Request for Advice:

I'm creating a Religion Clauses textbook, of about 400-450 softbound pages, for Foundation Press. I'm starting with the Religion Clauses materials from my First Amendment textbook -- cases, statutes, problems (the book is organized to work with either the problem method or the case method), and policy argument discussions -- but I can also add some extra material that couldn't fit in the big all-First-Amendment book.

If you've taught a class on the Religion Clauses, or if you've taken such a class and have thought about what worked well in the class and what was missing, and you'd be kind enough to skim over my draft table of contents and recommend what material might be worth including, I'd be very much obliged. Just post your thoughts in the comments below, please. Thanks!

Joe Jackson:
You should add something about Valley Forge, 454 U.S. 464.
5.24.2005 9:34pm
MattMarcotte (mail) (www):
Abington v. Schempp--in particular, Brennan's concurrence therein. Better, more comprehensive, opinion than anything in Engel, even though Engel's the better known case.
5.24.2005 11:10pm
Scott Clair (mail):
I think Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 (1879) is a good free exercise case. I think I read it along with Employment Division v. Smith in school.
5.24.2005 11:24pm
Positive Dennis:
Well. it wazs more of a state of California issue but whe nI took such a course I wrote a∫out the State of California verse the Worldwide Church of God. THe son of one of the defendants (Rader) actually wrote a Law review arcticle that was very very interesting
5.25.2005 12:38am
BarryG (mail):
I took First Amendment in Fall 2004, where we used Ravitch's "Law and Religion".

Regarding IV. where you begin to talk about religious accomodation you discuss in A.2.e. et seq., the policy behind Employment Div. v. Smith, and the other cases that brought back the rational basis test. Perhaps here, or under A.4., it would be an appropriate place to insert some of the more assertive "policy arguments" behind RFRA and more generally the value of religion in society. (i.e. why we ought to impose on the government the compelling interest standard). McConnell, for example. I think addressing that point specifically would give a student a broader and more complex view of the Free Exercise clause.
5.25.2005 1:04am
Jacob T. Levy (mail):
Minnesota v Hershberger 110 US 1918 (1990); State v Hershberger (II) 462 NW2d 3939 (Minn 1990)

US v Lee 455 US 252 (1982)

Webb v City of Republic, Missouri 1999

Watson v Jones 1871
Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 1952
Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1960

Maryland &Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God, 1970

Serbian Eastern Orthodox v. Milivojevich 1976
5.25.2005 1:25am
Bob Power (mail):
I've taught the course both as a two-credit seminar and as part of a first amendment survey. The draft table of contents looks very good, subject to the inevitable problem that a good "accommodation" case in its majority opinion may be a better "non-discrimination" case in its side opinions. This leads to a great deal of cross-referencing and metaphorical references to horses built by a committee and so on. The one modification I would make would be to address "what is religion" in the introductory materials. This helps students recognize that the answer is not always obvious and that some doctrinal problems result from beliefs and practices at the margins.
5.25.2005 11:17am
How about including some of the thinking that lies behind the idea of a right to religious freedom, e.g. Locke's Second Treatise and Letter Concerning Toleration? Maybe it's too far outside the usual scope of such a course, but it seems to me important for students to understand the fundamental *ground* of that right. (I'm a former lawyer who practiced for a number of years before going to graduate school to study political philosophy, and I now teach the founding and other things to undergraduates.)
5.26.2005 11:42pm