Religion & American Law

After September 11, 2001 many found it difficult to show signs of hope, or optimism after the tragic events that had occurred earlier that day. However, during the removal of what remained of the World Trade buildings on September 13, 2001 one man, Frank Silecchia, found something that would instill faith and hope in many Americans. What he found, was two metal beams twisted into what appeared to be a cross. This cross has remained at Ground Zero for the past ten years, and if everything goes accordingly, is to be relocated in the 9/11 Memorial Museum in the near future. However, the American Atheists organization is protesting the inclusion of this religious symbol stating the necessity for “absolute separation of government and religion”. The organization claims that adding the cross to the museum is a “’repugnant’ attempt to promote religion on public land”.

This cross, has been at Ground Zero for the past ten years. It has been a symbol of hope and faith for many of those who have visited the site, whether or not they see it as a symbol of God’s existence. Now, this organization of atheists is claiming the placement of the cross within the 9/11 Memorial Museum would be unconstitutional and is an uncalled for mixture of religion and state. In their presented case, the American Atheist organization protests the inclusion of the cross unless equal space is provided for Non-Christian memorials within the museum as well.

I believe that the cross should be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. It is not as if it was man-made, but rather was formed naturally amidst such a tragic event. Also, while looking into this topic, I came across many quotes from those who cleaned Ground Zero, saying that they cut mini forms of this cross from the rubble at the site not because they were Christian, but rather because they felt that it gave them a purpose. It is not as if the museum would be favoring Christians, it is that no other religiously affiliated symbol was formed during the fall of the towers. The cross can be seen as a sign from God for those who choose to believe so, but it can also be seen simply as a sign of hope. It has been an important part of Ground Zero for the past ten years and should continue to represent September 11, 2001.

The American Atheist organization has a reasonable claim, but how do you represent your community that prides itself upon believing in nothing? Would all, what they see as, non-religiously affiliated parts of the museum be representing their space? This museum is about what happened on September 11, 2001 not about what people believe to be politically correct and fair to all. This metal cross was formed on September 11^th, making it a part of history. Also, it is not as if you have to walk by the cross in order to enter the museum. If you do not agree with it being a part of the memorial, do not go visit that section. I would think atheists would be more content knowing that they were not forced to see the cross seeing as it will have its own section of the museum, whereas when it is the center of Ground Zero, it is a little more difficult to ignore.

Following the publication of Truthout’s controversial report, the Air Force suspended its war ethics training for new nuclear missile launch officers after concerns by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation were raised by 31 missile launch officers. The mandatory briefing had been taught by military chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for nearly 20 years. The issue at stake here is whether the US Air Force is violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause by citing the Old and New Testament as moral support for warfare in ethics training.

According to David Smith, the Air Force Education Training Command spokesman, the briefing was intended to be within an academic setting which would facilitate discussion. Nevertheless, as presented in a PowerPoint presentation war, exclusively represented through Christian doctrine, is good and righteous. As cited in the PowerPoint slides, St. Augustine’s “Qualifications for Just War” are to “avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order.” Another section of the presentation states that in “Revelation 19:11 Jesus is the mighty warrior,” implying that Jesus himself is a proponent of warfare. These quotations from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament not only are Sparknotes versions of the original texts, but they also impose Christian doctrine on officers in training to be a “disciple of Christ,” a blatant establishment of religion through the federal government.

The Air Force, understandably, wants assurance that officers will be willing to launch nuclear weapons at command, despite the officer’s moral reservations. This raises the fundamental question of whether or not a nuclear weapons officer can ever be ready to fulfill the duties of his or her position, knowing that their action will kill thousands of non-combatants. Though I cannot speak for all the officers present in the ethics debriefing, I know that this training could never prepare me for a job that I would never want to do. One has to ask oneself the question, at that moment, do you believe in the mission?

Through the ethics training, the Air Force was attempting to have officers premeditate their decision. However, by presenting religious iconography which augments the concept of St. Augustine’s “Christian Just War Theory,” in addition to quoted scripture within the training slides, officers were mandatorily subject to an establishment of Christian theology as inexorably linked with the decision to partake in nuclear warfare. Moreover, the Air Force education training assumes that all officers need Christian justification for their service. Directly following the PowerPoint presentation, missile officers in-training, signed a legal document which stated that they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) if commanded by the President of the United States. Since the officers signed the legal document after exposure to Christian theology, as interpreted by an Air Force chaplain, arguably, this document violates the no religious test mandate of the Constitution which states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to….public Trust under the United States” (Article VI, Section 3). Yet, the boundaries of the military are not necessarily clear due to bureaucratic institutions so is this training a violation of the 1st Amendment since it is funded by federal tax dollars? Despite one’s answer to this question, I am sure that all can agree that religious teaching within the military creates a dangerous precedent which may enervate the establishment clause in general.

Rye Playland is typically an amusement park full of fun and excitement, but when a group of Muslim visitors were not allowed on some rides due to their religious head garb (hijabs), the day turned violent and angry with 15 arrests and 2 felony assault charges.

A group of Muslim visitors came to the park as a celebration marking the end of Eid al-Fitr. However, their celebration was cut short when some employees would not allow some women to ride some of the attractions unless they agreed to take off their head dress. When the women became upset at this rule, the men that accompanied them quickly started a brawl with the employees, claiming religious discrimination.

However, if the visitors had looked at the amusement parks rules, they would have seen that no one, regardless of religious affiliation, could wear any sort of hat or headpiece while on the rides. This rule is in place for specific safety reasons. An important aspect of this argument is that the women were never asked to take off their hijabs while walking through the park, and it was only when their head dresses could potentially be a risk to other visitors that they were asked not to wear them. Also, it should be known that there was a sign not only at the entrance of the park itself, but also online and next to every ride. The rule as posted online states, "Hats must be secured, and jackets/sweaters must be worn properly and not around the waist while on a ride. Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind."

I believe that the minute that something becomes potentially dangerous to others, it is the amusement park’s responsibility to take away as many of these potential risks as possible. Asking these women to take off their head dresses before getting on some rides has absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination, as similar requests would have been made of anyone wearing such a head piece, no matter their religious affiliation.

The Muslim group claimed that they were not told about this rule, however, the park insists that it was made explicitly clear to the groups organizer. Westchester County Parks Deputy Commissioner Peter Tartaglia claims that the park even set up a refund booth for anyone who might object to the policy on head gear. Instead of lashing out at the park employees simply trying to do their jobs, they should have tried talking to a supervisor in a more acceptable way. Violence is certainly not the answer.

I believe that the group of Muslim visitors should have taken a step back, so that they could understand the safety concerns of their head dress, instead of taking such a personal approach. Rye Playland was not discriminating against any religion, but rather they were trying to keep themselves from having any unnecessary liabilities. It is also my belief that the group of visitors were given ample opportunity to assess whether they wanted to stay at the park. If they feel like they were not given enough information beforehand, then perhaps they should look internally at their groups organizer, instead of lashing out against the amusement park itself.

In this situation, there was a clear disconnect between the park and this group of visitors. Perhaps the park employees should have made sure that the head gear rule was relayed to the group as they entered the park, instead of relying on the groups organizer. However, it is my belief that there was absolutely no reason for this group to act out in such a way. They should have assessed the situation and realized that no one was trying to inhibit their religious freedom, but rather, they were protecting the safety of all visitors, including themselves.

The Bell County school administration has recently ended the tradition of having a minister lead prayer before the public high school football games due to an objection from a group that endorses the separation of church and state. This past Friday was the school’s first home game where “People were kind of jolted when we did the National Anthem and then kicked off”, as said by Bell County Superintendent George Thompson. Kentucky, heavily populated with Christians, has been in the active debate over the separation of church and state. The past disputes between Kentucky and the U.S Supreme Court have been heavily concentrated on the idea of strongly advocating the Ten Commandments in public schools.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison Wisconsin, filed the compliant against Bell County. The Foundation represents the views of non-believers and fights against the promotion of religion through government. Annie Gaylor, the co- president of the foundation, received an email on August fifth regarding the details of the prayers lead before the games. The email read, “ All in attendance are asked to bow their heads and the prayers have Christian overtones.” The anonymous writer found this to be a violation of his or her rights. Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the foundation, sent a letter to Thompson that cited federal court rulings against prayer at school functions. Markert said the prayers at the games represent government endorsement of religion, which is unconstitutional. Thompson looked to fight the demand of ending the prayers, but he was advised that the school system would lose if someone sued them over this issue. The school district has decided to end the prayer and looks to replace it with a moment of silence.

However, after the school’s first game without the prayer, people started to react. Reverend Ray Stepp has led the prayer for almost 20 years and would pray for the safety of the players, protection of the U.S troops and prayed for the people to attend church. Like many other people in the area, he was upset to hear that the tradition was being ended. His wife said, “ It’s sad that one person or two can stop this when there are so many of us wanting this.” The Foundation believed that this issue clearly violates the law and the school is endorsing religion. This group continues to tackle complaints around Kentucky that deal with issues regarding prayers at school-sponsored events.

In my opinion, I strongly disagree with the arguments brought about by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was too extreme of the Foundation to banish the prayer all together. There are alternatives ways in which the school can adjust the prayer to exclude the “overtones” of Christianity. For example, I believe the Reverend could take out the “go to church” section of his prayer. In my eyes, the rest of the prayer is concentrated on the safety of the players and the U.S. troops, which does not endorse religious beliefs. The “support our troops” slogan has been commercialized in our society in the form of bumper stickers, flags, ribbons, etc. thus lessening any sense of religion overtone to the slogan. In my opinion, the prayer is more about gratitude and compassion toward the players and the U.S troops than about religion.

Overall, this is a timely debate especially since many groups are advocating against the pledge of allegiance being recited at sporting events. There is the debate over the “under God” portion of the pledge, where people believe there are strong Catholic connotations. This case being brought about in Bell County shows that even the simplest traditions can be misinterpreted and result in the loss of the feeling of togetherness within community.

The boundary separating a teacher’s right to express his or her religious beliefs while not offending students in the classroom is very fragile. Furthermore, a teacher’s actions outside of the classroom can have serious implications with regards to appropriateness of expressing beliefs. Jerry Buell, a teacher employed by Florida public schools, has been recently confronted by this issue, as postings on his Facebook page have gained national attention (click here for full article). Specifically, his posts consisted of anti-gay remarks, as he stated that New York’s legalization of gay marriage made him want to “throw up.” He also compared gay unions to a “cesspool.” Buell pleads his rights to free speech, while other organizations and bloggers, including atheist Hemant Mehta, defend Buell in favor of his First Amendment right. However, this incident led to an investigation regarding Buell’s conduct in the classroom. Buell’s syllabus states (as a warning to students), “I teach God’s truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, ‘cause I ain’t changing!” There are other examples of Buell’s overt displays of his religious and political beliefs, and many of his former students now claim that Buell was known to have made numerous anti-gay comments during class as well as hanging Bible verses with a picture of Jesus Christ above the classroom clock. Buell has deleted his Facebook page and gay right activists seek to determine whether or not Buell has violated the school district official guidelines as well as students’ rights.

What began as a controversial comment made outside of school walls has now escalated to an investigation of Jerry Buell’s conduct within the classroom. Buell’s comments on Facebook, although offending to many, were legal and a demonstration of his beliefs which clearly originate from religious ideals. However, a correlation between these comments and many of Buell’s distinct expressions of beliefs and values in the classroom is evident, which opens the door to the well-known controversial topic regarding a teacher’s ability to express religious beliefs in a classroom setting. Although this issue appears to be a standard topic regarding a teacher’s rights in and out of the classroom, it is complex since it has been suggested that Buell potentially offended many individuals in the process of overtly expressing his beliefs, in and out of the classroom.

This controversy encompasses many issues pertaining to a teacher’s classroom conduct and rights to the First Amendment. While I agree that Buell’s comments on Facebook were rather extreme and offensive, he has the right to express his opinion, especially outside of the classroom. However, as a teacher, I believe there are a certain set of standards one must abide by in or out of the classroom. For example, if a teacher runs into a student outside of the classroom, he or she should behave appropriately and in a professional manner so as to not suggest or present an inappropriate message towards the student. Buell deliberately posted a message on his Facebook knowing anyone, including his students, had access to his page. In my opinion, Buell needed to make a better effort in expressing his opinion in a professional manner. While investigators evaluate Buell’s classroom conduct, there also exists an issue regarding social networking and education. I believe it is necessary for school districts to establish a firm set of guidelines pertaining to teachers’ use of social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. This is necessary since students have access to viewing teacher’s pages. Again, however, any strict guidelines regarding social networking has the potential to violate the First Amendment, as any American citizen has the right to free speech. Additionally, while I agree that Buell should teach his curriculum without Christian bias and be respectful of religions and opinions held by others in his classroom, people must remember that his religion, Christianity, mandates that followers of Jesus Christ must witness and preach Christianity to others. For example, Mark 16:15 states “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” Preventing him from preaching these messages to others would therefore be unconstitutional as this prohibits him from exercising his religious beliefs. This situation is a constant debate and applies to all Christian teachers in this nation. Unfortunately, no one can win, since allowing benefits for one religion would offend another, which is why neutrality in the classroom is necessary and optimal in order to eliminate conflicting religious interests.