Religion & American Law

            About a year ago, a concerned individual came across a pair of swastika earrings at Bejeweled, a jewelry store in Brooklyn, New York, and proceeded to send a picture of the earrings to a gossip website. As to be expected, the jewelry store quickly came under fire. The storeowner, Young Sook Kim, originally defended her decision to sell the earrings, claiming that the swastika is a symbol in Tibetan Buddhism. Numerous New York politicians responded to her defense with animosity. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer claimed, “…a swastika is not a fashion statement. It is the most hateful symbol in our culture and an insult to any civilized person.” He then proceeded to make underhanded accusations of anti-semiticismon the part of Kim by detailing anti-semitic incidents in Manhattan and Brooklyn. City Councilman Steve Levin called the storeowners actions as “totally outrageous” and claimed “they should be sensitive to what that symbol means to Jews around the world.” However, the most hostility came from State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who called Kim’s defense nauseating and stated “It’s sick. It’s insulting. It’s degrading. The average person, when they see a swastika, they see it as a symbol of hate. End of story.” City Councilman Steve Levin then decided to visit Bejeweled to inquire about the earrings at which point, the owner agreed to stop selling he earrings. Levin then reiterated his former statement, claiming, “We have to be sensitive to what each other has gone through.” Unfortunately, I think the irony is lost on Levin.

Bejewled Jewelry Store

            Growing up in a western civilization, I too feel discomfort when I see the swastika, and I am sure that to many, the swastika evokes feelings of horror that I will never understand. However, that being said, the United States Constitution guarantees a right to freedom of religion, something that was threatened when New York politicians bullied a storeowner into removing a symbol of her religion from her store. The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated numerous times in the past that it is willing to protect minority religions, even when in doing so, they cause discomfort to the majority. For example, in Church of Babalu v. Hialeah (1993), practitioners of a religion called Santeria, which practiced ritualistic animal sacrifice, wished to establish a place of worship in the city of Hialeah. The idea of a Santeria church in Hialeah caused great discomfort to many members of Hialeah, and the city council proceeded to outlaw animal sacrifice. The Supreme Court decided that outlawing of animal sacrifice was not religiously neutral and ruled it unconstitutional, protecting the minority at the expense of the majority’s comfort. In another case, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), three Jehovah’s Witnesses were soliciting in New Haven, asking people on the street if they could play a phonograph record for them. The phonograph record included an attack on Catholicism, and as the area where they were soliciting in was highly Catholic, the record offended some people who were solicited. The Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested for soliciting without a permit, but the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction, claiming that the Jehovah’s Witness’ actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments. These two Supreme Court cases demonstrate that there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, but not a constitutional guarantee of freedom from being offended, even if the offense is understandable to “any civilized person.”

            There are those who claim that it is impossible to rehabilitate the swastika after what has happened in World War II. While this is an argument I understand, it is often irrelevant, because for some people, the swastika does not need to be rehabilitated. The swastika is still used widely in other parts of the world, and for people from these parts, the swastika still has its original meaning. Another argument is that the swastika is often still used as a symbol of hatred and anti-semitism in the United States. While this is true, it is fortunately usually easy to see when the swastika is being used as a symbol of hate rather than a religious symbol by looking at the context. I therefore can find no state interest that is compelling enough to justify burdening Kim’s free exercise of religion.

Young Sook Kim was therefore denied her right to freedom of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when she was bullied, insulted, and coerced into removing an item bearing a symbol of her religion from her store. Levin was correct in saying that we need to be sensitive in what others have been through. However, this includes being sensitive to those of a minority religion that views the swastika positively, and is forced to deal with the polarized opinion of a western civilization.