Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Employment division vs smith case brief
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest against the state. In 1993 one of the most important acts that has gone thorough Congress was passed (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). This act was passed to answer the 1990 court case Employment Division v. Smith (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in which the issue was whether “Sacramental use of peyote by members of the Native American Church was protected under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which provides that ‘Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion'.”(Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). According to Justice Scalia, “if prohibiting the exercise of religion was merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment was not offended.” (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Thus, "...the government no longer had to justify most burdens on religious exercise. The free exercise clause offered protection only if a particular religious practice was singled out for discriminatory treatment. In short, free exercise was a sub category of equal protection. This placed religious rights in an inferior position to other First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and press." (Questions and Answers, Map of the RFRA). This court case caused a series of court cases about religious freedoms (Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress enacted the RFRA to contradict the negative affect that court cases had recently had on religious freedoms(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). The RFRA is what it states it is in the title, a restoration act(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA). Congress decided that in Employment Division v. Smith, "the supreme court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion and the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."(Religious Freedom, Map of the RFRA) In other words, the government did not have to have a reason to impose laws
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" provided a great example dealing with the freedom of religion. The Indians had been living on that land for hundreds of years, yet were denied their attempts to declare the area as a sacred area to prevent building on the lands. In the end it was a bittersweet victory for the Indians because the G-O Road was ordered to remain uncompleted because of the environment and not because it was a sacred territory for Indians. I believe that the Indians should have won the case in the Supreme Court because they were protected by the First Amendment. The case shouldn't have lasted as long as it did.
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court on June 17, 1963. The Court ruled 8-1 against the prayer recitation. This ruling was partially due to the case Engel v. Vitale, where a similar Establishment Clause issue was approached. In both cases, the strict...
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Meaning, Congress cannot forbid or ban the exercise or belief of any religion. However, the government can in fact interfere with religious practices. This means that the government cannot prohibit the beliefs of any religion, but can intervene in certain practices. The origins of the First Amendment date back to when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were first debated and written down.
William Penn, in converting a personal belief in religious freedom into the basis for governing a colony and in time for the nation, proved that religious diversity was beneficial not detrimental to faiths, colonies, and countries.
The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court The authors of the Constitution of the United States created a magnificent list of liberties which were, at the time ascribed, to most people belonging to the United States. The main author, James Madison, transported the previous ideas of fundamental liberties from the great libertarians around the world, such as John Lilburne, John Locke, William Walwyn and John Milton. Madison and other previous libertarians of his time were transposed into seventeen different rights which were to be secured to all those in the United States. These seventeen civil liberties were compressed into ten different groupings which were designated as the "Bill of Rights."
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Religion was a fundamental part of colonial life, incorporated into Virginia society since the founding of Jamestown. (From Jamestown to Jefferson, 20-22). In fact, a major goal in the establishment of the colony of Virginia was to spread Protestantism, and religious ideals were incorporated into the laws and regulations by which the colony was governed. (From Jamestown to Jefferson, 25). The Church of England was the primary church in colonial Virginia and in the early days of the colony attendance at an Anglican Church was obligatory. Nonconformist denominations, such as Baptists and Presbyterians, began to grow, but they were allowed very little freedom to practice their own beliefs, and Anglicanism was enforced as the official state religion. Some choice was granted when the Crown’s Act of Toleration in 1689 allowed a degree of freedom of worship to nonconformists. (viginiamemory.com). However, members of these congregations were still required to be married in and pay taxes to the Anglican Church (virginiamemory.com). This allowed for a small measure of toleration, but did not truly institute religious freedom in the colonies. Until the Revolutionary War, the Anglican Church remained instated as the official religion on Virginia, and very little attention was given to the other denominations that were beginning to expand.
Throughout history, America has faced disagreements that led to various complications, one of them being religious freedom. Americans claimed to have always supported religious freedom and that the First Amendment backed that up. However, according to David Sehat, this was only a myth. The myth he argued that there was a moral establishment that constrained religious liberty, therefore American religious freedom was only a myth. Sehat overstated this claim because there have been many historic measures that have shown American religious liberty, such as the Second Great Awakening, the emergence of new religious movements, and religious liberty court cases.
“Separation of Church and State,” is a theory derived from different parts of the constitution; primarily the first and fourteenth amendment. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment or religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” The first amendment says that there can not be any laws against anyone’s individual religion. How far can we take this though? There are circumstances when you don’t want the government to intervene with your personal beliefs but is it sometimes necessary? What if there was a Satanist who believed in killing all other races. If the government was to punish them, wouldn’t that be suppressing their religious freedom? No. Sometimes different laws override the previous. For example, someone cannot practice their religion if it infringes upon another person’s rights.
Without a God how do we know what is right from wrong. What is good or bad? The Ten Commandments tell us what is right or wrong and good or bad, but the constitution says the church has to be separate. If there is no God in our government we cannot have our Ten Commandments, how do we know what is right or wrong? The current opinion of courts is that the First Amendment bans religion in our government to protect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from the government. The first amendment does not say church and state should be separate since our founders understood if church and state were completely separate, our government would fall apart.
The Employment Division of Oregon V. Smith was a case brought about to the Supreme Court. The case was brought to answer whether, illegal drugs for religious purposes was okay. It would also to solve the question whether a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html
Religious Freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. First, we have this freedom because of our Founding Fathers. The first amendment of the Constitution says,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise.” Unfortunately, around the world some people are not as lucky as us, and don’t have religious freedom. Pope Benedict 16 and our Founding Fathers were extraordinary leaders that have stood up for religious freedom. That is what Religious Freedom is.