From SSRN’s list of most frequently downloaded law and religion papers posted in the last 60 days, here are the current top five:
1. Suffer the Teenage Children: Child Sexual Abuse in Church Communities by Patrick Parkinson (U. of Sydney – Faculty of Law) [201 downloads]
2. Rethinking Religious Reasons in Public Justification by Andrew F. March (Yale U.) [153 downloads]
3. Queering Schools, GSAs and the Law: Taking on God, by Donn Short (U. of Manitoba Faculty of Law) [133 downloads]
4. The Causes and Cures of Unethical Business Practices – A Jewish Perspective, by Steven H. Resnicoff (DePaul U. College of Law) [130 downloads]
5. Bankrupting the Faith, by Pamela Foohey, (U. of Illinois College of Law) [116 downloads]
Jay Alan Sekulow and Erik M. Zimmerman (both from American Center for Law and Justice) have posted Reflections on Jews for Jesus: Twenty-five Years Later. The abstract follows.
This Article marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. The Court held, in a unanimous decision, that LAX Resolution No. 13787 declaring that Los Angeles International Airport’s central terminal area “is not open for First Amendment activities by any individual and/or entity”—which airport officials interpreted to allow “airport-related” expression and forbid other expression, such as religious leafleting—violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. More broadly, Jews for Jesus contributed to the fight to provide equal footing for religious speech in the free speech arena, a development that has become all the more important since the Supreme Court abandoned the application of strict scrutiny in free exercise cases in 1990.
This Article discusses the Jews for Jesus litigation and the Supreme Court decision’s impact on First Amendment jurisprudence. Part I provides legal background for the case, discussing various Supreme Court cases decided before Jews for Jesus that addressed restrictions on leafleting or assembly, laws that provided government officials with unfettered discretion, or claims of a free speech right to access various types of public property for expressive activities. Part II discusses the Jews for Jesus litigation, from the enactment of the Resolution to the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision. Part III discusses the impact and continued legal relevance of Jews for Jesus. Part IV describes the effect of Jews for Jesus over the past twenty-five years from a legal, practical, and personal perspective, as well as the developments in the law of religious speech since the 1987 decision.
Deepa Das Acevedo (Ph.D. Student, U. of Chicago) has posted Secularism in the Indian Context. The abstract follows.
Indian constitutional framers sought to tie their new state to ideas of modernity and liberalism by creating a government that would ensure citizens’ rights while also creating the conditions for democratic citizenship. Balancing these two goals has been particularly challenging with regard to religion, as exemplified by the emergence of a peculiarly Indian understanding of secularism which requires the non-establishment of religion but not the separation of religion and state. Supporters argue that this brand of secularism is best suited to the particular social and historical circumstances of independent India. This article suggests that the desire to separate religion and state is integral to any understanding of secularism and that, consequently, the Indian state neither is nor was meant to be secular. However, Indian secularists correctly identify the Indian state’s distinctive approach to religion-state relations as appropriate to the Indian context and in keeping with India’s constitutional goals.