| In 1990 the United States Supreme Court upheld Oregon's denial of unemployment benefits to two Native American Church members fired from their jobs for using peyote in a religious ritual. In his discussion of Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, Ronald Thiemann says that during Prohibition the wine used in Catholic Mass was permitted by legal exemption. Thiemann then asks this disturbing question, "Why should a minority religious practice not be similarly protected?";Individual stories of U.S. judicial prejudice against minority religions abound. This study will demonstrate, however, that the lack of protection for minority religions, defined as those that are not significant shapers of the national ethos, does not constitute a pattern in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.;A difficult question in religious freedom cases is what is and isn't protected as "religion." In the present context of ever-increasing religious pluralism in America, this question is especially troublesome. This study focuses on the religious freedom decisions of the Warren (1953--1969), Burger (1969--1986) and Rehnquist (1969-- ) Courts, those that have presided over an era of rapidly increasing religious and ethnic diversity in the United States. Although the Supreme Court is extending the protection of the religious freedom clauses to more groups, especially to those classified in the United States as Euro-American "minority" religious traditions, members of ethnic minority religions continue to lose most of their cases, many groups are treated inconsistently and some have not yet won a case. Thus, as seen through the lens of Supreme Court treatment, the level of societal inclusion for some minority religious communities, notably those of Euro-American heritage, can be said to be increasing, ethnic minority religious communities continue to be excluded, at least in terms of the religious liberty protection extended by the Court. |
