In 1862, The US Government passed an act banning bigamy in federal territories (of which Utah was one). In 1874, a Mormon, named ‘Reynolds’, was convicted under a revised version of the statute which read: ‘Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.’ However, Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that polygamy was a religious duty for Mormons. The following is my thinking on how the Supreme Court should have decided his case.
Firstly, Reynolds held that the law was unconstitutional as it infringed on his rights of practicing religion. He further stated that unless he did marry multiple women, he would face punishment from the Supreme Being that he worshipped in form of eternal damnation. Despite his clear argument of defense, the court held that he had violated the law prohibiting polygamy (Gordon, 2003). The congress failed to ruse to the occasion as they only held to outlawing polygamy and not on the beliefs held by Reynolds and such like people in the republic. Despite its high significance, marriage gets to be regulated by the Law without considering its divine nature as depicted in Reynolds case. In the end, the court aligned itself against Reynolds stating that religion could not exempt one from the law as in so doing, the power that the constitution holds in governing the land would be lost to religion (Gordon, 2003). However, in my view, the court should have acquitted Reynolds as he had got trapped in the horns of dilemma. On the one hand, he had to obey the constitutional law and face damnation by God. On the other hand, he was faced with choosing to obey the most Supreme Being, God and disobey the laws of men which he actually did. Therefore, respect to his constitutional right of practicing religion should have been considered as a weakness in the case thus Reynolds should have been granted acquittal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In justifying the opinion, the case of Wisconsin versus Yoder can be used as a reference point. To begin with, Yoder was a follower of a certain religion by the name of Amish religion. He was prosecuted for having violated the Wisconsin law that required all parents to take their children to school until they were over sixteen years old. In his case, Yoder failed to take his child to school as it was against his religious beliefs (Arneson, 1996). In this case, the judges held on to the opinion that the religious interests of an individual superseded the interests of the state in persuading parents to take children to school past the eighth grade. Notably, the judges were able to identify the conflict that existed between the values inculcated in high school education and the important principles of life presented by the Amish religion. Furthermore, the difference of two years in attending secondary school education made no significant difference in the life of the child contrary to what was enshrined in the Wisconsin law (Arneson,1996). By putting these facts into consideration, all the judges except one saw the sense in the argument presented by Yoder and granted him acquittal from the alleged offence.
In the case of United States versus lee, the Amish religion comes into the picture once again. By being as follower of the religion, lee held onto the belief that he had an obligation to assist fellow colleagues in faith and accord them benefits as in the system of social security. It was during some years that he hired fellow Amish religion followers to work in his farm and carpentry ventures that the case came into being. Notably, lee deliberately refused to hold back taxes of social security as required by the law insisting that it was against his beliefs in the Amish religion (United States, 1982). He further stated that the acceptance of such payments and their benefits were grave sins in his faith. When the internal revenue service narrowed down on him for having not paid his taxes, lee accepted to pay a specific amount of money. he then proceeded to court and claimed for a refund of the money since the taxes imposed on him was against his rights of religious practice and also the same case applied to his employees. In their verdict, the district court deemed the imposition of taxes on lee as unconstitution on the grounds of faith.
Nevertheless, this decision was challenged by the tax system. The lawyers for payment of the taxes invoked the law on rights and freedoms of religious practice that allowed for exemption of taxes of social security on Amish religion followers. They categorically outlined that since the law on exemption encompassed the self-employed individuals, and not the employers or employees, lee was not under the cover of the law of exemption (United States, 1982). The second opinion was that imposing the taxes on social security was not unconstitutional as held by lee and such like individuals who defied it on religious grounds. Having the two statements, the judges said that the state is enabled to justifiably limit the liberty of religion when it gets more crucial to implement interests of the government.
Furthermore, if the liberty of religion was enabled on every one to defy from paying the taxes on social security, then it would be almost impossible to administer the law on social security. Moreover, it was deemed hard to achieve the accommodation of the system of social security if a variety of religions came forward to challenge its soundness based on their faith. In fact, the system of taxation as a whole could be crippled by allowing such exemptions as the payment of social security on basis of noncompliance to different faiths such as the Amish religion. From the bigger picture, the tax system was more important than the beliefs held by members of Amish religion hence the consideration had to be prioritized to the stat interests. Additionally, the economic activities practiced by members of the Amish religion were no different to those of other people who paid the taxes and hence there was need for uniformity in paying the taxes. Therefore, there was no way that religious beliefs could be superimposed on statutes that bound everyone else in paying taxes as it was tantamount to discrimination on the basis of faith. When these facts were presented in challenging the former decision of prioritizing religion over law, the decision was reversed (United States, 1982). The reason was that paying of taxes could in no way cause deterioration of the values held by the Amish religion.
A different case that involved conflicts between the law and religious practices was the case of Sherbert versus Verner. Sherbert held on to beliefs of Adventists and therefore declined to go to work on Saturday as it was against her beliefs. The employer could hear none of it and fired her as she could not get exceptional treatment from the rest of the employees (Worthing, 1979). She was then denied any benefits that were due to her since her action of refusing to work on Saturday was unacceptable. When the matter went to court, the decision was made in favor of Sherbert. Notably, the judges held that the important consideration was if there existed an interest of the state that her observance of Sabbath rules overlooked. They found that no interest of the state was at stake in the matter and therefore, Sherbert deserved to have her rights of practicing religion on Saturdays respected by her employer (Worthing, 1979).
In the case of Gonzales versus O Centro, the religious aspect was also manifest. To begin with, O Centro which is a religious organization went before the federal court seeking to obtain a restraint on government’s actions of impeding the organization’s belief in using hoasca. Notably, hoasca was largely used in the O Centro ceremonies and contained one of the drugs that are illegalized by the act on controlled substance (Feeney, 2011). On their part, the O Centro organization held onto the act on religious restoration that prevented any impediments of religious practices that were not in conflict with convincing government interests. From this point of view, their argument succeeded in securing them rights on usage of hoasca during their religious ceremonies. The judges granted them a unanimous decision since the government’s side could not establish any convincing interest that was at stake from allowing the use of hoasca (Feeney, 2011).
In the case of Burwell versus Hobby Lobby, similar conflict between the constitutional law and religious practices also presents. The case involved the green family to whom the hobby lobby stores belong. In the organizational structure, they hold on principles of Christianity in running the stores. Notably, one of their principles is on opposing contraception as it is against biblical precepts. On the other hand, the patient protection and affordable care act (ACA), holds plans of heath care on basis of employment groups is mandatory with contraception being one of the preventative care that ACA advocates for. Notably, the law offers exemptions to organizations that are non-profit making and also for employers deemed to be religious. No exemption is provided for profit-making ventures under which the hobby lobby stores fall (Horwitz, 2014).
The case proceeded after the green family challenged the requirement of contraception to employees in hobby lobby stores. From their view, the Greens held that the law on “employment-based group health care plan” in regard to contraception was violating their rights of exercising religious freedoms. The complaint was in a bid to obtain a preliminary ruling that would obstruct implications such as tax penalties for non-compliance to the law on contraception. At the first place, the court objected to their complaint and instead deemed it a must for them to comply (Horwitz, 2014). Similar ruling was obtained by the Greens from the Supreme Court. Unsatisfied, the green went ahead and appealed against the decision in the courts of appeal. After careful deliberation, the panel of judges listening to the appeal reversed the decision in favor of the Greens since their stress were individual that deserved protection as enshrined in the clause on free exercise.
In conclusion, from the cases above, it is evident that conflicts exist between the constitutional law and religious practices. Notably, the dividing line is the government’s stake in the matter where if there is no interest of the government that is compelling enough, the ruling is made in favor of the religion and the reverse also holds. Therefore in the case of Reynolds versus the United States, the decision should have been made in favor of Reynolds since marrying more than one wife was in no way affecting the interests of the state. Furthermore, the judges should have given due consideration to his argument that it was his religious duty to marry multiple wives.
References
Arneson, R. J., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Democratic autonomy and religious freedom: a critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder. Nomos, 38, 365-411.
Feeney, K. (2011). Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União Do Vegetal (2006). In Encyclopedia of Drug Policy (Vol. 1, pp. 323-324). SAGE Publications.
Gordon, S. B. (2003). The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth‐Century America. Journal of Supreme Court History, 28(1), 14-29.
Horwitz, P. (2014). The Hobby Lobby Moment. Harvard Law Review, Forthcoming.
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)
Worthing, S. L. (1979). Religion and Religious Institutions under the First Amendment. Pepp. L. Rev., 7, 313.
