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. It restricts the creation of any legislation which favors any religion over the others. Additionally, the democratic ability to practice religious practices is should not be infringed under this amendment. Freedom of speech is equally promoted under this amendment. Moreover, the amendment guarantees the establishment of freedom of association whereby people are free to meet so long as they do not break the existing laws. On the same note, those citizens who feel that they need government redress on certain matters can do so under this constitutional provision.
The initial arrangement as provided for in this amendment mainly affected Congress. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court chipped in later and asserted that it was necessary for the amendment to affect all the states. Moreover, the regional or local governments were to be affected by this amendment.
The civil liberties initially lacked sufficient guarantees and as a result, there were calls to make the necessary constitutional changes that would eventually address the pending concerns. This is the rationale why the First Amendment was proposed to cater for some weak clauses which had hitherto existed in the original constitution.
The Establishment Clause is against the inception of any religion which will have due advantage or superiority over the other. The clause is also very categorical on the relationship which should exist between religions and as such, it does not allow inter-religious concerns to be entrenched in the constitution. Nonetheless, the intervention by the Supreme Court later brought in some significant changes in the constitution. In its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has a number of times passed its judgment relative to this amendment. This was seen in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in a case involving Sherbert and Verner. This ruling took place in 1963. The Court was very strict on its ruling observing that the state had the moral responsibility of controlling the activities carried out by religions. In another ruling involving Division v. Smith Sherbert and Verner case (Emerson, pp. 877–956).
The Supreme Court maintained that there was a need for the government to show sincere concern and act decisively over the fate of individuals who may have been relieved of their jobs due to religious differences. This would be in a case where one’s job had a direct indifference with religion and therefore created a center of controversy. The Court felt that it was not justified for an individual to be denied employment on the basis of religion. The court mentioned the importance of a compelling interest from the state in regard to employment and religion. The Sherbert Test was applied in this case.
Adell Sherbert was a worker at a textile factory. He belonged to the Seventh Day Adventist church and was equally a strict adherent of his faith. Initially, there was no employment versus religious conflict at his workplace because he could work for five days and attend the church on Saturday being a Seventh Day Adventist member. However, two years later, his employer added an extra working day including Saturday which meant that he would forfeit her faith at the expense of work. She vehemently refused to work on Saturday stating that this was a divine day reserved by God for rest and hence worship. As a result, she was summarily dismissed from employment. Since she could not secure any other job, she requested compensation regarding her unemployment status. Unfortunately, Sherbert’s application did not go through as it was rejected. This was clearly confirmed by the commission dealing with employment security and the Supreme Court located in South Carolina which gave its alternative ruling. The court argued that it was not fair to deny Sherbert the compensation claim due to her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court asserted that this denial was against the constitution. The Free Exercise Clause needed to be upheld by the state according to the ruling of the court. This court decision was further supported by Brennan who wrote saying that rejecting the unemployment claim which had been requested by Sherbert was a significant liability on her. Moreover, even if her claim was denied, she was still constitutionally allowed to exercise her free will on the choice of religion. The Establishment Clause was not necessarily meant to put in place the seventh Day Adventist Church and Brennan categorically refused such claims from those who were opposing the Court’s decision. Furthermore, the Equal Protection clause had been put into the mind by the views of the majority because the ruling had been based on the First Amendment. Further concurring views were aired by Douglas and Stewart who observed that the worst damage imposed on Sherbert was the rejection of employment status due to religious beliefs.
Employment Division and Smith Case (Emerson 877–956)
This court case was administered on the basis of rejecting employment to individuals who were found to be using certain drugs even in spite of the fact that the use of such drugs was part and parcel of their religious practices. The Supreme Court negated the provision on the free will to use peyote as part of religious practices and any person subjected to the use of this drug would be liable to unemployment. This ruling would grossly differ from the earlier decision made by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both Alfred Smith and Galen Black were employees at a healthcare unit which was dealing with rehabilitating drug users. Besides, they held their religious faith with the Native American Church. The two were dismissed from employment having consumed peyote which was one of their religious practices. This was also the time when possession of this drug was illegal unless it was duly confirmed for use by the respective religion. The unemployment compensation claim was thereafter filed by their advocates. Unfortunately, the claim was not accepted on the basis that their firing was viewed as a violation of work ethics and they deserved it. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court at Oregon reversed this decision. The court argued that such a denial of employment based on the use of peyote was against the free will and democratic right to exercise their faith and beliefs. Although the argument of the court was not based on the legality of handling peyote, it insisted that the state was not justified to reject compensation for unemployment and therefore there was more burden laid on both Black and Smith upon denial of unemployment compensation than just their religious practices. However, the state did not bow out at this point of the Supreme Court ruling but it made further appeals for the court to consider the earlier decision because possession and consumption of peyote was a criminal offense under the existing laws. The U.S Supreme Court later referred the case to the junior Oregon courts to establish whether the religious use of prohibited drugs was against the existing laws in Oregon. In its submission, the Oregon Supreme Court admitted that indeed the use of illegal drugs for sacramental purposes was prohibited although the junior courts’ ruling insisted that the free exercise clause had been violated by their decisions. The free clause allowed a democratic space to practice religious beliefs at will. Eventually, the majority opinion was arrived at concerning this case.
Conclusion
According to the First Amendment, the government was not supposed to infringe on the free exercise clause regarding religious matters. For this reason, the state had no mandate to control the activities of religious groups in any way. Most religious practices have to do with ceremonial exercises which may include worship gatherings, partaking of the Holy Communion which is usually a symbolic bread and wine as well as avoiding certain meals. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for the state to ban such practices bearing in mind they constitute the umbrella of religion, and any attempt to prohibit them will grossly affect any meaningful religious practices. On the other hand, the Sherbert Test is composed of four categories that are used to establish whether the government has gone against the clause on free exercise regarding the religious practices of an individual. To begin with, the court has the responsibility of determining the justification of the religious practice claimed by an individual.
References
Emerson, Thomas I. “Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment”. Yale Law Journal. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. 72 (5): 877–956. 1963