Other than allowing people to believe whatever they want, what legal protection does Freedom of Religion actually offer?


From what I can tell, most things that are legal under Freedom of Religion would be legal anyway. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe, they are free to go to fan club meetings on Sundays, they are free to wear whatever jewelry they want, etc. Without the specific Freedom of Religion, what rights would actually be lost? Are there rights that only exist because of Freedom of Religion? Are practices like circumcision the result of Freedom of Religion? *Should* religious practices that would otherwise be illegal be allowed protection under Freedom of Religion?

In: Other

It prevents Congress from making any law that would restrict the free excercise of their religious beliefs. Same thing like you don’t need a law to say you’re allowed to assemble or say what you want … but it prevents anyone from passing a law preventing you from doing those things

What do you mean ‘would be?’ You do realize there are places on Earth where people are literally murdered for believing the ‘wrong’ religion?

The law is important because there are still places in the world where governments dictate what religion is acceptable to their citizens.

It is intended to prevent government from imprisoning, harassing, or killing people who don’t share the same beliefs as the president, Congress, and the Senate.

It doesn’t give any additional rights-but neither does any amendment except the 14th- it just creates a second level of protection from government discriminating unfairly against a religion. The establishment clause is related, but distinct legally.

>The Court examined whether the state of South Carolina violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in denying unemployment benefits to a person for turning down a job, because it required him or her to work on the Sabbath. The Court ruled 7-2 that the South Carolina statute did impede a person’s right to freely exercise religion, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963))

Whether the gov could or would ban circumcision would be about free exercise, at least for jews, but Reynolds v US outlawed polygamy even though it was central to mormonism, there are limits to free exercise and all the others.

When you say “Freedom of Religion” (capitalizes, what are you referring to? The first amendment? The concept? The principle? It is difficult to outline the legal protections you are asking about without a clearer understanding of the legal basis you are citing.