Which case held that religious belief cannot excuse the practice of bigamy?

Which case held that religious belief cannot excuse the practice of bigamy?

• A. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)
• B. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
• C. Reynolds v. United States (1878)
• D. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Answer: (C)

Religious belief is protected, but religious practice is not exempt from laws that govern conduct. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court faced a defendant who claimed polygamy was a religious duty. The Court said that while a person may believe in polygamy, the anti-bigamy statute punishes the act of bigamy, not the belief itself, and can be applied regardless of religious motivation. Therefore, religious belief cannot excuse the practice of bigamy. This decision draws a clear line between belief and conduct: belief enjoys protection, but acts that violate laws can be criminalized even if they are part of religious practice. The case is often cited as establishing that the state may regulate conduct that is illegal, even if it is tied to religious conviction, though later decisions have refined how religious interests are balanced with law. The other listed cases address different topics—religious exemptions for employers, Congress’s enforcement power, and incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states—so they do not address this specific issue.

Religious belief is protected, but religious practice is not exempt from laws that govern conduct. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court faced a defendant who claimed polygamy was a religious duty. The Court said that while a person may believe in polygamy, the anti-bigamy statute punishes the act of bigamy, not the belief itself, and can be applied regardless of religious motivation. Therefore, religious belief cannot excuse the practice of bigamy. This decision draws a clear line between belief and conduct: belief enjoys protection, but acts that violate laws can be criminalized even if they are part of religious practice. The case is often cited as establishing that the state may regulate conduct that is illegal, even if it is tied to religious conviction, though later decisions have refined how religious interests are balanced with law. The other listed cases address different topics—religious exemptions for employers, Congress’s enforcement power, and incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states—so they do not address this specific issue.