國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Religious Institutions and Associati...

Baylor University.

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

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
作者:	O'Malley, Deborah A.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017
面頁冊數:	231 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: A.
附註:	Adviser: David K. Nichols.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-07A(E).
標題:	Political science.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10621586
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. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 231 p.

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

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Baylor University, 2017.

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.

ISBN: 9780355572773Subjects--Topical Terms:

174710
Political science.

Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
LDR:03336nmm a2200325 4500 001 523946
005 20180517120325.5
008 180709s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355572773
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10621586
035 $a (MiAaPQ)baylor:10880
035 $a AAI10621586
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a O'Malley, Deborah A. $3 795442
245 1 0 $a Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 231 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: David K. Nichols.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Baylor University, 2017.
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.
590 $a School code: 0014.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 174710
650 4 $a Law. $3 207600
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0398
710 2 $a Baylor University. $b Political Science. $3 795443
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-07A(E).
790 $a 0014
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10621586