| Jehovah's Witnesses & Religious Liberty | |
|
Relevant Cases:
- Cantwell v. Connecticut
- Cox v. New Hampshire
- Jones v. Opelika 1
- Jones v. Opelika 2
- Prince. v. Massachusettes
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania
People preaching on public property may be common now, but it was not always the case. Traditional Christian denominations kept their preaching within the confines of their established churches. Minority sects, especially those convinced that they have the truth and that established religion is evil, were forced to make an appeal directly to the public.
Such was the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1930s and 40s, who were especially vigorous in their work. Believing that all members are essentially ordained preachers, they also had a large number of people ready and willing to make the message public.
Unfortunately, most people were not interested in hearing this message. Even worse, because the message often vilified organized religion and painted the Catholic church as the worst of the lot, the message often offended people. Consequently, communities worked to keep the Jehovah's Witnesses out, and the Witnesses sued in response. One of the most significant cases was Cantwell v. Connecticut, a case which had important implications for all of the other battles being fought.
Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovah's Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied.
The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominately Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled "Enemies" which attacked Catholicism.
Cantwell claimed that the statute upon which their conviction was based violated their right to free speech by requiring a permit to solicit donations from people outside of their organization. The Supreme Court ruled soundly in favor of Cantwell, finding for the first time that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment did indeed apply to the states.
The basic argument used by the Court was the fact that forcing people to seek a license in order to spread a religious message was an impermissible imposition of prior restraint. No government official should have the authority to decide what does and does not qualify as a religion; nor (as a consequence) can the government decide who gets to promote their message and who doesn't.
Although a city should have the power to decide what happens on the streets, the Court found that "...to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."
This case set down the basic principle that people could not be prevented from promoting their religious beliefs in public, but several later cases touched upon related problems as various communities continued to search for ways to rid themselves of Jehovah's Witness evangelization.
In Cox v. New Hampshire, the Court ruled that a city could require people to apply for a license in order to hold a parade. Although the government cannot refuse a license based upon a groups viewpoint, the fact that extra costs and work are incurred are sufficient to justify licensing.
In Jones v. Opelika 1, the Court ruled that people selling religious material could be required to get a license because this same requirement was placed upon people selling other material. A year later, in Jones v. Opelika 2, this first ruling was reversed when requiring licensing for merely distributing religious literature in exchange for voluntary donations was challenged.
The Court found that it was unconstitutional to restrict freedom of speech only to those who could afford to pay for it, thus striking down any fees charged for the privilege of distributing literature. This finding was upheld in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, where other laws requiring a license to sell religious material were struck down.
In Prince. v. Massachusetts, the Court found that child labor laws did indeed apply to children distributing religious literature. Although the guardian of the child in question claimed that children were also de facto ministers, the Court rejected this.
According to the Court, the State has broad powers to oversee the acts and treatment of children. Parental authority may be restricted when doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.
The Prince ruling has further application today in the question of blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, even to save their lives, because they consider it to be against the will of God. Despite this, children can be forced to accept them based upon the reasoning in the Prince case: namely, that the state has broad powers to protect the interests of children and that the free exercise rights of children are narrower than those of adults.
Next page > Pledging to the Flag > Page 1, 2, 3
Do you have an opinion about this article? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!
Get weekly updates about what's new on the site and news from around the world:
|
|
|
|
Read the Latest News on religion, freethought and related topics from around the world! Updated regularly. |
Archived Articles: |
|
Make your opinions be heard on the
|
|
