A) Ten people over 18 years of age who are members of churches of any cult or religious denomination, which churches have been or may be in the future. The defendants, members of the Old Order Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were found guilty of violating Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law (which requires children to attend school up to 1 year) by refusing to send their children to public or private school after graduating from eighth grade. Evidence showed that Amish provide continuous and informal vocational education to their children, designed to prepare them for life in the rural Amish community. The tests also showed that respondents sincerely believed that attending high school was contrary to the religion and lifestyle of the Amish and that, if they complied with the law, they would jeopardize their own salvation and that of their children.
The Supreme Court of the State confirmed the defendants' claim that the application of the compulsory school attendance law against them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which applied to States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Administrative agencies should review their current policies and practices to ensure that they comply with applicable federal laws and policies regarding religious observance and practice in the federal workplace, and all agencies must observe such laws in the future. Tax Commission, the Court saw the three main concerns against which the Establishment Clause sought to protect: sponsorship, financial support and the active participation of the sovereign in religious activity. For example, the government may not try to attack people or religious behavior by allowing the distribution of political pamphlets in a park, but by prohibiting the distribution of religious pamphlets in the same park.
Nor should agencies discriminate against religious organizations in their hiring or grantmaking activities. Such an agreement merely reflects the government's obligation to be neutral in the face of religious differences, and it does not represent the participation of religious institutions in secular institutions, which the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent. The same applies to other employees who “attend” to the faithful, including those who are not themselves the heads of the religious congregation and who are not dedicated solely to religious functions. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly advised, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to merit the protection of the First Amendment.”.
Congress has undertaken many similar efforts to accommodate religious adherents in various areas of federal law. It requires the government to demonstrate that it cannot accommodate religious adherents and, at the same time, achieve their interests through a viable alternative, which may include, under certain circumstances, spending additional funds, modifying existing exemptions, or creating a new program. In support of their position, the respondents presented as expert witnesses scholars of religion and education whose testimony is not contradicted. As the Court points out, there is no evidence in the file that the religious beliefs of the children in question differ in any way from those of their parents.
A way of life, however virtuous and admirable it may be, cannot stand in the way of reasonable state regulation of education if it is based on purely secular considerations; to be protected by religious clauses, statements must be based on religious beliefs. This should suggest that courts should act with great caution in carrying out the delicate and delicate task of weighing the legitimate social concerns of a State when faced with religious requests for exemption from generally applicable educational requirements. In formulating rules, regulations and policies, administrative agencies must also proactively consider the possible burdens on the exercise of religion and the possible adaptations to those burdens. However, the danger posed by the existence of an ancient religious faith cannot be ignored simply by the assumption that its followers will be able, with considerable sacrifice, to move to a more tolerant state or country or find accommodation under the threat of criminal prosecution.
The depth and breadth of constitutional and statutory protections for religious observance and practice in the United States confirm the enduring importance of religious freedom to the United States. .