Religious Liberty at a Crossroads

Introduction

The first amendment to the US Constitution is deceptively short: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Those two clauses have spawned countless conflicts in the courts. Recent court cases dealing with the rights of churches, hospitals, and charities to practice religiously motivated policies have frequently required judges to interpret the first amendment.

The upcoming term of the supreme court is no exception. A number of cases concerning religious organizations and their relationships with the government touch on crucial issues of the first amendment. Though each case presents its own unique circumstances, they all raise similar questions about how the free exercise of religion and other important laws should be balanced. How should the government respect religious beliefs in practice?

A Constitutional Debate With A History Spanning More Than Two Centuries

The authors of the first amendment clearly believed that protecting the right to practice one’s religion was important to the wellbeing of the United States. By including the establishment and free exercise clauses in the first amendment, they created a framework which made it illegal for the government to force citizens into practicing a particular religion, while also preventing the government from interfering with one’s ability to practice their preferred faith.

The balancing act between the two clauses has long been a tricky issue for courts to deal with. Throughout the early years of the republic, judges generally agreed that religiously-mandated practices could not be excused from following government mandates. That general consensus began to shift in the late 20th century, when the free exercise clause began to be interpreted more generously by the supreme court.

Why The Court Is Likely To Consider More Religious Liberty Cases

There is one good reason why the issue of the right to practice one’s religion is likely to come up several times in the near future: the sheer number of religious organizations which are active in modern American society. There are numerous private schools operated by churches across the country, and many charities which provide services to the public at large. Additionally, many private hospitals, adoption agencies, and other organizations provide invaluable social services to the public.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that allowing such organizations to function without having to comply with any government mandates would violate the rights of citizens who wish to use their faith to guide their employment practices. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to ask churches, hospitals, and other organizations to endorse discrimination as a condition of receiving government funding.

Two Different Points Of View

Many people believe that the first amendment’s protection of the right to practice one’s religion extends beyond just preventing the government from interfering with one’s personal practices. Advocates of this viewpoint believe that the first amendment requires the government to treat religiously motivated organizations as being on par with secular ones in all matters of law.

They argue that in order to preserve the integrity of the first amendment, the government should not be able to compel religious organizations to abandon their founding principles, even if doing so would grant them access to government contracts and funding.

Others believe that the first amendment does not require the government to treat religiously-mandated practices as being interchangeable with similar practices which are not carried out by religious organizations. They argue that requiring organizations to refrain from discrimination based on religion, sexuality, or other factors is not a violation of the first amendment, and that in some cases it would be unreasonable to expect religiously-mandated organizations to uphold practices which contradict the personal beliefs of their employees, contractors, and other stakeholders.

The disagreements in the quotes below highlight the nuanced differences between the perspectives outlined above. The writers in the quotes below are not arguing about whether the US government should be concerned with issues of religious discrimination. Rather, they are arguing about how the first amendment should be applied when considering whether organizations have the right to refuse to provide services to citizens based on one’s faith.

Why This Issue Matters

The issues described in this essay have far-reaching consequences which stretch well beyond the actions of individual churches and other organizations. The ways in which the supreme court chooses to balance the first amendment’s restrictions on the government’s ability to interfere with the free exercise of religion have important implications for the relationship between the government and all organizations which operate under the auspices of the first amendment.

While the cases described in this essay may have a major impact on the ability of churches, hospitals, and other organizations to continue operating as they currently do, the larger issue is one of applying the first amendment in nuanced ways which take into account the needs of all stakeholders. The issues surrounding the first amendment and religious freedom serve as prime examples of why the principles of the constitution need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. Constitutional scholars studying this term’s first amendment cases will no doubt note that the debates taking place in the courts mirror larger issues of constitutional interpretation which have taken place throughout US history. In particular, this term’s first amendment cases demonstrate that the vagueness of the US Constitution’s many foundational principles are designed to allow future lawmakers and judges to interpret them in ways which recognize the needs of modern society.

Conclusion

The principle of freely exercising one’s religion has long been considered a cornerstone of American society. The complicated debates which take place in the supreme court highlight the difficulties that lawmakers face when trying to interpret the language of the first amendment in ways which take into account the needs of modern society. The upcoming cases dealing with how government funding should be distributed to organizations which operate under religious doctrines are unlikely to produce easy answers. The issues raised by the first amendment’s restrictions on the government’s ability to interfere with the free exercise of religion cut to the very heart of what it means to live in a society which operates under a constitutional republic framework.

The larger issue which connects all of the cases which will be heard by the supreme court in the near future deals with ensuring that religious organizations are able to preserve their founding principles even in the face of government interference. After all, the very existence of the first amendment depends on the ability of the government to recognize the importance of respecting the rights of all citizens to engage in religious practices which reflect their deeply-held personal beliefs.