How the Mother Vs Tennessee judge Ballew hinges on the first amendment and religious freedom in the United States

The mother Vs Ballew case is a case that needs analysis from the religious perspective. The case is amongst the ones that have required the intervention of the first amendment to the United States. Bills and amendments have obviously been analyzed and critiqued for efficiency improvements with equity as the main targets, this is because of instances that might challenge the made laws. The mother Vs Ballew case challenges the amendment; the amendment is used for referral purposes when making an analysis on the instance. The first amendment could very much favor Ann Ballew through the decision she made. Ballew’s act in her line of duty was considered as unconstitutional by the child’s parents and other legal officials. However, Ballew in her defense claimed that the name (in her religion) refers to Jesus Christ.

As an individual who strongly upheld her religious stand, Ballew might have overreacted. The instance shows a clear bias of religion by Ballew. In her course of duty as a legal performer, the judge took a religious stand while attending to legislative matters. The issue of religious practices and beliefs needs to be handled by the court in the United States in such a way that, as much freedom as possible is allowed for religion. Freedom of worship is now a right that is spread out across all the countries in the world. The First Amendment offers the protection of religious freedom, it embraces the free exercise of religion and protects the citizens practicing religion from government intervention, and this means that officials appointed to the government should also not intervene while majoring in favoring a religion as they serve office (Lauren.

In 1971, the United States came up with a bill that protects religious freedom and practice, the amendment statuses: ‘Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ (US Courts. In the statement, the establishment clause is the first part of the amendment. However, the context of the matter does not favor her as much. Through the free exercise clause, the state legal requirements have not enabled an appointee to the public office to declare his/her belief in God or a religious stand in the line of duty. This infringes the ‘freedom to believe’ thus making the Tennessee disqualification case at a compromise from Ballew’s angle of view. Making a judgment is sensitive, and therefore, there must be legal evidence to the decisive claims of an appointee to a legal public office.

Ballew might have ordered Messiah’s parents to change the name of the child without taking a look at the religious freedom laws that would be against her. But here, the fact that the Ballew’s disqualification, does not mention the statement of a person’s belief, but on Ballew’s decision to pursue a religious vocation that was directed by her belief. In order to attain equity for the citizens, the rights of both parties in a legal disagreement must be considered. The discussion of a solution model should consider a number of arguments and the law of the region let alone the United States federal law. The method should reflect the concept that there need to be extra arguments in terms of rights that could favor either side.

There are a number of classified states in the United States of America that recognise additional religious restrictions or freedoms. The situation here, therefore, requires assessment from as many angles as possible, and in the literature review, the best possible angles have been mentioned. From there we can deduce that both sides have a chance and a right to argue in their defense. The right to practice religion goes against the restriction to allow religion infringe legal matters. Ballew in practicing religion went ahead and drew an order to change the name of a child, using the court’s authority to do so. This should create enough basis for the conclusion I am about to draw. However, the practice of religion is backed up by the first amendment so therefore, the actions that were taken to reprimand Ballew went way too far.