Free Exercise Clause

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

Amish is a religious group, who believe in living a simple and traditional life. The Amish prefer not to use technology or things that involve electricity. They are taught as they grow up about God and how to sustain themselves as they grow older. Once they grow up they are supposed to become farmers and have kids. This does not require much education but requires life skills that the parents teach and not the school. The Yoder's believed because they don't need what they learn in school as much as they need the skills they learn at home, they should be able to leave school after 8th grade, because of this the case was taken to court. Two other families were also involved in this case. The names of all three respondents were Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy. The issue in this case, that the court had to figure out was Whether the state’s interest in

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

The Court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder and the Sherbert/Yoder extended the protection of religious freedom under the Constitution and the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit.

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

Board of Education (1947) was a New Jersey case that rose to the Supreme Court and lead to a landmark decision. The Board of Education was reimbursing students for taking public transportation to and from both public and private schools. A taxpayer objected to the use of public funds to reimburse any student attending a religious school. The Supreme Court found the state statute allowing the reimbursement valid, in part because the reimbursement was paid to the parents of the students and not a religious institution, and the payments were available to everyone, not only those attending a religious institution. The decision was significant for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court ruled the establishment clause would now apply to the states. Secondly, Justice Hugo Black, in writing the majority opinion, stated, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” This is one of the most egregious cases of judicial activism, trying to accomplish what from the bench what the Legislature could not accomplish in 1876. It is particularly troublesome because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution or any federal statute, and the addition of the phrases, “that wall must be kept high and impregnable” and “we could not approve the slightest breach” drastically changes the context in which it was written. Additionally, since

When defending himself to his principal, he used the first amendment but was still not taken seriously and was then required to see his guidance counselor for months afterward. This high school student then wrote a letter to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to ask for help. The ACLU had been searching for a “plaintiff” for many years. After taking this argument to the court, Abington school district defended themselves by saying that “Bible reading was not a religious practice” and that students who did not want to listen to the scripture reading did not have to, they also argued that the “practice need not to be outlawed because the Constitution does not require government to be ‘hostile to religion’” (The Battle pg. 167). To the school board also argued that “to outlaw Bible reading would blaze a trail that would eliminate from public life customs that ‘are now and have long been cherished and accepted by a vast majority of the people (The Battle pg. 167). The Schempp received harassment and abuse from other citizens living in Abbington because of their support of the end to scripture reading. In 1959, the federal district court found that this practice was unconstitutional but the school board quickly found a loophole. The school district then decided to excuse students not wanting to participate in the reading

In the case, Wisconsin v. Yonder which was argued on December 8, 1971, and the decision was made on May 15, 1972. The defendants were an Amish Mennonite Church who was in violation of Wisconsin’s school compulsory law. Which after their children graduated the eighth grade they declined to send them to the public or private school. Because of the compulsory school law which is required until age 16 a child’s school attendance. The Amish Mennonite Church continued to provide their children with vocational education preparing them for continued Amish life in their community. The sincerely did not believe that the Amish life would work well with the public or private school attendance law because of their way of life. The Amish believe that this

In this article, the author is explaining Chief Justice Rehnquist’s reaction to the decision that Ohio’s school voucher program is constitutional, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the article, Chief Justice Rehnquist is quoted saying the voucher program is constitutional, because the choice of where the government money will go lies with the parents. Therefore, the government is not deciding whether or not to support religious schools. However, Justice Souter observed that ninety-six percent of the students who received the vouchers then attended a religious school. Justice Souter believed that there was a lack of secular schooling

In the Wisconsin v. Yoder case, plaintiffs Jonas Yoder, Adin Yutzy and Wallace Miller were charged for violating the compulsory school attendance law. They were charged because they refuse to enroll their children into the school system (high school). However, upon reviewing the appeal, the Court weighed the constitutional right of the appellants’ (religious freedom) against the state’s interest in compulsory education. The court states that, “the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the State from compelling respondents to cause their children to attend traditional high school to grade 8th. The State argues that the interest in education is very important and therefore the Amish community must abide by these rules. The court disagrees with

Legal Issue: Does the Free Exercise Clause require an accommodation for religious motivated behavior in the face of a law that is burdening that behavior, unless there is a compelling state interest for the law and the law is the least restrictive means of advancing the CSI?

Criminalization of Polygamy clearly interferes with the Freedom of Exercise Clause due to the years of precedent establishing the fundamental right of such Clause. An Amish child has the right to not attend school because it is part of their religion in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). This case furthered the use of the Sherbert test when ruling in favor of the Amish American citizen. Chief Justice Burger in his opinion describes, through the use of this test, the government had no right to create a law infringing on an individual’s right to choose whether or not to attend school. He says, “however strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests.” Justice Burger speaks about no matter the purpose of the law or how important it may be for

In the wake of seemingly contradictory rulings concerning the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, the Supreme court had to create a series of tests to create consistency for future cases and lower courts. For Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the Court created the Lemon test and the Endorsement test. For the Free Exercise Clause, the Court created the Undue Burden test, the Least Restrictive Means test, and the Compelling Interest test. Although the Court seemed to devise the Compelling Interest test to consistently apply in religious free exercise case, the cases of Sherbert v Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Thomas v. Review Board, and Goldman v. Weinberger demonstrated that the Court can not consistently apply the Compelling Interest test where it seems relatively arbitrary and answers no practical questions. What are the standards of a compelling interest? Who has the burden of proof for demonstrating a compelling interest? Both of these questions are not adequately answered in the Court’s jurisprudence and reverts the situation back to before the compelling interest was made.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the free exercise clause in many different ways. Today, people in the United States have the absolute freedom to believe what they choose but they may have to yield to the government in their religious conduct. In most instances, the government will not interfere with an adult’s practices as long as a minor is not in danger. The Supreme Court has deemed though, that if these practices endanger a minor, the minor cannot participate. Such cases include the right an adult as to refuse life-saving treatment cannot be applied to a minor. The government’s interest in saving a child’s life outweighs the freedom of religious practice. Another case in which the government may interfere with religious conduct is if the purpose of the law was not made to prevent the practice but merely occurred incidentally. This has occurred in Oregon, when the government banned peyote, a hallucinogenic drug used by Native Americans. The Supreme Court deemed that the law was meant to protect people from the powerful drug and it was not intended to infringe on the Native American practice. The last situation in which a government can interfere with religious conduct is if the act is a danger to public safety.

The debate on religion in the public school is complicated by the fact that there are two clauses dealing with religion in the First Amendment (Warnick, 2012). The Establishment Clause, which disallows the establishment by the government of any particular religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the state from proscribing the practice of religion, are a source of