Editing Free Exercise Clause (section)

{{Short description|Prohibits the U.S. Congress from prohibiting freedom of religion}}
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date = March 2019}}
{{United States constitutional law}}

The '''Free Exercise Clause'''<ref name="20200524LincolnUniversityFreedomofReligion">{{cite web |url=http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Religion.htm|title=Freedom of Religion |publisher=[[Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200524013011/http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Religion.htm |archive-date=May 24, 2020|access-date=May 28, 2020}}</ref> accompanies the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. The ''Establishment Clause'' and the ''Free Exercise Clause'' together read:

{{cquote|Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...}}

Free exercise is the liberty of persons to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs freely according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice.<ref name="20021226ReligiousFreedomEducationProject">{{cite web|author1=Charles C. Haynes (Director Religious Freedom Education Project)|title=History of Religious Liberty in America. Written for ''Civitas: A Framework for Civic Educatio'' (1991) by the Council for the Advancement of Citizenship and the Center for Civic Education. |url=https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-religion/religious-liberty-in-america-overview/history-of-religious-liberty-in-america/|access-date=May 25, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200525035716/https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-religion/religious-liberty-in-america-overview/history-of-religious-liberty-in-america/|archive-date=May 25, 2020|date=December 26, 2002}}</ref> To accept any creed or the practice of any form of worship cannot be compelled by laws, because, as stated by the Supreme Court in ''[[Braunfeld v. Brown]]'', the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute.<ref name="19610529Braunfeld" /> Federal or state legislation cannot therefore make it a crime to hold any religious belief or opinion due to the Free Exercise Clause.<ref name="19610529Braunfeld" /> Legislation by the United States or any constituent state of the United States which forces anyone to embrace any religious belief or to say or believe anything in conflict with his religious tenets is also barred by the Free Exercise Clause.<ref name="19610529Braunfeld">{{cite web |title=Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) at 603 |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/599/ |publisher=Justia US Supreme Court Center |access-date=August 12, 2020 |date=May 29, 1961}}</ref>

In 1878, the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in ''[[Reynolds v. United States]]'', as related to the prosecution of [[Mormonism and polygamy|polygamy]] under federal law.  The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for [[bigamy]], deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as [[human sacrifice]].  The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.  The First Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."<ref name=Reynolds>''Reynolds v. United States'', {{ussc|98|145|1878|source=f|pin=162}}.</ref> Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."<ref name=Reynolds  />

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the [[Warren Court]] adopted an expansive view of the clause, [[Government interest|the "compelling interest" doctrine]] (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation.