Religious discrimination in the United States

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. Specifically, it occurs when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing.

See also: Religious discrimination, Antireligion, and Antitheism

Background

In the United States the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In a 1979 consultation on the issues, the United States Commission on Civil Rights[1] defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[2][3]

However, in 1878 the U.S. supreme court has ruled that religious duty is not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment, and that religious activates could be regulated by law.[4]

Notable examples

Discrimination against Catholics

Further information: Anti-Catholicism in the United States

Antisemitism

Further information: Antisemitism in the United States

Discrimination against atheists

Further information: Discrimination against atheists in the United States; Anti-atheist sentiment in the United States; and Religion in the United States § Agnosticism, atheism, and humanism

Discrimination against neopagans

Further information: Religious discrimination against Neopagans § United States

Reynolds v. United States

Further information: Reynolds v. United States, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, and Mormonism and polygamy

In 1878 the U.S. supreme court, in Reynolds v. United States, ruled that a law against bigamy was not considered to be religiously discriminatory against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), who were practicing polygamy up until 1890.[5] George Reynolds was a member of the LDS Church, and was convicted of bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. He was secretary to Brigham Young and presented himself as a test of the federal government's attempt to outlaw polygamy.[6]

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action. Therefore, religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment, religious activates could be regulated by law.[7]

Religious tests

Further information: Religious qualifications for public office in the United States

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3. This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief.

However, some state and local jurisdictions have enacted legal restrictions that require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office.[8] For instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if he or she does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God),[8] thus atheists, agnostics, most Satanists, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers, who do not believe in a supreme being would be excluded from public office.[8]

Native American religious practices

Peyote usage

Peyote is listed by the United States DEA as a Schedule I controlled substance. However, practitioners of the Peyote Way Church of God, a Native American religion, perceive the regulations regarding the use of Peyote as discriminating, leading to religious discrimination issues regarding about the U.S. policy towards drugs. As the result of Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Thornburgh the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 was passed. This federal statute allow the "Traditional Indian religious use of the peyote sacrament," exempting only use by Native American persons. Other jurisdictions have similar statutory exemptions in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that laws prohibiting the use of peyote that do not specifically exempt religious use nevertheless do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Eagle Feather usage

The Eagle Feather Law, which governs the possession and religious use of eagle feathers, was officially written to protect then dwindling eagle populations while still protecting traditional Native American spiritual and religious customs, of which the use of eagles are central. The Eagle Feather Law later met charges of promoting racial and religious discrimination due to the law’s provision authorizing the possession of eagle feathers to members of only one ethnic group, Native Americans, and forbidding Native Americans from including non-Native Americans in indigenous customs involving eagle feathers—a common modern practice dating back to the early 16th century.

Boston University and University of South Dakota

Charges of religious and racial discrimination have also been found in the education system. In a recent example, the dormitory policies at Boston University and The University of South Dakota were charged with racial and religious discrimination when they forbade a university dormitory resident from smudging while praying. The policy at The University of South Dakota was later changed to permit students to pray while living in the university dorms. Another example concerns the Peralta Community College District which threatened to discipline two students when they prayed for a sick professor. The college later rescinded the warnings when threaten with a lawsuit.[9]

Church of Jesus Christ Christian

In 2004, a case involving five Ohio prison inmates (two followers of Asatru, a minister of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a Wiccan witch and a Satanist) protesting denial of access to ceremonial items and opportunities for group worship was brought before the Supreme Court.[10] The Boston Globe reports on the 2005 decision of Cutter v. Wilkinson[11] in favour of the claimants as a notable case. Among the denied objects was instructions for runic writing requested by an Asatruer.[12] Inmates of the "Intensive Management Unit" at Washington State Penitentiary who are adherents of Asatru in 2001 were deprived of their Thor's Hammer medallions.[13] In 2007, a federal judge confirmed that Asatru adherents in US prisons have the right to possess a Thor’s Hammer pendant. An inmate sued the Virginia Department of Corrections after he was denied it while members of other religions were allowed their medallions.[14]

Merrill Lynch

Religious discrimination has also been documented in employment in the United States, such as an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit alleging discrimination against an Iranian-Muslim employee by the Merrill Lynch company in the United States.[15]

Cooke et al v. Colorado City, Town of et al

On March 20, 2014, a jury hearing the case of Cooke et al v. Colorado City, Town of et al[16] ruled that the twin towns of Colorado City and Hildale had discriminated against Ronald and Jinjer Cooke because they were not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS church).[17] The Cooke’s were awarded $5.2 million for "religious discrimination".[17] The Cooke family moved to the Short Creek Community in 2008 but were refused access to utilities by the town governments.[18] As a result of the ruling, Arizona's Attorney General Tom Horne issued a press release stating that he "wants to eradicate discrimination in two polygamous towns" and believes that the court ruling will give him the tools to do it.[19]

See also

Main pages Freedom of religion in the United States History of religion in the United States Religious discrimination Islamophobia in the United States Antisemitism in the United States Anti-Catholicism in the United States Anti-atheist sentiment in the United States General Secularization Discrimination Civil rights Intersectionality Islamic religious police OUT Campaign List of anti-discrimination acts Religious intolerance

Specific Anti-Protestantism Anti-Christian sentiment Anti-clericalism Anti-Judaism Anti-Semitism Anti-Islamism, not to be confused with Islamophobia Discrimination against atheists Religious discrimination against Neopagans Anti-cult movement, people and groups who oppose cults and new religious movements Anti-Mormon Anti-Hinduism

Notes

1. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D.C., April 9–10, 1979
2. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: II
3. Stokes, DaShanne. (2001). "Sage, Sweetgrass, and the First Amendment." The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 18, 2001, sec. 2: B16.
4. U.S. Supreme Court Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Retrieved Feb 6, 2005.
5. "Polygamy". Mormonnewsroom.org. 2007-07-24. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
6. Leonard J. Arrington, Davis Bitton (1992). The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints, 2nd edition. NY: Knopf. p. 180.
7. "A Blow at Polygamy" (PDF). New York Times. January 8, 1879. Retrieved December 20, 2012.
8. "Texas Legislature Online". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
9. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15033286
10. Greenhouse, Linda (2004-10-13). "NY Times: Justices Will Hear 2 Church-State Cases". Ohio; Texas; Kentucky: Select.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
11. "(03-9877) 544 U.S. 709 (2005)". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
12. "The Boston Globe: Court upholds law on prisoners' religious rights". Boston.com. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
13. Walla Walla's Suppression of Religious Freedom
14. "First Amendment Center: Va. inmate can challenge denial of Thor's Hammer". Firstamendmentcenter.org. 2010-10-30. Archived from the original on 2010-10-30. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
15. "EEOC law suit against Merrill Lynch". Eeoc0sues0merrilllynch.wordpress.com. 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
16. "Cooke et al v. Colorado City, Town of et al". Arizona District Court (azd) Docket Number: 3:10-cv-08105. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
17. Dalrymple II, Jim (20 March 2014). "Family wins lawsuit against polygamous towns, gets millions". Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
18. Dobner, Jennifer (29 January 2014). "Arizona couple living near polygamous sect sues for discrimination". Reuters. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
19. Dalrymple II, Jim (21 March 2014). "Arizona AG plans to 'eradicate' discrimination in polygamous towns". Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 24 March 2014.