Religion & American Law

In this article about the starvation of a boy, a "christian" cult goes to trial.



In early 2007 or late 2006 The leader of the cult '1 Mind Ministry' ordered the followers to disallow a child to eat until the child said amen before he ate.

According to the cults belief system, this was completely ethical. What is interesting is that they are being persecuted for their values and decisions based on religious convictions. Regardless of the first amendment right which values individual religious beliefs.

The US government is pushing its ethical system on this cult. Why should the cult follow the ethics set by the governing power? Are these ethics based on the ethics of a certain religion? If so, is this really freedom of religion?

These are all questions that have been asked, answered, re-asked, and re-answered. It seems as if there is no set judgment as to what is or is not allowed when religion is involved.

The case is becoming old, but the trial is just starting. The mom, who pled guilty to child abuse resulting in death. She plans on testifying against the leaders of the cult whom she says, ' are the real criminals'. The defendants in the case hold that there ways are truth and that they are not guilty quoting, "The truth shall set you free"

Regardless of our own ethical beliefs, should we limit the rights of religious groups when their rituals contradict basic human understanding of right and wrong? What is interesting is that if the cult were to convince a majority that this was an acceptable punishment for the action, then this would be a common understanding of truth. As with the Mayans, when human sacrifice became a culturally accepted necessity. Or, with the Germans and genecide of un-clean peoples that "ruined" society. These could be considered cults as well.

Yes, they were persecuted for their actions. Let us think about this though, America has 'gotten away with' many things that common ethical beliefs would shun. Two well known instances are African American civil rights and slavery, and also the near eradication of Native Americans and their cultures.

These were not religious movements, but they were still based of common ethical values set by religious beliefs and fear of 'death'. Fear of a higher power than ones own self, like death and God, can move a person to do irrational and even 'unethical' actions.

Overall question is, What is right and what is wrong? Who are we to decide?

In November 2009, Joseph Reyes, the defiant ex-husband of Rebecca Reyes, baptized their three-year-old daughter into the Catholic Church without the mother's knowledge. During the beginning period of their marriage, Rebecca argues that Joseph promised to raise their daughter in the Jewish faith. Upon finding out that the daughter had been baptized in the Catholic Church, Rebecca decided to take the insubordinate father to court. On February 16, 2010, the Chicago Tribune published this article "Divorcing Couple War Over Child's Religion" in which explains the proceedings of the above story.
Surprisingly once the case ended up in the courts Judge Edward Jordan, of the Cook County Circuit Court, made the decsion to temporarily restrain Joseph from allowing the child to attend any religious services other than those of the Jewish faith. Joseph Reyes, who is attending John Marshall Law School, with cameras and a television news crew, defied the orders and took his child to a Catholic Mass.
With contempt allegations now on the table, Joseph Reyes acquired Joel Brodsky, of the Drew Peterson case, who than argued that "every parent has a right to take their child to their place of worship as long as it is not a harm to the child." Rebecca Reyes' side argued that since the child attends a Jewish pre-school, she would "suffer confusion to her emotional detriment" with the simultaneous attendance in the Catholic and Jewish faith. Her lawyers argued that Joseph's actions were "malicious" and in retaliation to the divorce, specifically since he had previously promised to raise their daughter Jewish even after he himself was converted to Judaism.
In 1776, there was a movement in Virginia for the General Assessment Bill in which would allow tax money to support teachers of the Protestant Church. It was through this battle and others like it in which Madison's and Jefferson's arguments lead to the wording of the First Amendment as it is today. Court case after court case has referred to their words in their deliberations. In fact, the term "wall of separation" quoted from Jefferson was first used in jurisprudence of the Reynolds v. United States case, which was concerned with the Mormons and polygamy. This case can be seen as one of the first cases in which the courts entered the discussion of what the First Amendment means, from which the courts acknowledged the "wall of separation" except for in those matters which could be harmful to society as a whole, in the case of polygamy.
Reynolds v. United States I feel could be used as an example for the situation of the Reyes couple. What I mean by this is as was deliberated in the Reynolds v. United States case concerning religious rights, two questions come to mind. First, does allowing the three-year-old girl to attend Catholic services with her father cause harm to society? I think the easy answer to that question is it does not. Secondly, is there harm being caused to the daughter? I grant that one could argue for psychological harm, however, as some in the case have stated, like Carlton Marcyan, a divorce specialist, "a three-year-old is not going to know whether she is at a Catholic Church or a synagogue." I also grant that this could be argued; however, the psychological capacity of a three-year-old is very limited. From this I would argue that harm in this specific situation is not a valid argument.
With that said, this leads me into my main point, which is the wall of separation in which Jefferson and Madison were so concerned with. As parents, each have the right to take their child to the place of worship of their choice. Madison argues this is a natural right and can only be dictated by one's own conscience. Thus, despite promises made, both Rebecca and Joseph have the natural right under the above premise to teach their daughter religiously as they see fit, which from the courts deliberations would mean that Judge Edward Jordan decision to bar Joseph from taking his daughter to Mass was not Constitutional. To me, I am actually surprised such a case was even entertained. I grant I am not a lawyer or a judge, but if I were I personally would have never even allowed the case to enter the courts in the first place.

There can be no doubt that the relationship between religion and government has presented a persistent question for Americans throughout our history. The problem has revolved around mutual concerns of influence: that of the government imposing limits upon a religious institution (or institutions) and that of a religious institution (or institutions) manipulating the government for its own ends. A recent article released on Pew Forum (here)concerning the religious views of members of the Millennial generation, those “born after 1980”, who “began to come of age around the year 2000”, raises an interesting question for the future of the separation debate. Does the separation of religion and government remain a problem for a country that is less affiliated with institutionalized religions?

The article, which is based on data from a number of different surveys, states that “Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X…and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults.” While this rise in unaffiliated young adults certainly does not necessarily mean the demise of institutionalized religions, it does point to the possibility of a less religiously affiliated society in America’s near future. For better or worse, people raised within institutionalized religious traditions often base their decisions and actions on the ethical and moral principles taught by these institutions. For unaffiliated people, the question arises of which influences shape their moral/ethical codes.

While some may fear that lack of institutionalized moral education entails a lack of moral discretion, the article shows that this does not seem to be the case with the Millennial generation. The article claims that while Millennials participate less in religious institutions, they “remain fairly traditional in their religious beliefs.” What is of particular interest is Millennials’ view of the relationship between religion and government. The article notes that Millennials are “slightly more supportive…of government efforts to protect morality, as well as somewhat more comfortable with involvement in politics by churches and other houses of worship.” Again, one must wonder: what has informed these religious beliefs?

While it is likely that many members of the Millennial generation were in fact educated within institutional traditions, there is one other influence that should be considered. Millennials constitute the first generation to be significantly influenced by “new media”, a term indicating media and communication that is electronic, digital, computerized or networked. With the emergence of new media, access to multi-cultural and multi-religious modes of thought has become more available. It is reasonable to assume that Millennials’ religious and moral beliefs have been influenced, at least in part, by interaction with new media. This might explain why Millennials are more accepting of churches and houses of worship taking part in political issues because increased exposure to multiple religious views and institutions can lead to a more balanced view of these institutions’ power. Millennials seem to hold the view that as long as many different institutions are represented, their involvement in political affairs is of little concern. If this trend of unaffiliated youth continues, it is possible that the debate over separation may take a new direction or fall away completely. However, a new debate may need to be raised.

As I am sure anyone would agree, people informed by different media sources, for instance Fox News vs. the Daily Show (yes, those are comparable news sources), will have very different formative ideas—including religious and moral ideas. If moral, ethical and religious ideas are going to be informed by media sources rather than religious institutions in the future, it seems that a new concern over the separation of media and state is on the rise.

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.”