The Government is Infringing on the First Amendment Rights of the People

Associations without governmental interference. It is a key right in democracy, where the citizens may form or join into any political party, special interest group, or union without government restrictions. Legally speaking, without freedom of assembly, certain political parties or groups can be banned with harsh penalties for any members also public protests against the government would usually be banned as well. All in all, these rights which are guaranteed by the first amendment are an integral part of the country and way of life of people and without it much of what we are accustomed to would not be possible.

The United States of America was founded by people who were escaping from Europe so therefore it is not so surprising that the first item on the first amendment would be relation to the freedom of religion. This freedom was entirely in the hands of two of the famous founding fathers; Madison and Jefferson who were religious as well as philosophical. They agreed that there should be room for people to express their religion as well as room that the government should not be a part of this. The religion of the land should be separate from the government, hence the first real separation of church and state. Thus, the Framers of the First Amendment left the future generations with three considerations regarding religious establishments: (a) is that there would be a wall of separation that protects government from religion and religion from government; (b) a separation of church and state that permits nondiscriminatory government assistance to religious groups; and finally (c) government assistance that preserves and promotes a diversity of religious beliefs, whatever they may be. This is how the entire idea of freedom of religion is supposed to work, however this is not always the case as many know.

Although the government cannot restrict a person’s religious beliefs, it can however limit the practice of faith when a strong interest of the state is present. The courts have come to the conclusion that a substantial and compelling state interest exists where the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. For instance, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of polygamy which was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated very few actions of the government on the basis of this clause. While this is one of the cases that exists, there are many more where the interest of religion is a matter which involves the state. One such case today which is evident is the US government keeping a watch on people of the Muslim faith.