Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.
In a nutshell, Reynolds, a polygamist and personal secretary to Brigham Young, argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy.
A unanimous court rejected this defense, instead holding that Congress has a right to enact a law for the general benefit of society (such as prohibiting "plural marriage") providing it is applied to all persons equally without regard to religious affiliation.
It is my understanding the Reynolds case has not been overturned; is frequently cited when someone tries to use religion as a defense for violating statutes (e.g. taking drugs, torturing animals, abusing children, etc.); and is one of the cases the ACLU most wants to see overturned.
You can read the opinion of the court here.
> Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.
Yes, agreed. I know about and understand the ruling. My question to nmh was because nowhere in that ruling do I see anything that says "polygamy is deemed un-Christian and therefore is illegal" (his contention).
Instead, the ruling is devoid of reference to any one religion (save the one whose practice was being targeted (Mormonism)) because the whole point was that the ruling was NOT based on the tenets of a different religion (e.g. Christianity), but rather the general benefit of society, as you correctly stated.