Congress' Power Over Religious Freedom

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is known as the Establishment Clause, which acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases, including Torasco v. Watkins, Sherbert v. Verner, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, to determine whether laws discriminate against religious practices and violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause

The precise definition of "establishment" in the context of the Establishment Clause is unclear, and the Supreme Court has not provided a clear standard for deciding cases involving religious monuments on public land. However, the Court has permitted some government actions that implicate religion, such as allowing religious invocations to open legislative sessions, and the use of public funds for private religious school transportation.

Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause, commonly identified as the freedom of religion, is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The text of the clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This clause, along with the Establishment Clause, acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government.

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to practice any religious belief and engage in religious rituals of their choice. It protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, as long as the practice does not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. The clause also promotes a free religious market by preventing the taxation of religious activities by minority sects.

The Free Exercise Clause has been applied both broadly and narrowly by the Court. Initially, the First Amendment only applied to the US Congress, meaning state and local governments could abridge the Free Exercise Clause if there was no similar provision in the state constitution. However, in 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. This was achieved through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, which prevents any state from denying a citizen their rights without following laws and fair procedures.

The Free Exercise Clause protects religious observers against unequal treatment. For example, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the Court struck down a set of ordinances enacted by a Florida city that targeted "conduct motivated by religious beliefs". The Florida ordinances prohibited animal sacrifice, with certain exemptions for animals killed for food consumption. These ordinances were passed in response to the establishment of a Santeria church within the city and residents' concerns about the practice of animal sacrifice. The Supreme Court concluded that the ordinances were not neutral and unconstitutionally sought to suppress Santeria religious worship.

Religious coercion

The Establishment Clause acts as a safeguard against both government control by religion and political control of religion by the government. It also prohibits the government from establishing or sponsoring religion, as well as participating in the affairs of religious organizations. The Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, as well as outright prohibitions on religious exercise. This means that individuals cannot be punished for their religious beliefs or practices and that religious observers are protected against unequal treatment.

In the context of government-sponsored prayer practices, the Supreme Court has evaluated Establishment Clause challenges by examining impermissible government coercion. For example, in Lee v. Weisman, the Court held that a high school violated the Establishment Clause by including prayers at graduation. The Court stressed the concern of subtle coercive pressure in the public school setting, where a dissenter might feel forced by the state to participate in religious practices against their conscience.

In another case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Court ruled that a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer before school events, as it created impermissible coercion. The Court has also addressed the issue of religious coercion in cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, animal sacrifice in religious practices, and government benefit programs.

Research has shown that religious coercion can undermine democracy, human rights, interreligious harmony, women's empowerment, economic growth, and peace. It is important to uphold the right to freedom of religion and protect individuals from being coerced into participating in religious practices against their will.

State-sponsored religion

The concept of state-sponsored religion has a long history, dating back to ancient times and continuing into the present day. Official religions have been a part of almost all types of cultures throughout human history, with the first state-sponsored Christian denomination being the Armenian Apostolic Church, established in 301 CE. The term "state church" is often associated with Christianity as sanctioned by the government and was historically the state church of the Roman Empire.

In the United States, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause work together to prohibit the government from establishing or sponsoring a religion. The Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," ensuring the separation of church and state. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as long as it does not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.

Despite these protections, there have been legal disputes over laws that indirectly impact religious practices. For example, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the Supreme Court struck down a set of ordinances enacted by a Florida city that prohibited animal sacrifice, which was a practice of the Santeria religion. The Court found that the ordinances unconstitutionally targeted religious conduct and infringed upon religious freedom.

The degree of state involvement in religion can vary. In some cases, like in Alsace-Moselle, France, multiple religions may be officially recognized and endorsed by the state, with or without financial support. In other cases, a state may prohibit competing religious bodies from operating or even persecute followers of other sects. For instance, in 16th-century Europe, the principle of "Cuius regio, eius religio" ("states follow the religion of the ruler") led to competition between Catholic and Protestant denominations for state sponsorship.

While the United States and some other countries strive for a separation of church and state, the issue of state-sponsored religion remains complex and evolving. The concept of state-sponsored religion continues to be a subject of debate and legal interpretation, with courts playing a crucial role in balancing religious freedom and state involvement.

Religious discrimination

The First Amendment of the US Constitution includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which together guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government of the United States, as well as the governments of all US states and territories, from establishing or sponsoring religion. This means that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, pass laws that aid or prefer one religion over another, force or influence a person to attend or not attend church, or punish people for their religious beliefs or practices. The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from levying a tax to support religious activities or institutions.

The Free Exercise Clause protects religious observers against unequal treatment and prohibits the government from infringing upon or restricting practices because of their religious motivation. This means that the government cannot pass laws that restrict religious practices or beliefs, or that treat religious groups differently from one another. The Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot regulate religious beliefs or status, and that organizations are entitled to participate in government programs without having to disavow their religious character.

However, the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve individuals of the obligation to comply with valid and neutral laws of general applicability. For example, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that a law prohibiting animal sacrifice was not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, even though it was passed in response to a Santeria church's practice of animal sacrifice, because it was neutral and generally applicable.

In conclusion, the First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws that prohibit religious practices or establish a state religion. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses work together to protect religious freedom and prevent religious discrimination in the United States.

Frequently asked questions