國立虎尾科技大學 |

Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence./
作者:	O'Malley, Deborah A.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (231 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-07A(E).
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355572773

Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
O'Malley, Deborah A.

Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence. - 1 online resource (231 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)

Includes bibliographical references

My dissertation explores the nature, source and scope of the rights of religious institutions in the American legal tradition. I analyze the Supreme Court's treatment not only of houses of worship, but of religious non-profits, businesses, and student groups at public universities as well. I argue that the protection of religious institutions should concern all citizens because, to say nothing of the sacredness of freedom of conscience, religious institutions play an essential structural role in democratic societies. Religious institutions and other private, voluntary associations defend individuals against the tyranny of the state as well as tyranny of the majority, which Alexis de Tocqueville described as the ''greatest danger'' to the American republic.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355572773Subjects--Topical Terms:

558774
Political science.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
LDR:03673ntm a2200373Ki 4500 001 910962
005 20180517120325.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355572773
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10621586
035 $a (MiAaPQ)baylor:10880
035 $a AAI10621586
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
099 $a TUL $f hyy $c available through World Wide Web
100 1 $a O'Malley, Deborah A. $3 1182513
245 1 0 $a Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (231 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: David K. Nichols.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.) $c Baylor University $d 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a My dissertation explores the nature, source and scope of the rights of religious institutions in the American legal tradition. I analyze the Supreme Court's treatment not only of houses of worship, but of religious non-profits, businesses, and student groups at public universities as well. I argue that the protection of religious institutions should concern all citizens because, to say nothing of the sacredness of freedom of conscience, religious institutions play an essential structural role in democratic societies. Religious institutions and other private, voluntary associations defend individuals against the tyranny of the state as well as tyranny of the majority, which Alexis de Tocqueville described as the ''greatest danger'' to the American republic.
520 $a While the current Supreme Court justices have been unanimous in their opinion that houses of worship should possess at least a certain degree of autonomy, they have been much more divided concerning the scope of the rights of other religious organizations. For example, in the 2014 case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, only a bare majority of the justices sustained a closely held corporation's right to exercise religion. Justice Ginsburg, embracing an individualistic understanding of religion and rights in her dissenting opinion, argued that religion cannot be exercised by ''artificial legal entities'' but only by ''natural persons.'' In the 2010 case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a five-justice majority effectively denied the expressive association rights of a small Christian student group at a public university by upholding a policy that required every registered student group to accept members, even leaders, who rejected the group's core beliefs.
520 $a My dissertation explores these and other cases, demonstrating how a proper understanding of group personhood led to a sound decision in the Hobby Lobby case, and how the Martinez opinion, on the other hand, was informed by an impoverished understanding of associations and community. I analyze inconsistencies in the Court's jurisprudence concerning freedom of religion and freedom of association; I explore the (individualistic) philosophical assumptions animating the justices' reasoning in some of these cases; and I articulate the principles that are necessary for the full protection of religious institutions.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0398
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Baylor University. $b Political Science. $3 1182514
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-07A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10621586 $z click for full text (PQDT)