The First Amendment and Religion in the United States
1. Introduction
The Bill of Rights in the U.S constitution was the first provision to undergo the first amendment. The main content in this amendment is the clause on religion. The first amendment protects the right to practice any religion, and also bars the government from establishing an official religion. The establishment clause has been interpreted in different ways by the Supreme Court, but the free exercise clause has been interpreted more narrowly. In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can’t substantially burden a person’s religious practice, even if it’s not motivated by a desire to target religion.
2. The first amendment and the bill of rights
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans’ right to freedom of religion. This right is embodied in two clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause protects Americans’ right to practice their religion without government interference.
The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in a number of ways by the Supreme Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-part test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. The law must have a secular purpose, it must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and it must not cause excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted more narrowly by the Supreme Court. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court held that the government can burdensome religious practices as long as the burden is not motivated by a desire to target religion. This decision was controversial, and led to Congress passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. RFRA restores the “compelling interest” test that was used before Smith, which requires the government to show that its actions are necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
3. The establishment clause
The establishment clause bars Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause is often called the Separation of Church and State because it prevents the government from becoming too entangled with religious institutions.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause in a number of ways over time. In Everson v Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” In other words, Black believed that the establishment clause bars public funding of religious institutions even if there is no preference for one religion over another.
In Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), Justice Black’s view was partially overturned when the Supreme Court established a three-part test for laws that involve religion. The law must have a secular purpose, it must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and it must not cause excessive entanglement between church and state. Under this test, laws that give public money to religious institutions are permissible as long as they meet all three criteria.
4. The free exercise clause
The free exercise clause protects Americans’ right to practice their religion without government interference. This clause has been interpreted in a number of ways by the Supreme Court.
In Reynolds v United States (1879), the Court held that the free exercise clause does not protect polygamy. The Court reasoned that polygamy is “incompatible with the concept of monogamous marriage” and “is not entitled to protection as a mode of religious expression.”
In Employment Division v Smith (1990), the Court held that the government can burden religious practices as long as the burden is not motivated by a desire to target religion. This decision was controversial, and led to Congress passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. RFRA restores the “compelling interest” test that was used before Smith, which requires the government to show that its actions are necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
5. Religion in public schools
The Supreme Court has ruled that public schools can’t sponsor religious activities or promote religion. However, the Court has also ruled that students can engage in religious activities as long as they don’t disrupt the educational process.
In Engel v Vitale (1962), the Court ruled that public schools can’t sponsor prayer or promote religion. The Court reasoned that prayer is a “religious activity” and that the First Amendment bars the government from promoting religion.
In Abington School District v Schempp (1963), the Court extended this ruling to Bible reading in public schools. The Court held that Bible reading is a “religious activity” and that public schools can’t require students to participate.
In Lee v Weisman (1992), the Court held that public schools can’t invite clergy to give invocations or benedictions at graduation ceremonies. The Court reasoned that this practice would coerce students into participating in a religious activity.
6. Conclusion
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans’ right to freedom of religion. This right is embodied in two clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause protects Americans’ right to practice their religion without government interference. In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can’t substantially burden a person’s religious practice, even if it’s not motivated by a desire to target religion.