Reynolds v. US dealt with polygamy. What principle did the Court affirm?

Reynolds v. US dealt with polygamy. What principle did the Court affirm?

• A. Religious beliefs are fully protected
• B. Religious practices can be regulated even if beliefs are protected
• C. States can ban polygamy
• D. Polygamy is protected for worship but not for practice

Answer: (C)

The main idea is that the First Amendment protects what people believe, but it does not shield actions that violate the law or public duties. In Reynolds v. United States, the Court said that while religious beliefs are protected, the government can regulate religiously motivated conduct that conflicts with social duties or public morals. The polygamy law challenged in Reynolds was upheld because it criminalizes an action, not the belief itself. That makes the best answer the statement that religious practices can be regulated even if beliefs are protected. The other options misstate the balance: beliefs are not protected in a blanket sense against regulation of conduct; the decision does not grant a blanket right for states to ban polygamy (it concerned federal law and the principle of conduct regulation); and it does not carve out a worship-only protection for polygamy.

The main idea is that the First Amendment protects what people believe, but it does not shield actions that violate the law or public duties. In Reynolds v. United States, the Court said that while religious beliefs are protected, the government can regulate religiously motivated conduct that conflicts with social duties or public morals. The polygamy law challenged in Reynolds was upheld because it criminalizes an action, not the belief itself.

That makes the best answer the statement that religious practices can be regulated even if beliefs are protected. The other options misstate the balance: beliefs are not protected in a blanket sense against regulation of conduct; the decision does not grant a blanket right for states to ban polygamy (it concerned federal law and the principle of conduct regulation); and it does not carve out a worship-only protection for polygamy.