The free exercise of religion is restricted in the U.S. Individuals have the freedom to worship. Still, some religious practices are prohibited by the constitution to protect the rights of individuals. The supreme court placed several limitations on the free exercise of religion; for instance, the court does not protect the sacrifice of human beings even though it was a religious practice by some religions. Reynold’s case decided by the supreme court was an indication that the free exercise of religion is not absolute. The event took place after the congress had passed a law that prohibited polygamy as it was deemed to interfere with the peace and good order. Reynold practiced polygamy as it was an acceptable practice by members of his religion. The court stood on the ground that government officials were allowed to regulate behaviors that interfered with the peaceful co-existence of individuals (Oman, 2010) .
Reference
Oman, N. B. (2010). Natural Law and the Rhetoric of Empire: Reynolds v. United States, Polygamy, and Imperialism. Wash. UL Rev. , 88 , 661.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Topic 8.2
The competing needs of a society that can be used to limit freedom in religious practices in the U.S are when a secular regulation rule outweighs the sole purpose of a government that is non-religious. The government can deem a religious practice as illegal only when it becomes a burden to the people involved in it. The court, therefore, identified the flag-salute obligation by the school as a secular policy put in place by the administration to enhance patriotism among the students. The flag salute act was therefore upheld as it was a practice that did not interfere with the co-existence of people but only encouraged patriotism. The religious act was meant to create national unity, which is an essential aspect of a country. The religious act was meant to help the country in achieving the national goal of unity, which is a basis of the country’s security as people need unity to co-exist peacefully (Fennell, 1941) .
Reference
Fennell, W. G. (1941). The Reconstructed Court and Religious Freedom: The Gobitis Case in Retrospect. NYULQ Rev. , 19 , 31.
