Religious Freedom: More Than Just America’s Hobby Anymore
Religious freedom in the United States originated in the reason that many pilgrims arrived on North America’s shores. They were leaving so that they could practice their version of their religion unhindered by a government entity. This was later reaffirmed by the Constitution of the United States with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The laws of the land continued to be relooked at by the Supreme Court and religious freedom was one of the issues addressed. Decisions were made lessening religious freedom in the Employment Division v. Smith case and then increased with the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and
…show more content…
This stems less from the decision in Hobby Lobby and more from the controversy in sexual orientation and same-sex marriage (Horwitz, “The Hobby Lobby Moment”). When it comes to religious freedom Americans can set religious accommodation versus gay rights aside as one of the issues soon to come up. Any curiosity about where the Court may stand on the issue can be found in the precedent of the Hobby Lobby decision.
The arguments brought before the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case represent two opinions on whether the Affordable Care Act had crossed this threshold, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest” (Quoted in Horwitz, “The Hobby Lobby Moment”). Author Garrett Epps sums the argument against as:
“Employers pay for an insurance program. That insurance, not the pills themselves, is part of the package the
One of the main reasons that the settlers came and founded America was for religious freedom. Colonist made the long and dangerous journey for other reasons as well, but a major factor was the search for religious freedom. Coming to America alone did not solve this problem; the journey to religious freedom was just that, a journey. Everyone had a slightly different idea of what this new nation’s ‘religious freedom’ should look like and it took many years to come to a compromise.
The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.
The first part of that amendment is the result of the Founding Fathers’ experience with the long history of religious strife in Europe such as the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Crusades. They realized that religious disagreement can be counterproductive and create setbacks in politics. It would be even worse if one religious group was favored. So, they ensured that the federal government cannot interfere in the citizen's personal
The First Amendments Establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” One argument regarding to The Establishment Clause is how to manipulate the government’s actions that relate to religion. (law.cornell.edu) The First Amendment also has a Free Exercise Clause. This clause protects citizen’s right to practice religion to their will. Their right is protected as long as their practice does not disturb “public morals.” (uscourts.gov)
In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states that “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” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights
Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used
The Founding Fathers tried to protect citizen’s rights to religious choice and attempted to keep the government form religious interference. The purpose was not to disallow religion but to give the people a choice of whom and where to worship. Today, the views are not the same. Freedom of religion is being interpreted as freedom of religion as long as it is acceptable with everyone else. The Founding Fathers also wanted separation of church and state to protect the church from government interference. The concept has now become removal of religion from all aspects of government. The cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU are two prime examples, both with different results.
On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.
During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for
The 1st Amendment of the constitution was implemented for one simple reason: to guarantee the basic human rights of the American citizens. The American citizens wanted to be assured of their basic and personal freedoms, so the founding fathers gave them that when they created the 1st Amendment. One of the specific things this Amendment guarantees for its citizens, is the right to exercise their religious freedom. Before the revolutionary war, there wasn’t much separation between church and state. They were under a British government, forcing them to follow the ways of the Anglican church. Citizens were required to attend church once a month in order to receive government news and if citizens were not apart of the church, they still had to pay taxes to fund it.
The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from impeding the free exercise of religion, disavowing intervention when a religion disagrees with the policies of government. This fundamental liberty has recently come under attack in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in June, 2015. In response, individual states and the federal government have passed religious freedom laws protecting religious liberty for business owners. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental liberty that should not be abridged by government, and the implementation of religious freedom statutes is necessary to protect the values of the First Amendment.
The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.
The RFRA essentially prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” Although they have been renewed, the RFRA has progressed passed the “balancing of interests” test and compelling state interest test in the Sherbert and Yoder cases and required a “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.”