Freedom Issues Freedom of Religion Free Exercise of Religion—The Facts 1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 2. "Free exercise" allows every citizen to hold and practice religious beliefs according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with religious beliefs and practices, but the Supreme Court has found some exceptions based upon "compelling government interest" (see fact # 5, for example). 3. The Establishment Clause prohibits the Congress from "establishing" a national religion, meaning that the government cannot give aid or preference to one religion over another. This has been a difficult area of interpretation for the Supreme Court, as it has tried to balance the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause with the rights of expression protected by the Free Exercise Clause. 4. The religious protections afforded by the First Amendment extend not just to the federal, but also to the state and local level, by virtue of the 14th Amendment. 5. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court refused to exempt Mormon polygamists from antibigamy laws. 6. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that Amish parents had the right to keep their children out of public schools, if such teachings conflicted with their religious beliefs; the right to free exercise defended in this decision was later limited by United States v. Lee (1982), which denied the Amish the right to be exempt from paying social security taxes. 7. In the case, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that two Native American employees could be fired and denied unemployment benefits for the ritual use of peyote in tribal religious ceremonies. 8. In 1993, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, of 1993, which said that the government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule applied to the populace as a whole. Numerous cases have been affected by the Act’s passage, including those involving the rights of Jewish, Catholic, Native American, and Islamic inmates to practice their faith in prison. Nonestablishment of Religion 9. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in which the Supreme Court declared state supplements of the salaries of Catholic school teachers to be unconstitutional, established the "Lemon Test," which guided the Court’s decisions on school-related issues for many years. The test has three parts: Does the law have a bona fide secular or civic purpose? Does the primary effect neither advance nor inhibit religion? Does the law avoid excessive government entanglement with religion? If the answer to these questions is yes, it passes the test and is constitutional. Discussion Questions What kinds of qualifications must a religion have in order to be protected under the umbrella of the Free Exercise clause? Are there times, as in conscientious objector cases, when "sincere belief" in a set of ideas not connected to an "organized religion" might qualify? Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 a necessary law, given the protections already written into the First Amendment? Or are First Amendment protections sufficiently ambiguous to require a law clarifying the government’s power in such areas? A current case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court exemplifies the tensions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A church in a Texas town was blocked by the city from expanding its building to meet the needs of an overflowing congregation. (The church is in a historic district.) The church has sued, arguing that the Act requires government officials to accommodate their religious practice, even if doing so conflicts with ordinances such as those regulating property in a historic district. How would you decide this case if you were a member of the Court? What is the responsibility of the government when rights of free exercise come into conflict with other laws, such as those regulating drug use? Are school vouchers, under which families would be given a direct tuition credit that would allow them to send their children to the public or private school of their choice, constitutional? Do they violate the Establishment Clause by creating a situation under which public funds could potentially go to religious organizations? Should "voluntary" prayer in public schools be protected under the Free Exercise clause? Speech Ideas/Talking Points Home | Freedom Issues Home Tips on Volunteering Home