Was this overlooked?

[Icicle]

In all the wild hoopla about religious exemptions and Blunt-Rubio and Rush Gasbag shooting his mouth off, I may have missed the part where someone mentioned this case, but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, it needs to be.

Reynolds vs. United States 1878. I believe there was another Reynolds vs. United States during the 20th century, but this one deals with different matters.
The case was specifically about Mormons and polygamy. I believe the language in the decision is clear, despite freedom of religion, religious beliefs do not trump United States law.

From the decision:

[quote]
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States,
it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his
religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior
to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in
name under such circumstances." [/quote]

Did I find the answer to the question everyone's been salivating about letting people get birth control, no matter who their employer may be?

[Suich]

1. Great find, icicle!

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

2. And welcome to DU...

[WhoIsNumberNone]

3. No. This only applies to non-Christian religious beliefs

IOKIYAR

[eppur_se_muova]

8. +1 nt

[Cleita]

4. Get this to Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow.

Both have been doing stuff on their shows about this matter. Let it go national on the TV and radio.

[dmr]

5. Awesome, found link for this:

http://thisnation.com/library/reynolds.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=Reynolds+vs.+United+States+1878&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[alittlelark]

6. Nice find!

[Lucky Luciano]

7. That is pretty good. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. And, more recently, Oregon v. Smith, majority decision written by Scalia

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs (p879) excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html

He went on to quote the Reynolds case, and then said:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

...
Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual's religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer's objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes.

If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.