Freedom of religion belief boundary: when faced legal (review of classic case American)

Mormons are a religious group America Utah, polygamous. In Leonard v. United States case, the Federal Supreme Court confirmation law prohibits polygamy is constitutional, and the right to freedom of religious belief is not in contradiction,This is the most important case about polygamy America legal history. In fact, America federalThe real meaning of the Supreme Court is to tell people not to believe: in the name of the behavior in violation of basic human norms -- if these criteria in a certain period of time is considered to be the truth.

One, the case background

The middle of the nineteenth Century, the Mormons and finally settled in what was to become Utah land. Founder of Mormonism is called Joseph Smith, the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teach "". In the complex doctrine their one provision in the man can marry more than one woman for his wife.
After 1852, most Americans know the Mormon polygamy. Although the majority of Americans is a traditional Christian, monogamous. However, federal law does not mandate against bigamy or polygamy. Until 1862, the Lincoln government promulgated the "Mo Lille anti bigamy act", announced that polygamy is illegal. However, because of the USA fighting a civil war, thus temporarily to care who married a few wife.
After the civil war, Congress had answered a God to solve the Mormon polygamy. In 1874, "Kaplan method" enhanced "Morrill act", it increases the power of the federal court in Utah, a federal judge in the traditional independence and traditional Christianity makes them hate polygamy.
The Mormon leader Brigham Jan and his advisers, George Q cannon is the parliament, the two decided to challenge the federal government through court. They are going to challenge the government decrees, fantasy, if the government to prosecute a married several wives of men, the judge would convict, and then go to the appeal, the Supreme Court reversed a defeat. Their vision is based on "the first amendment to the constitution" provisions of the freedom of religious belief. Yang and cannon chose Yang's private secretary George Renaud as a defendant, he is a true believer in the Mormon Church, and married two wife.
In 1874 October, the government accused Reynolds crime of bigamy, but no successful case. After a series of setbacks, a year later, Renaud again sued. Federal prosecutors charged him with Mary Ann Tudenheim and Emilia Jan Schofield both have marital relations. Despite the trouble they gave Schofield a, but it is easy to prove that Renaud and two women living together.
In December 10, 1875 a jury Renaud bigamy, sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of $500. In July 6, 1876, the Supreme Court supported the decision regions, but Renaud to the Federal Supreme court. In November 14, 1878 and 15, his defense lawyer in the Supreme Court to defend him said, according to "the first amendment to the constitution", Renaud is the Mormons, enjoy the freedom of belief, it willTo overthrow the guilty verdict on the reynolds. However, American Federal Supreme Court's decision not to support the reynolds. In January 6, 1879, the Supreme Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that the first amendment to the constitution, "" do not protect the polygamy, because monogamy is the basic value orientation American established based on the history of marriage system, in which all citizens America life can destroy this basic principle.

Two, belief in free boundary

Mormon polygamy has been controversial even dislike doctrines.American Federal Supreme Court which upheld, eventually establish and guarantee the firmness and monogamy. The decision on its connotation and does not reflect the monogamy system of justice and importance, it is more deep-seated that anyone regardless of what religion, no privileges in behavior, in a general sense, a person or a group of people must follow the basic principles of the law, as the citizens do not have law of rights of survival.
　　Freedom of religious belief is a basic human freedom, it belongs to the people's spiritual life, in many people's eyes, it is that one's soul life condition.Although the scientific advances seem to have not constantly in the soul, but religious people don't believe in them -- science can't explain everything, or if it is universal, why still need to be developed? The human limited rational decision belief -- especially religion could not be destroyed.Because faith is a human instinct, is human nature, human beings may be the only source of biological asked himself, perhaps only in order to pursue the significance of life population, a main form of religion is to solve the problem of the meaning of human life,Therefore, the French philosopher Henry• Bergson regarded religion from the impulse of "life" (see "" two sources of morality and religion). Freedom of religion is the basic freedom of human beings, there is no deprived of reason, human history there have been -- some countries still exists a lot of extremely cruel persecution -- faith, this only shows that the tragedy of human and inhuman, and could not explain the belief can be deprived of. In 1803, the chief judge Jeremiah USA New Hampshire court&#In March 8226; Smith v. Wilkins decision on religious freedom according to the brilliant exposition, he said: "the social and secular officials forced people to faith and do not believe in what is very absurd, in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, one reason is not affected by the limitations of the similar control. Freedom of thought is the human talent, each have a thinking ability are inherent rights, can not be deprived of the privilege." [1] here,Judge Smith reveals an important truth, that is the same person, any person the ability to understand the world is limited, so what is the truth in question, anyone who believe their privileges, but nobody forced others to believe that others have no privileges, privileges and privilege, is both sides a problem.
Any kind of religious belief will have some basic doctrines and the most simple ceremony. From a legal perspective, "religion has two elements: all religions contain certain doctrines, but the original degree and the complex degree difference; secondly, have a ritual, some also exists obvious difference in the cult." [2] must have some strict doctrine to adjust people's behavior in religious belief, these are known as the religious ethics religious incidental products, although not considered is the religion itself, however, does not follow these ethics under the act, a person of faith would be their group and the reflection of his inner thought false, therefore, in essence religion must reflect for action. It is common that religion feature allows people to freedom of religion or religious tolerance in very long period of time, the lack of good solutions, we have seen too many religious war in human history, people have been in a long time, do not have the ability to grasp their own should respect other people's freedom of religious belief. So in what degree of freedom of religious belief of delimitation becomes all free nations must solve the problem. The mankind has experienced too much blood after finally came to his senses, namely in the selection of interference on the timing of the received cognitive ability is relatively accurate, and this ability as a universal human cultural heritage and rational spirit health form, that is when a believer is just follow what he believes is right in doctrine and ceremonies last, the law cannot interfere.
A just law has had to admit that people have faith rights, including freedom of religion is notBecause the external behavior law can only manage people, its inner spirit not people, unless the human inner spirit appears as a behavior after breaking the law, then it is time to legal action. In other words, only when the belief of language and text will be interference, or until it into action, and interferes with the freedom of others to interference, in which two conflicting issues, the majority of people on this earth eventually chose the latter.From the modern constitutional history we can see, to confirm the freedom of belief is along with the development of human rational ability and identity, which in most countries in the world recognized, and has become the basic rights of citizens in many countries constitution, are these countries agree that such a based on the basic principle, in which nodes group of human beings, is a need of everyone to comply with the rules of this law is the bottom line, the bottom line no matter a man of all the external conditions, as long as he does not infringe the interests of others, so he always has some absolute unalienable rights, that among human beings produced a kind of equality to qualification for contract the spirit of performance way, it gives people the basic equal rights, therefore, no one's faith can be foist one's opinions upon others, and people's beliefs often differ in thousands of ways, if deprived of freedom of faith become a part of human rights, then finally all people in the community will lose faith in freedom -- its final results will only one person has faith free. Freedom of religion belief that win support among the people, almost all totalitarian countries hypocritically to give the state machine. People with the right to freedom of religion -- even in this country, the malignant event free persecuted faith happen every day. In fact, human beings have been aware of a just legal prior penalty absolutely no power, it cannot be an excuse because of one's faith in a creed, might commit a crime, so it should nip in the bud, such logic is to be a wild legend, once it is put into action must be evil, because it would deprive people of the most basic rights and freedom, it may directly infringe the rights of survival, basic property rights and does not harm the social circumstances in the freedom of action.
When this world some people once formed the idea, creates another problem, is as a whole civil service bodies exist state, not just admit one's basic freedom of religion, but it also protect his rights, which prevents infringed his right, so everyone is must bear may illegally infringes on the rights obligations, which of course includes not against his country's basic national standards compulsory.
USA Mormon men Christians are based on the teachings can marry more than two wives, from the religious point of view, it is just a doctrine, it can only stay in the language and words, the law can not be banned such doctrines, even if it has formed a complete set of theory system, a serious threat to a theoretical foundation polygamy in theory, the law can not interfere, because it still belongs to the realm of spirit category, the law does not have jurisdiction, with a bachelor nagging said once the money is going to marry a one hundred wife and not much difference, people can think of it as a relaxed topic, laugh away and, so, a normal society, no one would call this doctrine -- just -- seriously. As American scholar Li• Epp Stein in the analysis of the case points out: "if these doctrines in the trial by jury before, responsible for ascertaining it is true or false, then any other sect of religion may occur in the same situation. Therefore, undertake to distinguish fact people if you want to be responsible for such tasks, they actually broke." [3] so, boundary problems of Epp Stein to point out here is the legal, of course in this place he only said that the jury did not have the rights to a religious sect. However, he said these words, have an implicit meaning, is on a jury, their task is only review whether Renaud and more than two women together, and couples to match.
Therefore, the next question is crucial, the Reynolds behavior -- is the law can be under the jurisdiction of the practical activities have reached the legal prohibition norms. Then give Renaud summons Arthur Perlater to appear in court as a witness to testify that when, his marriage is not monogamous, below is his testimony:

Q: you in the service of a summons to the court when the case.
A: I came to Mr. Renaud's residence, a lady is there, this is his first wife. She told me this woman is not there; it was her only family, but she has two to three weeks did not come. This morning I went again, she is not in.
Q: do you know something about her house?
Answer: I knew had found her home.
Q: where?
Answer: the same place.

It is clear enough that his marriage was not composed of a wife and his two person, among them there is a woman. And it is not just the Pilat testimony that this situation Renaud, at the same time there are many evidence also showed that he had two wives -- Mary Ann Tudenheim and Emilia Jan Schofield, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the law, he was guilty of bigamy.
However, whether other Mormons or his own have high hopes for USA Federal Supreme Court, their reason is Reynolds is because their beliefs married two wife, so in accordance with the America First Amendment to the constitution, he can get a verdict of "not guilty". The provisions of the first amendment to the Constitution in 1791 America: "Congress shall make no law about the following matters: establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise; limit the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."The law is clear, but also the fuzzy. Because the constitution may not share, Vientiane listed, the real life of constitution lies in how it is quoted and explained,We can say, left the USA constitution, all the judges will aphasia, contrast this with some national constitution is a never cited the flower shelf.In fact, it is the judge according to their own professional knowledge of law independently without any disturbance to interpret the constitution,Justice will have real authority,The Constitution also has the real life,Then the judge wisdom also can obtain the real show. Whether it is a judge of the Supreme Court or magistrate is very clear, is the time when the religious doctrine as an ideological content exists in the society, and it is a kind of behavior and the fact that occurs, the effect and the need to bear the legal obligation is different, make the case upheld the Federal Supreme Court justice Jefferson pointed out: "if people believe, in person to bury is a religious ceremony, it allows them to do so? Similarly, Christian scientists can't forbid them to school children vaccination." [5] so,Whether a religious believers to teach how the pious, it can't be him not to take the social responsibility,And friction are taught a doctrine not command the teach male believers must marry many wives, but "can" have more than one wife, so even from friction are the teachings of Renaud, also need not to marry a wife to prove their degree of religious faith, we can even say in Renaud married actually and not a causal relationship between the two wife and his belief of friction teach, he has the ability to do the provisions of the existing belief friction teach and abide by the law, and take a wife, doctrine and not forced him to marry a two wife, from a religious point of view, his conscience is completely free. In this context, Renaud cited the friction teach doctrine as their polygamist defense even if not from the legal requirements for evaluation, and from the devotional requirements evaluation, he is also untenable, stated that he had no reason to violate the law. Therefore, JayFuxun judge pointed out "does not exist and people's social responsibility contradictory natural rights." [6] he also put the freedom of religious belief is interpreted as not abolished polygamy laws, this is an interesting explanation, because of his negative from a look of a positive determination principles made answer, or he must also be irreconcilable opposed to the contradiction between monogamous and polygamy was explained, and reasons for the final choice of monogamy to demonstrate, and he the interpretation of the first amendment to the Constitution on the systemic and one-step negative polygamy, but also the focus of the case itself is much monogamous legal problems, this question itself entirely in polygamy,Decision once formed will become later the judges for the cited case -- that is all American Federal Supreme Court * * officials has completely become a habit. Moreover, a society does not need what to show clear and forceful to this kind of reverse thinking, a general idea of it is American constitution amendment in which relates to the government -- as long as the right people, formulating constitution and constitutional amendment has always been in the endless expansion of government power to prevent.The idea that Americans actually to what can be done is far better than what do not care more, in their eyes, it can not do things removed, the rest is can do -- that's right.American political scientist Hilsman said in reference to the case: "in general, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of religious belief, does not mean that we can not obey the effective protection of the public peace, make no exception, health, safety and ethical law." [7] Hilsman points out a very important social standards established by the constitution of the USA here, is the human society needs to rely on some of the most basic principles to maintain, if there is some breakthrough in the bottom line ethics rights, the society would not exist. In order to make the bottom line ethics can be all people agree, the law must dictate to people to follow them, leaving the "instead of dam gap" -- or in some areas, legal dam will eventually be evil torrent burst. From a religious point of view, it can not become the evil refuge. I want to Renaud v. United States case the most vivid illustration of this truth.

Three, the conclusion:Real freedom is freedom that boundary

As America showed that the first amendment of the constitution, in a healthy society, freedom of religious belief and other natural rights, is each person be without rebuke right, anyone can deny it, but every one of us should undertake certain obligations and responsibilities to the society at the same time to obtain these freedoms and rights. Nothing in the world is not restricted free, also does not have the unrestricted right, any person to exercise their rights, to enjoy their freedom is not out of bounds, the real freedom is freedom that boundary, real right is to know the obligations of the right, there won't be any liberal democratic states allow their society there have unlimited freedom of the privileged, because they will exist for all other human disaster. Leonard case to be USA history final establish polygamy is illegal in all cases, polygamy case subsequent suffered the same fate -- today's America anyone who tries to the freedom of religious belief as their polygamist defense, he will not only loses the lawsuit, but would be considered foolish, will also be considered the lack of basic personality as a person must have.Like many other USA classic case, his case to tell people, one does not obey the national laws, he can get all the excuse, not only do not assume social responsibility immunity.