We live in the age of international human rights. We have witnessed the creation of an International Criminal Court, prosecutions of former heads of state, the globalization of legal norms, and an increased use of international peacekeeping forces. We have even seen the fall of the Berlin Wall, the emergence of many new nations, and the transformation of South Africa.

Freedom of religion is considered among the most important human rights. This chapter analyzes how South Africa's judiciary has addressed religious liberty in comparison with U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the area. My conclusion is that, despite a progressive Constitution informed by international human rights norms, the South African Constitutional Court has generally adopted a formalistic and narrow approach that treats religious minorities as second-class citizens based on Western assumptions. One goal of this chapter is to figure out why the Court has done poorly in this area when it has issued transformative decisions regarding the death penalty, socioeconomic rights, and equality. The answer to this question relates to religion's uniqueness as a human right. This chapter breaks new ground as few scholars have critically assessed the Constitutional Court's overall religion jurisprudence.

The right to freedom of religion is unique because it has caused oppression as well as liberty. It can unleash blissful or deadly sentiments. The Romans slaughtered Christians for sport, Sunni and Shiia fight a civil war in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants battle in Northern Ireland, and Jews fight Muslims in Israel and the surrounding territories.