2- First Amendment & religion Flashcards
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Religion & first amendment
Religious liberty
The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom is known as the “establishment clause” and more commonly as “freedom of religion” or “religious liberty”.
A large majority (70-75%) of Americans identify as religious. Approximately 40% Protestant, 20% Catholic, 2% Jewish and 1% Muslim, with Buddhist and Hindi under 1%.
Religious organizations play an important role in American society (Education, Health care, Humanitarian activity)
Freedom & religion
Separation of church and state.
Freedom of Religion or freedom from religion?
Freedom of religion = letting people practice their religion with little interference as possible
Freedom for religion = avoid religion in public places. More like in France.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States(1879)
The Court examined whether a federal anti-bigamy statute violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, because plural marriage is part of Mormon religious practice. It unanimously upheld the federal law banning polygamy, noting that the Free Exercise Clause forbids government from regulating belief, but does allow government to punish activity judged to be criminal, regardless of an activity’s basis in religious belief.
Murray v. Curlett
Murray v. Curlett (1963)
The Court considered whether Baltimore, Maryland, public schools violated the Establishment Clause in conducting daily opening exercises which included reading the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer. The Maryland school religious exercises were declared a violation of the Establishment Clause.
→ freedom from : avoid people being influenced from christian’s influence
Epperson v. Arkansas
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
The Court looked at whether an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution violated the free-speech rights of teachers and/or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
→ In its unanimous decision, the Court held that the law did violate the Establishment Clause because, as Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the Court’s opinion, “Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution, because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man”. (Citation: 393 US 97)
→ Freedom from religion because vaoid influence of English church
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
The Court considered whether a Pennsylvania law reimbursing religious schools with state funds for textbooks and teacher salaries for non-public, non-secular schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
→ In an 8-0 decision, the Court set out a three-pronged test for the constitutionality of a statute, by which a statute is constitutional if: (1) it has a primarily secular purpose; (2) its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion; and (3) government and religion are not excessively entangled.
→ On this basis, the Court struck down the Pennsylvania law as in violation of the Establishment Clause, finding that the statute constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion. (Citation: 403 US 602) ⇒ Said that gvt and religion are excessively entangled
→ freedom from religious influence
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
The Court examined whether the state of Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violated the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons.
→ In their unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from the state law requiring school attendance for all 14 to 16-year-olds, because their religion required living apart from the world and worldly influence.
→ The state’s interest in having students attend 2 additional years of school did not outweigh the individual’s right to free exercise of religious belief. (Citation: 406 US 205)
→ freedom OF religion : your religious belief can make you exempt from certain laws
Lynch v. Donnelly
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
The Court considered whether the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by including a nativity scene in the Christmas display in a public park, among other figures and decorations traditionally associated with Christmas.
→ The Court applied the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and, in a 5-4 decision, held that “notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city of Pawtucket has not violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” The principal purpose of the nativity scene was to celebrate and depict the origins of a national holiday, and in that, it passed the three-pronged test. (Citation: 465 US 668)
→ It passed the Lemon test ⇒ freedom OF religion
So examples of freedom from religion
Reynolds v. United States 1879
Murray v. Curlett (1963)
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
So examples of freedom of religion
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
⇒ Federal Law.
Some people said that this guy shouldn’t smoke Peyote so they passed a law : the religious Freedom Restoration Act
The United States Supreme Court ruled inEmployment Division v. Smith(1990) that a person may not defyneutral laws of general applicabilityeven as an expression of religious belief. “To permit this,” wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878Reynolds v. United Statesdecision, “would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard ofstrict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create “a private right to ignore generally applicable laws”. Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
In 1993, the US Congress responded by passing theReligious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion”.
The RFRA was amended in 2000 by theReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act(RLUIPA) to redefineexercise of religionas any exercise of religion, “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”, which is to be “construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution”. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes inGonzales v. O Centro Espiritain 2006.
=> It has to prove that there is an urgence a, an underlying problem that needs to be solved and it is the only way to do it and it cannot inflict onto burden people that are subjected to the law.
→ Prove you have no other choice than doing things this way.
Idea is to bring freedom of religion back & to protect freedom of religion if you want to infringe you have to pass the strict scrutiny test (an urgence..etc)
before religious freedom restoration act
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
The Court examined whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allowed
the state of Oregon to deny unemployment benefits to someone fired from a job for
smoking peyote as part of a religious ceremony. Peyote is a controlled substance under
Oregon law, and its possession is a criminal offense.
→ The Court first determined whether such prohibition is constitutional and found that
it is constitutional, because the law is “valid and neutral,” applying to everyone and not
specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason.
→ In a 6-3 decision, the Court then held that, because ingestion of peyote was
prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon
did not violate the Free Exercise Clause in denying persons unemployment
compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug. (Citation: 494 U.S. 872)
⇒ He wasn’t against the fact of being fired but against the fact that he couldn’t get
unemployment insurance.
⇒ SC said that NOBODY could do it
→ Protecting gvt ability to make rules even if it goes against some beliefs : Freedom
FROM religion
→ freedom of religion
other examples
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014)
Conclusion : Over the course of history : there has been an evolution from the 1st amendment being used to reduce the influence of religious orga in public sector life = freedom from religion and overtime had increasingly defended right to defend those people even though in contest with laws of state they live in = freedom OF religion.
Freedom of Religion
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Art. VI, Para. 3).
→ George Washington swore his presidential oath on a Bible. He didn’t have to (freedom from religion) but he was allowed to (freedom of religion).
→ In 2018, US representative Rashid Tlaib Democratic from Michigan swore her oath of office using a copy of the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson.
In God we Trust
