with the three examples, the authors develop their own position, which starts from a presumption of Neutralism but requires departures from that position if and only if the government's policy exceeds constitutional limits designed to maintain the state's penultimacy, while leaving ultimate concerns to private institutions dedicated to them.","PeriodicalId":83467,"journal":{"name":"Villanova law review","volume":"47 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Villanova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.270481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Although much has been written on the special place of "religion" in American law, there has been considerably less commentary on the distinctive quality of religious institutions as compared with their secular counterparts. The current law of the Religion Clauses, and the characteristics of institutions as compared to religiously motivated individuals, however, suggest that institutions deserve discrete attention. In this paper, a revised version of the Donald Giannella Memorial Lecture recently delivered at Villanova Law School, the authors focus on three different legal contexts in which questions of distinctiveness of religious institutions arise - their exemption from civil rights law with respect to the employment of clergy, their exemption from historic preservation law with respect to noncommercial real property, and their inclusion in programs of government financial support for privately delivered social services (a/k/a charitable choice). The paper develops a taxonomy of scholarly and judicial positions on such questions, including Religionists (who tend to favor whatever helps such institutions), Secularists (who tend to disfavor whatever helps religious entities), Separationists (who tend to favor distinctive treatment of such institutions, whether it helps or hurts them), and Neutralists (who tend to disfavor such distinctive treatment). In connection with the three examples, the authors develop their own position, which starts from a presumption of Neutralism but requires departures from that position if and only if the government's policy exceeds constitutional limits designed to maintain the state's penultimacy, while leaving ultimate concerns to private institutions dedicated to them.
宗教实体在我国宪法秩序中的独特地位
尽管关于“宗教”在美国法律中的特殊地位的著述很多,但对宗教机构与世俗机构相比的独特品质的评论却少得多。然而,现行的《宗教条款法》以及机构与受宗教驱使的个人相比的特点表明,机构应该得到分散的关注。在这篇论文中,最近在维拉诺瓦法学院发表的唐纳德·吉安内拉纪念演讲的修订版,作者关注了三种不同的法律背景,在这些法律背景下,宗教机构的独特性问题出现了——他们在雇佣神职人员方面不受民权法的约束,他们在非商业不动产方面不受历史保护法的约束,并将其纳入政府对私人提供的社会服务的财政支持计划(也可以说是慈善选择)。本文在这些问题上发展了学术和司法立场的分类,包括宗教主义者(倾向于支持任何有助于这些机构的东西),世俗主义者(倾向于反对任何有助于宗教实体的东西),分离主义者(倾向于支持对这些机构的特殊待遇,无论是帮助还是伤害它们),以及中立主义者(倾向于不赞成这种特殊待遇)。结合这三个例子,作者提出了自己的立场,该立场从中立主义的假设出发,但当且仅当政府的政策超出了旨在维持国家惩罚的宪法限制,而将最终问题留给致力于此的私人机构时,就需要偏离这一立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书