CrimLaw

An article setting up a dichotomy wherein lawyers may be able to strike a person for being religious but not for being part of a particular religion.

I don't buy it. Are you religious necessarily carries a second question - what religion? Without the second question the first is useless. If the stereotypes you carry in your head tell you that an Episcopalian will oppose the death penalty while a Southern Baptist will support it there is no use in knowing the fact that someone is religious rather than merely a nominative member of a religion or particular denomination.

The second question may be answered by the kind of question I see asked usually during voir dire and have discussed here. This question implies the "What is your religion" question because it questions the person about whether he follows the tenets of a particular religion. Another way of answering the question might be from knowing what the demographics are so that you know people who live North of 2d Street are Mormons and South are Quakers. Yet another is to rely on names; it may not always follow but you can probably infer that Muhammad ibn Ahmad is not Catholic and that Mike O'Sullivan isn't Muslim.

Additionally, even if the fact that someone is "religious" is something which a State actor might use without other factors to deny a person his right to do his civic duty it would still seem to be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." It's not a question of association - it's a question of exercise.