top of page

American Religious Freedoms Summarized

When does religious freedom clash with the freedom of others?



The First Amendment grants us in just a few lines our entire religious freedoms. But how are these rights given to us? Over time, the Supreme Court has modified this statement through various constitutional tests and revisions.

The Sherbert test says that anytime a religious restriction is applied, it must be in a very narrow form and serve a government interest. And the person who is suing must prove they have a sincere religious belief that is being fully restricted. Otherwise, you could create a religion that uses littering as a form of prayer. But the government must also prove that the law is necessary. An example includes the vaccination of children. While it is against certain religious doctrines, it is in the government’s interest to keep people healthy (Prince V. Massachusetts). Even so, congressional laws are occasionally overturned for failing to serve a compelling interest. In Sherbert V. Verner- which is where the Sherbert test comes from- a South Carolina law took away unemployment benefits for someone who turned down a job offer, even if it would force them to work on the Sabbath. This was seen as unconstitutional because of its interference in a sincere religious belief.

Almost 30 years after Sherbert, the court created the Smith test. In Employment Division V. Smith, the court decided that an Oregon law denying unemployment benefits to a Native American worker fired for using Peyote (a hallucinogen) was legal. Even though peyote was mostly used by Native Americans in religious ceremonies, since the law was technically neutral and applied to all citizens, it was not seen as discriminatory. The now often-used Smith test only punishes the most obvious religious restrictions and doesn’t require a state to explain why they needed to make that law.

Some justices voiced their disapproval with the Smith ruling in the recent Fulton V. City of Philadelphia case. In a unanimous decision, the justices argued that the Catholic Social Services choice to refer gay couples to another agency was protected under Smith. Their reasoning was that the agreement between the city of Philadelphia and CSS to not discriminate could not be applied to all religious views, since only the Christian view on marriage was being targeted. In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito worried that laws banning face coverings, kosher food, or sacramental wine, would also be constitutional under Smith, and may provide more harm for religious freedom than good.

Keep in mind that all these tests are only applied to the “Free Exercise” clause, or the idea that congress may not interfere with the worship of a religion. The constitution also has another clause in the first amendment relating to religion known as the “Establishment” clause, which prevents congress from establishing a religion. Most of the supreme court religious cases examine this clause. When covering it, the Lemon test applies. Coming from the Lemon V. Kurtzman case, the court considered whether a Pennsylvania law giving state funds to a private religious school counted as congress establishing a religion in that state. The court created a 3 pronged test for any Establishment clause cases. It had to: (A) have a secular purpose, (B) not help or hurt religions, and (C) not mix up government with religion to be legal. On part C, the court declared the Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.

When we see all of these court cases, clauses, and tests, we begin to realize that our religious freedoms are not as set in stone as the constitution has us believe. The interpretations of these simple clauses has had far-reaching consequences that have yet to be addressed by our current Roberts court.



Sources:



Comments

bottom of page