Question

One theme in this module is the perceived tension between free exercise of religion (guaranteed under the 1st amendment to the Constitution) and equal protection under the law (guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

Excerpt from 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Excerpt from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In short, which is more at risk: freedom of religion OR equality of all people under the law? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

Free exercise of religion that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution is at risk. The reason being it has many loopholes, for example the criteria for deciding " true that's". The amendment doesn't allow the utterance of violent speach at a public platform that may cause a civic unrest. However the violent intension is hard to prove in courts as different jury may have their own criteria for proving this violent speach made by the accused, causing true threats of society to actually get by the court and spread violent thoughts amongst public.

Also at times an innocent may be proven guilty for spreading civic unrest due to wrongful assertions made by angry pu loc against him in the court. It not a surprise as many Muslim families is the States have undergone this problem of wrongful conviction without any proper proof against them.

For offending the 1st ammendment it is not clear that WHAT " INTENT" IS NECESSARY ?

It can be inferred that with mention of some intent it cannot be clear what intent is being talked abiut. This causes confusion in court and every judge or jury can have his own understanding of the amendment and can give his dicision accordingly. This maybe sometimes just or unjust but absolute due to flaws mentioned. This is big threat for 1st amendment.