000 03568nam a2200745Ia 4500
001 201456
003 IT-RoAPU
005 20231211163307.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr || ||||||||
008 231101t20072007nyu fo d z eng d
020 _a9780814775851
_qprint
020 _a9780814776766
_qPDF
024 7 _a10.18574/nyu/9780814776766.001.0001
_2doi
035 _a(DE-B1597)9780814776766
035 _a(DE-B1597)548348
035 _a(OCoLC)170688861
040 _aDE-B1597
_beng
_cDE-B1597
_erda
072 7 _aLAW025000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a342.730852
084 _aonline - DeGruyter
100 1 _aRavitch, Frank S.
_eautore
245 1 0 _aMasters of Illusion :
_bThe Supreme Court and the Religion Clauses /
_cFrank S. Ravitch.
264 1 _aNew York, NY :
_bNew York University Press,
_c[2007]
264 4 _c©2007
300 _a1 online resource
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
506 0 _arestricted access
_uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
_fonline access with authorization
_2star
520 _aMany legal theorists and judges agree on one major premise in the field of law and religion: that religion clause jurisprudence is in a state of disarray and has been for some time. In Masters of Illusion, Frank S. Ravitch provocatively contends that both hard originalism (a strict focus on the intent of the Framers) and neutrality are illusory in religion clause jurisprudence, the former because it cannot live up to its promise for either side in the debate and the latter because it is simply impossible in the religion clause context. Yet these two principles have been used in almost every Supreme Court decision addressing religion clause questions.Ravitch unpacks the various principles of religion clause interpretation, drawing on contemporary debates such as school prayer and displaying the Ten Commandments on courthouses, to demonstrate that the neutrality principle does not work in a pluralistic society. When defined by large, overarching principles of equality and liberty, neutrality fails to account for differences between groups and individuals. If, however, the Court drew on a variety of principles instead of a single notion of neutrality to decide whether or not laws facilitated or discouraged religious practices, the result could be a more equitable approach to religion clause cases.
538 _aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546 _aIn English.
588 0 _aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 01. Nov 2023)
650 7 _aLAW / Courts.
_2bisacsh
653 _aCommandments.
653 _aRavitch.
653 _aclause.
653 _acontemporary.
653 _acourthouses.
653 _adebates.
653 _ademonstrate.
653 _adisplaying.
653 _adoes.
653 _adrawing.
653 _ainterpretation.
653 _aneutrality.
653 _apluralistic.
653 _aprayer.
653 _aprinciple.
653 _aprinciples.
653 _areligion.
653 _aschool.
653 _asociety.
653 _asuch.
653 _athat.
653 _aunpacks.
653 _avarious.
653 _awork.
850 _aIT-RoAPU
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780814776766
856 4 2 _3Cover
_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9780814776766/original
942 _cEB
999 _c201456
_d201456