ABSTRACT
This chapter draws on cases from Canada, England and Wales, and the USA, the purpose is to examine the mechanisms underlying the religious decisions. It considers tests based on distinctions between conduct and belief, public and private, core and non-core religious activities, as well as the current test in US constitutional law that requires justification for infringing religious practices only where a law is not neutral or generally applicable. The kind of protection the belief/conduct distinction brings is in protection against mind control and against deliberate attempts to ensure internal conformity to religious orthodoxy. Most importantly, once again as with the action/belief divide, the public/private distinction imposes a particular notion of religion which is at odds with the understanding many religious believers have of their religious obligations. The Court held that neutral laws of general applicability, even if these affect religious practices, do not pose constitutional issues and therefore are not subject to strict scrutiny.
