Religion-State Relations in the United States and Germany : The Quest for Neutrality

This Comparative Analysis Of The Constitutional Law Of Religion-state Relations In The United States And Germany Focuses On The Principle Of State Neutrality. A Strong Emphasis On State Neutrality, A Notoriously Ambiguous Concept, Is A Shared Feature In The Constitutional Jurisprudence Of The Us Supreme Court And The German Federal Constitutional Court, But Neutrality Does Not Have The Same Meaning In Both Systems. In Germany Neutrality Tends To Indicate More Distance Between Church And State, Whereas The Opposite Is The Case In The United States. Neutrality Also Has Other Meanings In Both Systems, Making Straightforward Comparison More Difficult Than It Might Seem. Although The Underlying Trajectory Of Neutrality Is Different In Both Countries, The Discussion Of Neutrality Breaks Down Into Largely Parallel Themes. By Examining Those Themes In A Comparative Perspective, The Meaning Of State Neutrality In Religion-state Relations Can Be Delineated-- Part I. The Comparative Approach: 1. The Past And Present Of Comparative Constitutional Studies; 2. The Culture Wars, American Exceptionalism, And A Comparative Analysis Of Religion-state Relations; 3. Employing A Comparative Approach -- Part Ii. Religion-state Relations And The Role Of Neutrality: 4. Toward Neutrality; 5. The Role Of History; 6. The Roots Of Neutrality; 7. Delineating Neutrality -- Conclusion: The Future Of Neutrality In Comparative Perspective. Claudia E. Haupt. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. RELIGION–STATE RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY 2 Title 4 Copyright 5 Dedication 6 CONTENTS 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 Introduction 12 PART I: The Comparative Approach 20 1: The past and present of comparative constitutional studies 22 1 Historical roots and renewed interest 23 2 Supreme Court controversy 29 3 The academic debate 38 3.1 In favor of comparative constitutional law 39 3.2 Against comparative constitutional law 43 2: The culture wars, American exceptionalism, and a comparative analysis of religion–state relations 51 1 The “culture wars” 53 1.1 Key issues 58 1.2 Judicial activism 61 2 Exceptionalism discourse 64 2.1 Exceptionalism in history, politics, and law 65 2.2 The split identity of exceptionalism 71 3 Situating a comparative analysis of religion–state relations 73 3: Employing a comparative approach 75 1 Issue selection 76 2 Unit of comparison 79 3 Distinguishing outcome and process 82 3.1 Outcome 83 3.2 Process 84 PART II: Religion–State Relations and the Role of Neutrality 88 4: Toward neutrality 90 1 Religion in the classroom 92 1.1 School prayer 93 1.2 Religious symbols 99 1.3 Religious clothing 106 2 Religion in the public square 114 2.1 Religious symbols in courthouses 115 2.2 Prayer and symbols in legislative meetings 120 5: The role of history 124 1 History in German constitutional interpretation 124 2 History in US constitutional interpretation 128 2.1 A brief history of the uses of history 128 2.2 Avoiding “bad history” and providing context 139 6: The roots of neutrality 145 1 Founding discourses 145 1.1 Origins of the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause 147 1.2 Origins of the Basic Law provisions on church and state 154 2 Political and social developments 164 2.1 In the United States 164 2.2 Subsequent political and social developments under the Basic Law 170 7: Delineating neutrality 178 1 Concepts of neutrality 179 1.1 Neutrality as nonconsideration 182 1.2 Substantive or positive neutrality 186 2 Neutrality and separation 189 3 Neutrality and equality 193 3.1 Equality among religious groups 195 3.2 Equality between religion and nonreligion 198 4 Neutrality, civil religion, and ceremonial deism 200 5 Neutrality as an interpretive guide 210 Conclusion 213 The future of neutrality in comparative perspective 213 Index 216 "This comparative analysis of the constitutional law of religion-state relations in the United States and Germany focuses on the principle of state neutrality. A strong emphasis on state neutrality, a notoriously ambiguous concept, is a shared feature in the constitutional jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, but neutrality does not have the same meaning in both systems. In Germany neutrality tends to indicate more distance between church and state, whereas the opposite is the case in the United States. Neutrality also has other meanings in both systems, making straightforward comparison more difficult than it might seem. Although the underlying trajectory of neutrality is different in both countries, the discussion of neutrality breaks down into largely parallel themes. By examining those themes in a comparative perspective, the meaning of state neutrality in religion-state relations can be delineated"-- Provided by publisher Machine generated contents note: Part I. The Comparative Approach: 1. The past and present of comparative constitutional studies; 2. The culture wars, American exceptionalism, and a comparative analysis of religion-state relations; 3. Employing a comparative approach; Part II. Religion-State Relations and the Role of Neutrality: 4. Toward neutrality; 5. The role of history; 6. The roots of neutrality; 7. Delineating neutrality; 8. Conclusion: the future of neutrality in comparative perspective. Claudia E. Haupt provides a comparative analysis of the constitutional law of religion-state relations in the United States and Germany. In Germany, neutrality means more distance between religion and the state, whereas the opposite is the case in the United States. But neutrality has multiple meanings in both countries. An examination of the meaning of neutrality in religion-state relations in the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States and Germany