Religious Freedom Policy Paper

For the value of the constitutional liberties to each citizen of America, it is a must that the government stresses the freedom to teach, practice or worship based on religion. Throughout the history of America, religion has gradually decreased in importance although it is needed more now than ever. Pursuant to the first amendment to the constitution, the country must honor the values of its people. In the article “Religious Exemptions, Formal Neutrality, and Laicite” Frederick Mark Gedricks asserts that, “The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that neither the national government nor the states may enact a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” (Gedicks). If chosen to live in a country where the government has stated the protection of religion, it is a must that they stand by that ruling. Providing the protection of religious freedom is vital to maintaining the integrity of constitutional liberties as citizens defend their own beliefs. Also, with the many disagreements of religious acts, Judge Roy Moore and his allies’ belief of the religious commitment of the country was undermined once Moore chose to place a 5, 280 pound granite monument in the state’s judicial building in Montgomery in July of 2001. His act placed disregards to his religion in which he was denied of his own beliefs. In the article, “Religion and Civil Rights”,

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.

When discussing the intertwining of church and state; soul liberty and freedom from religious belief, we must recognize that freedom and faith were at one point complementary ideas. Faith was once the foundation for freedom and vice versa. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights." With these words from the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers set up their vision of what this country would come to be. Among those rights, which are deemed “inalienable”, is the right of religious liberty. (Neumann, 1990: p. 241)

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.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

America has been named the "melting pot" of the world. It houses many different cultures, nationalities, ideas and religions. There are Christians, Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, Spiritualists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamic, plus many more. America is unique in that all these religions are represented in a nation that is only 200 years old. And America has upheld, throughout history, that the freedom and equality of religion is extremely important in order for this nation to function as a free nation. The foundations of America were set as a result of England's persecution; more specifically, England's religious persecution. The colonists wanted to create a nation that allowed people to be free. They

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

The state of Mississippi just recently signed into law that allows businesses to deny service to gay couples. This bill called HB 1523 signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant is being called the religious freedom bill. The bill now signed into law has received major backlash from the entire United States during the almost two weeks that it has been enacted. The Governor has made statements saying that the bill was signed into law to protect religious beliefs and the convictions held by the individuals associated with private businesses and organizations. Many major organizations including the federal government have spoken up about this bill claiming to stop federal funding to not supporting that state by closing stores and businesses within the state. Nothing like this has ever been enacted in this country and the harsh attacks on the Governor and state of Mississippi have not stopped. Many LGBT organizations along with civil rights unions have called the bill discriminatory to the LGBT community in the state of Mississippi. The bill allows private businesses to withhold service from the gay community due to religious beliefs, which is from a moral standpoint wrong because sexual orientation is a part of a person that is instilled into someone and is on the same level as racial discrimination. Governor Phil Bryant and the state of Mississippi has no right to say that people should be allowed to be discriminated towards because of their sexual orientation it goes

coming over from previous mother country, England. In fact it was so important it was part of the very 1st amendment, including freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Since then it has been a struggle to determine whether or not certain instances would qualify as hindering the 1st’s claim to the right of Religion. An important case where that occurred is the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye V.S. City of Hialeah (1993). In the case the city of Hialeah is targeting a specific group based on their religious views. On the other side of the fence the church group argues that the state laws are going against the first amendment right to religion.

The capability to speak openly and practice the religion of your choice has existed since the birth of the United States of America. Yet in the past decade, more people than ever have caused us to question which first amendment right should be protected more; freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Such events where the two rights are pinned against each other, both seeking to sense a feeling of supremacy, have proved to lead to conflict and even bloodshed.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in the application of these sometimes conflicting requirements. At times, the Court takes a separationist position, erecting a solid wall between church and state, and at other times takes an accommodationist position, siding with an individual’s right to exercise their religious beliefs. Religious liberty under the First Amendment should not be limited to private individuals, but extended to corporations, and only when its application does not interfere with legitimate governmental interests. History shows that the Court has repeatedly found that constitutional rights extend to corporations. This controversial approach was recently seen in the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). Today, the Court continues to address this issue.

Though I agree with her right to express it. I just don’t believe her personal prejudices should be brought into her work for the state government. I also agree with the court to telling her she must grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. While I agree private business has the right to decide since they are not being funded by tax payers’ money and people have the ability to find other options when a private business does not agree with their morals. But when it is a government official, the public has less options. Whether or not she agrees, she has to follow the

Last year, Governor Mike Pence signed his version of the RFRA into law into the state of Indiana, sparking controversy all across the country. Various celebrites, event organizers, and business owners not only believed that this act was unnecessary, but found it to be intolerant, unfriendly, and backwards. Opposers have a right to be considered because this law “effectively nullifies existing municipal protections” (McBride, Durso) that have been established in the city of Indianapolis. Businesses such as Salesforce and Angie’s List have protested the law by reducing spending in Indiana. With Angie’s List alone, the new law cost the state $40 million and 1,000 jobs because the company refused to advertise businesses that endorsed the RFRA. The act has put Indiana at risk of losing on estimated $256.4 million in just one year. In Pence’s defense, he claims that he would not “sign a bill that would diminish religious freedom” (Colombo) yet many LGBT advocates and business groups believe that Pence’s words lack leadership. This implies that Pence most likely signed the bill out of personal interests and beliefs, rather than for the sake of the people of Indiana. Governor Pence’s decision to sign the RFRA has been nothing but detrimental to Indiana's economy and has tarnished the state’s perception and

The proactive exclusion of religious expression in the public space is in direct conflict with the conscious inclusion of said public expression during the first century in America. The premise of separation of church and state is the tool used by the “offended” to drive a wedge between the two. The religious freedoms our founders acknowledged as rights have allowed a rich mixture of diverse religions to be practiced independently of each other. However, these same freedoms have been misconstrued by an irreligious minority who use them as weapons to enforce their opinions, and chip away at the basic rights of the majority.

If you woke up tomorrow and found yourself part of a minority group that was treated like a second class citizens and denied civil rights how would you feel? Every day in the United States minority groups are denied basic rights that ever other U.S. citizen is grated. These rights are determined by the United States government that is influenced by religious beliefs, even though our country was founded with the belief of separation of church and state.