fbpx

First Amendment: Freedom of Religion

Historical Background of the First Amendment

The First Amendment wasn't in the original U.S. Constitution. States like New York refused to ratify without a Bill of Rights. James Madison drafted it, drawing from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Senate and House kept 12 of his 19 proposed amendments.

The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause sparked debate. Were they one concept or separate? Virginia Baptists and Thomas Jefferson wanted both to prevent government restriction and endorsement of religion.

Religious establishments existed in colonies like Maryland and Virginia pre-Revolution. They controlled church attendance and taxed for state-approved religion. Dissenters faced persecution.

Key Developments:

  • Disestablishment gained traction during the American Revolution
  • New state constitutions generally embraced free exercise of religion
  • By the late 18th century, Virginia cemented broader religious freedom

The First Congress debated the religious clauses, settling on a brief mention of "religion" and avoiding multiple establishments.

States' religious establishments lasted until 1833. The 14th Amendment and Supreme Court decisions in the mid-20th century applied the First Amendment to states.

Early cases like Reynolds v. United States limited religious practices conflicting with law. By the 1940s, there was more accommodation for religious conduct.1

James Madison writing at his desk, surrounded by historical documents and books

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Its scope and application have been contested.

The 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case created the "Lemon test" for laws involving religion:

  1. Secular purpose
  2. Neither advancing nor inhibiting religion
  3. No excessive government entanglement

This test struck down state funding for religious education.

Other interpretations emerged:

  • Marsh v. Chambers (1983): Upheld legislative prayers based on historical tradition
  • Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Lee v. Weisman (1992): Banned school-sponsored prayers
  • Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000): Prohibited student-led prayers at school events

Government funding for religious activities remains contentious. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) allowed tuition vouchers for religious schools, focusing on parental choice.

Public religious displays face scrutiny. Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) permitted a city's Nativity scene within a broader holiday display. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005) showed context matters for Ten Commandments displays.

The Establishment Clause continues to evolve, balancing religious tolerance and modern governance.2

Supreme Court justices in their robes deliberating in a conference room

Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause states Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Its interpretation has varied.

Reynolds v. United States (1879) upheld laws against polygamy, ruling religious belief doesn't exempt one from general laws. Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) allowed restrictions on religious practices to protect child welfare.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) introduced the "Sherbert Test," requiring states to show compelling interest before denying religious claims. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) relaxed this standard for generally applicable, neutral laws.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) attempted to restore the compelling interest standard for religious exercise cases.

Notable Cases:

  • Goldman v. Weinberger (1986): Upheld military uniform rules over religious dress, later partially reversed by Congress
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Allowed Amish communities to bypass some schooling laws for religious reasons

The Free Exercise Clause remains a balancing act between individual religious rights and public interest laws.3

Various religious symbols arranged together, representing freedom of religion

Conflicts Between the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, while the Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals' right to practice their religion freely. This creates legal challenges when these rights seem to clash.

In Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court ruled for Adell Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits due to her religious beliefs preventing Saturday work. This decision favored the Free Exercise Clause but raised questions about potential government accommodations seeming to prefer certain religions.

The Lemon test, from Lemon v. Kurtzman, assesses whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. It requires laws to:

  1. Have a secular purpose
  2. Neither advance nor inhibit religion
  3. Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) upheld Ohio's school voucher program allowing state-provided vouchers for religious school tuition. The Court relied on "private choice," ruling that any religious benefit stemmed from private decisions, not government actions.

Religious displays on public property remain contentious. In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the Supreme Court allowed a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds, viewing it as part of historical context. However, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) found similar courthouse displays violated the Establishment Clause due to lack of secular purpose.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) sided with a Christian-owned business objecting to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, emphasizing the Free Exercise Clause and sparking debates on religious accommodations versus the Establishment Clause.1

These cases show the ongoing challenge of balancing the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in American law.
Scales of justice balancing religious symbols and government buildings

The balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause shapes our understanding of religious freedom, highlighting the interplay between individual rights and government boundaries.