Chapter 1: What is a religion?

The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So what exactly is a religion? Clearly it has to mean something more than a set of principles that one is devoted to, or else the Constitution would protect the beliefs of someone who says their religion is “worshipping the almighty dollar.” There is also the concern that excluding some religions by defining core components of a protected religion–such as whether a god or gods are included and whether it or they need to be non-human–would violate either or both portions of this amendment.

The Supreme Court heard very few cases about religion during its first hundred years. This is because Barron v. Baltimore (discussed in unit 3, chapter 1) limited the application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government and Congress did not attempt to establish or interfere with the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court was not called upon to define religion until 1890, when it reviewed the conviction of a Mormon for falsely swearing that he was not a member of an organization that supported bigamy or polygamy.

Justice Stephen Field:

On this hearing, we can only consider whether, these allegations being taken as true, an offense was committed of which the territorial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant. And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.

The term “religion” has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. . . . The First Amendment to the Constitution, in declaring that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. . . . It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.

******

There is no constitutional right to refuse military service on account of one’s religious beliefs. James Madison’s original draft of the Bill of Rights provided: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”^[1] Madison’s proposal to protect the rights of conscience was not adopted by Congress when  it approved what ultimately became the First Amendment. However, Congress did provide for conscientious objection when it first conscripted soldiers during the Civil War. During the two world wars those who objected to military service on religious grounds were assigned to alternative citizen service in the US. During the Vietnam War, applications for conscientious objector status escalated, and some of the applicants professed beliefs that were not part of religions. Did belief in a personal moral code suffice as a basis for alternative service?

Justice Tom Clark:

These cases involve claims of conscientious objectors under § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(j) (1958 ed.), which exempts from combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States those persons who, by reason of their religious training and belief, are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. The cases were consolidated for argument, and we consider them together although each involves different facts and circumstances. The parties raise the basic question of the constitutionality of the section which defines the term “religious training and belief,” as used in the Act, as “an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.”

The constitutional attack is launched under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and is twofold: (1) the section does not exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors; and (2) it discriminates between different forms of religious expression in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

. . . We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression “Supreme Being,” rather than the designation “God,” was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that, under this construction, the test of belief “in a relation to a Supreme Being” is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders, we cannot say that one is “in a relation to a Supreme Being” and the other is not. . . .

No. 50: Seeger was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of New York of having refused to submit to induction in the armed forces. . . .  Although he did not adopt verbatim the printed Selective Service System form, he declared that he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of his “religious” belief; that he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, “rather than answer ‘yes’ or `no'”; that his “skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God” did “not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever”; that his was a “belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed.”  He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity “without belief in God, except in the remotest sense.” His belief was found to be sincere, honest, and made in good faith, and his conscientious objection to be based upon individual training and belief, both of which included research in religious and cultural fields. Seeger’s claim, however, was denied solely because it was not based upon a “belief in a relation to a Supreme Being” as required by § 6(j) of the Act. At trial, Seeger’s counsel admitted that Seeger’s belief was not in relation to a Supreme Being as commonly understood, but contended that he was entitled to the exemption because, “under the present law, Mr. Seeger’s position would also include definitions of religion which have been stated more recently,” and could be “accommodated” under the definition of religious training and belief in the Act. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Being requirement of the section distinguished “between internally derived and externally compelled beliefs,” and was therefore an “impermissible classification” under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

No. 51: Jakobson was also convicted in the Southern District of New York on a charge of refusing to submit to induction. On his appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that rejection of his claim may have rested on the factual finding, erroneously made, that he did not believe in a Supreme Being, as required by § 6(j). Jakobson was originally classified 1-A in 1953, and intermittently enjoyed a student classification until 1956. It was not until April, 1958, that he made claim to noncombatant classification (1-A-O) as a conscientious objector. He stated on the Selective Service System form that he believed in a “Supreme Being” who was “Creator of Man” in the sense of being “ultimately responsible for the existence of” man, and who was “the Supreme Reality” of which “the existence of man is the result.” He explained that his religious and social thinking had developed after much meditation and thought. He had concluded that man must be “partly spiritual,” and, therefore, “partly akin to the Supreme Reality,” and that his “most important religious law” was that “no man ought ever to wilfully sacrifice another man’s life as a means to any other end. . . .” In December, 1958, he requested a 1-O classification, since he felt that participation in any form of military service would involve him in “too many situations and relationships that would be a strain on [his] conscience that [he felt he] must avoid.” He submitted a long memorandum of “notes on religion” in which he defined religion as the “sum and essence of one’s basic attitudes to the fundamental problems of human existence”; he said that he believed in “Godness,” which was “the Ultimate Cause for the fact of the Being of the Universe”; that to deny its existence would but deny the existence of the universe, because “anything that Is, has an Ultimate Cause for its Being.” There was a relationship to Godness, he stated, in two directions, i.e., “vertically, towards Godness directly,” and “horizontally, towards Godness through Mankind and the World.” He accepted the latter one. The Board classified him 1-A-O, and Jakobson appealed. The hearing officer found that the claim was based upon a personal moral code, and that he was not sincere in his claim. The Appeal Board classified him 1-A. It did not indicate upon what ground it based its decision, i.e., insincerity or a conclusion that his belief was only a personal moral code. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that his claim came within the requirements of § 6(j). Because it could not determine whether the Appeal Board had found that Jakobson’s beliefs failed to come within the statutory definition, or whether it had concluded that he lacked sincerity, it directed dismissal of the indictment.

No. 29: Forest Britt Peter was convicted in the Northern District of California on a charge of refusing to submit to induction. In his Selective Service System form, he stated that he was not a member of a religious sect or organization; he failed to execute section VII of the questionnaire, but attached to it a quotation expressing opposition to war, in which he stated that he concurred. In a later form, he hedged the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being by saying that it depended on the definition, and he appended a statement that he felt it a violation of his moral code to take human life, and that he considered this belief superior to his obligation to the state. As to whether his conviction was religious, he quoted with approval Reverend John Haynes Holmes’ definition of religion as “the consciousness of some power manifest in nature which helps man in the ordering of his life in harmony with its demands . . . ; [it] is the supreme expression of human nature; it is man thinking his highest, feeling his deepest, and living his best.” The source of his conviction he attributed to reading and meditation “in our democratic American culture, with its values derived from the western religious and philosophical tradition.” As to his belief in a Supreme Being, Peter stated that he supposed “you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. These just do not happen to be the words I use.” In 1959, he was classified 1-A, although there was no evidence in the record that he was not sincere in his beliefs. After his conviction for failure to report for induction the Court of Appeals, assuming arguendo that he was sincere, affirmed.

Chief Justice Hughes, in his opinion in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. 605, 633 (1931), enunciated the rationale behind the long recognition of conscientious objection to participation in war accorded by Congress in our various conscription laws when he declared that, “in the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the state has always been maintained.” In a similar vein, Harlan Fiske Stone, later Chief Justice, drew from the Nation’s past when he declared that “both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. . . .”

In adopting the 1940 Selective Training and Service Act, Congress broadened the exemption afforded in the 1917 Act by making it unnecessary to belong to a pacifist religious sect if the claimant’s own opposition to war was based on “religious training and belief.” 54 Stat. 889. Those found to be within the exemption were not inducted into the armed services, but were assigned to noncombatant service under the supervision of the Selective Service System. The Congress recognized that one might be religious without belonging to an organized church just as surely as minority members of a faith not opposed to war might, through religious reading, reach a conviction against participation in war. Indeed, the consensus of the witnesses appearing before the congressional committees was that individual belief–rather than membership in a church or sect–determined the duties that God imposed upon a person in his everyday conduct, and that “there is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God.”  Thus, while shifting the test from membership in such a church to one’s individual belief, the Congress nevertheless continued its historic practice of excusing from armed service those who believed that they owed an obligation, superior to that due the state, of not participating in war in any form.

Between 1940 and 1948, two courts of appeals held that the phrase “religious training and belief” did not include philosophical, social or political policy. Then, in 1948, the Congress amended the language of the statute and declared that “religious training and belief” was to be defined as “an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.”. . .

The crux of the problem lies in the phrase “religious training and belief,” which Congress has defined as “belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.” In assigning meaning to this statutory language, we may narrow the inquiry by noting briefly those scruples expressly excepted from the definition. The section excludes those persons who, disavowing religious belief, decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations that war is wrong and that they will have no part of it. These judgments have historically been reserved for the Government, and, in matters which can be said to fall within these areas, the conviction of the individual has never been permitted to override that of the state.  The statute further excludes those whose opposition to war stems from a “merely personal moral code,” a phrase to which we shall have occasion to turn later in discussing the application of § 6(j) to these cases. . . .

Our question, therefore, is the narrow one: does the term “Supreme Being,” as used in § 6(j), mean the orthodox God or the broader concept of a power or being, or a faith, “to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent”? Webster’s New International Dictionary (Second Edition). In considering this question, we resolve it solely in relation to the language of § 6(j), and not otherwise.

Few would quarrel, we think, with the proposition that in no field of human endeavor has the tool of language proved so inadequate in the communication of ideas as it has in dealing with the fundamental questions of man’s predicament in life, in death, or in final judgment and retribution. This fact makes the task of discerning the intent of Congress in using the phrase “Supreme Being” a complex one. Nor is it made the easier by the richness and variety of spiritual life in our country. Over 250 sects inhabit our land. Some believe in a purely personal God, some in a supernatural deity; others think of religion as a way of life envisioning, as its ultimate goal, the day when all men can live together in perfect understanding and peace. There are those who think of God as the depth of our being; others, such as the Buddhists, strive for a state of lasting rest through self-denial and inner purification; in Hindu philosophy, the Supreme Being is the transcendental reality which is truth, knowledge and bliss. . . . This vast panoply of beliefs reveals the magnitude of the problem which faced the Congress when it set about providing an exemption from armed service. It also emphasizes the care that Congress realized was necessary in the fashioning of an exemption which would be in keeping with its long established policy of not picking and choosing among religious beliefs.

In spite of the elusive nature of the inquiry, we are not without certain guidelines. In amending the 1940 Act, Congress adopted almost intact the language of Chief Justice Hughes in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. at 633-634: “The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.” By comparing the statutory definition with those words, however, it becomes readily apparent that the Congress deliberately broaden them by substituting the phrase “Supreme Being” for the appellation “God.” And, in so doing, it is also significant that Congress did not elaborate on the form or nature of this higher authority which it chose to designate as “Supreme Being.” By so refraining, it must have had in mind the admonitions of the Chief Justice when he said in the same opinion that even the word “God” had myriad meanings for men of faith: “[P]utting aside dogmas with their particular conceptions of deity, freedom of conscience itself implies respect for an innate conviction of paramount duty. The battle for religious liberty has been fought and won with respect to religious beliefs and practices, which are not in conflict with good order, upon the very ground of the supremacy of conscience within its proper field.” Id. at 634. . . .

Under the 1940 Act, it was necessary only to have a conviction based upon religious training and belief; we believe that is all that is required here. Within that phrase would come all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. The test might be stated in these words: a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs, exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord with the well established congressional policy of equal treatment for those whose opposition to service is grounded in their religious tenets. . . .

In Seeger, No. 50, the Court of Appeals failed to find sufficient “externally compelled beliefs.” However, it did find that “it would seem impossible to say with assurance that [Seeger] is not bowing to ‘external commands’ in virtually the same sense as is the objector who defers to the will of a supernatural power.” It found little distinction between Jakobson’s devotion to a mystical force of “Godness” and Seeger’s compulsion to “goodness.” Of course, as we have said, the statute does not distinguish between externally and internally derived beliefs. Such a determination would, as the Court of Appeals observed, prove impossible as a practical matter, and we have found that Congress intended no such distinction.

The Court of Appeals also found that there was no question of the applicant’s sincerity. . . . In summary, Seeger professed “religious belief” and “religious faith.” He did not disavow any belief “in a relation to a Supreme Being”; indeed, he stated that “the cosmic order does, perhaps, suggest a creative intelligence.” He decried the tremendous “spiritual” price man must pay for his willingness to destroy human life. In light of his beliefs and the unquestioned sincerity with which he held them, we think the Board, had it applied the test we propose today, would have granted him the exemption. We think it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the Quakers. . . . It may be that Seeger did not clearly demonstrate what his beliefs were with regard to the usual understanding of the term “Supreme Being.” But, as we have said, Congress did not intend that to be the test. We therefore affirm the judgment in No. 50.

In Jakobson, No. 51, the Court of Appeals found that the registrant demonstrated that his belief as to opposition to war was related to a Supreme Being. We agree, and affirm that judgment.

We reach a like conclusion in No. 29. It will be remembered that Peter acknowledged “some power manifest in nature . . . the supreme expression” that helps man in ordering his life. As to whether he would call that belief in a Supreme Being, he replied, “you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. These just do not happen to be the words I use.” We think that, under the test we establish here, the Board would grant the exemption to Peter, and we therefore reverse the judgment in No. 29.

******

After this decision, Congress amended the exemption statute to remove the words “in relation to a Supreme Being.” But what about conscientious objectors whose beliefs were based on “political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code”? While Congress had excluded these justifications in 1948, did Seeger mean that the exclusion of those who objected for such reasons would violate the Establishment Clause?

The Court had more difficulty answering this question when it arose in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), five years later. Although the Court held that Elliot Welsh III was entitled to conscientious objector status, a majority of justices could not agree on why he was exempt. A plurality of four led by Justice Hugo Black agreed that a person who believes he is morally compelled to abstain from combat has beliefs that are sufficiently “religious” to qualify for the exemption. Black wrote, “If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content, but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual ‘a place parallel to that filled by . . . God’ in traditionally religious persons. Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a ‘religious’ conscientious objector exemption under § 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to war from traditional religious convictions.”

******

In addition to the requirement that religious beliefs be based on a moral duty, the Court has also required that they be sincerely held. This is illustrated by a case involving a mail fraud prosecution of three family members who were alleged to have solicited contributions by making false statements. Can a court determine the truth or falsehood of religious beliefs? Or does the Establishment Clause prohibit it from doing so?

Justice William O. Douglas:

[W]e do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents’ religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course, as the United States seems to concede. “The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.” Watson v. Jones, 80 U. S. 728. The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only “forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship,” but also “safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303.

“Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts–freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” Id. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U. S. 624. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom.

The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man’s relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased, and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. . . . As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 342: “With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents. . . .

******

Although courts may not evaluate the substantive validity of a person’s religious beliefs, can they take into account the fact that the religion a person belongs to does not mandate the beliefs that person claims? In other words, if a person claims that working a certain job would violate his conscience, can his claim be countered by testimony that his religion does not require that he abstain from working such a job? Or would that mean that a person could not claim a religious belief that was not shared by others, meaning that his right to practice his religion was dependent on what others believed? This issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1981.

Chief Justice Warren Burger:

We granted certiorari to consider whether the State’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits to the petitioner, a Jehovah’s Witness who terminated his job because his religious beliefs forbade participation in the production of armaments, constituted a violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Thomas terminated his employment in the Blaw-Knox Foundry & Machinery Co. when he was transferred from the roll foundry to a department that produced turrets for military tanks. He claimed his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of war materials. The respondent Review Board denied him unemployment compensation benefits by applying disqualifying provisions of the Indiana Employment Security Act.

Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness, was hired initially to work in the roll foundry at Blaw-Knox. The function of that department was to fabricate sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses. On his application form, he listed his membership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and noted that his hobbies were Bible study and Bible reading. However, he placed no conditions on his employment, and he did not describe his religious tenets in any detail on the form.

Approximately a year later, the roll foundry closed, and Blaw-Knox transferred Thomas to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. On his first day at this new job, Thomas realized that the work he was doing was weapons related. He checked the bulletin board where in-plant openings were listed, and discovered that all of the remaining departments at Blaw-Knox were engaged directly in the production of weapons. Since no transfer to another department would resolve his problem, he asked for a layoff. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that he could not work on weapons without violating the principles of his religion. The record does not show that he was offered any nonweapons work by his employer, or that any such work was available.

Upon leaving Blaw-Knox, Thomas applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act. . . .  When asked at the hearing to explain what kind of work his religious convictions would permit, Thomas said that he would have no difficulty doing the type of work that he had done at the roll foundry. He testified that he could, in good conscience, engage indirectly in the production of materials that might be used ultimately to fabricate arms–for example, as an employee of a raw material supplier or of a roll foundry.

The hearing referee found that Thomas’ religious beliefs specifically precluded him from producing or directly aiding in the manufacture of items used in warfare. He also found that Thomas had terminated his employment because of these religious convictions. . . . The referee concluded nonetheless that Thomas’ termination was not based upon a “good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work,” as required by the Indiana unemployment compensation statute. Accordingly, he was held not entitled to benefits. The Review Board adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions, and affirmed the denial of benefits.

The Indiana Court of Appeals, accepting the finding that Thomas terminated his employment “due to his religious convictions,” reversed the decision of the Review Board. . . . The Supreme Court of Indiana, dividing 3-2, vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, and denied Thomas benefits.  With reference to the Indiana unemployment compensation statute, the court said: “Good cause which justifies voluntary termination must be job-related and objective in character.”. . .

In discussing the petitioner’s free exercise claim, the court stated: “A personal philosophical choice, rather than a religious choice, does not rise to the level of a first amendment claim.”  The court found the basis and the precise nature of Thomas’ belief unclear–but it concluded that the belief was more “personal philosophical choice” than religious belief. Nonetheless, it held that, even assuming that Thomas quit for religious reasons, he would not be entitled to benefits: under Indiana law, a termination motivated by religion is not for “good cause” objectively related to the work. . . .

Only beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion. Sherbert v. Verner. The determination of what is a “religious” belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task, as the division in the Indiana Supreme Court attests.  However, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.

. . . The Indiana Supreme Court . . . concluded that, “although the claimant’s reasons for quitting were described as religious, it was unclear what his belief was, and what the religious basis of his belief was.” In that court’s view, Thomas had made a merely “personal philosophical choice, rather than a religious choice.”

In reaching its conclusion, the Indiana court seems to have placed considerable reliance on the facts that Thomas was “struggling” with his beliefs, and that he was not able to “articulate” his belief precisely. . . . But Thomas’ statements reveal no more than that he found work in the roll foundry sufficiently insulated from producing weapons of war. We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one. Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is “struggling” with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ.

The Indiana court also appears to have given significant weight to the fact that another Jehovah’s Witness had no scruples about working on tank turrets; for that other Witness, at least, such work was “scripturally” acceptable. Intrafaith differences of that kind are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill-equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses. One can, of course, imagine an asserted claim so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause; but that is not the case here, and the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a reljgious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.

The narrow function of a reviewing court in this context is to determine whether there was an appropriate finding that petitioner terminated his work because of an honest conviction that such work was forbidden by his religion. Not surprisingly, the record before the referee and the Review Board was not made with an eye to the microscopic examination often exercised in appellate Judicial review. However, judicial review is confined to the facts as found and conclusions drawn. On this record, it is clear that Thomas terminated his employment for religious reasons.