Importance of Religious Freedom in The Government Systems

Understanding Equality as Sameness

“Increasing numbers of Americans endorse a capacious concept of equality — “equality as sameness” — that treats social distinctions, especially religious distinctions, as arbitrary and unimportant.” In recent times, there has been a growing disregard for respecting religious beliefs. People fail to understand the boundaries that come with religions and have started to dehumanize individuals and their actions for following a belief system. There have been several cases where religious people have been prosecuted in court for supposedly ‘violating’ equality laws. However, according to our constitution, people should be able to freely practice religion without interference from the state. Religious freedom should not be disregarded in government systems because freedom is what founded the nation of America. By not acknowledging this, it denies Americans of their rights, and recognizing religion in government systems can help balance religious freedom and non-establishment laws.

Importance of Religious Freedom in Government Systems

Religious freedom is what sparked the American Revolution. The people were seeking liberty and the right to worship as they pleased. From the beginning, religion has shaped American government and politics. Throughout history, there have been conflicts revolving around religious activities, from early persecution of Christians to current-day suicide attacks from Islamic extremists. However, this does not mean that practicing religion inherently brings about world problems; it is all the more reason for religions to be acknowledged by the state. Freedom of religion is the first freedom specified, and it is what brought people to America. For the first time, the state could not dictate what a person had to believe; it was the land of opportunity.

Denial of Rights Through Ignoring Religious Freedom

Ignoring the freedom of religion denies Americans their rights. In court, using religious convictions as justification often does not hold up before a jury or judge because it does not provide a factual defense. Yet, when over sixty-four percent of Americans practice a doctrine, experiential evidence regarding faith should be permissible and not dismissed as irrelevant. In a case where the owner of a cake shop denied a gay couple service, the court was biased and disrespectful of his convictions and disparaged them. The court was also inconsistent, as they allowed several cases to proceed on the grounds of conscience, ruling that the party had acted lawfully. Yet, when dealing with religious convictions, the court showed disfavor. Early Christians suffered persecution simply because they refused to perform a simple, public act, and this is what is being seen here. An American has the right to freely practice their belief without state interference, yet this case was brought all the way to the Supreme Court.

Free Exercise Law and Its Implications

The Free Exercise Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the case of Employment Division v. Smith, Branton Nestor, a writer for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, found that “the Free Exercise Clause does not generally protect religiously motivated conduct.” Two drug rehabilitation officers lost their jobs when they conducted a religious ceremony and ingested peyote. When applying for unemployment compensation, they were denied because it was claimed that the workers were fired for ‘work-related misconduct’. This case highlights the tension between individual religious practices and state law, raising questions about how religious freedom is interpreted and protected in contemporary society.

Balancing Religious Freedom and Non-Establishment Laws

By acknowledging religion in government systems, it can help resolve differences between religious freedom and non-establishment laws. Non-establishment laws keep the state neutral, not favoring either non-religion or religion. Faith is rapidly disappearing with rising generations and losing personal connections; it is taken for granted, leading to a problem of respect. “The law with respect to religious accommodations is currently something of a ‘patchwork’.” Both religious and non-religious perspectives have their places and must both be recognized, and doing so will help with overall neutrality and equality. It was in the minds of the Founding Fathers to create a neutral government, as “the first sixteen words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’.”

Public Reasoning in Liberalism

Within Rawls’s theory of liberalism, all coercive laws must be validated by “public reasoning”. Coercive laws are not allowed to be based upon “comprehensive doctrines”. This principle is essential to ensuring that laws are fair and just, taking into account the diverse beliefs and values of a pluralistic society. By adhering to public reasoning, a society can better accommodate the religious beliefs of its citizens while maintaining a neutral stance on religion.

References

1. Nestor, B. (Year). Title of article. *Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy*.
2. Rawls, J. (Year). *Title of book*. Publisher.
3. Smith, J. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*.
4. Doe, J. (Year). *Title of book*. Publisher.
5. Roe, R. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*.
6. Author, A. (Year). *Title of book*. Publisher.