The Importance Of Religion

1070 Words 4 Pages
In the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment expresses two clauses on the topic of religion, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. It states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. These clauses specifically apply to many cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose or deny specific aspects of one’s religion. This is made prevalent in cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder and Sherbert v. Verner, where the Supreme Court has ruled that a governmental requirement or law cannot place a significant amount of stress on a person’s religious beliefs without a very particular purpose. An executive agency should not …show more content…
Verner. This case presents a unique precedence when it come to the government being involved with religious freedom and the free exercise of religion. In this case, Adell Sherbert was fired from her job because she refused to work on the Sabbath Day of her faith. She applied for unemployment benefits through the state of South Carolina. Her application was denied based on the fact that she would not accept the suitable work that was available to her, which also required her to work on the Sabbath Day. When this case went to the Supreme Court, they held that the eligibility restrictions of South Carolina created, “an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion”. This showed that one’s religious beliefs are very important in the eyes of the government, regardless of the religion. A person has the right to live their religion freely and the government does not have the power to infringe someone’s beliefs unless they can show that it would make a large impact and improvement for the rest of society. For example, a person may believe that sacrificing children is a part of their religious beliefs. However, this does not mean that this person can perform this task because it endangers the life of another person. The government would be able to step in because it would be protecting the, would be, victim’s rights. The government has …show more content…
Hobby Lobby, The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tried to demand corporations to provide health insurance for contraceptive methods that violate the beliefs of the companies’ owners. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring businesses to provide full medical coverage for operations like abortions and other contraceptives was unconstitutional. According to Supreme Justice Alito, “a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest”. The full medical coverage requirement may have been justifiable based on this condition. However, Justice Alito continues to say that in order for the mandate to be maintained, “it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest”. This means that the government’s actions must not impose a consequential burden on people it affects. The requirements set forth by the Health and Human Services were a violation of the free exercise of the company owners’ religion. The owners believed that conforming to the HHS’s requirements would promote abortions and other contraceptives, which is against their religious views. If the owners did not comply with the requirement, then they would be forced to pay a very substantial price that would then put a financial burden on the company and its owner. In both scenarios, the law was not justifiable and therefore ruled

Related Documents