Article Review

docx

School

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

JKC-BO2-00

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by LayneFelix7

1 Article Review: Employment Division V. Smith Student Name Institution Lecturer Course Date

2 Article Review: Employment Division V. Smith "Should Employment Division v. Smith Be Overturned?" The implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) are examined by Greenblum and Hubbard (2021). The creators give a short outline of the case and its effect on deciphering the Primary Revision's Foundation Provision, which states, "Congress will make no regulation regarding a foundation of religion." According to the authors of the 1990 case, the Supreme Court decided that even if a person holds sincerely held religious beliefs, they are still subject to all generally applicable laws. The authors contend that this decision violates religious liberty and ought to be reversed. They assert that the decision has opened the door to discrimination against minority religions and those who practice them and has produced a "chilling effect" on spiritual practice. The authors cite a number of instances in which people's religious beliefs prevented them from receiving unemployment benefits or other rights. They likewise examine the possible ramifications of toppling Smith, contending that it would make a more evenhanded framework for safeguarding strict opportunity and guaranteeing that all individuals can unreservedly rehearse their religion unafraid of separation or backlash. This article focuses primarily on the question of whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overturned. The creators contend that it ought to be upset to safeguard strict opportunity better and guarantee fair admittance to freedoms and advantages paying little heed to strict convictions. They provide several examples of people who have been denied access to rights and benefits due to their religious beliefs, as well as the potential consequences of overturning Smith, to support their argument.

3 The focal postulation of this article is that Smith ought to be upset to safeguard strict opportunity and guarantee evenhanded admittance to privileges and advantages paying little heed to strict convictions. By pointing to a number of instances in which individuals have been denied access to rights and benefits due to their religious beliefs and highlighting the potential repercussions of such a decision, the authors present a compelling case for overturning Smith. This article relies primarily on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court interpreted this clause to mean that people are subject to generally applicable laws based on religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are sincerely held. The authors claim that religious liberty has been harmed as a result of this interpretation. It should be overturned to better safeguard religious freedom and ensure that people of all faiths have equal access to benefits and rights. As evidence for their claims, the creators cite several academic sources, including Taliaferro (2019)'s report outlining an investigation led by various researchers into what Smith means for strict opportunity in America. Multiple outside scholarly sources either support or disprove Smith's position to bolster their argument against him. Movsesian (2022) states in his article that while Smith was crucial in upholding religious liberty, its application may have restricted exemptions granted from generally applicable laws to people with deeply held religious convictions. Meanwhile, Li (2020) asserts that while Smith limited specific exemptions granted those sincerely holding strong convictions from general application laws, it also provided greater assurances than ever to minority religions.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 At last, although Smith has been widely criticized for restricting serious entry, Wosnik contends in her 2019 article that his legislation has also provided minority religions more security than ever and allowed courts to consider certifiable interests when reviewing claims for conviction. There is sufficient external evidence supporting both positions although there remains some debate as to which party has the upper hand regarding whether Smith should be offended. Taking everything into consideration, Greenblum and Hubbard (2021) argue that the case of Smith v. Work Division (1990) should be overturned to ensure that everyone, regardless of their severe convictions, has equal access to opportunities and benefits. They discuss the logical consequences of offending Smith as well as a number of instances in which individuals have been denied benefits and opportunities due to their strong convictions in their dispute. Additionally, both sides of the argument regarding whether Smith ought to be upset are correct, as evidenced by the Principal Correction's Free Activity Statement and other outside academic sources.

5 References Greenbulum, J., & Hubbard, R. (2021). Should Employment Division v Smith Be Overturned? AMA Journal of Ethics , 23 (11), E864-868. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.864 Li, S. (2020). FREEDOM IN HANDCUFFS: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CHINA. Journal of Law and Religion , 35 (1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2020.1 Movsesian, M. L. (2022). Law, Religion, and the COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Law and Religion , 37 (1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.82 Taliaferro, K. E. (2019). Christianity and Natural Law: An Introduction. Edited by Norman Doe. Journal of Church and State , 61 (1), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csy096 Wosnik, P. J. (2019). Agape, Justice, and Law: How Might Christian Love Shape Law? Edited by Robert F. Cochran Jr. and Zachary R. Calo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 300. $110.00 (cloth). ISBN: 9781107175280. Journal of Law and Religion , 34 (1), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2019.20

Article Review

Related Documents