It has been established that no single religion will be an official governmental religion, and people are free to exercise their religious beliefs according to their personnel beliefs. Yet, sometimes, the question becomes troublesome in some aspect.  In Reynolds vs. United States the court upheld a congressional statue prohibiting polygamy in federal territories.

The accused married a second time during the lifetime of his first wife.   When the trial was conducted the accused proved that, at the time of marriage, he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, and a believer in its doctrines. They propagated that it is the duty of the male member of said church to practice polygamy, and this duty was upheld by different books which the members of the church believed to be divine books, and if any member failed to practice polygamy then such male members would be punished and penalty for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come. He further proved that he had taken the permission from the recognized authorities for the polygamous marriage and thus he was married to the second woman, Schofied, under and the doctrine of the church.

He also said that whatever he did, he did in conformity with what he believed to be his religious duty, therefore he should not be held guilty.  But this request failed and Chief Justice Wait said that even though it was done under the influence of religious beliefs, it was done intentionally. Therefore it does not excuse him since the law, in such cases, inexorably implies criminal intent.

Congress cannot pass a law for the governments of the territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of the religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits such legislation. Religious freedom is a given everywhere throughout the Unites States, but the question to be considered here was whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition. Polygamy has always been odious among the western nations of Europe, and from the earliest history it has been treated as an offence against society.

It is constitutional and valid for prescribing a rule of action for those residing in the territories. Suppose if one believes that human sacrifice were a necessary part of religious worship. Will the civil government not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? So, here, as a law of the organization of the society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that the plural marriage shall not be allowed.  Here the accused knew that he was married and that his wife was still living, and in spite of that he married a second time. He is presumed to have intended to break the law. Every act was knowingly done and, upon a careful consideration of the whole case, he was found to be guilty.

-LAWZ BUREAU