The recent death of the `` snake-handling '' pastor of a small Pentecostal church in Kentucky has raised an age-old conflict between church and state . Jamie Coots , the pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name in Middlesboro , Kentucky , died after being bitten on his right hand by a rattlesnake during a weekend church service where he was handling rattlesnakes willingly , it seems . It has been reported that the late pastor 's son Cody Coots has continued the snake-handling tradition even after his father 's death . People handle snakes at church for the same reason that people do lots of things : the Bible tells them so . `` And these signs shall follow them that believe ; In my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues ; They shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing , it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick , and they shall recover . '' Mark 16:17-18 . This biblical passage is the genesis of serpent-handling for churches of the Holiness movement and the Pentecostal Church of God . For the faithful , those two verses are the authority for dancing with or passing around poisonous snakes during church services . Moreover , if bitten , they are likely to refuse medical treatment and rely upon God to heal them . There 's just one problem with this Biblical authority . Another authority , known as the Commonwealth of Kentucky . In Kentucky , the practice is illegal . Well , barely . Under the applicable section KRS Â§437.060 , any person who displays , handles or uses a snake in connection with any religious gathering shall be fined $ 50 to 100 . Hardly a capital offense . The Kentucky legislature has sent a message : poisonous snake-handling is marginally illegal -- but not as illegal as drugs or other crimes . The legislature 's assigned penalty appears to fall somewhere between a speeding ticket and an overdue library book . This illegal practice persists so openly that a reality TV show flouts the law by filming a crime in progress . When a network has a series based primarily on filming people breaking the law in your state , it 's fair to say your law has lost some of its bite . Belief Blog : A lethal Appalachian tradition . Ultimately , the issue is whether a state even has authority to regulate a practice that is primarily faith-based . The First Amendment to the United States Constitution declares `` Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . '' The 14th Amendment , in turn , prohibits state legislatures from doing the same . However , equally as formidable is the state 's constitutionally reserved `` police power . '' The name itself is a misnomer ; the power is much more than your local police officer 's ability to make an arrest . The states ' traditional police power is their exclusive authority to regulate the public health , safety and morals of their residents . Kentucky 's authority to outlaw snake-handling derives from this police power . The issue here is whether a state has the power to regulate religious activity ; so the two constitutional authorities meet head-to-head . In Jones v. City of Opelika , the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between freedom of religion and the police power of a state . The court articulated an important but still misunderstood concept about religious freedom : the First Amendment embraces two distinct concepts -- the freedom to believe and the freedom to act . The first is absolute , but the second can not be absolute . This makes sense . Your thoughts alone , without speech or any action , are never criminal , even if of the most prurient , vile nature ( at least for now -- once Apple figures out an app to download your thoughts , they may someday be criminalized ) . Your conduct , on the other hand , can be regulated for the protection of society . While citizens of the United States have an unlimited right to our religious beliefs , our right to act within those beliefs is tempered by a state 's duty to protect its citizens . In Lawson v. Commonwealth , Kentucky 's Supreme Court considered a direct challenge to its snake-handling statute , using the guidance of the Supreme Court in the Jones case . The court held that the state could properly regulate the time , place and manner of religious exercise -- such as passing snakes around at church -- where the regulation is necessary for the safeguarding of the health , good order and comfort of the community . Legally , Kentucky 's interest in protecting its residents outweighs a Kentuckian 's interest in celebrating his religion by handling rattlesnakes . According to the courts , the state can prohibit this practice . But Kentucky still barely criminalizes the practice . Handling poisonous snakes is potentially more dangerous than other regularly prosecuted activities , such as drug use . Ask yourself : Would you rather your child be at a party where someone is passing around a water bong or a water moccasin ? Whatever the reason for not aggressively prosecuting the already-illegal practice , the fact is that it presents a known danger . Kentucky is one of the states that has seen fit to criminalize the practice , and it has the power to do so . Unfortunately , if Kentucky does n't exercise its police power and impose stricter penalties , then the snakes will continue to impose their own punishment , which is often the death penalty .
Death of a Kentucky pastor who handled snakes renews church vs. state issue . The Cevallos : Supreme Court delineated key differences between religious thought , action . Action is always protected by law , but states can regulate action in interest of safety . Cevallos : Federal law provides for only minimal punishment for snake - handling .