Religion & American Law

When Pomona College Student Nicholas George went through airport security in Philadelphia, he wasn’t expecting to end up handcuffed and interrogated by the FBI on suspicion of being a terrorist. Though he was eventually released, the incident brings up a wide variety of issues from free speech to civil rights. What was George’s suspicious activity? Arabic flashcards. Read the full article here.

A student of Arabic at Pomona, George was studying vocabulary. Unfortunately one of the flashcards listed the term “terrorist”, another listed “bomb.” While possibly jarring to the TSA agent who inspected them, as George indicated, the cards were for Media Arabic (newspapers) and these are common terms in both American and Arab media stories. The biggest part of this issue stems from one thought, the TSA agent would never have seen the offending terms if they hadn’t felt the need to search George’s cards, simply because they had Arabic letters on them. While certainly in this hyper sensitive security environment, the presence of Arabic flashcards might indeed trigger a “random search,” but assuming there were no bomb materials or other weapons on his person or in his luggage, George should have been bid a good day. The manner in which this situation escalated is the most legally troubling aspect of this entire incident.

During his FBI interrogation, George was asked if he was a Muslim or if he belonged to any pro-Islamic groups. Oddly the response to this should be, so what if he was? Within the context of this incident are the underlying beliefs that all Muslims are terrorists. What is even more intriguing, is the case this incident makes against the differentiation between religious belief and action. This distinction, as seen in Mormon polygamy decisions from the late 19^th century, is a common interpretation of the free exercise clause. Ultimately you can believe whatever you like, and that is protected by the Constitution, however it does not mean all actions, even those stemming from those beliefs, are likewise protected. You can believe that your religion tells you to go around smacking people with a stick, but you may still get prosecuted for assault if you actually do it. The belief/action relationship is what is at the heart of this case. The TSA and FBI might actually have a footing on free speech grounds if they could establish that the presence of an Arabic flashcard was highly likely to incite panic, but other than this, their real argument is that somehow the possession of Arabic flashcards is either a clear and present danger to the security of the airplane or that a desire to study Arabic presents a necessary and sufficient condition to assume terrorist activity is imminent. More broadly, this incident suggests that suspicion of being a Muslim or holding pro-Islamic or even pro-Arabic sentiment (without any action whatsoever) justifies detention and interrogation – likely without any representation.

From the security flag based solely on language to interrogation stemming from the presence of two words to incarnation based on potential religious or political affiliations, this entire incident is a violation of almost every aspect of the first amendment, purely in the name of fear. Some civil liberties might need to be stretched in the name of security, but when that stretching expands to include thoughts and beliefs without any action, we are in violation of both the law and the very spirit of the civilization that the added security measures are designed to protect.

An issue that has been primarily dominated by the religious groups has taken another direction. This month, mainly in areas of the city with higher black population concentration, a number of billboards had appeared about the abortion issue.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/2050322,CST-NWS-mitch16.article

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/Ga_Billboards_Link_Abortion_Race_021410

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/15/national/main6209401.shtml

Previous discussions against free access to abortions has been between religious groups on one side and groups supporting adult woman’s right to make choices about their lives. The billboards now focus on the fact that the percentage of abortions for black women is higher than the general population would suggest. The promoter of these billboards claims that it is a racist activity that has encourages black women to seek abortions. The claim implies a motive to control the black population. My interest is that the groups may have concluded that race is more important an argument than the religious consideration of the soul of the unborn fetus. I think that they may actually have more impact with this line of thought than with the religious argument.
The race issue is something that has been addresses in many court actions. Race is easier to identify with than a religious faith. Statistics are more readily available as even cited in the linked article. But where are the accepted statistics on the number of souls lost by abortion. There are none because there is no definition that is accepted by both sides of the abortion argument.
The argument now becomes whether the people supporting abortion are actually racially motivated. Without researching specific documentation, I feel their argument will fail when we take list for financial supporters of “Pro Choice” groups and compare that with list for supporters of various racist groups. I propose that there is limited overlap between these groups. I think a strong correlation would be found between groups that have actually fought for racial equality and groups that are ‘Pro Choice.’

Divorce Battle: Dad Faces Jail Time for Taking Daughter to Church - ABC News
What do you guys think about this one? Is there a double-standard here? They hold joint custody, so why does the wife's decisions weigh in more heavily than the husband's?? Things that make you go hhmmm

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.