Anti-Mormonism and the question of Religious freedom provided by the Constitution
The Anti-Mormon sentiment prevalent in society during the late 1800’s contributed greatly to the Supreme Court decision to deny the Mormon’s right to practice polygamy. Though polygamy had been outlawed in the United States for years previous, Mormons had continued to practice plural marriage on the grounds that the religious freedom provided by the Constitution protected them from legal repercussions as long as they attributed their practice to religious reasons. This notion, though perhaps previously unchallenged, was firmly refuted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. The United States in October 1878 in which the court stated that the Constitution provided only for the protection of free religious thought and this protection did not extend into the realm of religious practice. Chief Justice Waite cites the main reason behind this decision as stemming not so much from a disproval of polygamy, which had already been established, but instead from the inability for a government to properly preside over its people if man’s “professed doctrines of religious belief” were considered superior to the law of the land.
While the issue of simultaneously ensuring autonomy and maintaining government effectiveness has always posed problems for America and democracy in general, the means through which Congress here tries to establish the power of the government over the individual is proved to be too far-reaching for other members of society. In George Cannon’s response to the Supreme Court decision he writes, “I had hoped that the Court would give to this question-one of the most important that has ever been submitted to it-the most calm, profound, and unprejudiced attention; that they would examine it thoroughly and exhaustively, and render a decision that would be read with interest and delight by every lover of freedom and the rights of man,” expressing his disappointment at the lack of thorough analysis with which the court had enacted its decision. He then asserts that a more proper law would state that Mormons and religious people in general have every right to engage in those practices determined by their religious beliefs, as long as their practice does not interfere with the rights of their fellow men. His expression of a wish that Congress would have viewed the issue with an unbiased view sheds light onto the role that Anti-Mormonism most assuredly played in this uncharacteristically far-reaching Court decision. Had not the issue of polygamy been so hotly contended by so many members of society, Congress would have perhaps been more inclined to view the issue of religious freedom on a broader scale and see that the extensive effects of a decision to endorse government intervention in any religious practice were both invasive and Unconstitutional.
Questions
1-How specifically do you believe Anti-Mormonism influenced the Supreme Court decision? Do you believe that it was a natural byproduct of society’s disdain, or should the Court in theory have remained unsusceptible to this outside influence in its decision?
2-How much did the issue of slavery play a part in the heavy anti Mormon sentiments of the time period?
3-Do you agree with the disappointment expressed by George Cannon, or do you support the Supreme Court’s original decision to protect only religious beliefs and not practice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the issue of slavery played a significant part in the time period because many anti polygamists drew parallels between slavery and polygamy which then exposed the harms of plural marriage. By exposing these harms, legal action was even inspired. It’s noted that “like southern slaveholders, Mormon men bought and sold women (Gordon 47).” Because this was recognized, a “humanitarian connection to slavery (57)” was established which pointed out that marriage was part of the constitution due to its “component of human happiness (51) and the intent of the constitution was “the right to emotional and spiritual fulfillment (52).” This reasoning caused action because then people believed that these “oppressive structures of authority (47)” should be destroyed. Based on this, what do you think would have occurred if slavery did not exist? Would people have taken legal action much later on or do you think that laws would have been established just as soon?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is erroneous to imply George Q. Cannon’s response to George Reynolds v. The United States is indicative of universal dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision. Cannon was the most politically influential Mormon in the late nineteenth century; as Utah’s territorial representative to Congress, his “shrewd activities… served the interests of the [Mormon] church” (Gordon, 147). Cannon’s A Review polemically attacks the decision based on its infringement on the practices of the Mormon community. Any true legal argument with the court’s decision that Constitutional protection extends only to religious beliefs is obfuscated by Cannon’s invoking Mormon theological justifications for polygamy. Clearly not an expression of popular opinion, Cannon’s response is an exposition for the special interests of the Latter-day Saints.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Anti-Mormonism may have had a small influence on the Supreme Court decision but it didn’t completely influence the decision to make polygamy completely illegal with no way to go around it. Just because the U.S. gives the right to freely practice religion does not mean that they will blatantly ignore laws that they have already established to make it easier for people to practice their religion. Say for example, that there was a religious group that believed in sacrificing virgins in the name of their God to gain entrance into their ideal after life or salvation. Should the Court allow the murder of innocent people purely based on the fact that those people have the right to freely practice their religion without interference from the government? No they would not. The same concept applies to the act of polygamy and Mormonism. I think that it is easy to blame the Courts harsh penalties against Mormons for committing this act because of the persecution that Mormons received in this time but it is not the sole reasoning for their decision. They were merely upholding the law.
ReplyDeleteI think the Supreme Court was heavily influnced by outside sentiments on the Mormon case and unless there is a problem that directly contradicts the Constitution they are prone to side with society's feelings. For example, in 1896 the majority of the country felt that the races were 'seperate but equal' and the Court upheld that in Plessy v. Ferguson but as the country changed over the next 50+ years and blacks and whites became more outspoken over discrimination the court decided to change its mind and issued Brown v. Board in 1954. So, the Court is never unsusceptible to society and agreeing with Ayan, they have to uphold the law to protect all citizens and their rights. I disagree with George Cannon's statement that the Supreme Court should have been more thourogh in their decision. I think they were very thourough (albeit with a hint of bias), but were looking out for the future and what possible problems upholding polygamy would have on the rest of the nation.
ReplyDelete