Religious Accommodation In America Essay

Accommodation is an endless battle that has transcended in America for ages. The rightful accommodation of those with special needs and medical conditions are seemingly harmless in the eyes of the common American, but when rightful accommodation for those with religious motive comes into play the tables are tremendously turned. Religious accommodation in America is much more than meets the eye, approval of said accommodations rely heavily on what the government believes religion to be versus what said person in need of accommodation believes it to be. The First Amendment of the Constitution has but two clauses that vaguely mentions the topic of religion, The Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. These clauses serve as toothless lines in a series of political jargon. What this says is that the government wants nothing to do with the way people choose to exercise their belief, all until said people demand certain religious accommodations.

Fair treatment is something that is sought after in this country, if one group can partake in said action then multiple groups should be able to

participate in the exact same act. For that theory, it is just something that would be too good to be true. Now in America, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that minority religions do not receive fair treatment or that minority religions are not rightfully accommodated for their beliefs or expression of their religion. Mormons who practice polygamy and wish to rightfully participate in this act while under the permission of the government are awaiting disappointment. Polygamy, illegal in the United States yet taught as a Mormon that it is your religious duty to serve multiple wives in exchange for a peaceful after-life. In the case Reynolds vs. USA, George Reynolds claimed that it was his religious duty to marry multiple wives under the legal oath his church. While Reynolds could easily state that he is married to multiple spouses, in the eyes of his faith it needed to be conducted legally to be considered a real marriage. In Reynolds case, he fought for his duty to exercise his religion, a fight that he ultimately lost. The court did not accommodate to Reynolds needs as it violated the laws in Utah and the United States. The courts carefully appealed to his expression of religion and said that the belief of polygamy wasn’t the issue, but that the physical act of polygamy was.
In this country, free exercise of religion is not the issue but the physical act that one must carry out is what’s monitored by the government. While Americans are protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, they are not protected when participating in “Religious” acts that involve breaking the law. Keep in mind that this issue only seems to appear in minority religions. Religions like those of the Amish have been righty accommodated so that the parents of such Amish children can determine whether or not their children attend school. While some state laws permit you to quit education after a certain age, some state laws claim that you must have a certain amount of educational years underneath your belt. Now why is it that these Amish can pull their children out of school and potentially deprive them of important knowledge, but adults who practice polygamy at a consensual level aren’t allowed to marry?
Who is to know that religious accommodation doesn’t come from a government who cannot see the day that minority religions give up and convert to a majority religion? The government, courts and law makers will always point to what is stated in the constitution and claim that religious accommodation is held as a serious matter when it surfaces. In cases that is true, the courts do the best trying to accommodate certain religions in order to maintain order in society. The courts objective can’t be to say that one group can do something while others cannot but instead to equal out the playing field and give those who need religious accommodation a listen. Looking at polygamy from an unethical stand point you may say that the act doesn’t “hurt” anyone and that they should marry if they want, but that is exactly what courts want to avoid. Courts want to avoid handing out accommodations based on views such as that one. They can’t let up and just give in. Sure, polygamy doesn’t hurt anyone, but what will be next to come? People of the Church of Scientology would like to experiment on live humans? Those of the Pagan culture would like to be allowed human sacrifices? To the courts they see no difference in agenda. Those religions have the right to believe freely as they would like, but as soon as that belief becomes physical that is when they step in and regulate.
Studying cases and finding many odd interpretations of how religion is defined in America has lead me to believe to question religion in its’ entirety.

Not that I no longer have belief in my religion, but how my religion is based on in comparison to the others. Will I be religiously accommodated for special events that I partake in? Lent, Good Friday, Ash Wednesday or Easter? Will I be accommodated for the days I have to miss class in order to fulfill my religious duty? Or will it be a bigger issue in the eyes of the Law? Even though I see no purpose in the use of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, I can see why it was included. The government wants that clause to be used as a spineless mediator for their cases. They want something to vaguely refer to when they potentially decide whether or not the religion of their liking can be accommodated or

not.
Why hasn’t this clause been updated to fit the society we live in today? Is it because that wording is perfect in the governments’ benefit or has a certain religion not gained enough power to threaten the governments agenda?