The Free Exercise Clause And The Freedom Of Speech

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 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.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants United States Citizens the right to freedom of religion (Horwitz 1). According to Supreme Court interpretation, the primary purpose of this amendment is to prevent government interference with the practice of religion. Since the 1950's this amendment has been slowly worn away, resulting in the government limiting its citizens' rights to freely pray, worship, and even proselytize. While various laws are often struck down in the Supreme Court, this process takes time and damage is done to freedom while awaiting the decision.

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 case between Salazar and Buono, the First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. By establishing favoritism towards Christianity the U.S government violated the Establishment Clause. This paper analyzes the rhetorical situation between the governments interference within religion

America guarantees religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is defined in our textbook as the “part of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a church officially supported by the national government” (Schmitt, 69). According to Thomas Jefferson, this clause is in place to create a “wall of separation of the Church and State.” Through much effort, the Establishment Clause covers “all conflicts about such matters as the legality of giving state and local government aid to religious organizations and schools, allowing or requiring school prayers . . . and discriminating against religious groups in publicly operated institutions” (Schmitt, 69). The Free Exercise Clause is defined as “the provision of the

Free Speech is the American’s most important and used privilege provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Every American use this technique to express their beliefs and it is most often attacked freedom by the government. Although many critics argue for the unlimited boundaries and lesser interruption by the government to the freedom of speech, I support the systematical restrictions by the government. In my opinion, the extent of free speech is somewhere it can persuasive to its audience as well as less insulting to its opposing ones. I think it is offensive to insult any religious beliefs for the actions led by some members of the religion. For example, Muslims, we cannot pressure them to move from American

The idea that the United States is a Christian Nation has made religious minorities feel excluded. Many of these individuals challenged practices which they considered forms of formal religious establishment. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause protects the citizens of the United States from laws which promote one religion over others. Several challenges have made their way to the Supreme Court who tend to protect religious minorities from this harmful assumption.

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause a public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law would protected because it is a form of expression (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has recognized more than just spoken words are protected rights under the Free Speech Clause, and freedom of expression through acts are included, so flag burning is a protected right (Hall, 2015). Next, an advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard is also protected under the Free Speech Clause. The advertisement is considered visual and written expression, which is a protected form of expression (Hall, 2015). Last, the placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played is another form of nonverbal expression (Hall, 2015).

Under the First Amendment, we as Americans have protected rights known as Freedom of Speech. How I see Freedom of Speech is it gives us the right to voice our own opinions without any retaliation or repercussions. An example in which Freedom of Speech may be utilized is before, during and after a Presidential Election. Many people will have their own opinions about how they see each Presidential Candidate fit or unfit. Alot of times after people exercise this right, Rallys and Protests occur. Unfortunetly sometimes when this does happen, boundaries are overstepped. This can result in threats, crimes, slander ad even people getting

Nantiya Ruan, currently a Professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has years of experience representing plaintiffs in complex litigations in the United States, including cases on civil rights, employment discrimination, and compensation. In this article, much is spoken about the various laws protecting one against religious discrimination, including the Free Exercise Clause, the First Amendment, and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, among others. The article places emphasis on several cases where the courts have denied religious expression in the workplace. To solve these inconsistencies, Ruan devises three approaches for the courts to provide protection for respectful religious expression. Ruan states that, "This

Freedom of Religion is an important value in American culture. Many people would agree that anyone should be able to practice their religion how they choose, as long as they don’t interfere with someone else’s rights. However, there are instances throughout American history when an individual’s right to practice their faith has come into conflict with the law. In these cases, it is up to the courts to decide whether the law or the citizen has to change in order to accommodate the other. There are many factors that go into these decisions, such as whether or not the practice is a sincerely held belief of the citizen, whether or not the state and the citizen can come to a compromise that accommodates the religious practice, or how the citizen’s

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and

What is Speech? Speech includes any form of verbal or visual gesture. Freedom of speech means that as a person, you have the right to say what you feel without being punished or penalized. You may have to suffer dire consequences for your actions or words, but you still have the right to say them. Dictionary.com defines Freedom of Speech as, “the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.” In a diverse world such as ours with varying opinions and beliefs, the need to be able to have unlimited freedom to speak about any and everything that concerns us is vitally important to improve our society. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

As almost every citizen knows, America was founded with the intent of escaping religious persecution. With that thought in mind the founders of the United States made sure our religious freedom was protected. However, in recent years there have been many arguments about what religious freedom truly means. In our increasingly secular and religiously diverse society we are seeing clashes in ideals, these clashes are becoming national news. Religious freedom acts especially are creating tensions within the country as some wonder if these laws protect religion or allow for discrimination.

Musicians and artists when making music may say anything they want too in their songs without repercussion because it’s protected by the first amendment under the free speech clause, yet can only be used as evidence in a criminal trial if it has a strong nexus attached to it. The free speech clause of the First Amendment should protect offensive speech not only because people have the right to speak their minds, but it results in a more democratic society. My opinion about free speech is that offensive language is protected under the first amendment, unless it incites a riot, threatens national security, or causes any type of direct violent response caused by the offensive speech.