Religious discrimination in the United States 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.
Steve Pfaff, a University of Washington professor of sociology said that "Religious bias may be a very serious problem, but it has been studied less than other types of discrimination, such as race- or gender-based discrimination."[1]
Religious discrimination in the history of the United States dates back to 1493 when Pope Alexander passed a Papal Bull/ decree stating non- Christians were not entitled to own land, etc, that being non-Christian they were sub- human, thus vetting and encouraging the colonisation of Americas and virtual annihilation of the native Indian population. Later the first Protestant ChristianEuropean settlers, composed mostly of EnglishPuritans, during the British colonization of North America (16th century),[2][3] directed both towards Native Americans and non-Protestant Catholic European settlers.[2][3] 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[4] 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."[5][6]
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 activities could be regulated by law.[7]
Antisemitism has long existed in the United States. Most Jewish community relations agencies in the United States draw distinctions between antisemitism, which is measured in terms of attitudes and behaviors, and the security and status of American Jews, which are both measured by the occurrence of specific incidents.
FBI data shows that in every year since 1991, Jews were the most frequent victims of religiously motivated hate crimes.[8] The number of hate crimes against Jews may be underreported, as in the case for many other targeted groups.[9]
According to a survey which was conducted by the Anti-Defamation League in 2019, antisemitism is rejected by a majority of Americans, with 79% of them lauding Jews' cultural contributions to the nation. The same poll found that only 19% of Americans adhered to the longstanding antisemitic canard that Jews co-control Wall Street,[10] while 31% agreed with the statement "Jewish employers go out of their way to hire other Jews".[11] In 2023, the Biden administration launched[12] the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
Discrimination against Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Based on the research carried out by the University of Washington, Muslims and atheists in the United States deal with experience religious discrimination more than those of Christian faiths.[1]
According to a Pew Research Center survey carried out in March 2019, "Most American adults (82%) say Muslims are subject to at least some discrimination in the U.S. today". The 2017 survey of Muslim Americans illustrated that "Among U.S. Muslims themselves, many say they have experienced specific instances of discrimination, including being treated with suspicion, singled out by airport security or called offensive names." 63 percent of American adults believed in that being Muslim hurts someone's chances for advancement in American society at least".[13]
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.[16]
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.[17] 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),[17] 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.[17]
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 Americanspiritual 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 threatened with a lawsuit.[18]
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.[19] The Boston Globe reports on the 2005 decision of Cutter v. Wilkinson[20] in favour of the claimants as a notable case. Among the denied objects was instructions for runic writing requested by an Asatruer.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23]
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.[24]
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[25] 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).[26] The Cookes were awarded $5.2 million for "religious discrimination".[26] The Cooke family moved to the Short Creek Community in 2008 but were refused access to utilities by the town governments.[27] As a result of the ruling, Arizona's Attorney GeneralTom 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.[28]
↑ 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
Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the right not to profess any religion or belief or "not to practise a religion".
Religious intolerance is intolerance of another's religious beliefs, practices, faith or lack thereof.
Religious discrimination is treating a person or group differently because of the particular beliefs which they hold about a religion. This includes instances when adherents of different religions, denominations or non-religions are treated unequally due to their particular beliefs, either by the law or in institutional settings, such as employment or housing.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D–NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.
The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95–341, 92 Stat. 469, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1996, is a United States federal law, enacted by joint resolution of the Congress in 1978. Prior to the act, many aspects of Native American religions and sacred ceremonies had been prohibited by law.
In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. As stated in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Freedom of religion is linked to the countervailing principle of separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Dr. John Clarke, Roger Williams, William Penn, and later Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
Modern pagans are a religious minority in every country where they exist and have been subject to religious discrimination and/or religious persecution. The largest modern pagans communities are in North America and the United Kingdom, and the issue of discrimination receives most attention in those locations, but there are also reports from other countries.
In Israel, marriage can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and inter-faith marriages performed within the country are not legally recognized. However, marriages performed abroad or remotely from Israel must be registered by the government. Matrimonial law is based on the millet or confessional community system which had been employed in the Ottoman Empire, including what is now Israel, was not modified during the British Mandate of the region, and remains in force in the State of Israel.
The Native American Church (NAC), also known as Peyotism and Peyote Religion, is a syncretic Native American religion that teaches a combination of traditional Native American beliefs and elements of Christianity, especially pertaining to the Ten Commandments, with sacramental use of the entheogen peyote. The religion originated in the Oklahoma Territory (1890–1907) in the late nineteenth century, after peyote was introduced to the southern Great Plains from Mexico. Today it is the most widespread indigenous religion among Native Americans in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, with an estimated 300,000 adherents.
The peyote is a small, spineless cactus which contains psychoactive alkaloids, particularly mescaline. Peyote is a Spanish word derived from the Nahuatl peyōtl, meaning "caterpillar cocoon", from a root peyōni, "to glisten". Peyote is native to Mexico and southwestern Texas. It is found primarily in the Sierra Madre Occidental, the Chihuahuan Desert and in the states of Nayarit, Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and San Luis Potosí among scrub. It flowers from March to May, and sometimes as late as September. The flowers are pink, with thigmotactic anthers.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), was a United States Supreme Court case affirming, by a 9–0 vote, that federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Religion and business have throughout history interacted in ways that relate to and affected one another, as well as influenced sociocultural evolution, political geographies, and labour laws. As businesses expand globally they seek new markets which leads to expanding their corporation's norms and rules to encompass the new locations norms which most often involve religious rules and terms.
The status of religious freedom in North America varies from country to country. States can differ based on whether or not they guarantee equal treatment under law for followers of different religions, whether they establish a state religion, the extent to which religious organizations operating within the country are policed, and the extent to which religious law is used as a basis for the country's legal code.
Polygamy was outlawed in federal territories by the Edmunds Act, and there are laws against the practice in all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Because state laws exist, polygamy is not actively prosecuted at the federal level.
A religious exemption is a legal privilege that exempts members of a certain religion from a law, regulation, or requirement. Religious exemptions are often justified as a protection of religious freedom, and proponents of religious exemptions argue that complying with a law against one's faith is a greater harm than complying against a law that one otherwise disagrees with due to a fear of divine judgment. Opponents of religious exemptions argue that they mandate unequal treatment and undermine the rule of law.
Freedom of religion is recognized as a legal right in Hungary. The Fundamental Law of Hungary establishes the country as being founded on Christian values but guarantees the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religious discrimination. The history of religious freedom in Hungary has varied, with freedom of religion first recognized in 1919 before being restricted by Communist rule in the mid-20th century. Religious rights were restored following the end of Communism in Hungary, but the government under Viktor Orbán has been criticized for its restriction of religious freedoms.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
