I was reading Constitutional Law today in an attempt to find out if secular law and religious law intertwined in some way and I came across this: I thought you might find it interesting:
The example of the conscientious objector remains relevant today and may be used to illustrate the continued proper application of the Free Exercise Clause in the context of modern society. In Thomas v. Review Board,[46] Eddie Thomas, [Page 56] a member of the Jehovah Witnesses who was conscientiously opposed to war on religious grounds, was transferred by his factory employer to the line manufacturing turrets for tanks.[47] When the employer refused to change his duties, he quit and then applied to the state for unemployment compensation benefits.[48] The state denied benefits on the ground that leaving the job because of religious convictions was merely a voluntary termination and not for good cause, a decision that was upheld by the state supreme court.[49] The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in the absence of a compelling government interest, the state may not "condition[] receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or . . . den[y] such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs."[50] The Court prefaced this holding by explaining that "[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion."[51]