Religion and Law in the US - Essay Example

There are many clauses which govern a country. Leaders are purposely put in place to help enforce the clauses put in place. There is an inevitable conflict which involves the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. People want to be free to choose their own way of worship. That is one of the main reasons people will move to the US. However, even within freedom, there are limits protected by laws. An example of the conflict that is seen with the oxymoronic clauses which supposedly go hand in hand is in the religious cult refered to as the Jehova’s Witnesses.

The government or authorities will not restrict the religion itself but the behavior and effects of the rituals can be brought to their attention. They, therefore, are obliged to restrict religious-related activities that interfere with the wellbeing of a person. Its’ all done in the name of “the law”The court upheld Mr Reynold’s, in Reynold’s Vs. the United States, condition and they believed that if they did not stand up against such behavior, they were indirectly allowing other practices to take place such as human sacrifice.

Combining both clauses together, the US has documented its existence in the 1st amendment and has named it the “religion clauses” because they both thereby state their involvement in protecting the human race while at the same time, giving freedom of religion itself and expression in a country and a land that is free. Without these clauses, people would get away with murder claiming it was done in the “name of God or Allah.” Both clauses is an issue of preference allowing people to choose the religion they want to be involved in.

Without their freedom, people are bound by regulations they perceived to have vanished before touching down on U.S. soil. The clauses also state that they cannot force anyone to worship a certain way nor can they create establishments favoring one form of religion or the other. With this rule carved into the constitution, the higher powers, and government are aware of their own ability to control, and people are aware of their rights to choose. In Lemon Vs. Kurtzman, the supreme court ruled that the government is not allowed to ‘excessively’ entangle with religion.

The case was about the government wanting to purchase land from secular fields from religious schools and the other was about permitting the state to pay teachers both in the private schools and the religious schools. The accessive involvement eventually became known and the Lemon test. In the Engel vs. Vitale case, we see that the court has sanctioned prayer in public schools back in 1962. The case involved a mandatory prayer in the New York schools system and the court said that it was unconstitutional.

The reading of any prayer by the teacher was also deemed unconstitutional and was discouraged. People were advised to watch their back in order to not create conflict within the school systems. There are several instances were both clauses seem to walk hand in hand with each other. But when you get down to the bottom of the actual issue, it is important to note that freedom is at stake. Contrary to the idea of freedom is the idea of bondage. When people are forced to do something, they are being oppressed.

But what about those who want to pray in school, or who want to buy land from religious people, or what about those who want the church and the state to be one. Aren’t these clauses an infringement on their freedom as well? The idea of having restricted freedom is an oxymoron. It's like giving a teenager the keys to a car and then removing the engine which propels the vehicle. It is clear that there is an inevitable conflict in both the freedom and the establishment clause but it is important to note that they also not only contradict each other but play a major role in bringing order to religions and people who value their freedom.