Religion & American Law

In a recent New York Times op-ed piece entitled “Behind the Burqa,” Sandeep Gopalan questions the French government’s recommendation to ban the burqa. Gopalan believes that recent events in France are trying to send a message to Muslims: “Frenchness” needs to be returned to the streets.

On January 26th, 2010, a French parliamentary commission recommended a partial ban on burqas that would go into effect in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transportation. Women who defied the ban would be denied public services. The government report argues that “’the wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess.'” However, it is estimated that less than two thousand Muslim women wear these head coverings. It is hard to imagine that this small number of women would be capable of challenging the French republic.

I agree with Gopalan when he writes that the proposed ban is a serious invasion of personal liberty. While this liberty can be challenged in cases that may involve crime prevention or security, this issue does not seem to be the case. In a country like France which prides itself on its secular ideals, it is confusing that the government would take the stand that it has in regards to the burqa. The author of the article makes an interesting point as he describes the implications of this ban; like many of the issues that we have discussed, there is a slippery slope in regards to religious liberties. Should turbans, yarmulkes, saris and long skirts also be banned? Would a government ever ban jewelry containing crucifixes? As the Swiss have banned minarets in recent weeks, it is hard to understand why Muslims in particular are under attack.

In my opinion, France has crossed the line in regards to the separation of church and state associated with a secular state. What scares me is that this may become an issue here in the United States. While our government continually tries to stay out of religious affairs, there seems to be many issues that the government does get involved with. I do not believe it is a government’s responsibility to interfere in the practice of religion. If women want to wear a burqa, they should be allowed to, unless it creates a dangerous situation for the individuals or others in the community. The fact that the French government has singled out one specific group, makes it that much harder to understand. As the French government debates whether to pass a law officially banning the burqa, it will be interesting to see how the French people react, as well as if other countries follow in the same direction.

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan walked into one of the military buildings on the army base, Fort Hood, and open fired while yelling “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great” in Arabic). He killed thirteen people and left over a dozen injured. The Fort Hood Shooting shocked the country and was an absolute tragedy but could it have been prevented? Supervisors admitted to being concerned about his extremist views on Islam and his odd behavior. He was currently on a “performance-improvement plan” which was his punishment for giving class presentations on his views of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. He claimed the Iraq War was a war on Islam and that the Islamic law was more powerful than the U.S Constitution. Despite being reprimanded for his views, he continued to give his presentations regularly. Hasan is currently paralyzed from his wounds in a Brooke Army Medical Hospital in San Antonio, Texas where he will remain until his trial.

This article is relevant to our discussions in class because of the religious implications. Hasan made it very clear that he believes his religion is more powerful than the U.S Constitution. Was punishing Hasan for his presentation a violation of the rights granted to him by the first amendment? When is law considered supreme over religion or vice versa?

Legally, Hasan has the right to say what he believes, however, as a soldier he has taken an oath to honor and protect the United States. His strong beliefs of religion over law and his negative opinions about the wars he is directly involved in, made him a direct threat to national security. As with politicians, soldiers should not integrate religion with their professional lives. This does not mean that they cannot practice religion, only that it should not impair their judgment when they are handling or defending matters of the law.

Officials who recognized this behavior should have spoken up but instead were restrained by the military cardinal rule of not turning in “problem soldiers”. As a response to the shootings Defense Department Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Veron Clark stated that his department would “recommend the army and the entire military to focus more on looking internally for potential threats among the troops”. Even though this might seem like the correct action to take after this incident, it can lead to the similar beginning of a third Red Scare but with terrorism instead of communism. There is a potential threat of judgment being based on all soldiers of the Muslim faith and their loyalty towards the country could be called into question. Soldiers of different faiths should not be implicated but rather the obvious extremists who are blatantly acting out.

As we are beginning to see in our discussions in class, there is a fine line between religion and its relationship with the law. This case is similar to the Scott Roeder case with the question of religion or law supremacy. When does law come before religion? I believe that when there is a question of national security or the welfare of a society is threatened, the laws in which everyone agrees to by being a United States citizen should take precedent. It does not matter what religion a person lives by because the law is the one common factor that we all share and agree to live by despite our differences.

On February 17, 2010, NYCLU announced its (partial) victory against government agencies in New York in a settlement connected to Lown v. The Salvation Army, brought to court in 2004. New York agencies have agreed to monitor The Salvation Army “to ensure that it does not impose religion on recipients of its government-funded social services.”

Employees became concerned when The Salvation Army began reorganizing in 2003. In that year, it began to dismantle the procedures separating its religious arm and its social services arm. What might happen if, for example, The Salvation Army, requiring its employees of the social services arm to “identify their church affiliation, the frequency of their church attendance, and to sign an endorsement of The Salvation Army’s mission to ‘preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ,’” began to refuse child-care services or HIV services to recipients because they did not also follow the Army’s evangelical Christianity? After all, 95% of budget for the Social Services for Children (one service offered by The Salvation Army) comes from government funding. If The Salvation Army required that to receive help from the SSC one had to join The Salvation Army church or profess a particular belief or something similar, 95% of the money they would be using to do so would be from the government.

The problem here is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If government money is going to a faith-based service that proselytizes, isn’t the government endorsing that proselytizing? Isn’t the government, then, in some way establishing that religion? The problem is really a matter of degrees. How far away from the government does the government money have to be before its okay to use to further a particular religious belief? We see this argument again and again in public debate. Can government vouchers be used at parochial schools? More recently, can a government-backed healthcare system pay for abortions? For the voucher programs, the money goes to the parents first, but is that enough of a separation? In the case of The Salvation Army, the degree of separation is every smaller. The money goes directly to The Salvation Army. If The Salvation Army uses that money to proselytize, we’re moving into muddy waters.

The government can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” However, time and again, the courts have broadened that understanding. Not only can Congress make no law, no agency in the executive branch can do so. After all, establishment can occur in many ways, including through funding. It only seems appropriate that any agency that operates with money collected from tax-payers, that agency will have to operate with the same restrictions placed on the government.

This article, “How Christian Were the Founders,” examines an issue that has been prevalent in class discussions thus far this semester: the relationship between religion and public schools. Last month the Texas State Board of Education received numerous petitions for changes to be made to the current social-studies curriculum guidelines. Along with such petitions, the members of the state board of education also submitted their own proposed changes to the current curriculum. Members of the Texas State Board of Education, one of the most influential as well as conservative boards in the nation, have put forward a number of new amendments, that all seem to contain the underlying factor of religion. The members of the board, by altering the curriculum, wish to allow Christianity to play a larger role in the instruction of American history. Board members believe that the Framers were Christian men, who in fact intended to make the United States a Christian nation; and that the idea of separation of church and state is a myth. Therefore, they believe that the curriculum should display to students the “truth” concerning the history of the United States; and that the current curriculum ignores and masks the role religion played in the founding and development of the United States. Those opposed to these curriculum changes fear, that due to the influential power of the state board in Texas, that such changes will be made by other states as well, following the lead of Texas.

These changes proposed by the board clearly present several difficult questions that must be addressed. The first question that comes to mind is: Did the Framers actually intend for the United States to be a Christian nation? One might also ask: Does altering the curriculum to focus more on the role played by Christianity in the history of the United States violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Lastly, one might also inquire as to why these particular individuals on the board, who are not in any way avid historians, have the ability to dictate what the “truth” is concerning the history of the United States?

In response to the first question I would say, first and foremost, that it is certainly true that the Framers were Christian men. As to their intentions to make this nation a Christian one I would have to disagree. Religion did play a role in the founding of the United States; and some individuals did argue for some sort of state-support for religion, as was seen in Patrick Henry’s Bill. However, ultimately I believe that the Framers created the religion clauses of the First Amendment to ward against the government encroaching in on religion and vice versa. Although the commonly referred to “wall of separation” is not found in the Constitution this does not mean that the Framers intended for their new nation to be a Christian one. Jefferson was the one who wrote those words and clearly he was aware of the intentions behind the framing of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Also the Framers deliberately left the word ‘God’ out of the Constitution, and instead resorted to the use of more neutral language. If the Framers really meant for the United States to be a Christian nation, then why would they have included the religion clauses at all; and why would they have left the word ‘God’ out of the Constitution entirely?

In regard to the second question, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for public school curriculums to include the role religion has played in history. An examination of the Crusades, the Protestant Reformation etc. would require a textbook to address the role played by religion. So too should U.S. history books include the fact that the Framers were Christian men. The readings, for example, that were done for the first week of class, “The American Experiment in Historical Context,” and “The Colonial Roots of Religious Liberty,” would be acceptable additions to a U.S. history curriculum. These readings simply included the background and evolution that led to the final decision made by the Framers concerning religion. To have a textbook that declares that the intention of the Framers was to create a Christian nation is, however, a violation of the Establishment Clause. This seems to go beyond mere history, to a curriculum that is actively promoting one religion over another.

In response to the last question, it is my opinion that biased, politically motivated, board members should not have the role of determining historical “truth.” In Cantwell v. Connecticut the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting solicitation without a license because the licenses, according to the law, had to be granted based on the opinion of a state authority. It seems that the Texas board, similarly to the law in Cantwell, is using its own subjective opinions to create a public school curriculum without an appeal to an impartial expert.

In summation, I believe that public school curriculums can, and should, include the fact that the Framers were religious men; however, going beyond that, and asserting that the Framers intended to create a Christian nation is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “My attitude is this country was founded by a group of men who were Christians but who didn’t want the government dictating religion, and that’s exactly what McLeroy (member of the board) and his colleagues are trying to do.”

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