Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental right enshrined in various legal frameworks, including the First Amendment of the United States (US) Constitution and international human rights instruments. The right to religious expression encompasses not only the freedom to practice and manifest one’s beliefs but also the ability to express religious views in public forums.
However, this right is not absolute, as legal frameworks often place certain restrictions to maintain public order, protect the rights of others, and ensure the secular nature of public institutions. The legal boundaries of religious expression have been extensively debated in courts and legislatures worldwide, leading to significant jurisprudence that seeks to balance individual freedoms with broader societal interests.
The 1960 film ‘Inherit the Wind’ (directed by Stanley Earl Kramer off a play by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee), a dramatisation of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial (The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes), serves as a compelling exploration of the tensions between religious beliefs and legal principles concerning the freedom of thought, speech, and education. The film highlights the conflict between religious fundamentalism and scientific inquiry, raising questions about the extent to which religious doctrines can influence public education. Through its courtroom drama, the film underscores the role of the judiciary in adjudicating matters of religious expression, government neutrality in religious affairs, and academic freedom.
Legal foundations of religious expression
Freedom of religious expression is protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause establishes two key principles: The Establishment Clause, which prevents the Government from favouring one religion over another, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects individuals’ right to practice their religion freely.
Similar protections exist in international law, including Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Sri Lanka, Article 10 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, while Article 14(1)(e) ensures the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching. However, Sri Lanka also maintains constitutional recognition of Buddhism as holding the ‘foremost place’ under Article 9, leading to ongoing debates about the balance between religious freedom and the state’s role in religious affairs.
Religious expression vs. Public interest
The Scopes Trial, which inspired ‘Inherit the Wind’, centred on whether public school teacher John Thomas Scopes, violated Tennessee's Butler (named after Tennessee House of Representatives Member John Washington Butler) Act (The long title of the Act reads: “An Act prohibiting the teaching of the evolution theory in all the universities, and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof”) by teaching evolution. The trial became a battleground between religious fundamentalism and academic freedom. The film portrays this conflict through the courtroom drama between a character representing religious traditionalism, Matthew Harrison Brady, and one who embodies the defence of intellectual freedom, Henry Drummond.
From a legal standpoint, the case highlights the tension between religious expression and public education. While individuals have the right to religious expression, public institutions – such as schools – are bound by the Establishment Clause to maintain religious neutrality.
In later landmark cases like Susan Epperson and Others vs. Arkansas (1968), the US Supreme Court (SC) (Associate Justice Abraham Fortas writing for the majority including Chief Justice [CJ] Earl Warren with concurrences from Associate Justices Hugo Lafayette Black, John Marshall Harlan the IInd and Potter Stewart) ruled that laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause, reaffirming that public education must remain free from religious imposition.
In the Sri Lankan context, religious expression in public education is a significant issue. While the state provides for religious instruction in schools, the dominance of Buddhism in state policy sometimes raises concerns about religious equity. The Human Rights Committee, in Sister Immaculate Joseph and 80 Teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka vs. Sri Lanka, Committee on Civil and Political Rights/C/85/D/1249/2004 (18 November 2005), examined the compatibility of Sri Lanka’s educational policies with international human rights obligations, particularly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee raised concerns about the preferential treatment of Buddhism in public education and the impact this had on religious minorities, emphasising the need for equal access to religious instruction for all communities.
Furthermore, the state's role in funding and administering religious education has led to tensions, with some religious minority groups arguing that public resources disproportionately support Buddhist institutions while other religious traditions receive limited or no state assistance. In response, the Sri Lankan Government has introduced measures to allow religious minorities to establish and manage their own educational institutions. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding the allocation of resources and the broader issue of whether state-sponsored religious instruction should be neutral or inclusive of all faiths.
Contemporary legal implications
The legal issues raised in ‘Inherit the Wind’ remain relevant today. Debates over the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public schools continue, with courts consistently ruling that such teachings constitute an endorsement of religion. In Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, and Others vs. Don Aguillard and Others (1987), the US SC (Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Junior writing for the majority with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joining in all but Part II, with concurrences from Associate Justices Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. [joined by O'Connor] and Byron Raymond White [in judgement], and a dissent from Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia [with CJ William Hubbs Rehnquist joining]) struck down a Louisiana law requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution, holding that it lacked a clear secular purpose.
Beyond education, broader issues of religious expression persist in the legal discourse, such as the rights of employees to religious accommodations, the limits of religious expression in government settings, and conflicts between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws. Cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Limited., and Others vs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Others (2018) (Associate Justice Anthony Mcleod Kennedy writing for the majority including CJ John Glover Roberts Jr., with concurrences from Associate Justices Elena Kagen [joined by Stephen Gerald Breyer], Neil McGill Gorsuch [joined by Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.] and Clarence Thomas [in part and in judgement] {joined by Gorsuch}, and a dissent by Associate Justice Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg [joined by Associate Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor]) illustrate how courts navigate these complex intersections of religious freedom and public policy.
In Sri Lanka, religious expression intersects with legal and political issues, including places of worship, religious attire, and proselytisation. Disputes over religious conversions and the construction of places of worship have led to legal challenges, often involving constitutional interpretations of religious freedoms versus societal tensions. The Sri Lankan legal system has generally upheld the right to religious worship while emphasising the need for maintaining public order and inter-religious harmony.
Conclusion
‘Inherit the Wind’ provides a dramatic yet insightful portrayal of the legal and philosophical conflicts surrounding the freedom of religious expression. While individuals have the right to practice and express their religion, the legal system must balance these rights against public interests, particularly in education and governance.
The legal legacy of the Scopes Trial and the film’s thematic exploration continue to shape contemporary legal debates on religious expression, underscoring the ongoing need for careful judicial interpretation of constitutional and human rights-related principles. In Sri Lanka, the intersection of constitutional guarantees and the privileged status of Buddhism presents unique legal challenges, demonstrating the complexity of ensuring true religious freedom in a diverse society.
(The writer is an attorney and a lecturer of Law at the Colombo University)
……………………………………………………………………………….
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication