scholarly journals The Wolf Act Amendments to the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act: Breakthrough or Breakdown?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Blitt
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
International Religious Freedom Act ◽  
The U.S

The Persecuted Body

Facing Fear ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melani Mcalister
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
First Century ◽  
Body Of Christ ◽  
Evangelical Christians ◽  
The World ◽  
Politics Of Fear ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
International Religious Freedom Act ◽  
The U.S

This chapter examines the politics of fear underlying the antipersecution discourse that revolved around evangelical Christians at the turn of the twenty-first century. A video made by the U.S.-based Christian evangelical group Voice of the Martyrs showed that Christians are being persecuted all around the world. By the turn of the twenty-first century, a passionate concern with the persecution of Christians united conservatives as well as liberal and moderate evangelicals. The chapter shows how antipersecution discourse resulted in the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. It also considers the significance of spectacles of the violated body to the discourse of persecution and how intense attention to Christian persecution created a tension for evangelicals between the universalizing language of human rights and a specific commitment to the “persecuted body” of Christ. Finally, it explores how evangelicals' attention to Christian persecution intersects with Islamic concerns.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

scholarly journals 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employer Discrimination ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Constitutional Issues in Cross-Gender Searches and Visual Observation of Nude Inmates by Opposite-Sex Officers: A Battle Between and Within the Sexes

1995 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE BENNETT
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Body Cavity ◽  
Visual Observation ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
The U.S

Prison litigation concerning the issues of cross-gender searches and visual observation of nude inmates in prisons and jails by opposite-sex officers involves alleged violations of several constitutional rights. Additionally, claims of two competing interest groups, prison employees and inmates, are in conflict. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley established standards for reviewing alleged violations of inmates' constitutional rights, a ruling that clarified issues somewhat. However, the recent Ninth Circuit case of Jordan v. Gardner (1993) rejected Turner standards and inserted a twist in the direction courts were taking. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 may further complicate the three issues of incidental observation of unclothed inmates by opposite-sex officers, cross-gender routine strip searches/body cavity searches, and cross-gender pat searches/clothed body searches.

Persecution of Christians in the Contemporary World

1998 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Theological Seminary ◽  
Academic Advisor ◽  
Religious Persecution ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
The World ◽  
Helsinki Commission ◽  
Beijing China ◽  
The U.S

The following essay is adapted from a presentation made to the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Secretary of State on Religious Freedom Abroad, July 2, 1997. Paul Marshall is Senior Fellow in Political Theory at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is also Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Adjunct Professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California; and Academic Advisor on Religious Freedom to the World Evangelical Fellowship. He has testified on religious persecution before the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. Congress and lectured on human rights at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China, and in other countries around the world. His most recent book is a survey of religious persecution worldwide, Their Blood Cries Out (Dallas: Word Books, 1997). His writings have been translated into Russian, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Malay, Korean, Indonesian, and Chinese.

scholarly journals Between Prohibitionism and Religious Freedom: The Legal Disputes Concerning an Ayahuasca Church and the United States Government

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-478
Author(s):  
Henrique Fernandes Antunes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Drug Enforcement ◽  
Controlled Substances ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Drug Enforcement Agency ◽  
The U.S

This article focuses on the legal disputes between the U.S. government and the Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV), as well as on the regulation of the religious use of ayahuasca by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Our aim is to present the main issues that were at stake throughout the dispute, especially the relationship between the limits of religious freedom when associated with the use of controlled substances.

Does the Hyde Amendment Violate Religious Freedom? Harris v. McRae and the First Amendment

1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-372
Author(s):  
Jay Alexander Gold
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Exercise Challenge ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

AbstractIn Harris v. McRae, the recent case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, the Court for the first time was asked to consider whether antiabortion legislation respects the establishment of religion or violates the free exercise thereof. The Court held that the Amendment did not effect an establishment of religion, and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to raise the free exercise argument.The writer explores the questions raised, agreeing with the Court's disposal of the establishment argument. He does find considerable.validity in the free exercise challenge, but concludes that the Court as presently constituted is unlikely to accept it. In addition, he believes that the Court, in its treatment of both arguments, either ignored or improperly dis tinguished earlier cases that supported the plaintiffs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document