A Closer Look on the Religious Liberty in the United States - Essay Example

? (day month year A Closer Look on the Religious Liberty in the United s The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people” (Congressional Research Service 25). The primary focus of this discussion is the free exercise clause and the establishment clause of the amendment. Several scholars had provided different positions regarding the amendment of the constitution and its practical and legal ramifications. Some scholars have highlighted the pitfalls of the implementation of the free exercise clause since it has been used by some individuals as shield against the law by using the notion of religious liberty as cover to their practices that is deemed by others as a criminal activity. Other scholars also suggest that religious liberty is an impossible ideal, targeting the lack of a concrete definition of what a religion is. In order to gain a broader knowledge on the concept of religious liberty as well as to develop a more in-depth understanding on the first amendment, the above said positions will be examined through the course of this paper. According to the Religious Liberty in American Law, the relation of religion and law in the United States may be summarized as follows; the government cannot establish a religion or church under the law, the people have the freedom of conscience in matters of religious belief and worship, citizens cannot be discriminated or be subjected to any form of legal preference based on different forms of religion (Bates 538). The citizens cannot be compelled to join any religious worship as well as contribute money in support to the religious institution, Public funds of any state may not be used or appropriated for the support of any religious organization, Religious tests cannon be established as a requirement to hold a public position, to have the right to vote, to be a juror or a witness in court proceedings and for any state policies and functions. The civil rights of a person cannot be reduced or altered based on his religious views and beliefs. All forms of religious beliefs are also given equal protection under the law. The law also states that everyone is guaranteed of religious liberty as long as it does not interfere with peace, good order, and the morals of society. Separation of the church and state, in terms of civil and ecclesiastical functions, is also stated in the first amendment (539). With the understanding of the provisions of the law, the first position may be addressed through the use of past court orders made for cases that involved the concept of religious freedom. The limitations of religious liberty can also be addressed through the examples. According to Chester Antinaeu (221), the freedom of religion provides individual a preferred position in the hierarchy of socio-legal values though it is not absolute. Based on the proposition of Justice Black, a well-organized society cannot allow any individual to make a final decision on everything that he will do or not do that is free from his liabilities to the state. Thus individuals that practice their religious freedom are still subjected to conduct themselves to abide obediently to the laws of the state that are designed to protect the welfare of the society from any form of threats to danger. Thus for societies that are politically organized such as the United States, the judiciary department carries the burden of delimiting the fundamental freedoms that are given to its citizens (221). Historical jurisprudence had been a key guide in determining the limits of the religious freedom. On the early years of the law, an accused claimed that by the virtue of his religious freedom, he was exempted from the statute of the state that forbids polygamy. This may be a norm the members of the Jesus of Latter Day Saints in practicing their religion but polygamy is considered by the statute of the state as a criminal offense and the freedom of religion does not free the members of this religion from the punishment that is associated with committing the crime (222). The delimitation of the First Amendment cannot be considered as a breach of the constitution since there sufficient expressions by other Justices of the Supreme Court that attest that court have been weighing societal utilities before coming up with a decision that limits the religious freedom (225). Courts have frequently considered religious freedom as a protection to an individual’s beliefs but not its activities. The freedom of religion does not function as an excuse for criminal acts and would not be accepted by courts as justification for committing an act that is considered as a criminal offense under the law of the state (227). In addition, courts have denied constitutional protection for commercial and profitable activities of religious organizations, stating the business undertakings such as fortune-telling and faith healing can be subjected to claims for religious liberty (228). The general criterion of courts in denying constitutional guaranty of religious freedom is when these activities “deprive the state of its police power to enact laws for the protection of the public safety and morals and the protection of the general welfare” (230). Usually these cases clash with social interest in health, safety, order, and morality. The limitation of religious liberty in relation to the social interest in public health can be clearly depicted with the case of Prince v. Massachusetts wherein a child was not given proper medical attention and its guardian was claiming that it is their freedom of religion to distribute religious flyers in the street. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the health and welfare of the child is considered with higher priority than the guardian’s freedom of religion (230). It is not an excuse to violate the compulsory vaccination statutes of the state and the state has the authority to exclude unvaccinated children from public schools due to the increased health risks to other pupils. Religious liberty also does not excuse any pupil to submit to a physical examination. In addition, practices of religious healing cannot be defended in courts as part of the religious liberty since the practice of medicine is a police regulation for the protection of public health and does not interfere with one’s freedom of religion (231). The safety of the state is also another societal interest that cannot be bypassed by the freedom religion, cases that included appeals of not joining the military training because of religious beliefs was dropped by the courts, ruling that the individual still has to attend military training despite it being against his religion (233). Peace and Order is also a consideration for court rulings. Individuals that practice their rights for religious liberty cannot extort others by physical attack just because they belong to another sect. Also religious activities that entail public inconvenience were also not allowed by the state (234). The state also protects the morality as a societal interest thus the practice of polygamy is never accepted by courts even if ministers of religious organizations plead their right of religious liberty (239). Another position that must be addressed is claim of other scholars that the concept of religious liberty cannot be protected by the government without defining the meaning of religion. However, in doing so, an individual will be limited with its free exercise since the definition may not cover his own definition of religious practices and beliefs. According the Jeremy Gunn (190), several attempts have been made to explain the rights protected under the concept of religion or belief. However, the term religion, even though it is present in human rights laws around the globe, still remains undefined. Making it hard to understand what is protected and what is not in the practice one’s religion. The complexity of religion makes it difficult to define and much of it is subjective to those who are part of a religious organization (191). Based on the information that had been gathered to address the commentaries of scholar with the first amendment, it can be said that the free exercise of religion has been protected well by the constitution. The beliefs of an individual are not subjected to scrutiny or criticisms by the society and the government and not external forces are present that can interfere or affect one’s religious beliefs and practices. The first amendment as well as the fourteenth amendment ensures that a person cannot be influenced by others and cannot be controlled by the federal government and its states to practice a certain religion opposed to what the person believes in. However, the freedom of religion given to an individual also has an inherent responsibility for the individual to conform to the rules and policies of the state. It does not mean that having religious freedom provides the person do whatever his religion teaches him to do since every individual in the society also has their own rights and freedom that the state and government also has to protect. Thus, on occasions that the practice of a religious belief clashed with the societal interests and goes against the statute, the state has all the authority to limit the religious liberty of an individual. The United States have contributed to the political theory and practice through its success in completely separating the church from the state (Doerr 1). Separation of the Church and State is clearly described in the first amendment of the US Constitution. The constitution ensures that the law cannot establish a religion or a church and it reject any attempt to require members of the government must be members of a particular religious organization (McKinstry 1). The main consideration of having a freedom of religion in the US is due to the multiple sects that are practicing their own beliefs and practices and if the government will support a certain religion, several disputes will be faced. Thus, the amendment to have religious freedom and tolerance took place (2). “The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause has mainly focused on the reasons or motivations for government regulation of religious practice” and not on the effects of such regulations. Thus regulations of the court cannot have a religious rationale for the regulation since by doing so the regulation cannot be permitted based on the constitution (Beattie 389). The Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibited three main types of government regulations. It prohibited the regulation base on sectarian reasons and motivations, regulations that require undue interference between secular and sectarian institutions, and regulations that had effects of advancement of a religion (397). Works Cited Antieau, Chester J. “The Limitation of Religious Liberty.” Fordham Law Review.18.2 (1949): 221-241. Web. 20 April 2012. Bates, M. Searle. Religious Liberty: An Inquiry. Kessinger. New York, International Missionary Council. 1945. Web. 20 April 2012. Beattie, James, Jr. R. Taking Liberalism and Religious Liberty Seriously: Shifting our Notion of Toleration from Locke to Mill. 2004. Web. 20 April 2012. Congressional Research Service. The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Washington: US Government Printing Office. 1992. Web. 20 April 2012 Doerr, Edd. The Importance of Church-State Separation. 2004. Web. 20 April 2012 Gunn, T. Jeremy. “The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 16 (2003): 189-215. Web. 20 April 2012. McKinstry, Sam W. Separation of Church and State: The American Dillema. Web. 21 April 2012. Read More