In the case of Employment Division (Oregon) v. Smith (1990), which related to the firing of employees for the use of a hallucinogenic substance during a religious ceremony, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral, secular laws must be upheld even if they hinder the practice of religion; however, in 2006, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on a hallucinogenic tea because the ban violated American Indians' free exercise of religion in tribal religious ceremonies. What do these two cases demonstrate concerning the protections of the First Amendment and ethnocentric views? What do the cases suggest concerning the extension of the free exercise clause for nonmainstream religions in the United States?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In the case of Employment Division (Oregon) v. Smith (1990), which related to the firing of employees for the use of a hallucinogenic substance during a religious ceremony, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral, secular laws must be upheld even if they hinder the practice of religion; however, in 2006, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on a hallucinogenic tea because the ban violated American Indians' free exercise of religion in tribal religious ceremonies. What do these two cases demonstrate concerning the protections of the First Amendment and ethnocentric views? What do the cases suggest concerning the extension of the free exercise clause for nonmainstream religions in the United States?

In the Case of Employment Division (Oregon) V