free-exercise

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

The Free Exercise Clause and Arguments for and against Religious Exemptions

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise clause is a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was ratified alongside nine others. These first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. By providing the people with guaranteed natural rights in these amendments, the government hoped to appease opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it would give the federal government far too much power. The Free Exercise clause is a section of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion. Many early Americans viewed religious freedom as one of the most important and fundamental natural rights because several American colonies had been created by religious groups fleeing from persecution in Europe.

By using the specific phrasing of “free exercise of religion,” Congress, which wrote the Bill of Rights, made it clear that it was protecting not just religious convictions but also practices. Using this clause as their argument, many religious groups have sought to receive exemptions from laws on the grounds that they interfere with their religious convictions or practices. In different time periods, the Free Exercise clause has been interpreted differently in order to either permit or disallow religious exemptions. In 1972, the Supreme Court decided in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder that governments could not apply laws that go against religious beliefs to the holders of said beliefs unless they had a “compelling interest” to do so. This ruling allowed for religious exemptions to occur for many laws. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that religious groups could not be exempted from religiously neutral laws that disallow religious practices or enforce doctrine contrary to religious classes.

One large reason for this ruling was the fear that by being exempt from laws just because of religious beliefs, people would be above the law. The argument of whether or not to grant religious exemptions is one of the greatest areas of dispute about the Free Exercise clause. To argue in favor of religious exemptions, it could be said that in most cases, awarding these exemptions results in practically no detriment to anyone and therefore it would only be a benefit to religious individuals who want to comply with their beliefs. On the other hand, James Madison, one of the most influential writers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, wrote that while people should not be mistreated on account of their religion, no special privileges should be given for religious beliefs. Based on this information, an argument can be made that the intended meaning of the Free Exercise clause was not to permit religious exemptions, and therefore none should be given.

While it may be true that the Framers may not have intended for the Free Exercise clause to be interpreted in a way that allows for religious exemptions, the manner in which they wrote it seems to evoke the idea. Additionally, when a religious exemption does not cause any harm to other people, there is no reason not to support it. It is simply ridiculous to say that no one should get religious exemptions even when they cause no harm to anyone else. James Madison may have thought otherwise, but it is perfectly fair to give religious exemptions in cases where there are no adverse effects.