What Do Religious Corporations Owe for Burdening Individual Civil Rights

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2019.3.2.065

Abstract

In the name of religious liberty, recent legislative initiatives by Christian nationalists seek broad legal exemptions from general law. This reflects an abiding antipathy to and a fear of the power of the state, the ultimate aim of which may be sovereignty for religious institutions. But, the claims of Christian nationalists are vulnerable to a series of critical objections. First, the rhetoric of religious liberty used by Christian nationalists plays on confusion between two senses of religious liberty – that of institutional religious freedom and that of individual freedom of religious conscience. These two senses need to be distinguished, since they are sometimes in fundamental conflict with one another, arguably to the extent of institutional religious freedom burdening individual religious conscience. Further, legal exemptions to general law that benefit particular religious institutions should also be recognized as gifts. They are not fundamental or inalienable rights. Therefore, granting such accommodations requires that religious communities benefitting from them should somehow reciprocate for their being exempted from common obligations under general law.

Author Biography

Ivan Strenski, University of California, Riverside (UCR), USA

Ivan Strenski is Holstein Family and Community Professor of Religious Studies at UCR. In recent decades he has traveled extensively and maintained close contact with scholars in Europe, Russia, North and South America, Asia. He considers his current role in bridging cultural and intellectual gaps between the countries of these regions. He is the author of the following books: Why Politics Can’t Be Freed From Religion (2010), Dumont on Religion: Difference, Comparison, Transgression (2008), The New Durkheim: Essays on Philosophy, Religious Identity and the Politics of Knowledge (2006), A Companion Reader to Thinking about Religion (2005), Thinking about Religion (2005), Theology and the First Theory of Sacrifice (2003), Contesting Sacrifice: Religion, Nationalism and Social Thought (2002), Durkheim and the Jews of France (1997), Religion in Relation: Method, Application and Moral Location (1993), Four Theories of Myth in Twentieth Century History (1988).

References


  • Berman, H. J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. (2014). Retrived from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-354/

  • Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Retrived from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/

  • Figgis, J. N. (1997). Churches in the Modern State. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.

  • Green, S. K. (2017). The Mixed Legacy of Magna Carta for American Religious Freedom. Journal of Law and Religion, 32(2), 207–226. DOI: 10.1017/jlr.2017.32

  • Hill, B. J. (2017). Kingdom without End: The Inevitable Expansion of Religious Sovereignty Claims. Lewis and Clark Review, 20(4), 1177–1200.

  • Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012). Retrived from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/171/

  • Lupu, I. C., & Tuttle, R. W. (2017). The Mystery of Unanimity in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEO. Lewis and Clark Law Review, 20(1265), 1265–1313. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2830169

  • Mauss, M. (1967). The Gift: The Form and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. (I. Cunnison, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). The Supreme Court 2006 Term. Harvard Law Review, 121(1), 1–183, 185–499.

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2008). Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality. New York: Basic Books.

  • Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Retrived from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89858/reynolds-v-united-states/

  • Sarkissian, A. (2016). The Varieties of Religious Repression. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Schwartzman, M., Flanders C., & Robinson, Z. (Eds.). (2016). The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Stewart, K. (2018, May 26). A Christian Nationalist Blitz. The New York Times, p. 1.

  • Stolzenberg, N. (2016, March 9). America’s Divisions and Scalia’s Christian Visions [Essay]. Retrived from https://religionandpolitics.org/2016/03/09/americasdivisions-and-scalias-christian-visions/

  • Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 1414–1625 (1998). Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.

  • West, R. (2016). Freedom of the Church and Our Endangered Civil Rights. In M. Schwartzman, C. Flanders & Z. Robinson (Eds.), The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (pp. 399–418). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Zubic v. Burwell, 578 U.S. (2016). Retrived from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-1418/

Published
2019-06-30
How to Cite
Strenski, I. (2019). What Do Religious Corporations Owe for Burdening Individual Civil Rights. Changing Societies & Personalities, 3(2), 113–123. doi:10.15826/csp.2019.3.2.065
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 3, No. 2 (2019)
Section
Articles