Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Mirror of Justice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Religion & Law

: Mirror of Justice

Tom Berg, Too, Responds to Nelson Tebbe

ADVERTISEMENTS

Religious Choice and Exclusions of Religion

Thomas Berg

University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law

PENNumbra, 2008

U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-32

Abstract: 牋牋

Among the most important recent questions under the Religion Clauses has been whether and when government programs that support private activities, such as education or social services, may exclude religious institutions or activities that include religious content. Nelson Tebbe's article, Excluding Religion, argues that government should have "considerable latitude" to make such exclusions, even though he concedes they will discourage citizens from choosing religious options. In this response, published in PENNumbra (the University of Pennsylvania Law Review's online companion), I argue that Tebbe's justifications for excluding religion fail if the protection of citizens' religious choices against government influence is a central purpose of the Religion Clauses. I then turn to the key question whether preserving religious choice is indeed central, and I argue that it is, based on precedent, on traditions and concepts associated with the Religion Clauses, and on the fact that they are counter-majoritarian while Tebbe's position gives majorities great discretion over religious matters

[To download the paper, click here.]

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on December 14, 2008 (boomark / email).