Student Rights and the First Amendment | 551 lute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” That is, government cannot regulate religious belief and can only regulate religious conduct, a notion that was upheld in Thomas v Review Board (1981) The legal framework established by the Court and Congress involves six elements for evaluating the suitability of the regulation of conduct that is claimed to be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment First, the regulation must constitute state action The reason for this requirement is that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, the U.S Constitution protects us only from the action of some branch of government Although there may be other federal and state laws that apply to the actions of private institutions, a claim under the First Amendment requires that the student show that there is a legally relevant relationship between either federal, state, or local government and the challenged regulation, so that the regulation may be treated as an act of the state itself For example, a requirement to vivisect or dissect imposed by a state university would constitute state action The same requirement imposed by a private school, even one that receives state money, may not qualify as a state action, depending on the relationship of the private institution to the government Second, the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion protects only religious or spiritual beliefs and does not protect bare ethical beliefs It is important to understand, however, that the Supreme Court has held quite clearly that the religious belief need not be theistic or based on faith in a God or Supreme Being, and that the claimant need not be a member of an organized religion So, for example, a person who accepts reverence for life as a spiritual belief, but who does not believe in God per se, would qualify for First Amendment protection Finally, it is not necessary that the belief be recognized as legitimate by others who claim to be adherents of a religious or spiritual doctrine So, for example, it is not relevant to a claim that the killing of animals is contrary to Christian belief that others who identify themselves as Christians feel that animals have no rights and should not be the subject of moral concern Third, the student who asserts a First Amendment right must be sincere If, for example, a student objects to vivisection on the ground that it violates the student’s belief in the sanctity of all life, the fact that the student eats meat, wears leather, and trains fighting dogs for a hobby may indicate that the student’s asserted concern for the sanctity of all life is insincere and should not be protected Fourth, the state action must actually burden the religious belief This requirement is not usually a problem in the context of student rights to oppose animal exploitation, because in most cases the state is conditioning the receipt of a benefit, that is, an education, on the performance of an act, that is, vivisection or dissection, that is proscribed by the student’s religious belief system Fifth, once it is determined that the state is placing a burden on a sincerelyheld religious or spiritual belief, then the state may have the burden to prove that the regulation serves a compelling state interest That is, the state must prove that there is a very important reason for the regulation In the last decade, the U.S Supreme Court has stated that if a law is neutral and of general applicability, the state does not have to justify it by a compelling state interest even if the law