The United States Constitution's protections for conscience, often described as robust, have in reality been of varying strengths, and the Supreme Court has offered specious rationales to justify the inconsistent application of differing standards while claiming to be consistently applying a single principle. 'Mark Strasser provides a fascinating and important analysis of the United States Supreme Court's free exercise jurisprudence. He points out the Court's failure to set and apply coherent standards, first under the Free Exercise Clause and later under RFRA. As a result, the lower courts have struggled to craft any sort of consistent doctrine under RFRA and under state RFRAs. Strasser explains that this works against accommodations for religious people and against those who oppose religious accommodation. This book is an important addition to the discussion of free exercise rights.' Frank S. Ravitch, Michigan State University College of Law, USA