1) In Smith, the Court used a narrow interpretation of the free exercise clause in order to find that the government did not have to bend over backward in order to accommodate religious practice. This was a major deviation from Verner, where the Court utilized a broad interpretation of the first amendment. In Verner, the Court interpreted the free exercise clause in a broad manner, holding that states did not have a compelling interest in failing to accommodate individuals who were following their religion. They employed in Verner a least restrictive means approach, forcing states to take the least restrictive means in order to secure a proper result. Verner as a the majority view could be an earth-shaking proposition, as it would impose a much higher burden on states while making the free exercise clause much broader. The current approach limits the free exercise clause, and any deviation from that would put more pressure on states.
2) The critical factor in determining whether federal aid to a religious organization is appropriate is whether the money is being used to fund “inherently religious” activities. What this means is that if the money is being used to in some tangible way support religious teaching, religious worship, or the spread of religion, then it is not appropriate for the federal government to grant that money. If the money is being used for other things – for instance, the non-religious social support provisions that the faith-based organization offers – then the money is allowable. The appropriate rubric would ask questions about the nature of the money and what it is being used for. Faith-based organizations trying to take advantage of federal money must be sure that they do everything in their power to erect a wall of separation between social and religious services.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Freedom of Religion".
