Religion & American Law

From the fear of receiving a roundhouse kick to the face, when Chuck Norris speaks, I’d usually listen. However, this all changed for me in the summer of 2009. Why? On June 10, 2009 Chuck Norris publicly endorsed a few candidates seeking the gubernatorial elections from Ohio, Iowa, and most importantly for this case, Alabama. Chuck’s pick: Judge Roy Moore.

For those who may not recognize his name, Roy Moore gained legendary status when he placed a two ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments inside his state courtroom as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, and then refused to remove it. With his refusal, the Judiciary Court of Alabama unanimously chose to remove Moore from this post as Chief Justice, and with that the monument was removed as well.

Despite the fact that this trial was back in 2003, it is impossible to talk about Judge Roy Moore without talking about this controversy. So naturally, as Moore is now in a tight race for the upcoming election in Alabama, lots of people are talking about him once again, even Chuck Norris. Norris is quoted as stating, “Roy's resume reads like a 'Who's Who' of American life and justice: from private practice to District Attorney then circuit judge and chief justice…Roy Moore's awesome autobiographical manifesto "So Help Me God!" is a must read for any patriot.”

Throughout the countless interviews and debates surrounding his Ten Commandments controversy, Moore always maintained that he had the right to “publicly acknowledge God.” This statement was, and still is, Moore’s entire basis for standing by his monument. However, the problem is not Judge Moore’s personal religious beliefs, or his personal right to acknowledge God, but can the State acknowledge God? In Federal Court Judge Myron Thompson’s final opinion in the trial he states, “While the Chief Justice is free to keep whatever religious belief he chooses the State may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom.”

On his 2010 campaign website, Moore states that the statement made by Judge Thompson was “unlawful and “contradicted not only the Constitution of the United States but every State Constitution to include that of Alabama which acknowledges the existence of God.” I’m not completely positive, but I believe the Constitution of Alabama does this; however, I’m almost certain that the US Constitution does not. So who has the final say, the federal courts? Or the state judge?

This controversy brings many issues and questions to mind, however Judge Thompson hit the nail on the head. Can the State publicly acknowledge God? Why does Judge Roy Moore feel that he has the authority, indeed the right, to do so in a State courtroom? But the more pressing matter is perhaps that up until 2 weeks ago, Moore was the front runner in the polls and continues to hang right around the top. Many Alabamians, myself included, are worried that if the “Ten Commandments Judge” wins the election and becomes the governor of Alabama, what does that entail for those citizens of Alabama who side with Judge Thompson?

If we allow public religious displays in governmental buildings and courtrooms, does this mean we are endorsing a particular set of beliefs? And that those who do not adhere will be punished perhaps more harshly than those that do?

The lesson here, don’t always listen to Chuck Norris!

Recently, controversy has emerged following a new policy instituting full body scanners in airports all over the country. Among the various protestors, Muslim-American groups have begun to support a “fatwa” or religious ruling that forbids Muslims from going through body scanners at airports. According to many Muslims, having to pass through these fully revealing body scanners is a violation of Islamic rules on modesty. “It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women…Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith.” The Fiqh Council of North America, an Islamic scholars board, has said that they fully support those Muslims that do not feel comfortable going through body scanners, and suggests that they request pat downs instead. The decision to install these scanners throughout Airports in the US stems from a recent attempted terrorist attack by a Muslim suspect onboard a Detroit bound flight, the day after Christmas. Many feel that upgraded security measures, such as the body scanners, could deter future terrorist attacks and prevent the loss of American lives. However, policies like these are never as easy to enact as anticipated due to backlash from multiple civil rights groups. From here the logical question becomes; is forcing individuals with conflicting religious beliefs to pass through body scanners at airports, for the sake of national security, a violation of the first amendment? To beat around the bush and circumvent the true issue at stake would not being doing Americans any good; that is to say, while it may seem as though Muslims are at the root of a majority of terrorist attacks and implementing this security measure might indeed save hundreds if not thousands of lives, from a purely constitutional point of view, I cannot support forcing these body scanners on individuals. The United States, a country founded on freedom and liberty, embodies a nation that does not persecute or forcefully convert those with unique religious beliefs. While enforcing a much needed security measure is by no means persecuting or forcefully converting an individual, one must look at the larger picture. When did surrendering of our freedoms become patriotic? Now more than ever we can see problems in the government’s respect for constitutional rights such as unauthorized use of torture, illegal phone tapping, and warrantless surveillance. Furthermore one could build on this and argue that these body scanners infringe upon the fourth amendment, which guarantees American citizens the right to privacy. The opposition would most probably argue that while body scanners may not be the best solution, their effectiveness and potential to save lives is the most paramount issue. I contest however that forcing religious individuals to engage in something that blatantly ignores their beliefs is a more egregious act than allowing those individuals to abstain from a national security measure. What if tomorrow it was conceived that yarmulkes on flights were a breach of security; then what? While one cannot simply argue from a slippery slope point of view, one doesn’t need to. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If passing through a full body scan violated Christian or Jewish law, wouldn’t many of us have a problem with this new measure?

On February 12, 2010 The Council on American-Islamic Relations ruled that Muslim travelers are exempt from going through airport security scanners due to their religious beliefs. This decision was made in response to a fatwa, or religious ruling, that was made by the Fiqh Council of North America regarding body scanners in airports. The Fiqh Council of North America is an association of Muslims who interpret Islamic law here in North America. According to the fatwa, “it is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women.” This order forbids Muslim travelers from passing through full body scanners in airports because the scans violate religious rules on nudity. It adds, “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it a part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

The body scanners were implemented after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a plane using the explosives he had placed in his underwear this past Christmas. As a result, in The United States there are currently 40 scanners in 19 airports, and by the end of this year, there could be as many as 450 scanners. The Transportation Security Administration said it is “committed to keeping passengers safe and insisted the scanners that show the outlines of a person’s body in graphic detail did not represent an invasion of privacy.”

Thanks to the ruling made by The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims traveling in the United States will have the option of undergoing a pat down search by a security guard, rather than going through the body scanner. This decision "complicates efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim.” It has enraged many people, as they feel it is unfair that Muslims have found a way to excuse themselves from the requirements of the law. In Britain, travelers who refuse to pass through the scanners could be banned from boarding. This is the mindset that most Americans agree with, as they have made obvious through their comments to news stations, websites, and radio shows. A popular response has been, “if Muslims don’t like our policies then they don’t have to fly our planes,” or “no scan, no fly.” But this brings about a constitutional issue, as the 1^st Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion. Should Muslims be allowed to practice and exercise their religion if it goes against a law that is in effect to protect American citizens?

I feel that exempting Muslims from going through airport scanners has the potential of introducing a slippery slope. If they are excused from this, then what happens when Person A comes along and doesn’t feel comfortable having his nude body image exposed on the scanner? If Muslims are given an exemption, he is going to want to know why he doesn’t have the right to have the same exemption, and same with Persons B, C, D, etc. It seems counterproductive to have airport agents giving pat down searches to every traveler who feels offended by the body scanners, especially since pat down searches are not anywhere near as accurate as the body scanners. And what happens when travelers feel violated by the pat down searches?

The purpose of the scanners is to provide a method of ensuring safer flights and more secure air travel, which in today’s world is something that we cannot afford to risk. When it comes to matters of the safety and security of our nation, I think that law trumps religious beliefs, and I agree with those who say “no scan, no fly.”

Here is a video of an interview with the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

This article discusses a controversy caused by a comment made by Lancaster, California Mayor R. Rex Parris during a state of the city address. Parris commented that he was "growing a Christian community,” and planned to "endorse prayer at city meetings, [...], as a way to validate a Christian stance." The Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to the U.S Justice Department arguing that Parris' remark violated the Constitution. Parris did apologize and defended that he made the comment in a speech to Christian ministers at an event he paid for. He argued that "all of us get to express our opinion wherever, [...], including opinions of faith..." The article concludes by noting another California politician, Lancaster Councilwoman Sherry Marquez, criticized for posting anti-Muslim remarks on her Facebook.

Does Mayor Parris have a point in saying he has the right to make his opinions known? Does it matter that the event was personally sponsored? Does such a comment count as violating the Establishment clause of the first amendment?

I strongly believe Mayor Parris' comments were completely inappropriate and that he should be help accountable for them. Politicians are merely people, and I understand that they are likely to base their platforms on their religious beliefs; it's only natural. But, as an American politician you are agreeing to put the Constitution above your religious beliefs, as we are expected to do as American citizens. Mayor Pariss clearly stated his efforts to bring the church into the politics of the state of California. It is irrelevant whom he is addressing or why he is addressing them, he is meant to represent America and its government; which do not support the establishment of one religion over another. I also believe Councilwoman Marquez should suffer consequences for her discriminatory comment. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard when it comes to upholding the Constitution. How are members of a state expected to abide by laws of equality, toleration, and acceptance if those governing it cannot? I am especially surprised to hear such comments come from politicians of California, considering its generally liberal and accepting nature. I would believe such religious politicians could work their beliefs into their campaigns without blatantly offending or favoring a specific religion. Even if Mayor Parris stood for everything I wanted in a leader, I do not think I would be able to vote for him knowing all of his decisions would be based on trying to “Christianify” the state.

If we allow politicians to get away with running their campaigns in a bias way and making comments that violate the Constitution, we are not defending our position to separate church and state. There is a reason we accept this way of government and we cannot allow those within it to break it down.

Across the nation, primarily in the last three years, public school boards have been criticized by both Americans United (AU) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for holding high school commencement in a religious building. Public schools in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have been challenged (and in some cases sued) on a constitutional platform because of what the AU and the ACLU consider to be a blur of church and state. This past week, the AU and the ACLU celebrated the fact that the last of five public schools in the state of Connecticut has agreed to move its graduation ceremony from a church to a secular venue. Articles were posted by both the AU and the ACLU.

The first question I would pose is, are the arguments made by the AU and the ACLU correct? Is holding a public high school graduation ceremony in a church, or any religious venue unconstitutional?

In my opinion, yes, holding public high school graduation in any place of worship is certainly unconstitutional. In these cases, using a church as the venue was based neither on availability nor size accommodation; rather it was simply based on tradition. However, holding commencement in a church is obvious endorsement of one particular religion over another. Public schools are supposed to be a secular place of education and students graduating from these institutions should thus be handed their diploma in a secular setting. Commencement in a church, synagogue, mosque, or any other religiously affiliated space is unconstitutional as well as inappropriate in a society that is multi-cultural and multi-religious. This act violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. These are public, not private or religious, schools and are funded by the government. Hosting high school commencement in a location dedicated to a religious purpose is a blatant blur of church and state. The government is forbidden from establishing any particular religion, secularism is what is constitutional.

There are also perceptible social implications of holding high school commencement in a religious space. How would you feel if you attended a public high school and your graduation was held at a venue steeped in religious symbols and iconography? More specifically, what if you did not follow that particular religion or disagreed with its beliefs and teachings?

Staff attorney with the ACLU of Connecticut put it nicely when he stated, "regardless of intent, when schools host graduation at The First Cathedral, they devalue the faith of students and families in the religious minority." Some students and their families felt "unwelcome" during graduation ceremonies at the church because of the large presence of Christian symbols and iconography. In reference to one of the cases in Wisconsin, Americans United's Executive Director Barry Lynn remarked that "students literally [had] to walk up under a giant cross to get their diplomas." As an individual not of the majority faith, I would certainly have felt uncomfortable in this setting even if the ceremony itself was inherently secular and I knew that the reason for hosting graduation in a church was for practical purposes. I would not expect my public high school to host its graduation at my synagogue simply because it is only two minutes from the high school grounds and is large enough to hold all 210 graduates and their families. Further, I imagine students not of the Jewish faith would likely feel like an outsider in this scenario.

In a lawsuit in New Jersey, a Muslim student sued his public high school for unconstitutionally hosting his graduation in a Baptist church. he was unable to attend his high school graduation because "his religious beliefs prohibit him from entering buildings containing icons of God." In this case, a student who attended a secular, public high school was "forced to choose between honoring [his] education and [his] faith." This is a decision no student should have to make.

Hosting a public high school graduation in a church is clearly blurring the wall between church and state. The AU and the ACLU are correct in their argument that such actions are unconstitutional and definitely not secular. Holding such an event in a place of worship presents a variety of problems for religious minorities as well as other, such as the gay population. However, what if hosting graduation in a church or other religious venue is the most practical, least expensive, chosen by the student body, and/or supported by the majority of students and families in the community? Should exceptions be made or should this be an absolute ruling?

The question of what qualifies as religion has come up under many guises throughout American history. The THC Ministry and its followers are no different. A man from Boulder Colorado was pulled over for an expired license plate and was found to be in possession of marijuana. The police officer was obviously perturbed by this and put Trevor Douglas, 25, under arrest. This has not gone to court yet, but Douglas claims that since he uses the marijuana as a sacrament just like “wine and bread are sacred to Christians” he is protected by the first amendment. However, I have understood that the first amendment does not protect you from things that are in fact illegal. Now the THC Ministry’s website claims that cannabis is the original sacrament to basically all the known religions in the world and that they can provide legal defense for any sincere person over the age of 21. They say that as along as they do not sell the marijuana that it is within their religion. So, many questions are raised here. Can the sacrament of wine and bread and the sacrament of cannabis be compared? To be fair, the THC ministry does need for a sincere practitioner to be over 21, or living independently of parents or have parents written permission) and become ordained. One must get a Home Sanctuary Kit in order to become a full member, that includes legal documents proving that you are a sincere practitioner. It will be interesting how this one plays out. The wine and bread of Protestant Christianity are symbols and in Catholic Christianity have transubstantiated to literally become body and blood. There is no “high” being reached. Cannabis has different effects. On the THC Ministry website there is no procedural directions for how one must use the cannabis in a sincere religious manner. It seems that it is an attempt to make a loophole to be able to smoke pot without being arrested. “We use Cannabis religiously, and you can too” is the tagline of the website. It does not say that you have to give up any other religion. So what happens if a THC Ministry member is a member at a local Baptist church as well? Are you allowed to technically have two religious affiliations? How do we define a person raised by parents of two different faiths? Do they have to pick only one? I do not know the answer to that question. However, it seems fairly easy to obtain a Congregation Kit from the THC Ministry.

“The Congregation Kit combines our Sancturary Kit with the following additions:

• 1 Minister-size bottle of Holy Anointing Oil (Made prayerfully with the ancient and sacred recipe of Exodus 30:23)
• 1 bottle Cognac and Cannabis Tincture (Made prayerfully with Grand Marnier and Chambord, both premium label French cognacs + an organic Hawaiian Cannabis flower bud.)
• 1 bottle Sweet Cannabis Tincture (Non-alcoholic. Made prayerfully from vegetable glycerin + a premium organic Hawaiian Cannabis flower.)
• 12 Practioner Kits

Congregation Kits are available for a donation of $1000. You may pay by personal check, money order, or through Western Union.”

Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military

Religion and the military are two words that do not go hand in hand at times. And in this article it seems that the age old adage still holds true. The premise of the article centers on how Christianity is being used as a tool by the military to help soldier’s combat depression. They even enlisted former Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Terry Bradshaw who explained how he used religion to help with his depression. However, some people feel as though this has gotten out of hand and that the military emphasize less on the restrictions of religion, primarily Christianity.

For example, in 2005 at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs Colorado, a coach decided to put a banner in the locker room labeled “Team Jesus”. While the Air Force has claimed religious neutrality in these situations, complaints still come in about how the situation feels as if religion is being forced onto the cadets. Specialist Dustin Chalker from Fort Detrick, Maryland is a just one plaintiff of many in a federal lawsuit against the military which accuses them of ignoring rules banning mandatory religious practices. While there has been a gain in trying to take religion out of the military; advocates for religion feel that without religion, the military losses a spiritual essence in itself.

The big question this article looks at is basically a religion in the workplace type situation. On one side we have the advocates for religion who believe that they are just practicing their faith and causing no harm. However, the other side views this as an invasion of their personal space causing them to feel uncomfortable within their workplace. Another question this article brings is whether soldier’s feelings are taken into consideration

Once again many soldiers come from different backgrounds and do not practice Christian teachings. However, with most American soldiers practicing Christianity it can feel overwhelming to the minority. This leads many to feel underappreciated and when they try to find their own group within the military they always come up short. Finally, the last broad question that comes into play is the reason for the article i.e. the anti-depression video.

The anti-depression video is a thirty minute film that stars Terry Bradshaw as he explains how religion helped him fight depression. While the video purpose is to combat depression and suicide amongst soldiers it seems to imply that Christianity is the primary driving force to defeat depression. This not only alienates some of the non-Christian soldiers but probably raises their depression in the process.

In terms of my opinion I believe that the military and religion should be kept separate. Just like don’t ask don’t tell, religion should be kept to oneself and their personal deity. In the end, the problem will be pacified and nobody will feel as if one religion is being favored over another.