How are inter-religious disputes handled in the US and Canada? [closed]

Question

I was reading Why does religion get a special treatment in anti-discrimination laws?. Perhaps religion has a definitive clause somewhere in federal law, no doubt, and indeed religions are prevented from "overruling" each other in these so-called "free countries", but suppose there is a dispute between any two or more religions that begins to break out, perhaps even into incivility and even to the point of civil war between religions for matters other than political advantage (like the war of 1812 vs. the Catholic crusades against invading Mohammedans or taking back the Holy City).

My question is, apart from simply responding with military action when necessary, if there is law against discrimination of religion, and the above case were to happen in either Canada or the USA, or even both for that matter, how would the two governments deal with such a situation?

---

War is only an extreme example of what can come about from differing religious motives, but what about simply breaking the law by the discrimination of one religious group against another in civil matters?

The problem I see is that no one is allowed to discriminate religions, yet religions are at perpetual enmity with each other. How does the government reconcile irreconcilable conflicts like religious disputes in their own country? Would people committing acts of violence (or otherwise breaking the law) in the name of religion simply be tried for other crimes against the state to bypass their own anti-discrimination laws, effectively persecuting religions anyway, or would it be seen as mere civil disruption and hence considered persecuting individuals of the religion, rather than the religion itself?

(Note: any prohibitory law that might usually prevent someone from causing incivility or violence is not going to stop a religious group if they believe they are doing something for the good of their religion; I am looking for answers that specifically address potentially fanatical groups intent on breaking the law to achieve a religious resolution.)

Answer 1

Laws against discrimination don't prevent law enforcement from enforcing secular laws. If someone is breaking laws (like, for example, killing people of other religions) then they're still subject to the repercussions even if their motives are religious.

Answer 2

One important thing to note is the ahistorical premise of this question.

In large part, religious disputes are NOT about religion per se - they are historically most often about disputes between two governments, who use religion as either a casus belli, and/or a motivation to their followers.

This can be traced in almost every single "religious" conflict. The most famous one (30 Year War) was all about power aspirations of various European nobility and governments - its impetus was a dynastic dispute, not doctrinal differences. Crusades were more about plunder and chivalry (as in military prowess, using the term in proper historical context) achievements than religion (thus, anti-Byzantine attacks) - both at the level of governments and individual knights. The only war I can think of that was literally mostly about religion was Mexica empire's conquests, which were driven by the need for more captives to be sacrificed.

As such, secular states like US and Canada are less likely to see such a dispute in the first place, because there are no political/government leaders fighting a war for dominance/power/land/resources in the first place, religion or not.

Answer 3

Preventing violence between religious groups is usually one of the main reasons anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place. When someone commits a violent crime against people of a different religious groups and the motive is clearly a religious conflict, then this would be a prime example for the kind of hate crime the US justice system has particularly hard provisions against.

When one is indicted of a violent crime, then "My faith requires me to murder all heretics and infidels" is usually not a good defense in a court of law, unless they are going for an insanity defense.

Answer 4

Religion has a definitive clause somewhere in federal law.

For the US, a person's rights regarding religion are not enshrined in law but in the Constitution. This is a very important distinction.

Laws are made by Congress (either state or federal), executed by the President (or governor), and any disputes are handled in the courts. Laws may be changed by the majority or Congress and the President may execute laws or not execute laws within the scope of his or her authority. On the other hand, a constitutional right may not be encroached by Congress, the President, or a court.

If a person (or employer, shopkeeper, public official, etc.) does something illegal and claims that he or she must not pay a fine / go to jail / etc. because of his or her religion, then courts must weigh this claim very heavily. They have not always honored such claims, but they do take the claimant's side often enough for people to believe that the personal right to practice any religion may very well be a valid defense.