As we discussed in class H. L. A. Heart made the distinction that there needed to be both a separation between law and morality. Hart says that law is what is and morality is thought of as what the law should be. This is because he says that political societies cannot exist when laws will end up affecting a specific group. Here in lies the problem, if a society relies on laws alone, there may end up being a group that is specifically affected by this. However, on the other hand if political communities rely on morality alone, there will end up being a conflict between different political societies because different groups will end up having different beliefs when it comes to what is just and what is not. A good example of this would that in American culture we know and believe that at no time is it ever right for an individual to take the life of another except in self defense. However, in some Middle Eastern cultures it is alright for a family member to take the life of an individual that may have insulted family and in order to reclaim the honor for your family, you need to take that individual’s life.
One case that was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States was Smith vs US. Smith was a member of a Native American Church that used the drug peyote in their religious ceremonies however the issue he was also a drug counselor. Because of his use of peyote he was fired and attempted to collect unemployment benefits from the state of Oregon but was denied because state statute stated no individual would be able to collect benefits if let go for any type of drug usage. This decision would end up going before the states Supreme Court that would end up ruling in favor and up holding that States drug use regulation. The case would also end up going before the Supreme Court of the United States who ruled that the state was justified in denying Smith compensation even though the drug usage was condoned by his religion. The question that I now ask is that if there is a separation between law and morality, which one we are supposed to end up choosing if in either case there is going to be a party affected by the outcome?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would have to disagree with the outcome of this case because legally church and state are supposed to be separated. I think Smith put himself in a contradictory situation but given that the drug usage occurred in the context of a religious ceremony this should have no bearing on his right to compensation. However to answer your question, I think that if it comes down to it morality may be the better choice because it is more inclusive and specific to the situation so a more accurate decision can be reached.
ReplyDeleteMost Supreme Court cases that involve the Free Exercise clause apply strict scrutiny when deciding whether a law like Oregon's peyote law is valid. But in this case, the Court interpreted Oregon's peyote law as a neutral law: in other words, the law was not specific in banning peyote in religious practices, but banned peyote altogether.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the decision, mostly because I make it a habit to disagree with nearly all of Justice Scalia's opinions. Although the peyote law is clearly written to apply to everyone, the (positivistic) focus on the actual words ignores the intent of drug laws. Drug laws represent the government's compelling interest in preventing recreational use of drugs. But religious use is not recreational; in fact, the Native American Church disallows nonreligious, recreational use of peyote. This case is a great example of how, in ignoring the intent of the law (the "ought to be") and focusing on the law itself (the "is"), the Supreme Court can unduly limit individual freedoms.
I also disagree with the decision made by the Supreme Court in this ruling. There does seem to be a little bit of a bad predicament going on with Smith, following his religious practices and breaking his job’s rule. The fact that peyote is banned all together and not allowed for use at all in Oregon law makes one have to choose between morality and law for this case. To answer the question, I feel that morality has to be the choice for this situation only because it involves a religious practice. Also, I feel that he has the right to be compensated because the circumstance doesn’t deserve that result.
ReplyDelete