Freedom of religion in the United States
In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept which was written of by Thomas Jefferson.[1]
The modern legal concept of religious freedom as the union of freedom of belief and freedom of worship with the absence of any state-sponsored religion, originated in the United States of America.
Contents |
Legal Foundation
The United State Constitution addresses the issue of religion in two places: in the First Amendment, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests as a condition for holding public office. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Establishment Clause
The First Amendment "establishment clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.
The Free Exercise Clause
The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress can not "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices.
The Supreme Court has consistently held, however, that even though the First Amendment guarantees the right to free exercise, this right is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, Some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law barring polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice.The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, If you were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect your belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking marijuana.[2][not in citation given]
Religious tests
The affirmation or denial of specific religious beliefs had, in the past, been made into qualifications for public office; however, the United States Constitution states that the inauguration of a President may include an "affirmation" of the faithful execution of his duties rather than an "oath" to that effect — this provision was included in order to respect the religious prerogatives of the Quakers, a Protestant Christian denomination that declines the swearing of oaths. The U.S. Constitution also provides that "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States." As of 2007, seven states have language included in their constitutions that requires state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.[3] Some of these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. Even though they are still on the books, these provisions have been rendered unenforceable by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. [4]
Religious liberty has not prohibited states or the federal government from prohibiting or regulating certain vices; i.e. prostitution, gambling, alcohol and certain drugs, although some libertarians interpret religious freedom to extend to these behaviors. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a right to privacy or a due process right does prevent the government from prohibiting adult access to birth control, pornography, or outlawing early trimester abortions and acts of sodomy.
The "Wall of Separation"
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state". James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights",[5] also often wrote of the "perfect separation",[6] "line of separation",[7] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States",[8] and "total separation of the church from the state".[9] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.
Problems also arise in U.S. public schools concerning the teaching and display of religious issues. In various counties, school choice and school vouchers have been put forward as solutions to accommodate variety in beliefs and freedom of religion, by allowing individual school boards to choose between a secular, religious or multi-faith vocation, and allowing parents free choice among these schools. Critics of American voucher programs claim that they take funds away from public schools, and that the amount of funds given by vouchers is not enough to help many middle and working class parents.
U.S. judges often ordered alcoholic defendants to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or face imprisonment. However, in 1999, a federal appeals court ruled this unconstitutional because the A.A. program relies on submission to a "Higher Power".
Thomas Jefferson also played a large role in the formation of freedom of religion. He created the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which has since been incorporated into the Virginia State Constitution.
Unalienable Rights
The United States of America was established on foundational principles by the Declaration of Independence:[10]
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
(based on Thomas Jefferson's draft.)
Supreme Court Rulings
Jehovah's Witnesses
Since the 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have often invoked the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses to protect their ability to engage in the proselytizing that is central to their faith. This series of litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and Canada.
According to Shawn Peters, Jehovah's Witnesses have helped to widen the definition of civil liberties in most western societies, hence broadening the rights of millions of people, due to their firm stand and determination.[11]
In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech. In the United States, many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group."
Professor C. S. Braden wrote: "They have performed a signal service to democracy by their fight to preserve their civil rights, for in their struggle they have done much to secure those rights for every minority group in America."[12]
"The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system.
Before the Jehovah’s Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to Congress and the federal government.
However, the cases brought before the Court by the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed the Court to consider a range of issues: mandatory flag salute, sedition, free speech, literature distribution and draft law. These cases proved to be pivotal moments in the formation of constitutional law. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ court victories have strengthened rights including the protection of religious conduct from federal and state interference, the right to abstain from patriotic rituals and military service and the right to engage in public discourse.
During the World War II era, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark cases that helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed 72 cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization, of which 47 were decided in their favor.
Significant cases have affirmed rights such as these:
- Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute
- Conscientious objection to military service
- Preaching in public (proselytizing)
Lemon test
The Supreme Court has consistently held fast to the rule of strict separation of church and state when matters of prayer are involved. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Court ruled that government imposed nondenominational prayer in public school was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled prayer established by a school principal at a middle school graduation was also unconstitutional, and in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) it ruled that school officials may not directly impose student led prayer during high school football games nor establish an official student election process for the purpose of indirectly establishing such prayer. The distinction between force of government and individual liberty is the cornerstone of such cases. Each case restricts acts by government designed to establish prayer while explicitly or implicitly affirming students' individual freedom to pray.
The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:
- Had a secular purpose
- Neither advanced or inhibited religion
- Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
However, since the 1980s, the Supreme Court has seemed to sidestep the Lemon test altogether.
- In 1981, the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional.[citation needed] As a result, Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well, passing the Equal Access Act, which prevents public schools from discriminating against students based on "religious, political, philisophical or other content of the speech at such meetings". In 1990, the Court upheld this law when it ruled that a school board's refusal to allow a Christian Bible club to meet in a public high school classroom violated the act.[citation needed]
- In 1993, the Court ruled that religious groups must be allowed to use public schools after hours if the same access is granted to other community groups.[citation needed]
- In 1995, the Supreme Court found that the University of Virginia was unconstitutionally withholding funds from a religious student magazine.[citation needed]
State Constitutions
Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must.
Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether (atheism).
The Workplace
Problems sometimes arise in the workplace concerning religious observance when a private employer discharges an employee for failure to report to work on what the employee considers a Holy day or a day of rest. In the United States, the view that has generally prevailed is that firing for any cause in general renders a former employee ineligible for unemployment compensation, but that this is no longer the case if the 'cause' is religious in nature, especially an employee's unwillingness to work on his or her sabbath.
Religious Institutions
In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty”
- “Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.”
Freedom of Religion Restoration
Following increasing government involvement in religious matters, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[13] States then passed corresponding acts (e.g., Missouri passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act).[14]
See also
- ACLU President Strossen on freedom of religion
- Religion in the United States
- List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations
- Separation of church and state in the United States
- First Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
- Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
- Status of religious freedom by country
- United States religious history
- Human rights and the United States
- International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
External links
- Rights of the People - The Roots of Religious Liberty. U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. Retrieved on 2007-04-07.
- Rights of the People - Religious liberty in the Modern era. U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs. Retrieved on 2007-04-07.
References
- ^ Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
- ^ S. v. Kuch 288 FSup. 439 (1968) ("Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms that this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned.")
- ^ For instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if he/she does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God)Texas Legislature Online
- ^ Religious Discrimination in U.S. State Constitutions. Ontario consultants on religious tolerance. Retrieved on 2007-09-13.
- ^ Wood, 2006b.
- ^ Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
- ^ letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832
- ^ Detached Memoranda, 1820
- ^ letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819
- ^ Declaration of Independence : July 4, 1776. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
- ^ Peters, Shawn Francis (2002). Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. University Press of Kansas.
- ^ These Also Believe.
- ^ USC 42, Chapter 21B: Religious Freedom Restoration. United States Code. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
- ^ Religious freedom restoration act. State of Missouri. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
|
|
---|---|
Afghanistan | Algeria | Canada | People's Republic of China | Colombia | France | Georgia | Germany | India | Iran | Italy | Malaysia | Mauritania | Pakistan | Philippines | Saudi Arabia | Sri Lanka | Sudan | United Kingdom | United States |