The influence of secularism in free exercise jurisprudence

Contrasting US and Australian interpretations

Abstract

The free exercise clauses in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 116 of the Australian Constitution are almost identical textually. However, they have been interpreted very differently, with the United States providing broad protection for religious freedom and Australia very narrow protection. I suggest that secularism has influenced First Amendment jurisprudence to some extent but Section 116 jurisprudence more significantly, and that this influence may explain the difference in interpretations. Hence, more secularist approaches to the free exercise clauses appear to contribute to narrower interpretations that undermine religious freedom.