AHC: Religion(s) Outlawed In USA

Mormonism was on shaky ground for awhile ...

I think this is probably the best bet. If they hadn't migrated to Utah I think we'd probably have seen several states passing laws that severely limited, if not outright banned Mormonism.

Missouri Executive Order 44. Governor Boggs of Missouri, 1838.
Basically declared open season on Mormons. Leave, or be legally shot on sight.
Technically, it was in force until 1976.

That's about as bad as it's gotten for anyone... and about as bad it could get for anyone; in the US anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'd second TrumanJohnson: If you had a religion small enough you might argue it is actually a sect and does not fall under the first amendment. In the past, government might have taken a closer look at native American practices and forbid the exercise of their 'religion' right out. Alternatively, a religion pretty big in some regions of the world but virtually nonexistent in the US could be banned without anyone raising the question about the first amendment except as a theoretical thought exercise
You might get some challenges from legal scholars, but they could be quickly dismissed because of lack of standing.

So you're two, not enough either.
 
Missouri Executive Order 44. Governor Boggs of Missouri, 1838.
Basically declared open season on Mormons. Leave, or be legally shot on sight.
Technically, it was in force until 1976.

That's about as bad as it's gotten for anyone... and about as bad it could get for anyone; in the US anyway.

If Boggs could talk, nobody would listen so, might as well make a law. Otherwise, those guys have a funny interpretation of the past and the present, but who cares. Having visited them and talk a while, it's easy to make them questionnables. Hey, live and let live, still a good deal. They've been very useful to me, so I granted them !
 
Certain religious practices are already banned in the United States, such as use of illegal drugs for religious purposes. Was upheld by the Supreme Court as well, so your challenge is completed OTL.
 
Another yrain of thought: temporary suppression.

Your AHC: create, using any desired changes to OTL at any point, a United States in which the open practice of one or more religions is either permanently or (more likely) temporarily suppressed, for any desired reason.

Another train of thought: What if a ciity government would forbid church services for 'security reasons' as part of a curfew of sorts during 'times of crisis'. My main inspiration was the Arab Spring where the governments were almost certain that the Friday Prayers in the mosques would be followed by massive protests, so every government had to weigh their options deciding whether to cordon off the main 'revolutionary' mosques would quell the unrests or just inflame them even more.

Could something like this happen in the US? Imagine that in response of the Ferguson shooting and protests the city of Ferguson would suspend church services in its territory under the reasoning that 'mass gatherings, even for the purpose of religion' would fall under the curfew laws? I wonder how many Christian Conservatives would protest and how many would be welcome such a move?

Alternatively, would the march on the bridges of Selma have turned out differently if the city government would have the national guard close all African American churches in the area during the state of emergency? What if instead of outright closing them they would have requisitioned them as depots and lodgings for the out-of-city national guard?

Last thoughts going for extra carma points: If invariably such a case would get to the supreme court, would they be argue that temporarily suspending church services in times of emergency would fall under the First Amendment at all? My personal opinion is that even today this might be a pretty close call. In 1964 there might not even be a question whether this would be legal.
 
Last edited:
Certain religious practices are already banned in the United States, such as use of illegal drugs for religious purposes. Was upheld by the Supreme Court as well, so your challenge is completed OTL.

There still is a difference between having a generally-applicable law (which happens to *also* apply to some practices of some religions) and a law actually outlawing some religion *as such.* The question is whether you could have the latter in the US, and the answer is that while it would be very difficult, Shinto for example was pretty much suppressed during World War II.
 
I'd second the scientology thread: If you had a religion small enough you might argue it is actually a sect and does not fall under the first amendment. In the past, government might have taken a closer look at native American practices and forbid the exercise of their 'religion' right out. May be the FLDS: (A branch of fundamentalist polygamist mormons) could be declared a sect and forbidden because of their adherence to polygamy.


Alternatively, a religion pretty big in some regions of the world but virtually nonexistent in the US could be banned without anyone raising the question about the first amendment except as a theoretical thought exercise. I don't know of any particular religions except the case of Shintoism in 1942 mentioned earlier. May be some African animist religion that is big in Nigeria but in the US is only practiced by may be hundred Nigerian immigrants.

You might get some challenges from legal scholars, but they could be quickly dismissed because of lack of standing.

Religion is defined by a code of practices. In the absence of such, we don't talk about religion but beliefs. Doing so, we don't have to many religions other than the great basics religions. The rest of them are ways to escape income tax.
 
Open practice of the Plains and SW Sun Dance cult was illegal until fairly recently...but this was more because it was associated with violent Native American resistance to westward expansion. There was, of course, a general trend to make the practice of all "primitive, tribal" religions effectively illegal as part of acculturation efforts.

I find it highly unlikely that the US would ban the practice of any "world religion", despite their possible association with foreign enemies in times of war. Specific reference to other world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism by some of the Founders meant they were recognized as "religions". On the other hand, Native American religions were not so recognized, nor was wicca/witchcraft, Voodoo, or other minor sects. Affording them protection under the Bill of Rights is a recent phenomenon.
 
Certain religious practices are already banned in the United States, such as use of illegal drugs for religious purposes. Was upheld by the Supreme Court as well, so your challenge is completed OTL.

Which was then addressed and in effect overturned by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act that legalized Peyote use in the Native American Church.
 
Certain religious practices are already banned in the United States, such as use of illegal drugs for religious purposes. Was upheld by the Supreme Court as well, so your challenge is completed OTL.

One example not involving Native American worship is snake handling. Several states have banned the practice.
If one had bills banning advocation of commission of crimes, in addition to child protection laws which banned certain forms of physical abuse, you could see some small churches banned for such. Ditto religions which advocate racial discrimination.

Another train of thought: What if a ciity government would forbid church services for 'security reasons' as part of a curfew of sorts during 'times of crisis'. My main inspiration was the Arab Spring where the governments were almost certain that the Friday Prayers in the mosques would be followed by massive protests, so every government had to weigh their options deciding whether to cordon off the main 'revolutionary' mosques would quell the unrests or just inflame them even more.

Could something like this happen in the US? Imagine that in response of the Ferguson shooting and protests the city of Ferguson would suspend church services in its territory under the reasoning that 'mass gatherings, even for the purpose of religion' would fall under the curfew laws? I wonder how many Christian Conservatives would protest and how many would be welcome such a move?

Alternatively, would the march on the bridges of Selma have turned out differently if the city government would have the national guard close all African American churches in the area during the state of emergency? What if instead of outright closing them they would have requisitioned them as depots and lodgings for the out-of-city national guard?

Last thoughts going for extra carma points: If invariably such a case would get to the supreme court, would they be argue that temporarily suspending church services in times of emergency would fall under the First Amendment at all? My personal opinion is that even today this might be a pretty close call. In 1964 there might not even be a question whether this would be legal.
OTL, there have been quarantines that did ban worship services, so that might work.
As for the Selma case, it might also fall in violation of the anti-quartering amendment.
 
Top