97 research outputs found
Requiem for the Establishment Clause
No full textPart of Symposium: Establishment and FairnessSullivan, Winnifred Fallers. (2008). Requiem for the Establishment Clause. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/170485
Recommended from our members
Prison Religion ::Faith-Based Reform and the Constitution /
No full textMore than the citizens of most countries, Americans are either religious or in jail--or both. But what does it mean when imprisonment and evangelization actually go hand in hand, or at least appear to? What do "faith-based" prison programs mean for the constitutional separation of church and state, particularly when prisoners who participate get special privileges? In Prison Religion, law and religion scholar Winnifred Fallers Sullivan takes up these and other important questions through a close examination of a 2005 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a faith-based residential rehabilitation program in an Iowa state prison. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, a trial in which Sullivan served as an expert witness, centered on the constitutionality of allowing religious organizations to operate programs in state-run facilities. Using the trial as a case study, Sullivan argues that separation of church and state is no longer possible. Religious authority has shifted from institutions to individuals, making it difficult to define religion, let alone disentangle it from the state. Prison Religion casts new light on church-state law, the debate over government-funded faith-based programs, and the predicament of prisoners who have precious little choice about what kind of rehabilitation they receive, if they are offered any at all
Recommended from our members
The Impossibility of Religious Freedom ::New Edition /
No full textThe Constitution may guarantee it. But religious freedom in America is, in fact, impossible. So argues this timely and iconoclastic work by law and religion scholar Winnifred Sullivan. Sullivan uses as the backdrop for the book the trial of Warner vs. Boca Raton, a recent case concerning the laws that protect the free exercise of religion in America. The trial, for which the author served as an expert witness, concerned regulations banning certain memorials from a multiconfessional nondenominational cemetery in Boca Raton, Florida. The book portrays the unsuccessful struggle of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish families in Boca Raton to preserve the practice of placing such religious artifacts as crosses and stars of David on the graves of the city-owned burial ground. Sullivan demonstrates how, during the course of the proceeding, citizens from all walks of life and religious backgrounds were harassed to define just what their religion is. She argues that their plight points up a shocking truth: religion cannot be coherently defined for the purposes of American law, because everyone has different definitions of what religion is. Indeed, while religious freedom as a political idea was arguably once a force for tolerance, it has now become a force for intolerance, she maintains. A clear-eyed look at the laws created to protect religious freedom, this vigorously argued book offers a new take on a right deemed by many to be necessary for a free democratic society. It will have broad appeal not only for religion scholars, but also for anyone interested in law and the Constitution.Featuring a new preface by the author, The Impossibility of Religious Freedom offers a new take on a right deemed by many to be necessary for a free democratic society
Introduction / Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Saba Mahmood, and Peter G. Danchin
No full textRecommended from our members
Church state corporation ::construing religion in US law /
No full text"What is a church and what work does "church"-the church-do today in American law? In Church State Corporation, Sullivan argues that the appeals to "the church" we find in legal opinions express what she calls a "Christian mystical political theology" that naturalizes religion in the American legal imagination and limits the law's ability to acknowledge religion more broadly. To pinpoint the work the church does in US law, Sullivan examines two recent Supreme Court cases, Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), in order to map the contours of the "church-shaped space" at the heart of what constitutes religion in US law. Sullivan also examines a constellation of church property cases, cases developing corporate personhood such as Citizens United, and what the "Angola Church"-a collection of churches formed within the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola-reveals about the range of the church's influence in US law. In all, the reader is treated to a remarkably thought-provoking analysis of the ways the church persists in US law, one that calls into question our basic assumptions about our supposedly secular age"-
The Legal Unintelligibility of Prayer
No full textThis is a blog post in response to “Law’s Prayer: Town of Greece v Galloway” by Winnifred Fallers Sullivan
The religious expert in American courts
No full textThis article examines how academic experts contribute to the discussion of court cases concerning the defense of religious freedom in the US Based on a study of relevant cases in which the scope of the first amendment has been debated, and relying on her own experience as an expert in some of these court cases, the author addresses the question of who is legitimate to define what counts or not as religious. She also studies the ambivalent relation of the American public to academic expertise. While some consider the role of experts as necessary to the formation of fair decisions, others view it as an obstacle to the expression of people's will.Cet article étudie comment les experts universitaires contribuent au règlement des affaires portées devant les tribunaux américains concernant la protection de la liberté religieuse. À partir de certains cas significatifs où les limites et la portée du premier amendement ont été débattus, et en s'appuyant sur des éléments tirés de son expérience d'experte sollicitée par les tribunaux, l'auteure traite de la question de savoir qui est légitime et habilité à définir ce qui est religieux ou non religieux. Elle étudie également le rapport ambivalent du public américain avec l'expertise, à la fois considérée comme garantie d'une décision éclairée et comme potentiellement contraire à la volonté populaire.Este artículo examina la contribución de los expertos universitarios a la regulación de los asuntos llevados ante los tribunales americanos en relación con la protección de la libertad religiosa. A partir de un estudio de ciertos casos significativos donde los límites y el alcance de la primera enmienda han sido debatidos, y apoyándose igualmente sobre elementos tomados de su experiencia de experta solicitada por los tribunales, la autora trata la cuestión del saber que es legítimo e idóneo para definir aquello que cuenta como religioso o no religioso. Ella estudia también la relación ambivalente del público americano en relación con las pericias, a la vez consideradas como garantía de una decisión ilustrada y como siendo potencialmente contraria a la voluntad popular
- …
