Freedom+of+Religion

=**Freedom of Religion**=

By: Patrick Morley (editor), Casey Barry, Alex Augusto, and Jesse Kenney

Introduction
Freedom of religion, in the United States, is a constitutionally guaranteed right which is provided in the religion clause of the First Amendment (which is part of the Bill of Rights). It reads: // 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. // The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national religion or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well. The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1939)
Background: Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; they were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. The Cantwells distributed religious materials by travelling door-to-door and by approaching people on the street. After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.

Key Question: Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise of rights?

Decision: (9-0 for Cantwell) The Court ruled unanimously that although the general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, the restrictions on religious grounds were not. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.

Everson v. Board of Education (1946)
Background: A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy. Question: Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision: (5-4 for Board of Education)A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.

Engle v. Vitale (1961)
Background: The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? Decision: (6-3 for Engel) Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.

Sherbert v. Verner (1962)
Background: Adeil Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits, finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work. Question: Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Decision: (7-0 for Sherbert) The Court held that the state's eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on this basic First Amendment right.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970)
Background: This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions." Question: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"? Decision: (8-1 for Lemon) Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs.

Stone v. Graham (1980)
Background: Sydell Stone and a number of other parents challenged a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom. They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. Question: Did the Kentucky statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Decision: (5-4 for Stone) The Court ruled that the Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court found that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature."

Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA (1987)
Background: The United States Forest Service was considering building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. It was also considering timber harvesting in the area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng. Question: Did the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock area? Decision: (5-3 for Lyng) The Court held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands. Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice oftheir religion, those effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs. The Court reasoned that government could not operate "if it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires."

Employment Division v. Smith (1989)
Background: Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. The clinic fired them because they used a hallucinogenic drug called peyote for religious purposes while worshipping at their Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied them unemployment compensation because it deemed they were fired for work-related "misconduct." The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that this violated their religious free exercise rights provided by the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed. Question: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes? Decision: (5-3 for Employment Division) Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a 5-3 court. The Court instructed the Oregon Supreme Court to determine whether peyote usage for religious purposes is prohibited under Oregon law, or only by the employer. The Court required this information to consider the constitutionality of the denial of benefits.

Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1994)
Background: Ronald W. Rosenberger, a University of Virginia student, asked the University for $5,800 from a student activities fund to subsidize the publishing costs of Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia. The University refused to provide funding for the publication solely because it "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a diety or an ultimate reality," as prohibited by University guidelines. Question: Did the University of Virginia violate the First Amendment rights of its Christian magazine staff by denying them the same funding resources that it made available to secular student-run magazines? Decision: (5-4 for Rosenberger) The Court held that the University's denial of funding to Rosenberger, due to the content of his message, imposed a financial burden on his speech and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The Court noted that no matter how scarce University publication funding may be, if it chooses to promote speech at all, it must promote all forms of it equally. Furthermore, because it promoted past publications regardless of their religious content, the Court found the University's publication policy to be neutral toward religion and, therefore, not in violation of the establishment clause. The Court concluded by stating that the University could not stop all funding of religious speech while continuing to fund an atheistic perspective.

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2004)
Background: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000, RLUIPA) prohibited government from imposing a substantial burden on prisoners' religious exercise, unless the burden furthered a "compelling government interest." Prisoners in Ohio alleged in federal district court that prison officials violated RLUIPA by failing to accomodate the inmates' exercise of their "nonmainstream" religions. The prison officials argued that the act improperly advanced religion and thus violated the First Amendment's establishment clause (which prohibited government from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion"). Question: Did a federal law prohibiting government from burdening prisoners' religious exercise violate the First Amendment's establishment clause? Decision: (9-0 for Cutter) The Court held that, on its face, RLUIPA made an accommodation allowed by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law was an effort to alleviate the "government-created burden" on religious exercise that prisoners faced. Nor did section three discriminate between mainstream and non-mainstream religions.

Political Cartoons


This cartoon depicts the idea that schools should include the Bible in their curriculum.

This cartoon is poking fun at the fact that the Ten Commandments and other religious literature is even being posted in classrooms and that it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court should even have to hear these cases. Works Cited CUTTER v. WILKINSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 April 2013. .

STONE v. GRAHAM. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 05 April 2013. .

ROSENBERGER v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 05 April 2013. .

CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 April 2013. .

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 05 April 2013. .

ENGEL v. VITALE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 April 2013. .

SHERBERT v. VERNER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 April 2013. .

LEMON v. KURTZMAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 April 2013. .

LYNG v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CPA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 April 2013. .

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 April 2013. .