Freedom of Religion
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
As Stated
The first and fourteenth amendments set out two guarantees concerning religious freedom.
These guarantees prohibit:
◦ An establishment of religion (establishment clause)
◦ Any arbitrary interference by government in the free exercise of religion (free exercise clause)
Establishment Clause
According to Thomas Jefferson the establishment clause is:
◦ “a wall of separation between church and state”
Free Exercise
 Both the first and fourteenth amendment guarantees:
 “Each person has the right to believe whatever he or she chooses to believe in matters of religion.
No law and no other action by any government can violate that absolute constitutional right.”
 There is a caveat to this though:
 No person has an absolute right to act as he or she chooses.
▪ i.e. A person does not have the right to violate criminal laws, offend public morals, or other wise threaten the safety of the
community.
Reynolds v United States (1878)
In the court case of Reynolds v United States, George Reynolds challenged the federal antibigamy statute
◦ Reynolds had been convicted in Utah territorial court for taking a second wife.
◦ This law challenged on the basis that it violated the free exercise clause of the 1st amendement
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0
The Decision
In a unanimous decision, it was held that the anti-bigamy law did not violate the free exercise
clause of the 1st amendment.
◦ The court held that the 1st amendment protected religious belief, not religious practice.
◦ The court also stated that those who practice polygamy could be no more exempt from the law than
those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.
Engle v Vitale (1962)
to the 1962 case of Engle V Vitale, the New York Board of Regents had a prayer that students
could recite. The prayer read:
◦ “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg, Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and
our country.”
◦ This prayer was challenged on the basis that it violated the establishment clause of the first
amendment.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468/
The Decision
This court case outlawed the use, even on a voluntary basis, of this prayer.
◦ The supreme court decision stated that:
◦ “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a
religious program carried on by government”
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
This was a case involving a suit in which Pennsylvania state law required that financial payments
be made to private schools to cover their costs for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and other
teaching materials in non-religious courses.
◦ This court case is challenged based upon the idea that the law violates the establishment clause of the
1st Amendment.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89
The Decision
 The Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause is designed to:
 Prevent sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.
 The court then setup the Lemon test, to verify state aid was appropriate. The test has three
prongs which state:
 The purpose of the aid must be clearly secular not religious
 Its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion
 It must avoid an excessive entanglement of government with religion
Santa Fe Independent School District v.
Doe (1999)
In this court case, the allowance of student led voluntary prayer at a public high school football
games was challenged.
◦ One Mormon and one Catholic family sued over the prayer, stating that it violated the establishment
clause of the first amendment.
The Decision
In a 6-3 decision, it was determined that the District’s policy of allowing student-led prayer at
these public high school football games violated the establishment clause.
◦ This was justified by the fact that the prayer was taking place on government property at a governmentsponsored school-related event.
Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2001)
In the case of Zelman v Simmons-Harris Zelman sued to be able to use school vouchers to pay
tuition at a religious school
◦ This case is very controversial as the establishment clause generally prohibits public money from being
used for private religious matters
The Decision
In a 5-4 decision the Ohio voucher program was upheld as constitutional.
Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be
constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
the program must have a valid secular purpose
aid must go to parents and not to the schools
a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
the program must be neutral with respect to religion
there must be adequate nonreligious options
Rights of Assembly
Under the 1st amendment, people are guaranteed the right to assemble, or gather with one
another to express their views on public matters
This amendment also protects peoples right to bring their views to the attention of public
officials.
Limits
The right to assembly does have its limits though.
◦ Assembly must be peaceful.
◦ People do not have the right to incite violence
◦ To block public streets
◦ To close a school
◦ Endanger life, property or public order
DeJonge vs. Oregon (1937)
DeJonge had been speaking out about poor jail conditions at a meeting of the Communist party.
In the case DeJonge was arrested under the pretence that he was committing criminal
syndicalism.
◦ criminal syndicalism is the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage or any unlawful
acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_123
The Decision
DeJonge’s conviction was struck down as it was seen not to go against his states criminal
syndicalism laws.
◦ The decision stated that the state law violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
◦ The Judges decision stated that the auspices under which a meeting is held, but the purpose of the
meeting and whether the speakers' remarks transcend the bounds of freedom of speech must be
examined.
◦
It could not be proved this his speech constituted a clear and present danger
NAACP v Alabama (1958)
In 1958 the KKK tried to force the NAACP to turn over their membership list.
◦ Because of the nature of the KKK this was looked at as a way to intimidate and dissuade the lawful
assembly of members of the NAACP
◦ It was decided that forcing the NAACP to turn over their membership list was an unconstitutional
restriction on freedom of association
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_91/
Gregory vs. Chicago (1969)
Protestors were arrested after peacefully protesting segregation and asking for the firing of the
school superintendent.
◦ Police officers demanded that the protestors leave and when they refused to leave is when the arrests
took place.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_60
The Decision
It was held that the protesters were arrested for having a demonstration and not
for violating the officers directives.
◦ The decision stated that since the protest was peaceful and lawful that those who
participated could not be arrested
◦ Their right to demonstrate was upheld because of first amendment rights
Hecklers Veto◦ This required that a fee be paid by the group of the main speaker of a demonstration
◦ This was found unconstitutional during the Gregory V Chicago case.