The Downfall of Excessive Religious Freedom

The Downfall of Excessive Religious Freedom

A little boy lies on his deathbed because his parents refuse to take him to a medical doctor. Two men were fired and were refused unemployment benefits for smoking peyote, an illegal narcotic. One man looks to change part of a national recitation because two words of it offend him. A woman and her husband are trying to prosecute a man for a letter he sent to members of their church. These four situations may sound strange and unrelated, but all of them fall under the issue of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

Everyone has heard about various religious issues in the news at one point or another. With all the controversy surrounding these issues, and whether or not they are constitutional, it seems that people are no longer able to settle things without the help of court systems. Whether it is a matter of parents' actions toward their children or a matter of people claiming that certain rights have been violated, it appears that people are almost using religion as a shield to hide their wrongdoing behind. "Pasting the name 'religion' on harmful behavior does not make it religious exercise protected by our First Amendment," (Thollander). Therefore, the legal system should be allowed to interfere with religious issues only if they infringe upon a state or federal law, or if they violate the rights of another person.

First is the case of the two peyote-smokers. The two men were Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who worked as drug counselors for a private drug rehab organization in Oregon. The organization fired Smith and Black when they discovered the two men's use of the hallucinogen peyote, which is outlawed in Oregon. The two sought unemployment benefits, but the state denied their request. Smith and Black sued the state, arguing that they were members of the Native American Church, and smoking the drug was "an essential element of their church's ceremonies," (Thollander). The case went all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, which ruled that the state could not deny Smith and Black unemployment benefits simply because it did not approve of their religious practices. The state of Oregon appealed the decision, but the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of Smith and Black. The state appealed again, and won. One of the opinions brought out at the second appeal was that "allowing people to disregard laws at their own discretion, based only on a claim of religious motivation, was an invitation to anarchy," (Thollander).

Obviously the two men were upset, and much of the religious public felt the same way. "The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires," (Falkenberg). Many believe that religious freedom is absolute and unconditional; one should be able to carry out all religious beliefs they profess without interference from the law. However, those beliefs should not interfere with the law, or the law has the right to interfere with their beliefs.

Second is the case of Jane Kliebenstein, the woman who is trying to sue the reverend of the United Methodist Church that she and her husband belong to. The reason behind this was a letter that Rev. Jerrold Swinton wrote, claiming that "the 'spirit of Satan' was at work in her congregation," (AP, "High Court..."). The letter prompted Jane Kliebenstein to file a defamation suit against the church. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case after an Iowa Supreme Court ruling allowed the case to proceed. Lower courts dismissed the case, but the Iowa Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed, saying, "the letter went beyond ecclesiastical matters and had been circulated outside the congregation," (AP. "High Court...").

One must wonder, when they hear the details of this case, whether or not it is even constitutional for this woman to sue on these grounds, as it seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state. Hiram Sasser, who filed an appeal against the ruling on behalf of the church said, "There's no doubt that the (Iowa high court) ruling was unconstitutional... This case may very well end up back before the Supreme Court in a few years," (AP, "High court..."). Because Jane Kliebenstein is a member of the church in question, and sending a letter to her doesn't infringe upon any laws, it makes one wonder what this woman's case even is.

However, it does make sense that Kliebenstein might be offended by the wording in the letter. Most people probably wouldn't appreciate being told that the spirit of Satan is working in their church, no matter what their religious beliefs might be. But at the same time, this doesn't give a person the right to drag a purely religious matter into court and expect a judge to rule on it.

The third case is that of the man who wants to take the words "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. He wants them taken out because he is an atheist and doesn't want his daughter to recite those words in school and have the idea of God forced upon her. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the pledge, with "under God" in it, is unconstitutional because it is a government endorsement of religion that sends the message that those who believe in God are better than those who don't (CNN). The man and his family are expounding upon that ruling and are filing a lawsuit against the Abilene School District, where their daughter attends, for requiring their students to recite the pledge with "under God" in it.

The man's daughter refused to recite the pledge at school one day, and the substitute teacher reprimanded her, saying "she'd no right to live in America," (AP, "Texas Family..."). That comment is one of the main factors in the suit because it is considered religious discrimination. No one should