This paper analyzes civil liberties as fundamental protections in American society, with particular focus on religious freedom and the free exercise clause. Through the lens of Muhammad Ali's refusal of military induction based on religious belief, the paper explores how the First Amendment protects individuals' right to practice any religion without government interference. It examines the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Supreme Court case Board of Education v. Davey, discussing the limits and scope of religious liberty protections. The paper concludes that civil liberties require ongoing public support and legal vigilance to address contemporary challenges in schools, workplaces, and broader civil society.
Civil liberties are more important than civil rights on the basis that civil liberties allow people to have a free exercise clause to worship or not worship as they please. The main category that will be discussed under civil liberties is the Freedom of Religion, with the free exercise clause as the subcategory. With the free exercise clause, the government cannot interfere with people's practice of religion. Even though the Bill of Rights gives Americans the freedom of religion and a free exercise clause, there have been and will continue to be conflicts between people, the government, and many other public entities regarding religious freedom.
The reason for choosing civil liberties and the freedom of religion as the main focus is Muhammad Ali, whose example remains relevant to understanding how religious conscience can conflict with government mandate. Everything Ali did centered on speaking about his religion. The most important moment in his life was when he was being drafted into the military. Ali refused induction based solely on his religious beliefs. Many people during the draft-dodging era fled the country to avoid being selected into military service. These individuals ran because they knew they would be sent to jail and fined a large amount of money for refusing to be inducted into the service.
Ali proved to many Americans and to the government that a person can refuse to do something that the government mandates if the refusal is based on religious belief. The free exercise clause allows individuals to have and follow whatever religion they want. Even if the religion being practiced requires a person to do something that is offensive in society, the government still cannot prohibit that individual from believing in or practicing that religion. Ali's case demonstrated that religious conviction could justify civil disobedience, a principle that has shaped discussions of conscience and legal obligation.
The law that protects these rights is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act was passed in the early 1990s for all religions, but was mainly passed for Native Americans. This policy is supported by many, including the author, because people have the right to believe in whatever they choose. That was the reason behind the passing of the free exercise clause by Congress: to allow individuals to follow any religion. However, that was not the case in 2004 in the state of Washington.
A student wanted to learn more about religion and wanted to study theology. The state of Washington created a "Promise Scholarship" funded through the state's general fund and made available to students enrolled in college within the state. The scholarship was made available to all students except those who wanted to study theology. The case involved the governor of Washington, Gary Locke, and Joshua Davey, and it reached the Supreme Court. The basis of the case rested on the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, with the court upholding the decision in favor of the state of Washington.
One of the main lessons from this case is that the government does not have to provide funding because of religious beliefs or because an individual may want to learn more about religion. Freedom of religion has been given to allow one to follow any religion of choice, but the free exercise and freedom of religion are not mechanisms to obtain free education. This ruling illustrates the boundaries of religious liberty protections: while individuals may practice their religion freely, the government is not obligated to subsidize religious practice or training.
Strides have been made over the years for individuals and groups that support civil liberties. The Obama administration was one group in particular that supported civil liberties and attempted to make good on many of the recommendations by the American Civil Liberties Union. The union supports many different groups that are being denied rights by the American government. Even though there have been many court cases involving civil liberties, there has been minimal effect on public policy.
There should not be American soldiers, citizens, or legal residents in other countries who are on a no-fly list that prevents them from returning to the country. People should not be getting fired because they have been prescribed marijuana to help treat pain and other symptoms. These examples illustrate why there has been minimal to no effect on public policy after some court rulings. The gap between legal protections and their practical implementation remains significant.
"Religion in schools and civil safety concerns"
There can be a simple prayer implemented into public schools that will not offend one religion or another and that will help make schools safer than they currently are. Civil liberties need support and protection from all people, not just from certain groups or the United States Government.
There are many facets important to American citizens that fall in the civil liberty category. Freedom of Religion, along with the free exercise clause, is the one felt to be most important. Freedom of religion and the free exercise clause allow any person to follow any religion or religious beliefs of their choice. There have been many court cases that support the free exercise clause and many that have gone against it. Within today's society, government leadership is putting forth major effort to support civil liberties, pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union. However, people should not merely watch these groups try to make strides for the good of civil liberty; an effort should be made by citizens to protect and support civil liberties actively.
You’re 85% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.