Though these two issues are different and apply separate constitutional arguments, each rests principally on the role of religious liberty within American society. The Sherbert Test and free-exercise clause play into arguments over two current exercise events: gay rights and contraceptive coverage. Coincidentally, the Court ruled in Gonzales that the government had not established a compelling interest to limit the use of peyote tea in a New Mexico Native American ceremony. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006) thus became the first use of RFRA and the Sherbert Test. Flores (1997) established that Congress can only strengthen federal religious freedoms. Though President Clinton strengthened the laws through executive orders, Boerne v. Nonetheless, Congress became concerned that religious exercise was at risk and passed the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to legislatively establish the Sherbert Test. The Sherbert Test had lasted fewer than 30 years when Smith changed the precedent since then, the legal community has grown to scorn such tests. If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a “compelling state interest” and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible. The hence-named “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. The court ruled that the employer had placed a “substantial burden” on her and that the government lacked a compelling interest to deny benefits. Verner (1963), Adell Sherbert sued her employer when he extended her hours to include Saturdays-a day on which Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was religiously obliged not to work. This test, established by Justice William Brennan, has been used in defense of religious liberty. While Reynolds and Smith can be used to argue that the free-exercise clause has a rather narrow application, a concurring opinion in Smith by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor applied the test of “compelling government interest.” She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”Īlmost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended some constitutionally guaranteed rights to the states, including a wider range of religious freedoms. The First Amendment was originally intended to keep the federal government out of religion and did not apply to the states.
While there is extensive historical precedent on matters of religious liberty in the United States, several hot button issues currently standing before the Supreme Court and Congress could shift conceptions of just how far religious liberty extends. Legality surrounding religious law in America is best understood as a wide spectrum of interpretation.
While the first half remains clear (“establishment of religion”), the latter half (“free exercise thereof”) has been the subject of much legal and political debate.
#Amendment dom of religion free#
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”Ĭonstitutional arguments over the First Amendment have always been legally treacherous and fraught with political strife.
0 kommentar(er)
