Study Notes on Religious Freedom and Equality in American and Indian Contexts

SHRINES OF DISCRIMINATION: A COMPARATIVE EXPLORATION

I. INTRODUCTION

  • Religious freedom is recognized globally as a fundamental human right, positioned highly due to historical conflicts stemming from religious intolerance.

  • The United States incorporates religious freedom within its constitutional framework primarily through the First Amendment, which emphasizes its significance post the escape of early colonists from religious persecution in England.

  • The First Amendment stipulates that:

    • Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

    • Free Exercise Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

  • The U.S. presents itself as a secular state where religion and government are separate, although the government recognizes and respects religion as essential to individual rights.

  • This creates a tension between religious freedom and the right to equality, particularly as embedded in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which asserts:

    • "No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • Challenges arise when religious beliefs result in discrimination; courts struggle between respecting religious freedom and upholding equality.

  • Two Supreme Court cases illustrate this conflict: Masterpiece Cakeshop and Yeshiva University.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The U.S. Approach to Religious Freedom

  1. Secularism, Religion, and the Escape from Tyranny

    • American secularism, influenced by Enlightenment ideals, negates the intertwining of religion with government functions but allows for the protection of individuals' rights to practice religion.

    • Thomas Jefferson's principle of a "wall of separation" between church and state underscores this relationship.

  2. The “Sincere and Meaningful” Standard

    • U.S. courts apply a deference standard to claims of "sincere and meaningful" religious beliefs which originated in United States v. Seeger.

    • This case expanded the definition of religious beliefs to encompass those not centered on a deity, complicating regulations against religious-based discrimination.

    • The ministerial exception exempts certain religious institutions from antidiscrimination laws concerning their own employees.

    • Laws of general applicability can still impose burdens on religious practices, but strict scrutiny is required if a law targets specific religious activities.

  3. Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Protection of Religion

    • Case involved a Christian baker's refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs.

    • The Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with the couple, prompting appeal based on Free Exercise Clause.

    • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker citing the Commission's hostile comments towards his religion, marking an important precedent for religious freedom claims against state laws against discrimination.

    • Justice Ginsburg's dissent framed the discrimination issue differently, asserting protective measures for the couple under anti-discrimination laws.

  4. Yeshiva University and the Protection of Equality

    • Yeshiva University denied recognition to an LGBTQ student organization citing religious beliefs against same-sex relations.

    • The Supreme Court had to weigh the university's religious objections against anti-discrimination laws, ultimately ruling against the university when it refused recognition of the student group.

    • This raised questions about the balance of religious expressions in educational contexts and the application of anti-discrimination laws.

B. The Indian Approach to Religious Freedom

  1. Secularism, Religion, and the Struggle for Order

    • Unlike American secularism, Indian secularism engages with religion actively, allowing for state involvement to curb practices harmful to social or public order.

    • The framers of the Indian Constitution sought to balance the promotion of religious freedom with regulating practices that threaten equality or human rights.

    • This resulted in provisions allowing the state to regulate religious practices that infringe on public order or morality.

  2. Religious Freedom Provisions in the Indian Constitution

    • Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion subject to public order, morality, and health.

    • Article 26: Affords religious denominations the right to manage their religious affairs, maintain institutions, and own property.

  3. The Essentiality Test

    • The Supreme Court of India created a framework defining integral religious practices worthy of constitutional protection.

    • Practices deemed non-essential or superstitious may be limited, particularly when contradicting social rights or morality.

    • The essentiality test ensures religious practices do not infringe on public order and can be limited to promote social welfare.

    • Case examples include the Shirur Mutt ruling regarding what constitutes essential practices, using this framework in subsequent decisions on religious customs versus individual rights.

  4. The Sabarimala Verdict and Its Legacy in Social Justice

    • Concerns over the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala temple for rituals deemed essential have resulted in constitutional challenges and evolving interpretations of women's rights versus religious customs.

    • The Supreme Court ruled that gender exclusion practices had no scriptural basis and thus violated women's rights to worship, showcasing how the essentiality test can be applied to advance gender equality.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Article 25 and Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Protection of Religious Practices

  • Article 25's framework distinguishes religious from secular practices, suggesting that the refusal to sell wedding cakes is subject to state regulation not granted under US law.

B. Article 26 and Yeshiva University: The Exception for Regulation

  • Article 26 grants religious denominations certain protections, but Yeshiva University’s arguments were challenged regarding whether it acts strictly within a religious context or engages in secular activities thereby subject to regulation.

C. Essentiality: An Establishment of Religion

  • Examines how the essentiality approach in India, with its higher scrutiny of religious practices, differs fundamentally from American doctrines under the First Amendment, posing challenges in determining practices essential to different faiths.

IV. CONCLUSION

  • Religion entangles itself deeply within societal norms and must balance freedoms with societal protections.

  • The essentiality test presents a unique perspective on regulating religion in a way that addresses gender and LGBTQ rights, suggesting a possible model for American legal frameworks to contemplate.