Reynolds V. United States Case Study

Last week we looked at the case of Reynolds v. United States. This case brought to question the free exercise clause found in the first amendment. Reynolds was under trial for the practice of polygamy, which by his religion, Mormon, is not only allowed but is also a required religious practice. As a result, the court took a stance and defined religion. Their interpretation found that religion is beliefs plus action. This is to say that the court separated what it means to believe in a religion and what it is to practice a religion. They ruled that the free exercise clause protects only beliefs and not actions; as a result Reynolds was found guilty of practicing polygamy. I disagree with the courts decision, as well as the courts interpretation of religion in relation to the free exercise clause. I also disagree with the some of the reasoning that found Reynolds guilty. Even with that said, I agree with the ruling in due to the fact that it is a law, but …show more content…
The court argued, “there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity”. The practice of polygamy has allows been taboo because the majority religion of Christianity does not believe in such practice. In this case there were no Mormon judges present and thus it was inevitable that the court ruled against polygamy. In addition they argued,” that if one believed in human sacrifices as a necessary part of religious worship, would it be contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice”. Examples similar to this should not be use as arguments against the practice of polygamy because unlike human sacrifices, the practice of polygamy does not kill anyone. Religious practices that do not harm others should be allowed, and the practice of polygamy does not harm