Religion: Definition, Free Exercise, Establishment

American Religiousness 9 of 10 believe in God over 1,500 religious bodies Globally, Americans rank second when rating the importance of God in their lives (behind Malta) 68% belong to over 350,000 churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues

Yet historically Americans have proven to be religiously intolerant

colonial laws against “minority” religions, i.e. anti- catholic laws

Religion: Definition, Free Exercise, Establishment

Yet historically Americans have proven to be religiously intolerant (continued)

11 of 13 states had some restrictive laws (only Maryland and Rhode Island provided full religious freedom) 6 states had established religions some states imposed religious oaths on public officials Anti-federalists objected the lack of any

guarantees of religious liberty

Religion: Definition, Free Exercise, Establishment

Breaks with past trends

Constitutional Convention delegates opposed Ben Franklin’s proposal for prayer before debates Article VI provides for oaths by government

officials to defend the constitution but no religious tests requirements for public officeDefining Religion – Three Supreme Court cases

1. Reynolds v. United States (1879)        2. United States v. Ballard (1944)        3. United States v. Seeger (1965)

Reynolds v. United States

Docket:

Citation: 98 U.S. 145 (1879)Appellant: George ReynoldsAppellee: United States

Abstract

Oral Argument: November 14-15, 1878

Decision: May 5, 1879

Issues:

Categories:

Advocates

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case George Reynolds was a member of the George Reynolds was a member of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying charged with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in the Utah Mary Ann Tuddenham in the Utah Territory.Territory.

QuestionQuestion

Does the? Does the?

ConclusionConclusion The Supreme Court upheld the conviction finding The Supreme Court upheld the conviction finding

Reynolds guilty.Reynolds guilty. The constitution does not define religion, so to reach a The constitution does not define religion, so to reach a

ruling Court investigated the history of religious ruling Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. The court quoted a letter freedom in the United States. The court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. Belief flowed from religious belief. Belief "lies solely between "lies solely between man and his God,"man and his God," therefore therefore "the legislative powers of "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, how The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the true spirit of the First The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.against opinion but could legislate against action.

United States v. BallardDocket: Citation: U.S. (1944)Appellant: United States

Appellee: Guy Ballard Abstract

Oral Argument:

Decision:

Issues:

Categories:

Advocates

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case Guy Ballard was convicted of using and conspiring to use Guy Ballard was convicted of using and conspiring to use

mails to defraud. He was a follower of the 'I Am' movement mails to defraud. He was a follower of the 'I Am' movement and believed that the words of St. Germain, the divine and believed that the words of St. Germain, the divine messenger, were transmitted through him. Ballard also messenger, were transmitted through him. Ballard also claimed to possess the power to heal people and claimed to claimed to possess the power to heal people and claimed to have had success in doing so in the past. He solicited have had success in doing so in the past. He solicited contributions via mail in exchange for offering his healing contributions via mail in exchange for offering his healing abilities. The government asserted that he 'well knew' that abilities. The government asserted that he 'well knew' that these claims were false and he used them to defraud others these claims were false and he used them to defraud others of their money. In the initial trial, the jury was told not to of their money. In the initial trial, the jury was told not to consider Ballard's religious beliefs, instead they were consider Ballard's religious beliefs, instead they were merely to determine whether the defendant believed that merely to determine whether the defendant believed that he possessed the ability to heal others. he possessed the ability to heal others.

QuestionQuestion

Does theDoes the Fifth Amendment? Fifth Amendment?

ConclusionConclusion

The Court ruled that it was proper for the The Court ruled that it was proper for the jury to base its decision on the sincerity of jury to base its decision on the sincerity of Ballard's beliefs. Ballard's beliefs.

Justice Douglas, authoring the majority Justice Douglas, authoring the majority opinion, wrote: “The content of the opinion, wrote: “The content of the teachings of the 'I Am' movement were teachings of the 'I Am' movement were immaterial. These beliefs could not be an immaterial. These beliefs could not be an issue in any case because the content of issue in any case because the content of religious convictions could not be judged as religious convictions could not be judged as either correct or incorrect. Because of the either correct or incorrect. Because of the First Amendment, heresy is an unknown First Amendment, heresy is an unknown offense in the United States. All that offense in the United States. All that mattered was whether Ballard believed in mattered was whether Ballard believed in good faith that he possessed the powers he good faith that he possessed the powers he claimed to have. If this was so, then he must claimed to have. If this was so, then he must be acquitted.” be acquitted.”

Abstract

Oral Argument:

Decision:

Issues:

Categories:

AdvocatesUnited States v. Seeger

Docket: Citation: 380 U.S. 163(1965)Appellant: United States

Appellee: Daniel A. Seeger

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case This case involved the application of the Universal This case involved the application of the Universal

Military Training and Service Act which exempted Military Training and Service Act which exempted people from military service if their religious people from military service if their religious training or belief makes them opposed to such training or belief makes them opposed to such service. service.

It defined appropriate training or belief as an It defined appropriate training or belief as an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code." One person involved merely personal moral code." One person involved in the suit believed in a “supreme reality” while in the suit believed in a “supreme reality” while another believed in a “universal reality.” Neither of another believed in a “universal reality.” Neither of these were included in the class of beliefs covered these were included in the class of beliefs covered by the Act. by the Act.

They claimed that the law unfairly did not exempt They claimed that the law unfairly did not exempt non-religious conscientious objectors and that it non-religious conscientious objectors and that it discriminated between different forms of religious discriminated between different forms of religious beliefs.beliefs.

QuestionQuestion

ConclusionConclusion

In a unanimous opinion, the Court In a unanimous opinion, the Court allowed those people with general allowed those people with general theistic belief systems to be declared theistic belief systems to be declared conscientious objectors.conscientious objectors.

City of Boerne v. Flores

Docket: 95-2074Citation: 521 U.S. 507 (1997)Appellant: pAppellee: oAbstract

Oral Argument: Wednesday, February 19, 1997

Decision: Wednesday, June 25, 1997

Issues: First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion

Categories:

Advocates

Walter E. Dellinger, III (Argued the cause for the Federal respondent)

Marci A. Hamilton (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Douglas Laycock (Argued the cause for the respondent Flores)

Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause on behalf of Ohio et al., as amici curiae, support the petitioner)

Facts of the CaseFacts of the Case The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities

for violating his rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom for violating his rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying him a permit to expand Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas. Boerne's zoning authorities his church in Boerne, Texas. Boerne's zoning authorities argued that the Archbishop's church was located in a argued that the Archbishop's church was located in a historic preservation district governed by an ordinance historic preservation district governed by an ordinance forbidding new construction, and that the RFRA was forbidding new construction, and that the RFRA was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to override this local unconstitutional insofar as it sought to override this local preservation ordinance. On appeal from the Fifth Circuit's preservation ordinance. On appeal from the Fifth Circuit's reversal of a District Court's finding against Archbishop reversal of a District Court's finding against Archbishop Flores, the Court granted Boerne's request for certiorari.Flores, the Court granted Boerne's request for certiorari.

QuestionQuestion

Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?

ConclusionConclusion

Yes. Under the RFRA, the government is prohibited Yes. Under the RFRA, the government is prohibited from "substantially burden[ing]" religion's free from "substantially burden[ing]" religion's free exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling government interest, and, even then, it may only government interest, and, even then, it may only impose the least restrictive burden. impose the least restrictive burden.

The Court held that while Congress may enact such The Court held that while Congress may enact such legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse of religious freedoms, it may not determine the abuse of religious freedoms, it may not determine the manner in which states enforce the substance of its manner in which states enforce the substance of its legislative restrictions. legislative restrictions.

This, the Court added, is precisely what the RFRA does This, the Court added, is precisely what the RFRA does by overly restricting the states' freedom to enforce its by overly restricting the states' freedom to enforce its spirit in a manner which they deem most appropriate. spirit in a manner which they deem most appropriate.

With respect to this case, specifically, there was no With respect to this case, specifically, there was no evidence to suggest that Boerne's historic evidence to suggest that Boerne's historic preservation ordinance favored one religion over preservation ordinance favored one religion over another, or that it was based on animus or hostility for another, or that it was based on animus or hostility for free religious exercise.free religious exercise.

The “establishment clause”

a.prohibits the establishment of a state religion.

b.provides a wall of separation between church and state.

c. was furthered by the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision.

d. all of the above.

Free Exercise ClauseFree Exercise Clause

Does a literal interpretation suggest a Does a literal interpretation suggest a group may practice any religion it group may practice any religion it chooses?chooses?

Is such an interpretation reasonable?Is such an interpretation reasonable? What if the religious member engages in What if the religious member engages in

dangerous practices, i.e taking dangerous practices, i.e taking hallucinogenic drugs?hallucinogenic drugs?

Should government prohibit religious Should government prohibit religious activities that are dangerous or offensive?activities that are dangerous or offensive?

The Belief – Action DistinctionThe Belief – Action Distinction

Based on the Thomas Jefferson letter in Based on the Thomas Jefferson letter in 1803 to the Danbury Baptist Association1803 to the Danbury Baptist Association

Jefferson believed that Jefferson believed that free exercise is not absolute andfree exercise is not absolute and government may regulate religious actionsgovernment may regulate religious actions

The Supreme Court supported this position The Supreme Court supported this position in 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, upholding the constitutionality of laws upholding the constitutionality of laws affecting religious practices as long as the affecting religious practices as long as the legislation serves the nonreligious goal of legislation serves the nonreligious goal of safeguarding the peace, order, and comfort safeguarding the peace, order, and comfort of the community and is not directed at any of the community and is not directed at any particular religion.particular religion.

The Belief – Action DistinctionThe Belief – Action Distinction

The Court sustained laws prohibiting The Court sustained laws prohibiting religiously sanctioned polygamy (the religiously sanctioned polygamy (the practice of taking multiple wives) in practice of taking multiple wives) in Reynolds v. United States in 1879.Reynolds v. United States in 1879.

The Court sustained laws prohibiting The Court sustained laws prohibiting use of peyote during religious use of peyote during religious services in Employment Division, services in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990.Oregon v. Smith in 1990.

The Belief – Action DistinctionThe Belief – Action Distinction

By contrast, the Court invalidated a law By contrast, the Court invalidated a law that forced a Seventh Day Adventist to that forced a Seventh Day Adventist to work on Saturday – her faith’s Sabbath work on Saturday – her faith’s Sabbath – in order to receive unemployment – in order to receive unemployment benefits in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963.benefits in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963.

The Court also upheld the right of the The Court also upheld the right of the Amish to withdraw their children from Amish to withdraw their children from public school before the age of sixteen public school before the age of sixteen in Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.in Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.

Congress and Religious FreedomCongress and Religious Freedom

Congress does not always agree with Congress does not always agree with the way the Court interprets the Free the way the Court interprets the Free Exercise Clause.Exercise Clause.

Recently, Congress has shown Recently, Congress has shown greater support for freedom of greater support for freedom of religious expression than the religious expression than the Supreme Court.Supreme Court.

Goldman v. Weinberger in 1986Goldman v. Weinberger in 1986 City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997

Congress and Religious FreedomCongress and Religious Freedom

After Employment Division, Department of After Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990, where the Court outlawed the use of 1990, where the Court outlawed the use of peyote in religious ceremonies, Congress peyote in religious ceremonies, Congress expressed renewed concern over the expressed renewed concern over the Court’s reasoning in free exercise cases.Court’s reasoning in free exercise cases.

In 1993, Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin In 1993, Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch led passage of the Religious Hatch led passage of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).

The Court ruled RFRA unconstitutional in The Court ruled RFRA unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997

The Supreme Court has limited recitation of prayers in public schools primarily on the basis of.

a. the establishment clause.

b. the free exercise clause.

c. freedom of speech.

d. the right to privacy.

The Supreme Court maintains that the establishment clause prevents all of the following evils EXCEPT.

a. sponsorship

b. financial support

c. active involvement of the

government in religious activity

d. accommodating to religious

needs

The relationship between the state and religion is addressed in

a. the clear and present danger clause.

b. the establishment clause.

c. the free exercise clause.

d. both b and c.

The “free exercise” clause precludes all of the following EXCEPT.

a. a requirement of a religious oath as a condition of public service.

b. denying persons certain rights because of their beliefs or lack of them.

c. discrimination based on religious belief systems rather than adherence to a formal creed.

d. a requirement of a religious oath for public school teachers.

The free exercise clause has been interpreted by American courts to mean that

a. no conduct motivated by religion is subject to state authority.

b. people must keep their opinions about religion to themselves.

c. Amish may take their children out of public schools after the eighth grade.

d. although religious beliefs cannot be regulated, religious conduct may be.