To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
1 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878).
2 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. No. 103–141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4).
3 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
4 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Of course, there is an obvious tension here that has been widely discussed but is worthy of further analysis about when is a fact pattern really a Smith case and when is it really a Lukumi problem. Consider the recent Second Circuit case of Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States & Canada v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 736 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2015), as just one example.
5 RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the States in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), but is still the law governing the US government itself. Congress also passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub. L. 106–274, 114 Stat. 803 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc).
10 “Nothing in Ontario law prevents people from turning to a religious official or someone knowledgeable in the principles of their religion to help them resolve their family dispute. However, if that person made a decision based on religious principles, the decision would not be a valid family arbitration award under the law. Both spouses could comply with the decision voluntarily, but the decision would not be enforceable if one of the people involved took it to court. The court may only enforce awards made in arbitrations conducted exclusively under Canadian law.” Ministry of the Attorney General, Province of Ontario, Faith-based (Religious) Family Arbitration, http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/arbitration/faith-based.asp.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.