The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Traditionally, this has been interpreted to mean that Congress shall not "establish" an official national religion (the "establishment clause"), or interfere with any individual's practice of religion (the "free exercise clause").

There was little debate regarding the free exercise clause until 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a territorial anti-polygamy law was legal despite the fact that polygamy was considered a religious practice. The court decided that although the *federal* government could not pass such a law, *territorial* governments could.

By the 1960s, the Supreme Court had adopted the "compelling interest" doctrine regarding state and local laws curtailing religious practices: Restrictive laws were unconstitutional unless the state could show a compelling interest in such restrictions. A law preventing a person from receiving unemployment benefits because she refused to work on the Sabbath day of her religion was found unconstitutional. However, the court's view subsequently shifted again, and in 1990 a law restricting the use of peyote in religious rituals was upheld because of the state's perceived compelling interest in keeping illegal drugs illegal.

Since the writers of the First Amendment are no longer around to answer questions about their intent, we can never be certain exactly what that was. It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, and that interpretation clearly depends on the individual opinions of the Supreme Court justices.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report