When differentiating between religious and state regulations, it is essential to first consider the definition of the role of a secular state. Secularization reflects on a move away from religion as a determinant of morals in the modern society. In this case, there is a rise of individualism where an individual holds more value than the larger community. However, religion is a critical element of human dignity in that it shapes people's lifestyles in line with philosophies that revolve around spirituality. It is not all practices that are acceptable through religion that are lawful. Similarly, not all government regulations work to the betterment of religious groups. In this case, there should be solutions to the high profile conflicts between religion and the secular state. The following is an analysis of how the two relate and a choice of the most influential aspect in defining human dignity.
Main Argument- Relationship Between Religion and Law
When basing the argument on the Oregon case towards Smith & Black's, there are two main essential points to consider. First, there is the free aspect of religion where communities should be given enough freedom to practice their beliefs away from the constitutional requirements. In an example of the uses of drugs, not all drugs prohibited by law are rejected by religious groups (Rawlings, 2013). Some communities believe in the use of certain substances as symbols of faith or belief. The society is made up of diverse religious groups hence the law cannot cover all doctrines and their sects. However, when basing the free aspect of religion on the most dominant religious groups in the American society, it is probable that the minority groups will be discriminated. To avoid such cases, the argument on freedom of religion argues that the law should respect and protect religious diversity.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, there is the aspect of constitutional requirements that should bring about a religious prohibition on specific acts that are unlawful when viewed from the secular perspective. Reflecting on Smith & Black's scenario, Oregon state classifies the acquisition and use of peyote to be a form of misconduct. Therefore, Smith & Black's case is intentional and the state should deny employment benefits to such individuals. The law brings out the argument that miraculous and logical issues are two different things. Herein lies the difference. The reason as to why the state prohibit some religious practices is because when given full control, it is more likely that the religious groups will go beyond to cover morally wrong ideas in the name of religion (Rawlings, 2013). The legal systems are based on evidence and information other than divine judgment.
One side- Which is More Valuable Between Religious and State Laws
The law tends to hold more power as compared to religious conviction. The reason is that when it comes to accommodating individual religious practices, the majority of the human right complaints would be contradicted. For America among other nations, the constitutional aspect of human rights tends to cover the broad protection of freedom with the conscience of religion being included. Additionally, there is the equal protection of law while including all religious groups irrespective of their fame, number of followers or even their level of national influence. The minority groups are therefore placed in the same category as the dominant religious groups which is the true definition of freedom of religion.
Similarly, the secular aspect of state laws is more tolerating when dealing with complex issues that revolve around the interface between the social and religious groups. An example of a controversial social issue is when a public school allows Muslim students to have Friday prayers as per their Imam doctrine of faith. There are different arguments on whether this decision is acceptable or not. The school has accommodated the religious needs of the groups, but they have lawfully perceived some form of special treatment to a specific group. When solving the scenario from a secular society, public schools should not be taken as forums for religious observance (Fraser, 2016). The educational laws should prevail more than religious demands by giving a specific time for all religious activities.
Additionally, when reflecting on the case of Alfred Smith and Galen Black getting fired from their jobs due to illegal ingestion of peyote for sacramental purposes, the denial of compensation is right. The law therefore acts an equitable remedy for the varying opinions presented by different individuals across the globe. The key is that people will always disagree about essential issues irrespective of whether they are religiously based or not (Rawlings, 2013). It is through such cases that the law acts as a guiding frame towards the solution of these cases.
Counterpoint
On the other hand, it is often evident that some constitutional discourse no longer has a religious basis. The reason is that as a result of modernization and rationalization, some people have neglected the religion's role in social development. Additionally, there has a been a decrease in the number of religious communities where most people associate themselves with certain groups but do not make an effort to follow the beliefs. When these individuals are involved in the law-making processes, it is more likely that they would disregard the religious aspect of the law (Fraser, 2016). It, therefore, turns out that religion cannot be wholly eliminated from the constitutional requirements of any nation. When working towards the government's position, there should be renewed interest in its role in connecting societal groups with their religious backgrounds.
Personal position
At some point, the two issues are controversial in that religion and the law are not the same but they are close. When taking an example of child protection law, the government requires that parents should take care of their children until they are of age. Contrary, some religious communities debate on the legality of abortion. It is, therefore, a stronger argument that a country should be controlled by constitutional laws than the various religious doctrines available. The philosophies of the law have a rational investigation of the truth as compared to other things like faith. Moreover, faith doctrines are usually made by a small group of leaders as compared to most constitutional laws that are made and then justified by the general public. It is therefore easy to influence religion through the constitution as compared to shaping the law through faith.
Unanswered Question
The main question that the justification of the law does not address is to what extent should religion influence the constitution. Allowing religion to affect laws, limits people freedoms fully. Similarly, the mixing of religion and the government brings about the crisis between people whose religious outlook is different from that of general citizens. Therefore, there should be a control of the extent to which religious beliefs should be included in decision-making. It is the shared or universal morality that we should use to organize the society keeping in mind that the more people share a commonality, the less the likelihood of deviance behaviors from the law.
Conclusion
The debate between religion and the law is more likely to continue even in the future days. The reason is that people are becoming more civilized through education and technology. However, there is also increased awareness on the need for various communities to uphold their traditions as well as religious beliefs. The primary solution is that religious groups must choose between following the law and obeying religion. The religious rules should be end at ‘the places of worship’ to give way for the lawful convictions that are built on shared beliefs. In this case, the communities should be free to practice their faith within their setting but not outside.
References
Fraser, J. W. (2016). Between church and state: Religion and public education in a multicultural America . JHU Press.
Rawlings, T. C. (2013). Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith: The Supreme Court Deserts the Free Exercise Clause. Ga. L. Rev. , 25 , 567.
