Sullivan's View of Impossibility of Religious Freedom - Case Study Example

Impossibility of Religion Freedom affiliation Introduction This essay analyzes Sullivan’s view of the Impossibility of religious freedom where the arguments for and against this view are discussed at length. It uses a variety of cases including Holt v Hobbs, the Reed v Town Gilbert Arizona and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie. These cases have been used in the essay to give a clear view of how the courts view protection of religion and its definition in the courts and state legislation in national constitutions. Analysis Sullivan explains that people cannot celebrate religious freedom and at the same time deny it to those that they do not like. Religion is protected as a human right in the Constitution under the theory of liberal political theory. Religion is used as a modern tool to separate the good from the bad one. The Holt v Hobbs main question was whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections guidelines violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it prevented Holt from growing a beard according to his religious traditions and beliefs. It was held that the policy on beards violates the law and observed that in protecting religious practices the law of RLUIPA guides prisons to check the sincerity of such view of religion to avoid them from being used for illicit conduct. In this case, Holt met the standards laid out in Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. It establishes that religious views must be held in sincerity. The court also stated that the district court made an error in reviewing that Holt privileges of religion made a reasonable accommodation of his beliefs and views of religion. The challenges for liberals Americans is in explaining how they can favor religious freedom for everyone and at the same time deny it freedom to such a case as in the case of Holt v Hobby and the case of Hobby Lobby. There have been arguments that the doings of Hobby Lobby were not a religious, and they did not understand the meaning of being a Christian. Christians do not mix business with religion or disadvantage others in terms of religious freedom. Such arguments display the legal fictions on legal protection in favor of religious freedom. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the judge Justice Kennedy established that the constitutional tradition stipulates that freedom is the right to believe in the divine creator and a divine law. Where free exercise is used to preserve dignity by expressing such beliefs and establishing a person’s religion that can be self-defined in the civic, economic, and political life in the society. The two cases of Hobby Lobby and Holt v Hobby agree on a commitment to religious liberty and sincerity in its beliefs and views. However, they disagree on what counts as exercise of religions. Claims in Hobby Lobby were based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This law was passed in 1993 where it stated that the government could not burden a person’s exercise of religion without meeting certain requirements and conditions. In Hobby Lobby, RFRA was enacted in response to the decision in Employment Division v Smith where it limited the reach of free exercise of the First Amendment clause. This decision created a political movement to change its limitation where first it was passage of the RFRA and other legal legislations and introduction of public interest groups in advocating for religious freedom. Sullivan views that those who study religion must move beyond the culture wars and check why it seems normal outside the court that Hobby is in a protected exercise of religion in terms of use of contraceptives as signs of religion. Persons may base the exercise of religion on activities like sacraments, worship, and prayer. The government in such cases took the same views in dealing with contraceptives with exemptions for religious employers (Sullivan 13). Sullivan believes that the definition of religion in terms of the prayer, worship, taking sacraments, or associations of churches are outdated where nowadays most religion is not practiced in churches. Most Americans are entrepreneurial, varied, and creative in terms of fulfilling their religious obligations that go beyond mainstream church prescriptions. That are contained and tamed in considerations of religious practices that are unapproved by the religious community and their religious fields especially in places other than the church or even the marketplace. It is good to analyze why the exercise of religion in Hobby Lobby is less deserving. A mix of profit making and religion offends most liberals. (Eisgruber 23). American religion is mixed with business and an obsession with where those who object to this still believe that religious freedom is the protection of religion that they like which is the progressive, individualistic, and private kind. RFRA radical nature, the RLUIPA, and the IRFA provide deference to religion reasons that were not previously available. They provided conditions for the court in distinguishing the exercise of religion that divides good and bad religion (Sullivan 12). The idea that religion exists and can be regulated without a clear definition amounts to a fiction in the protection of religious freedom. Corporate and persons are deemed necessary in law that amount to a legal fiction. Religion is part of a fiction specialization where not only corporation’s posse’s legal personality but also the church does too (Eisgruber 13). The church is considered as an imagined artificial entity especially in the discussion of gods and demons. The church is usually the body of Christ in the theology of Christianity. The period when the church and the state were, separate the political, religious and legal fictions were lost where they do not recognize each other. Where it is considered lies on religious fictions and freedom that extend the option that the state and the church can work together and, in essence, they cannot. Reed v, Town of Gilbert Arizona Clyde Reed was a pastor of Good News Community Church, who had a church that was rented in Arizona and placed signs of time and location of the church. Good News received a notice that its signs violated the Sign Code and in turn, he sued them that the notice violated Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court established that the sign code was constitutional since it was reasonable to the government interests. The court of appeal also affirmed by stating that Sign Code left open a line of communication Rules of Gilbert require permits before such signs are put only giving a few exemptions where such posts can be put up without permits. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie and Fitch Stores Inc. case the issues was whether an employer is liable under Civil Rights Act for not hiring an applicant based on religious practice and observance or whether they have actual knowledge where religious accommodation is enquired from the employee. The Supreme Court determines this issue where the EEOC states that an employer violates Title III when they refuse to hire such applicants based on religious practices. Faith counters denial of such exceptions to the policy on religion was not intentional to discrimination under the law. This case shows that employers pose more knowledge of company policies than the employees pose and can detect religious conflicts in the workplace. The EEOC states that an employer has the obligation to accommodate religious practices reasonable when they become aware of any conflict the employer’s policies and the employees religious practices. Religious freedom is a principle found in national constitutions and most international declarations and therefore Sullivan’s view must be closely scrutinized (Eisgruber 11). The United Nations Universal Declaration Article 18 states that every person has the right to thought, conscience, religion and freedom to change their belief and it extend to practicing with others in private or public. These rights extend to manifestation in observance, practice, worship and teaching. The Constitution in the First Amendment of USA state that the Congress cannot make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Sullivan indicates that a secular state is not allowed to decide what religion is and cannot guarantee its freedom. If it did so, it would violate of disestablishment clauses that prohibit the government from establishing laws that respect the establishment of religion. If they do so, then they are considered to have violated freedom of religion. She considers why religion is considered in terms of freedom as if religious followers have rights that others do not have. Sullivan argues out that a religious freedom for persons is which is free from authorities and government restrictions on its practice. Regardless of constitutional doctrine, religious freedom should be maximized especially in institutions that would be good (Sullivan 23). The impossibility also amylases the Warner v Boca Raton (1999) which was a case of a class action by ACLU where it was claimed that the Boca Raton Cemetery Regulations were unconstitutional both written and unwritten in terms of exercise of religion. This case establishes that that religion is upon beliefs and definitions depend on the judge. Sullivan stated that religion was based on that I know religion when I see it. She stated that if religion freedom is forsaken it enables greater equality and self-determination for religious communities and individuals. She states that protection of religion legally is unconstitutional and incoherent. Religion is misunderstood in the legal system where the law cannot understand religion especially statutes and constitutions and therefore encompassing religious practices of people in such laws is impossible. The case of Warner vs. Boca Baton according to me is a privatization of religious views and beliefs and part of the State-owned property. There is a need for secular courts due to social disharmony and the impossibility of religion freedom. The People should either be allowed the right to express themselves in the State-owned property or public or not allow anyone the right to express them anywhere. Sullivan argues that the relationship between law and religion is a paradox because the State defines arbitrarily what religion is and what religion is not. Religion lacks an express definition due to the pluralistic society. Religion cannot be defined for purposes of American law according to Sullivan. This creates the notion of impossibility to religious freedom. Therefore, it is clear that legal officials, judges, and attorneys are not scholars in religious issues and studies. Conclusion The essay has used a variety of cases to showcases how religious freedom is protected especially in cases of Holt v Hobbs, the Reed v Town Gilbert Arizona and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie. Sullivan argues that since there is not the conclusive definition of religion then it cannot be protected using legal systems. This is where the issue of the impossibility of religious freedom stems from. She argues that everyone should be free from authoritative rule over religion from church bishops and councils. That the statutes and the law should not define what is to be protected under the law of expressive religion and what cannot be protected. This shows that Sullivan believe that when religion is stated to have rights and guidelines does it mean that people who are religious follow and poses rights that others do not have. However, this view of the impossibility of religious freedom is controversial since religion is guaranteed under some national constitutions and universal declarations like the UDHR. This shows that the issue of impossibility is difficult to define since such international laws protect the right of expression, thought, and religious beliefs that are practiced in public and private whether individually or by a community. References Case law Holt v Hobbs Reed v Town Gilbert Arizona Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie. Warner vs. Boca Baton (1999) Employment Division v Smith Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc Books and Article Eisgruber, Christopher L., and Lawrence G. Sager. Religious freedom and the constitution. Harvard University Press, 2009. Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers. The impossibility of religious freedom. Princeton University Press, 2005. Read More