3.2b The First Amendment: Free Exercise Clause

Listen to the screencast of today's post here.

Announcements:
In addition to reading today's post, please make sure you:

1. Read the Street Law summary of Wisconsin v. Yoder, one of the required SCOTUS cases
2. Fill out the SCOTUS Required Cases Matrix for Wisconsin v. Yoder. (Use the same copy that you made for Engel v. Vitale and keep filling in as we cover additional cases)
3. Complete assigned Khan Academy readings and self-quiz on the Free Exercise Clause.
4. Outline of everything is on our weekly planner.

Similar to the post on the Establishment Clause, today's lesson has quite a few court cases. The only case that is required by the College Board is Wisconsin v. Yoder, but I have included the others to show you how the courts have handled different issues of protecting people's religious liberties vs. government regulation and restrictions. Please make sure you understand the differences between cases that are Establishment Clause-based (government endorsement or promotion of religion) vs. Free Exercise cases (government restriction on personal religious freedoms).

As always, email me if you have any questions or need help!

READING: 85-126 in Edwards

UNIT THREE Identification Terms 

______________________________________________________

Today's Essential Question: How does the government effectively interpret and balance religious freedom and practice with respect to the First Amendment?

Learning Standards:

LOR-2.C: Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual liberty.

LOR-2.C.1: The interpretation and application of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses reflect an ongoing debate over balancing majoritarian religions practice and free exercise, as represented by such cases as:

• Engel v. Vitale (1962), which declared school sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause 
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which held that compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause 

Free Exercise Clause

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prevents government endorsement of religion, but the Free Exercise Clause guarantees your right to believe in whatever religion (or none at all) without restriction. However, government may restrict action based on those beliefs if it violates the law or infringes on the rights of others. Just like other rights, it is not absolute.Today, we will look at a few issues involving the free exercise of religion.

Reynolds v. US, 1879: One of the first cases involving the free exercise clause involved the Mormon Church and the practice of polygamy. Can someone have multiple spouses if it is part of their religious beliefs?

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972: Another famous free exercise case involved whether or not Amish families could be exempt from a state law that required all children to attend school until the age of 16.

Other free exercise of religion questions:

Should people be able to claim religious exemptions for mandatory vaccinations?

Can states ban the practice of snake-handling for religious purposes?

Employment Division v. Smith: Can a state deny unemployment benefits if a person was fired for illegal drug use, even if that drug use (peyote) was part of a religious ceremony?

West Virginia v. Barnette, 1943: Can a state compel people to recite the pledge of allegiance, even if it goes against their religious beliefs?

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 1993: Are ritualistic animal sacrifices protected under the free exercise clause?

Can a Pastafarian wear a colander on his head for his driver's license photo?

Discuss the following scenario:

George Daniels was fired in 1998 for wearing a small gold cross on his uniform collar. Daniels, an evangelical Christian and 14-year decorated sergeant, had been twice ordered to stop wearing the pin. He began wearing it when he was a plainclothes officer. The Arlington Police Department said the agency's interest in maintaining a public appearance of impartiality outweighed Daniels' right to promote his Christianity.

How should the courts rule in this case?

Bottom Line: Government may not restrict religious beliefs, but may limit your actions.

Review Videos: