The United States is very religiously diverse. The population is composed of people from all walks of life who all believe in different things. However, over 70% of Americans can be described as of the Christian faith, according to Pew Research Center.
Naturally, when such a large religious presence is noticed, religious protections have to be in place--in order to ensure that these people are free and entitled to their beliefs.
Which Protections are in Place?
1. The First Amendment
One well-known protection of religion can be seen in the United States Constitution. More specifically, the first amendment, or the Free Exercise Clause. This amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Put simply, citizens have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to peaceful protest, and the right to oppose the government.
This umbrella of rights includes religious affiliation, guaranteeing that it is not illegal to embrace your faith or your religious belief. Additionally, the Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty, explains these facts adding "The freedom of religion is a fundamental right of paramount importance, expressly protected by federal law".
On the question of how effective this protection is, it encompasses many criteria and is specific enough to address religious discrimination. By ensuring that freedom of religion is our given right, it frees citizens from the idea that what they believe should be regulated and socially acceptable. It does not give the government the right to discriminate against others because of their religious affiliation. However, the amendment also states that Congress is not to make laws biased towards one certain religion. So, if a religious group or organization wanted an aspect of their religion to be enforced by the law, it couldn't. This limitation is necessary to ensure that those who do not participate in a certain religion don't feel forced to do otherwise.
2. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty details that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 or the 'RFRA', "prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the federal government demonstrates that application of such burden to the religious adherent is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest".
Using the Congressional Research Service, we can translate this act to mean that the government cannot force citizens to choose between following their religions and receiving a governmental benefit or when a citizen has to go against their own religion to avoid legal scrutiny. Additionally, the same source includes that if a section of government was to go against this policy in action, it would have to prove two things:
- it was necessary in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
- the method used was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest
The RFRA, also quoted as Religion Clauses of the Constitution-- limits the government from attempting to rationalize a religion's philosophy--or trying to guess the reasonableness of a religious belief. The FLPRL elaborates, "Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization’s religious precepts".
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
This act, as described in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, "protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin".
This frees potential employees from the discrimination of being denied a job because they associate with a different religion. It also requires employers to modify their dress policies such as a no-head-coverings policy to accommodate those of different faiths such as Muslims and Jews. Employers who assert that they are unable to accommodate religious cases like these, have to establish undue hardship on their business with specificity.
However, this policy also works in the employer's favor as well. It indicates that though employers cannot discriminate against other religions, employers also have the right to deny employment to civilians who aren't associated with the employer's religion if they so choose.
What Risks are Still Present with the Current Policies?
Considering that religions are well protected by the law as is, the probability of this security faltering is low. However, some policies that may coincide with religion--without being directly related to them--may affect other rights.
For example, in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed, it defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. This act was in place to protect the institution of marriage. This act was also a belief held in religions like Christianity and Islam--despite not being directly related to them. Later, this act was determined unconstitutional but is still a good example of how civil rights clash with each other.
How Likely Are These Protections to be Amended in the Future?
Though these freedoms appear to be well protected by the law, new regulations that may be imposed in the future will have to be balanced with religious freedoms.
For example, an individual who practices a certain religion shouldn't be oppressed because he or she disagrees with certain activities or actions. Nor should a religion force others to practice their beliefs.
The likeliness of these freedoms being adjusted is low but likely to occur if other rights infringe on them.
