[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Buffalo Police Seriously Injure 75-Year-Old Man During Protest

The Carrie Nations: "Find It" (Obscure '60s Psych Rock from "Valley of The Dolls")

Take Your Favorite Kids To a Playground This Weekend

Bullitt Mustang Auction

Free Convertible Teslas (Tesla Model 3 crashes into overturned truck on highway)

Armed Patriots patrol Coeur d’Alene

How to fight back against antifa rioters without using violence

CNN: White Children ‘Don’t Deserve Innocence’

Joel Osteen Joins Paula White, Tony Evans And Other High-Level Laodicean Church Hirelings To March In Solidarity With Black Lives Matter

David Dees, CT artist, 1957-2020

RIOT COMPILATION IN THE USA

Leftist rioters coming for you

11 "Modern Antiques" Kids Today Have Never Seen

Tucker Carlson: This Is How Nations Collapse (a long but worthy read)

The Truth About Police Violence and Race

NBA announcer Grant Napear fired over ‘All Lives Matter’ comment

"WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE! WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE" Hilarious!

'He Did Not Pray': Fallout Grows From Trump's Photo-Op At St. John's Church

The Bible according to Pelosi

Israeli scientists dig up cannabis traces in ancient temple

The Epitome of Rioting Irony and Ignorance in One Tweet

George Floyd Endgame: Martial Law and a Police State

(Martial Law) “Light Em Up!” Minneapolis PD and National Guard Do A Street Sweep During Curfew

Salt Lake City cops shove down an elderly man with a cane for moving too slowly

They call him Martin Looter Kang (Looters loot from other looters to get more loot)

White People, Portland Cops Take a Knee to Ask Forgiveness For “Racism”

The Virtue of the Fear Mask

Trump deploys US military to restore order in Washington, DC & says he'll do the same EVERYWHERE if local govts fail

Is It One Gigantic Psy-Op? George Floyd’s Coroner Was Also Jeffrey Epstein’s

It Don’t Make Any Damn Sense (Must Watch)

Minneapolis Rioters Attack Tanker Truck, Rip Driver Out and Beat Him, Driver arrested

New York woman attacked outside business in disturbing video as looting, rioting grip Rochester, report says

Minneapolis Police will fine, cite looters

The Pandemic Is the Right Time to Defund the Police

Teen rushed to hospital with hammer stuck in head after random attack

The Incredible Story of the US Army's Earth-Shaking, Off-Road Land Trains

PLACING BRICK PILES FOR RIOTERS TO DESTROY BUILDINGS IN DALLAS!

Fear and Uncertainty: The Modern-Day Cult of Corona.

Watch SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon rocket launch

China reveals plan for ‘Heavenly Palace’ space station to rival ISS

‘Rich Mitch’ Gets Scorched In GOP Ad

THE ENEMY WITHIN: Ilhan Omar’s CUNT of a Daughter Retweets List Of “Supplies” Needed For Minneapolis Riot

According to Attorney the DNI Allegedly Has Call Records Between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks – It’s Now Presumed Brennan’s CIA Was More Involved Than We Thought

Power Freaks Losing Control As Public Laughs At Coronavirus Lockdowns

A Women Gets Her Contact Tracer Certificates and Tells All

Why You Might Rent Yourself A Mustang This Weekend

Minneapolis Riots Are a Reminder that Police Don't Protect You or Your Property

Arkansas Can't Secure Financial Assistance Site So Governor Asa Hutchinson Decides To Call The Person Discovering The Breach A Criminal

NBC Bans Reporters From Using The Word ‘Riot’ In Coverage Of Minnesota Riots

Police Investigate 7-Year-Old’s Toy Gun After Zoom Call


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: WHAT DOES “FREE EXERCISE” OF RELIGION MEAN UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Source: The Freedom Institute
URL Source: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o ... ean-under-the-first-amendment/
Published: Apr 2, 2020
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2020-04-02 06:17:18 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 78
Comments: 2

WHAT DOES “FREE EXERCISE” OF RELIGION MEAN UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment states that the government “shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” Although the text sounds absolute, “no law” does not always mean “no law.” The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion. To take an easy example cited by the Court in one of its landmark “free-exercise” cases (Reynolds v. U.S., 1878), the First Amendment would not protect the practice of human sacrifice even if some religion required it. In other words, while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on those beliefs is not.

But where may government draw the line on the practice of religion? The courts have struggled with the answer to that question for much of our history. Over time, the Supreme Court developed a test to help judges determine the limits of free exercise. First fully articulated in the 1963 case of Sherbert v. Verner, this test is sometimes referred to as the Sherbert or “compelling interest” test. The test has four parts: two that apply to any person who claims that his freedom of religion has been violated, and two that apply to the government agency accused of violating those rights.

For the individual, the court must determine

Whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and

Whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

That it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and

That it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

The Supreme Court, however, curtailed the application of the Sherbert test in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court held that a burden on free exercise no longer had to be justified by a compelling state interest if the burden was an unintended result of laws that are generally applicable.

After Smith, only laws (or government actions) that (1) were intended to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or (2) violated other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, were subject to the compelling-interest test. For example, a state could not pass a law stating that Native Americans are prohibited from using peyote, but it could accomplish the same result by prohibiting the use of peyote by everyone.

In the wake of Smith, many religious and civil liberties groups have worked to restore the Sherbert test — or compelling-interest test — through legislation. These efforts have been successful in some states. In other states, the courts have ruled that the compelling-interest test is applicable to religious claims by virtue of the state’s own constitution. In many states, however, the level of protection for free-exercise claims is uncertain.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Gatlin (#0) (Edited)

Freedom whatever they call themselves are liars. No means no and everyone who says no doesnt mean no is either a retard or a liar. 100 percent no exceptions.

A K A Stone  posted on  2020-04-02   8:08:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Gatlin (#0)

Your shit article says the Supreme court legislates.

A K A Stone  posted on  2020-04-02   8:11:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com