Freedom of Religion - Essay Example

Freedom of Religion: Free Exercise Clause There are common laws that should be respected and upheld in every country and society. One such vital common law is the Civil liberties laws that protect the fundamental freedom and rights of individuals. It is sole responsibility of every individual in the various communities and societies in general to identify, recognize and uphold particular civil liberties. Every individual needs to know the scopes of civil liberties applicable at every stage of human life. With great concern and sensitivity on the issues surrounding Civil liberties, this paper will discuss the freedom of religion as a component of civil liberties with specific concentration on the Free exercised clause as envisaged in the American Constitution. Freedom of religion: Free exercise clause I have chosen the category of the Freedom of Religion of the civil liberties due to the desire to know the extent to which states define and recognize this fundamental right. This desire is motivated by the d growing number of cases of religious discrimination in the American society. The choice of this category of civil liberty also comes from the need to know how the federal and the state governments treat various aspects of freedom of religion. In addition, I also need to know how the US government considers various religious groups that exist within its economy and practices attached to each of these religious groups. My choice of the subcategory of the Free Exercise Clause under the Freedom of religion as an essential part of civil liberties is triggered by the urge to determine the scope at which the US Constitution acts to protect the Freedom of religion. I am also interested in investigating the roles that the US government needs to play in ensuring maximum protection of the freedom of religion. In addition, the choice for the subcategory of the Free Exercise Clause of the civil liberties is derived from the need to know the extent to which the public can exercise their Freedom of Religion. I also need to know the stand of the judicial system of the US and the federal government in the interpretation of the free exercise clause when confronted with different aspects of the freedom of religion as enshrined in the US Constitution. The Free exercise clause explicitly prohibits the US government from interfering with the religious choice of each individual. The Clause also bars the US government from invading various religious practices that do not pose security threats to the country. The free exercise clause forbids the US government from forceful recruitment of citizens into particular fields believed to contradict individuals’ religious standing. The clause further allows individuals to make their own decisions regarding the type of religions in which they desire to belong. The Supreme Court of the US applied the principles of the free exercise clause to grant the Amish community the request of terminating the education of their children at the eighth grade of education (Edwards, Wattenberg & Lineberry, 2008). The Amish in their status felt satisfied and tended to derecognize the needs for furthering the education of their children. In this case, the Amish community was granted request on the basis of their religion, which deemed it unfair for states to sponsor their children’s education while they were economically stable (Edwards, Wattenberg & Lineberry, 2008). The Free Exercise Clause also accredits parents the right to choose and decide on the appropriate schools that comply with their individual religious beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause also obliges the federal government to confer with the specific religious beliefs that do not allow the holders to salute to the national flag. In addition, the free exercise clause of the Civil liberties pardons the beliefs of particular religions in rejecting blood transfusion practices to the members despite health situation of the individual members. Moreover, the free exercise clause deters the federal government of the US and the judicial system from interfering with various religious practices that entail the basis and the kinds of sacrifices. Time. U.S, San Franciscos Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom? By Cohen, Adam The author of the article sheds light on the current development with regard to the Free Exercise Clause of the Freedom of religion under the civil liberties of the US Constitution. The author of the article focuses on the events in San Francisco that require the state to abolish and prohibit circumcision of infants. According to the author of the article, Christians who comprise the majority population of the state push for the abolition and male infant circumcision with beliefs that the act abridges human rights. The push by Christians requiring full illegalization of male infant circumcision is seen to contravene the free exercise clause by failing to recognize the position held by the minority Jews and Muslims living in the state, which apparently practices circumcision with great connection to their particular religious beliefs. The article has just unveiled a new discovery that seeks to change the ordinances of Free Exercise Clause. The article describes the development of the free exercise clause with regard to the campaign by Christians to dismantle and discredit the act of circumcising the male infants in the city of San Francisco, California. The article also reveals the conflict of interest as portrayed by the anti-circumcision Christians on one hand and the pro-circumcision Jews and Muslims on the other. However, the article falls short of detailed information by failing to report the position of the court and the federal and state government on the issue raised by Christians concerning male infant circumcision. The individuals and groups involved in this expansive issue of freedom of religion have made significant steps in exploring the exact and broader areas of applying the Free Exercise Clause. The participants have made steps to interpret the free exercise clause in favor of the anti-circumcision laws. The most critical point of the jurisdiction of the Free Exercise Clause in the US history occurred during a hearing of the case between Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc v. the City of Hialeah (1993). The administrators at the City of the Hialeah presented the case to the court seeking to defame the practices of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye of sacrificing animals for accomplishing certain religious rituals (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry, 2008). The rituals that involved religious sacrifice of animals included celebration of new birth, marriage ceremonies, death, ceremonies for curing the sick and initiation of its members. In the case, the Church of Babalu Lukumi Aye challenged the conviction by quoting the free exercise clause of the civil liberties there raising concerning about discrimination of the Santeria community that practiced the rituals. The final ruling made by the Supreme Court of the US overturning the persecution of the Santeria religion by the City of Hialeah did rejuvenate the activeness of the free exercise clause of the Civil liberties. The Court declared that the government could not be perceived to prohibit religious sacrifices of animals while legalizing killing of animals for other purposes that could translate to abridgement of the freedom of religion. The aspects of the free exercise clause of the freedom of religion under the civil liberties need to be upheld even in the current American society. This concern is motivated by the perception of continued discrimination in the American society that has had negative impacts on the lives of the victims of discrimination. Being that the largest population of the American society consists of Christians, there has been increased discrimination and abuse of the Muslim community concerning the nature of Islamic religion. More strict rules on freedom of religion are necessary in the current American society to offer protection to the many upcoming religions with different beliefs like the Jehovah Witness, which disregards transfusion of blood and saluting to the national flag in public schools. Furthermore, the law needs to be integrated to and expounded to cover and reprimand the increasing abridgement on particular religious freedom of practicing circumcision. References Edwards, G., Wattenberg, M. & Lineberry, R. (2008). Civil Liberties: Free Exercise Clause. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Cohen, A. (2011). San Franciscos Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom? Retrieved November 19, 2011 from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html Read More