Religion: Definition, Free Exercise,
Establishment
 American Religiousness
 9 of 10 believe in God
 over 1,500 religious bodies
 Globally, Americans rank second when rating the
importance of God in their lives (behind Malta)
 68% belong to over 350,000 churches, temples,
mosques, and synagogues
 Yet historically Americans have proven to be religiously
intolerant
 colonial laws against “minority” religions, i.e. anticatholic laws
Religion: Definition, Free Exercise,
Establishment
 Yet historically Americans have proven to be religiously
intolerant (continued)
11 of 13 states had some restrictive laws (only
Maryland and Rhode Island provided full religious
freedom)
 6 states had established religions
 some states imposed religious oaths on public
officials
 Anti-federalists objected the lack of any
guarantees of religious liberty
Religion: Definition, Free Exercise,
Establishment
 Breaks with past trends
 Constitutional Convention delegates opposed Ben
Franklin’s proposal for prayer before debates
 Article VI provides for oaths by government
officials to defend the constitution but no religious
tests requirements for public office
Defining Religion – Three Supreme Court cases
1. Reynolds v. United States (1879)
2. United States v. Ballard (1944)
3. United States v. Seeger (1965)
Reynolds v. United States
Advocates
Docket:
Citation: 98 U.S. 145
(1879)
Appellant: George Reynolds
Appellee: United States
Abstract
Oral Argument: November 14-15, 1878
Decision: May 5, 1879
Issues:
Categories:
Facts of the Case

George Reynolds was a member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged
with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane
Schofield while still married to Mary Ann
Tuddenham in the Utah Territory.
Question

Does the?
Conclusion


The Supreme Court upheld the conviction finding Reynolds
guilty.
The constitution does not define religion, so to reach a
ruling Court investigated the history of religious freedom in
the United States. The court quoted a letter from Thomas
Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction
between religious belief and action that flowed from
religious belief. Belief "lies solely between man and his
God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government
reach actions only, and not opinions."

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, how long
before someone argued that human sacrifice was a
necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would
be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief
superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit
every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment
was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but
could legislate against action.
Advocates
United States v. Ballard
Docket:
Citation: U.S.
(1944)
Appellant: United States
Appellee: Guy Ballard
Abstract
Oral Argument:
Decision:
Issues:
Categories:
Facts of the Case

Guy Ballard was convicted of using and conspiring to use
mails to defraud. He was a follower of the 'I Am'
movement and believed that the words of St. Germain,
the divine messenger, were transmitted through him.
Ballard also claimed to possess the power to heal people
and claimed to have had success in doing so in the past.
He solicited contributions via mail in exchange for
offering his healing abilities. The government asserted
that he 'well knew' that these claims were false and he
used them to defraud others of their money. In the
initial trial, the jury was told not to consider Ballard's
religious beliefs, instead they were merely to determine
whether the defendant believed that he possessed the
ability to heal others.
Question

Does the Fifth Amendment?
Conclusion


The Court ruled that it was proper for the jury to
base its decision on the sincerity of Ballard's
beliefs.
Justice Douglas, authoring the majority opinion,
wrote: “The content of the teachings of the 'I
Am' movement were immaterial. These beliefs
could not be an issue in any case because the
content of religious convictions could not be
judged as either correct or incorrect. Because of
the First Amendment, heresy is an unknown
offense in the United States. All that mattered
was whether Ballard believed in good faith that
he possessed the powers he claimed to have. If
this was so, then he must be acquitted.”
United States v. Seeger Advocates
Docket:
Citation: 380 U.S. 163
(1965)
Appellant: United States
Appellee: Daniel A. Seeger
Abstract
Oral Argument:
Decision:
Issues:
Categories:
Facts of the Case



This case involved the application of the Universal
Military Training and Service Act which exempted people
from military service if their religious training or belief
makes them opposed to such service.
It defined appropriate training or belief as an
individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being
involving duties superior to those arising from any
human relation, but [not including] essentially political,
sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal
moral code." One person involved in the suit believed in
a “supreme reality” while another believed in a
“universal reality.” Neither of these were included in the
class of beliefs covered by the Act.
They claimed that the law unfairly did not exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors and that it
discriminated between different forms of religious
beliefs.
Question
Conclusion

In a unanimous opinion, the Court allowed
those people with general theistic belief
systems to be declared conscientious
objectors.
Advocates
City of Boerne v. Flores
Docket: 95-2074
Citation: 521 U.S. 507
(1997)
Appellant: p
Appellee: o
Abstract
Walter E. Dellinger, III (Argued the
cause for the Federal respondent)
Marci A. Hamilton (Argued the cause for
the petitioner)
Douglas Laycock (Argued the cause for
the respondent Flores)
Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause on
behalf of Ohio et al., as amici curiae,
support the petitioner)
Oral Argument: Wednesday, February 19, 1997
Decision: Wednesday, June 25, 1997
Issues: First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion
Categories:
Facts of the Case

The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning
authorities for violating his rights under the 1993
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying
him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas.
Boerne's zoning authorities argued that the Archbishop's
church was located in a historic preservation district
governed by an ordinance forbidding new construction,
and that the RFRA was unconstitutional insofar as it
sought to override this local preservation ordinance. On
appeal from the Fifth Circuit's reversal of a District
Court's finding against Archbishop Flores, the Court
granted Boerne's request for certiorari.
Question

Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment
enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in
part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?
Conclusion




Yes. Under the RFRA, the government is prohibited from
"substantially burden[ing]" religion's free exercise unless it
must do so to further a compelling government interest,
and, even then, it may only impose the least restrictive
burden.
The Court held that while Congress may enact such
legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse
of religious freedoms, it may not determine the manner in
which states enforce the substance of its legislative
restrictions.
This, the Court added, is precisely what the RFRA does by
overly restricting the states' freedom to enforce its spirit in
a manner which they deem most appropriate.
With respect to this case, specifically, there was no
evidence to suggest that Boerne's historic preservation
ordinance favored one religion over another, or that it was
based on animus or hostility for free religious exercise.
The “establishment clause”
a.prohibits the establishment of a state
religion.
b.provides a wall of separation between
church and state.
c. was furthered by the Lemon v.
Kurtzman decision.
d. all of the above.
Free Exercise Clause




Does a literal interpretation suggest a
group may practice any religion it chooses?
Is such an interpretation reasonable?
What if the religious member engages in
dangerous practices, i.e taking
hallucinogenic drugs?
Should government prohibit religious
activities that are dangerous or offensive?
The Belief – Action Distinction


Based on the Thomas Jefferson letter in 1803 to
the Danbury Baptist Association
Jefferson believed that



free exercise is not absolute and
government may regulate religious actions
The Supreme Court supported this position in
1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, upholding the
constitutionality of laws affecting religious
practices as long as the legislation serves the
nonreligious goal of safeguarding the peace,
order, and comfort of the community and is not
directed at any particular religion.
The Belief – Action Distinction


The Court sustained laws prohibiting
religiously sanctioned polygamy (the
practice of taking multiple wives) in
Reynolds v. United States in 1879.
The Court sustained laws prohibiting use
of peyote during religious services in
Employment Division, Department of
Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in
1990.
The Belief – Action Distinction


By contrast, the Court invalidated a law
that forced a Seventh Day Adventist to
work on Saturday – her faith’s Sabbath –
in order to receive unemployment benefits
in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963.
The Court also upheld the right of the
Amish to withdraw their children from
public school before the age of sixteen in
Wisconsin v. Yoder in 1972.
Congress and Religious Freedom


Congress does not always agree with the
way the Court interprets the Free Exercise
Clause.
Recently, Congress has shown greater
support for freedom of religious
expression than the Supreme Court.


Goldman v. Weinberger in 1986
City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997
Congress and Religious Freedom



After Employment Division, Department of
Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990,
where the Court outlawed the use of peyote in
religious ceremonies, Congress expressed
renewed concern over the Court’s reasoning in
free exercise cases.
In 1993, Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch
led passage of the Religious Freedom and
Restoration Act (RFRA).
The Court ruled RFRA unconstitutional in City of
Boerne v. Flores in 1997
The Supreme Court has limited
recitation of prayers in public
schools primarily on the basis of.
a. the establishment clause.
b. the free exercise clause.
c. freedom of speech.
d. the right to privacy.
The Supreme Court maintains that the
establishment clause prevents all of
the following evils EXCEPT.
a. sponsorship
b. financial support
c. active involvement of the
government in religious activity
d. accommodating to religious
needs
The relationship between the state
and religion is addressed in
a. the clear and present danger clause.
b. the establishment clause.
c. the free exercise clause.
d. both b and c.
The “free exercise” clause precludes
all of the following EXCEPT.
a. a requirement of a religious oath as a
condition of public service.
b. denying persons certain rights because of
their beliefs or lack of them.
c. discrimination based on religious belief
systems rather than adherence to a formal
creed.
d. a requirement of a religious oath for public
school teachers.
The free exercise clause has been
interpreted by American courts to
mean that
a. no conduct motivated by religion is subject
to state authority.
b. people must keep their opinions about
religion to themselves.
c. Amish may take their children out of public
schools after the eighth grade.
d. although religious beliefs cannot be
regulated, religious conduct may be.