Freedom of Religion Versus Civil Authority in Matters of Health

Abstract

Decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 1963 and 1972 expanded the scope of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment beyond any previous inter pretation of that clause in American judicial history. Although it is still understood that government may prohibit religiously motivated behavior which represents harm to individuals or to the public welfare, civil authorities now may intervene only when the religious activity threatens a compelling state interest. The possibilities of religious activity are abundant, and government intervention is limited to only the gravest offenses of the public order. This article examines some of the areas of health, broadly defined, in which religious attitudes have conflicted with state interests: the handling of poisonous snakes and drinking of poison in religious worship, the use of prohibited drugs in worship, compulsory blood transfusions for those who have theological objections to them, and the application of public health laws to those whose theology rejects medicine altogether. In the light of these cases, as much as the American constitutional system exalts religious liberty, it can never be unfettered. But, even in this area, it is imperative that our governmental units make religious liberty the rule and its curtailment the exception.