Regulating Religion, by Catharine Cookson

Catharine Cookson, the director of the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College, has added a new approach to the range of criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, the court held that two state-funded drug counselors who took peyote during Native American Church services could be denied unemployment compensation be­cause their actions violated the generally applicable narcotics laws. Cookson argues that Smith was wrongly decided, and that the courts in free exercise cases should follow a casuistry-based method.

 

This article is available to subscribers only. Please subscribe for full access—subscriptions begin at $4.95. Already have an online account? Log in now. Already a print subscriber? Create an online account for no additional cost.

This article is available to subscribers only.

To post a comment, log inregister, or use the Facebook comment box.