Religion & American Law

The Moorish Science Temple of America was founded in 1913 by a man named Timothy Drew, who later proclaimed himself the as Prophet Noble Drew Ali.  The Moorish Science Temple of America is considered a sect of Islam, and is also a compilation of Buddhism, Christianity, Freemansonry, Gnosticism, and Taoism.  It is a divine national movement thats purpose is to teach its people what is necessary to become "better citizens, how to obey the law, and to not use any confusion to over thrown the laws of the said government but to obey herby."  Additionally the Moorish faith teaches its people about their "nationality, the divine creed of Moorish Americans, birthrights, to love instead of hate, and that they are part and partial of the said government and must live the life accordingly."

In an recent NPR transcript, radio host Melissa Block speaks with assistant professor of religious studies, Spencer Dew, at the Centenary College of Louisiana regarding the Moorish Science.  Block starts off the show introducing the Washington Post article regarding Mr. Butler from afore mentioned.  Apparently, Mr. Butler believe that he was not breaking and entering simply because he is a Moorish American, therefore he is a sovereign citizen and is not subject to federal and state laws.  According to Dew, this is part of a growing trend of Moorish Americans- this idea that they are exempt from US law.  One of the majors doctrines in the Moorish Science Temple is the belief that African-Americans are of 'Moorish' decent (specifically from Morocco) so because it is associated with Africa, is is also a religion that is associated with dark-skinned people.  Additionally, it is associated with social respectability and elite status.  Furthermore, Dew claims that the creation of this religious movement at the time was an attempt to trace out a scared history for those that would have otherwise just been considered 'Negros'.     

According to the radio transcript, as of 2013, there is still a growing number of self-described Moorish Americans that continue to claim properties as their own, who additionally interpret national laws however they deem appropriate.  For example, is has been reported that some Moorish Americans have claimed that they do not need a drivers license, license plate, and that they are exempt from paying taxes.  Additionally, Chicago police have reported incidences of Moorish Americans who do not stop at traffic lights, make and use homemade passports, and claim that they have diplomatic immunity.  They claim that "we are Moors, and therefore, we're not American citizens.  We're not subject to your American laws."  Further, a woman in Connecticut claimed that her home was no longer part of the United States because it seceded the Union.  

I found this case to be interesting due to its extra-ordinary nature.  Similar to my first blog post, I think in the case of the Moorish Science Temple of America, the legitimacy of the religion is relevant, in addition, who is privy to religious exemption? Does the legitimacy or popularity of a religion increase the favorability or likelihood of exemption from the law?  For example, the Obama administration made separate accommodations for religious groups regarding their insurance plans, and we have read Supreme Court cases in class that have affirmed religious exemptions.  If exemptions are given by the Federal Government for specific situations and certain religious groups, where is the line drawn?  I personally think that religious exemptions of any kind are a slippery slope, opening the door for a number of different requests, preference of religion over non-religion, or even religion over religion.   Would inhibiting Moorish Americans be a violation of their Free Exercise Clause?  In addition, why shouldn't Moors be granted religious exemption since claiming sovereignty seems to be a component of their religious practice?  

Personally, I think that breaking the law is breaking the law, but this case is difficult to determine what is right and what is wrong do to religious expression.  I know that I do not want to be the person to tell people that they are wrongly expressing their religious beliefs.  Who's to say who is right and who is wrong?  I do think that breaking and entering, fraudulent passports and drivers licenses are a direct violation of the Federal Law, and that they should be penalized for their actions, but I know there is definitely room for interpretation.