The Law And Religion: A Complex Relationship

The relationship between law and religion is a complex and interdisciplinary topic that has been studied by scholars for decades. It involves examining how religious beliefs interact with or form the basis of governmental law, and how they shape societal norms and values. In the context of law-making, the process of transforming an idea into a law varies across different political systems. In the United States, for example, the law-making process begins with a bill, which is a proposal for a new law or a change to an existing one. This bill undergoes a rigorous journey through committees, debates, votes, and potential vetoes before it can become a law. The interplay between law and religion is evident in this process, as the content of the bill, shaped by societal and cultural influences, including religious beliefs, is scrutinized and negotiated by various stakeholders.

Religious law vs secular state law

Religious law and secular state law differ in their foundations, scope, and enforcement. Religious law is rooted in ethical and moral codes taught by various religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. On the other hand, secular state law is based on the principle of secularism, which seeks to separate religion from civil affairs and the state.

Religious laws are derived from religious texts and interpretations, such as the Bible in Christianity, the Quran and Sunnah in Islam, and the Vedas and Dharmashastras in Hinduism. These laws guide the behaviour and practices of followers, covering a range of personal and social matters. Secular state laws, on the other hand, are established by legislative bodies and aim to govern the general population, regardless of their religious beliefs.

In a secular state, the government strives for neutrality in matters of religion, supporting neither a particular religion nor irreligion. It claims to treat all citizens equally, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Secular states often go through a process of secularisation, which includes granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, separating church and state, and ensuring that citizens are free to change or abstain from religion.

However, the line between religious law and secular state law can sometimes blur. For example, in some secular states, there may still be legal vestiges of an earlier established religion, or official holidays that align with religious feast days. Additionally, some secular states may have religious references in their national symbols or laws that benefit certain religions.

The relationship between religious law and secular state law is complex and varies across different societies and historical periods. In the past, when religion played a more prominent role in daily life, laws were often based explicitly on religious teachings. Ancient societies, such as Ancient Greece and Rome, based their laws on pleasing their gods, while medieval Europe witnessed a strong intertwining of the Catholic Church and the government.

In modern times, religious laws and secular state laws continue to interact and influence each other. For instance, in some countries, religious minorities may seek exemptions from certain secular laws based on their religious beliefs, such as exemptions from childhood vaccinations or blood transfusions. Additionally, religious laws can shape political movements and influence the interpretation of secular laws, as seen in the case of Islamic Sharia law.

Overall, the comparison between religious law and secular state law highlights the ongoing negotiation between religious traditions and civil authorities in shaping legal frameworks and governing societies.

Religious freedom

The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs. This freedom extends to persons and organisations, and Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking in the public square, or interacting with the government. The government may not restrict acts or abstentions because of the beliefs they display, nor may it target religious individuals or entities for special disabilities based on their religion.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening any aspect of religious observance or practice unless the imposition of that burden satisfies strict scrutiny. This protection extends to individuals, organisations, associations, and at least some for-profit corporations.

In the United States, religious groups (Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic) engage with the legal system as amicus curiae to advance their interests. The Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs.

The study of law and religion is interdisciplinary, focusing on the relationships between law and religion, especially public law. Religious law includes ethical and moral codes taught by religious traditions, such as Christian canon law, Jewish halakha, Islamic sharia, and Hindu law. Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made or adopted by ecclesiastical authorities to govern their respective Christian organisations and members.

The Establishment Clause

• Town of Greece v. Galloway, where the Court permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions
• Everson v. Board of Education, where the Court allowed public funds to be used for private religious school bussing
• Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, where the Court permitted textbooks and university funds to be used to print and publish student religious groups' publications
• County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, where the Court ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Court ruled against state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools
• Allegheny v. ACLU, where the Court ruled against some overly religious holiday decorations on public land
• Salazar v. Buono, where the Court considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected on federal land in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars
• Engel v. Vitale, where the Court deemed the mandatory daily recitation of a prayer by public school officials as unconstitutional
• Abington Township v. Schempp, where the Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests to determine compatibility with the establishment clause
• Wallace v. Jaffree, where the Court struck down an Alabama law for students in public schools to observe a period of silence for private prayer
• Lee v. Weisman, where the Court ruled that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions, even if attendance was not compulsory
• Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, where the Court ruled that a vote of the student body could not authorise student-led prayer before school events
• Lynch v. Donnelly, where the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental"
• Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, where the Court struck down a crèche display in a prominent position in the county courthouse
• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers
• Stone v. Graham, where the Court heard cases directly dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments
• Van Orden v. Perry, where the Court upheld the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol due to its "secular purpose"
• McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, where the Court ruled that displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses were unconstitutional as they were not clearly integrated with a secular display

The Free Exercise Clause

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The clause reserves the right of American citizens to practice any religious belief and engage in religious rituals of their choice. It protects religious beliefs and actions made on behalf of those beliefs, as long as they do not conflict with 'public morals' or a 'compelling' governmental interest.

Religious exemptions for medical treatments

In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion while allowing the free practice of any religion. This has led to varying approaches across states regarding religious exemptions for medical treatments, particularly in the case of childhood vaccines. As of 2012, 44 states allowed religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, while 5 states permitted only medical exemptions. However, the way religious exemptions are granted differs by state, with some accepting signed forms and others requiring a letter proclaiming a 'bona fide religious belief'. In recent years, states like New York have banned religious exemptions due to outbreaks of diseases previously controlled by vaccination.

The issue of religious exemptions for medical treatments is not limited to vaccines. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and carry cards to indicate this refusal. Historically, US courts have ruled that while adults can refuse blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs, parents do not have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children on the same grounds.

Other religious groups, such as Christian Scientists, have lobbied for and obtained religious exemptions from providing medical care for sick and injured children. They argue that prayer and spiritual means alone are sufficient for healing. However, these exemptions have led to preventable deaths and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. While the US Constitution does not require these exemptions, several states have religious defenses in their criminal codes, allowing parents to withhold medical care from their children on religious grounds without facing criminal charges.

The debate surrounding religious exemptions for medical treatments is complex and multifaceted. While some argue for the protection of religious freedom, others prioritize the equal provision of medical care and the prevention of harm to children. The impact of these exemptions on public health, the role of the state in enforcing medical standards, and the potential conflict between religious beliefs and medical ethics are all crucial considerations in this ongoing discussion.

Frequently asked questions