Constitutional Protection of Religious Rights in the United States
Constitution of the United States The Influence of the Constitution Protecting Personal Rights Religious Rights
In the famous words of Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution erects a “wall of separation” between church and state. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause serve as the principle bulwarks against government intrusion in religious life.
Under the Establishment Clause, neither the federal government nor the states can enact laws that would “establish” or create a religion. In the 17th century, most American colonies supported official religions with public revenues, and laws required residents to attend church services. The framers of the Constitution drafted the Establishment Clause to ensure that there would be no official national religion. In 1940 the Supreme Court ruled in Cantwell v. Connecticut that the religion clauses bind the states just as the press and speech clauses do.
The application of the Establishment Clause usually turns on whether and to what degree the government may provide support for religious activities. The court has prohibited officially sponsored school prayer, although children in public schools may pray on their own. The Court’s decisions in other areas have been less consistent. The Court has permitted displays of religious symbols, such as a Christmas scene, in public areas such as parks and municipal buildings in some instances and not in others. In two cases in 2005 the Court ruled on the question of whether religious displays violated the Establishment Clause. In Van Orden v. Perry the Court ruled that a granite monument of the Ten Commandments displayed on the grounds of the Texas capitol was not in violation of the clause. However, in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Court ruled that framed copies of the Ten Commandments on the walls of two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional. The Court has approved government expenditures that benefit religious schools in some cases and not in others. The outcome of each case turns on the specific facts involved.
More difficult questions arise when the government outlaws an activity that incidentally affects a religious practice. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) the Court ruled that Oregon could prohibit the use of peyote, a hallucinogen, even though it is used in some Native American religious ceremonies. The Court reasoned that because the law was general in scope and had the secular (nonreligious) purpose of outlawing dangerous drugs, the law did not violate the Constitution merely because it also resulted in the banning of a particular religious practice. On the other hand, a law is not necessarily general and neutral just because the government says so. In 1993 the Court unanimously struck down a Hialeah, Florida, municipal ordinance that banned animal sacrifice. Although the ban seemed neutral, the court ruled in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah that the law unfairly targeted the Santería religion.
The legal interpretation of the separation of church and state raises perplexing legal issues because the Free Exercise Clause sometimes conflicts with the Establishment Clause. If the government taxes church property, for example, does the tax violate the church’s right to “free exercise” of its religion? If, on the other hand, the state exempts churches from property taxes, does the exemption constitute an unconstitutional “establishment” of religion. In 1971 the Supreme Court upheld property tax exemptions for religious groups in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, but the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses still defies simple resolution by the Supreme Court. (1)
In this Section about the Influence of the Constitution and Protecting Personal Rights: Constitution Influence, Federal Government Role, Constitutional Regulation of Business and Commerce, Constitutional Protection of Personal Rights, Constitutional Protection of the Right to Privacy, Constitutional Protection of Free Speech, Constitutional Protection of Religious Rights, Constitutional Protection of the Rights of the Accused, Constitutional Protection of Civil Liberties.
Leave a Reply