(See: Letter to Editor)

Most people understand that our Federal Constitution allows people the free exercise of their religious beliefs. In addition, most people understand that Government is precluded from establishing a State-sponsored religion. This is called the "Establishment Provision".

As a general matter, Courts are reluctant to approve any law that precludes people from carrying out their religious beliefs in their homes or in their Churches. But, there are limits. Not every religious activity in Church or at home is protected. On some occasions, the Government has a right to tell you that you may not be able to practice important parts of your religious beliefs.

This was made clear in the recent Federal Appeals Court decision entitled United States v. Raymond Hardman. Mr. Hardman was found guilty of illegally possessing eagle feathers, which he said he required in order to observe his religious beliefs. A lower court upheld the violation and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on August 8, 2001. While this decision concerns the HOPI tribal religious beliefs in Utah, the principles set forth in this decision extend to everyone with religious beliefs.

Mr. Hardman was a practitioner of a Native American religion for many years. He was not a Native American. However, his former wife and two children were Native Americans and enrolled members in a federally recognized tribe.

In 1993, while Mr. Hardman was still married to his now ex-wife, his child's godfather died. The body was transported to Arizona so that the appropriate religious services could be conducted.

Part of the religious custom involved the bundling of prayer feathers that included Golden Eagle feathers. This bundle of feathers was to be maintained with the deceased body as it was transported.

After returning to Utah following the religious services, Mr. Hardman was honest enough to contact the environmental agency in Utah so that he could obtain a permit, which would allow him to possess the feathers. But, Mr. Hardman was told that because he was not a member of a Federally recognized tribe, no permit would be issued to him.

Mr. Hardman separated from his wife, and following this separation, Mr. Hardman's former wife advised Federal officials that he was in possession of the eagle feathers without the required permit. A Federal official visited his house in 1996 and issued a violation notice to him, informing him that he had violated the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act by possessing the feathers without a permit. In 1999, a trial Court upheld the conviction and the Federal Court of Appeals also upheld it. Mr. Hardman was ordered to pay a small fine. But, what was at issue was not the fine, but whether or not the Federal Government violated Hardman's Constitutional rights by ordering that he could not possess the feathers.

Mr. Hardman took the position that these religious beliefs are dear to his heart. However, because he was not personally a member of the Federally recognized tribe, the Court upheld that he could not obtain a permit even though there was no question that his religious beliefs were sincerely held. This is an interesting ruling because the reason that Mr. Hardman could not use the feathers for his religious belief was not because the Government did not recognize his religion, but because Mr. Hardman was not a member of a Federally recognized tribe that in fact practiced that religion. Thus, it was really Mr. Hartman's political affiliations, whether he was a member of the tribe, that determined whether or not he could legally follow his religious beliefs. This was quite a bizarre set of facts and therefore a bizarre ruling.

Of course, there have been other decisions over the years dealing with the ability of people to practice their own religious beliefs in their own homes.

The issue of home schooling has come up in various courts throughout the years, and Courts have reached different conclusions concerning the legality of laws that either attempt to block or in some manner restrict home schooling. Other cases have looked at animal sacrifices at home and have questioned laws precluding such sacrifices, and still other cases have looked at the issue of polygamy, whether a person can be married to more than one spouse and live that way at home.

In the 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. the United States, the Supreme Court held that laws precluding polygamy were valid even though they interfered with the practices of the Mormon religion because such laws were neutral and in general preserved peace and good order.

Thus, the lesson to be learned is that there is a right to the exercise of religious beliefs in the home. The Government cannot establish a formal religion in this country. But, not every religious commandment can be followed. In general, those observances which will interfere with the general order and well- being of society will be subject to scrutiny. There is a line that is drawn; but clearly, it is very difficult to define where this line is. The point remains that most religious expression is allowed in this country. However, everything does not go, even if our religious beliefs suggest otherwise.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.