Saturday, September 24, 2011
On the website of the Bellevue Baptist church, there is a link to another website that endorses candidates that have “stood for strong family values.” The church’s website reads: “Please access the Family Action Council of Tennessee website (www.familyactiontn.org) and click on the Memphis City Council Elections for a list of those councilmen who have stood strong for our values on this issue and are being strongly opposed by the TEP Political Action Committee.” This church based opposition has stemmed from the Tennessee Equality Project’s (TEP) push to replace some of the anti-gay council members with more gay rights-friendly members.
Now, while the church may believe themselves to have found a loophole by not directly endorsing these candidates on their own website, the IRS has warned houses of worship about linking to campaign related sites. This would not have been a problem if they chose to link to a non-partisan site, or if they linked to the sites of all candidates running for office and encouraged their church members to do their own political research. But, because they linked to a site that specifically endorses certain candidates over others, they are in violation of the IRS’s regulations. According these regulations the church, a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt organization, is prohibited from intervening in politics while the Family Action Council of Tennessee (the group that runs the linked website), a 501(C)(4) organization, is allowed to participate in political discourse. This violation could cause the Bellevue Baptist church their tax-exempt status.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author and feel that the IRS should investigate these issues. The political intervention ban was proposed by Sen. Lyndon Johnson and passed by Congress in 1953. Over the years it has only gotten stronger. Most recently, in 1987, congress updated the language to clarify the prohibition of statements from these organizations opposing candidates. However, the law does not prohibit churches from participating in politics entirely. The IRS lays out ways that these types of organizations can promote civic engagement and political awareness, fore example linking to a non-partisan website, encouraging members to do their own political research, etc.
This regulation is a very good measure imposed by the IRS because it tries to keep church authority and governmental authority separate. However, similar to the child-benefit theory, if a church wishes to promote the overall societal good (heightened, unbiased political awareness, etc.) then the government allows for such engagement. The issue comes when a church tries to impose their political beliefs on their members. This problem seems to be an inverse of the incidence where a math teacher tried to display banners related God in his classroom. Whereas he was prohibited from using “his public position as a pulpit from which to preach his own views on the role of God,” the church, too, should be prohibited from using its religious position as a pulpit from which to preach its own views on the role of candidates in government. The separation of church and state is a two way street. If the government is not allowed to establish a religion, then the church should not be allowed to establish a government.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
As the 2012 presidential elections draw near, the pressure is on for the possible candidates. Rallies and tours are in full swing and speeches are being written to appeal to the audiences at hand, even the Christians and Evangelicals. As shown in previous elections, the Evangelical Christian vote is an important crowd to win over, since their approval of a candidate can have a great effect on the votes.
Most recently, Texas governor, Rick Perry, visited Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, the largest Christian University in the world. Liberty was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, a well known evangelical pastor. With a large group of Liberty student as the audience, Perry spoke openly about his Christian faith and the importance of their vote as Christian teenagers and young adults. He also encouraged the students to become involved in the voting process, since the election not only affected their future but the future of the United States. There, Perry also discussed his decision to become a Christian, during his 20's, and openly explained how he “turned to God” after leaving the Air Force. During his closing remarks, Perry reminded the student that God, “doesn’t require perfect people to execute his perfect plan” which can be found numerous times throughout the Bible.
Another candidate using their Christian faith to win over crowds is current President, Barack Obama. Keeping in mind his aspiration of becoming re-elected, Obama most recently quoted both Psalm 46 and Psalm 30 at “secular” 9/11 memorials in NYC and DC.
In 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential race after being welcomed by a Gospel choir. Then, once elected, Obama mentioned “unbelievers” in his inaugural address. During his presidency, Obama was quoted saying, “We are one nation under God, we always have been and always will be” during a televised speech. The president of the United States told the American citizens, on live television, that they were one nation under God.
While these presidential rallies are taking place, where candidates are expressing their religious views, public school teachers are being fired for posting religious banners in their classroom. Does this seem “Constitutional” to you? Just this past week, a public school teacher was forced to take down “religious” posters in his classroom because it could make the students in the classroom feel uncomfortable. But when the President speaks of his religious beliefs on live television he doesn’t make anyone feel uncomfortable?
Why is it that the President of the United States can broadcast a live speech to the American public stating this nation is, “Under God” and a public school teacher cannot wear a cross in the classroom? Better yet, why can a presidential candidate speak to college students about their decision to follow Christ during their 20’s and public school science teachers cannot state that God was possibly the creator of the world?
It is extremely unfair that the President can openly express their religious views in the workplace but a public school teacher cannot. If the government is going to ban religious activity in the public schools, the government officials also need to follow these rules in their workplace.
On September 15th, CNN released an online report which explains how part of our legal entity, the FBI, has stepped into unsafe territory by allowing one of their analysts to give a training which blatantly discriminates and thus violates the rights of Muslims. Though FBI spokesman Christopher M. Allen states that “the instructor who conducted that training block no longer provides training on behalf of the FBI”, the religious discrimination is indisputably there and the likelihood of removing it is quite unlikely. The FBI training for new agents which is being questioned at this point was one which was given by a former FBI analyst whom explained his thoughts and ideologies about Muslims after the September 11th incident in order to better prepare new agents working within the department. The main problem here is that we are talking about a training which was held approximately six months ago. The fact that it went through though it was morally unacceptable, and there was no word about it until recently that an “FBI whistle blower” leaked the information to Wired magazine is completely unacceptable. Some of the statements within the FBI official’s passages are written with the disturbed mentality of one who has become prejudiced due to past events which lead to categorization and judgments of groups and individuals as wholes. Many of the statements expressed put down the religious beliefs of Muslims by stating that they believe that war is needed while peace is something which is temporary and much more. I believe that one of the biggest mistakes which the FBI analyst made was mixing his beliefs about a certain religion, with his job which in this case, constitutes as part of the legal system. Though there was a disclaimer before the slide, which stated this ideology was solely that of the individuals and it did not constitute that of the governments as a whole, the latter is still to blame due to the fact that they did not review the material which would be presented to their employees. If we look back in history, we can date back to the 1800s to find a very common statement which Jefferson made and that is about separation of church and state. Though many people do believe in the prior concept, it seems that some people still do not fully understand it. If religion and state were truly separated, then the state would not really have a say in where and when mosques were built as stated by Zogby. People such as this FBI analyst are wrongfully impacting the minds of people within the state and if he is not reprimanded by the legal system for his discriminatory actions, this will lead to repetitive offenses in similar manners. Though the analyst or FBI may claim that under the 1st amendment, he has the right to freedom of speech, it is also known that an individual has freedom until the point where his inflicts on that of another’s.
Recently, the United States Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz sent out a memo to Air Force leaders regarding religion and their jobs. Just over a month ago, the Air Force suspended an ethics course aimed at nuclear missile officers, which possessed references from the bible. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation discovered the Christian based themes in the documents and brought upon a review of the ethics and character building in the air force. This controversial course has been around for nearly two decades and teaches approximately 150 students per year. The training session included direct, “bible passages and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons”. At the end of the ethics training session, the missile officers were then asked to bind to a legal agreement in which they will follow direct orders to launch a nuclear missile without hesitation if necessary. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation found the use of religion in the training to violate the first amendment as it combined church and state.
In response to the report, the Air Force has removed the materials used in the training session that have religion connotations. In order to fix this dilemma, Schwartz crafted the memo stressing the importance of keeping religious favoritism out of the equation when it comes to the military personnel accomplishing their jobs. There have been instances in the past where, “well-meaning commanders and senior noncommissioned officers appeared to advance a particular religious views among their subordinates”. By indirectly or directly imposing a certain religious view, this affects the subordinates as their ethics can be altered. Schwartz believes if a unit is affected by its leader’s religious views it can degrade, “the unit’s morale, good order and discipline”. This in return hurts military personnel’s ability to dictate orders efficiently.
Especially, in the military, there should ideally be a clear-cut line between church and state. Military personnel are expected to follow orders of their commanders. If leaders start to impose their own religious views onto their subordinates, this creates more complications. Their religion can impose on whether or not they follow the commands of their officers, particularly in regards to launching nuclear missiles. Orders need to be followed through despite of the religion of the individual.
In my opinion, removing the religious aspects from the ethics course for new nuclear missile officers will only benefit them in the future. By linking the religious aspect to the military duties of the personnel complicates an already ethically challenging situation. Regardless of their religious beliefs, these individuals need to follow through on their orders. General Schwartz stresses to commanders to refrain from imposing their religious views on their subordinates, as it will only make things easier for everyone. Under the first amendment everyone has the right to freedom of religion. Included in the ethics course are numerous references to the New and Old Testament, which then violates these rights as it imposes certain religious beliefs on these individuals. By removing the religious aspects from the military training, it will be more beneficial for everyone.
Recently, with many states legalizing same-sex marriage, Americans have seen many similar conflicts arise. Most of these conflicts bring up the constitutional claim that we the people have the right to exercise our religious beliefs freely. In the past, the Supreme Court has stated that “freedom of belief is absolute, but freedom to act cannot be.” For this to be a case of discrimination, it would have to violate the state of Illinois’ Human Rights Act, which protects people that are discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. This then brings up a battle with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which essentially protects religious freedoms from intrusion by the government. As we have often mentioned in class, this opens up a can of worms, or creates a slippery slope, because claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act beats the Human Rights Act is also claiming that people are allowed to discriminate based on religious convictions.
Personally, I feel that both of the Bed and Breakfasts should be allowed to deny the same-sex couple of their establishment for use of a same-sex wedding. Of course, this would have to be true for every same-sex couple. Once an exemption is made, then there would be discrimination. The reasons for my opinion align with strict separationist arguments, that practicing your religion of choice should be unhindered by the government. There is certainly a great deal of grey area here because I do not believe that a religious group or religious people should be allowed to do whatever they want. Here, the owners of the Bed and Breakfasts did not agree with same-sex marriage due to their religious beliefs, so I feel that they should be allowed to deny the couple’s request. The couple could easily find another place that would support their wedding. Also, most Bed and Breakfasts double as the owners’ homes. Don’t we have the right to disallow people we don’t want in our homes from entering them? This makes the issue even easier to decipher for me because had this been a public location, I would have much more trouble backing up the owners of the establishment.
This case reminds me of the situation of door to door promoters. If any religious group comes up to your door, you have the right to not listen to them and to not let them into your home. This can be for any reason, including religious beliefs. Since the Bed and Breakfast is private property, I feel that constitutionally the owners have the right to allow or disallow service to whomever they please.
Click to View Article
Bradley Johnson, a high school calculus teacher and faculty sponsor of the Westview High School Christian Club sued the Poway Unified School District alleging it violated his right to free speech by requiring him to remove banners emphasizing God from his classroom. The banners, which measured seven feet wide by two feet high, stated in large block type “IN GOD WE TRUST,” “ONE NATION UNDER GOD,” “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” “GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE,” and “All men are created equal, they are endowed by their CREATOR.” While Johnson viewed the banners as his way of “celebrating religious heritage in America,” Westview High School Principal Dawn Kastner and other teachers saw the banners as promoting a religious viewpoint that could potentially make students who didn’t share that same viewpoint feel uncomfortable. Kastner suggested that the passages contained on the banners be displayed within their historical context, such as displaying the complete Declaration of Independence or the full Pledge of Allegiance. She also suggested Johnson reduce the size of the banners, but the teacher refused telling Kastner that he had displayed the banners since 1982 and that he considered it his “right to have them up.” Johnson removed the banners and shortly thereafter filed a lawsuit against the school district in federal district court, claiming his first and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated.
Johnson argued that other teachers in the school district were allowed to hang various posters and displays that, in his opinion, were religious in nature, such as Tibetan prayer flags, a Dalai Lama poster, and a Mahatma Gandhi poster. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor finding the school district had impermissibly limited Johnson’s speech and ordered the District not to interfere Johnson’s future display.
The school board appealed the decision, and on September 13, 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling. The appeals court said that unlike Johnson’s banners, which offered a clear religious message, the Dalai Lama poster, Tibetan prayer flags, and other classroom posters did not endorse any religious beliefs. According to Appeals court Judge Richard Tallman, “One would need to be remarkably unperceptive to see the [posted] statements… as organized and displayed by Johnson and not understand them to convey a religious message.” The court’s ruling also hinged on its finding that as a high school calculus teacher Johnson speaks “not as an individual, but as a public employee.” “The Constitution,” it said, “does not permit him to speak as freely at work in his role as a teacher about his views on God, our Nation’s history or God’s role in our Nation’s history as he might on a sidewalk, in a park, at his dinner table or in countless other locations.”
Johnson plans to appeal the ruling, saying he will take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, no matter the cost.
Law and Religion come into constant conflict over the question of what can and cannot be displayed in public school classrooms. I agree with the Appellate court ruling against Bradley Johnson. While his banners portray common phrases that most, if not all of his students would recognize, the size and overall message of these banners conflict with what should be a secular classroom. Certainly they have no connection to the subject of calculus or other mathematic classes. Clearly the fact that Johnson is the sponsor of the Christian club shows that Johnson has strong ties to Christianity and that the true intent of displaying the banners in his classroom was to emphasize and impose his beliefs on all students who matriculated through his classroom. The fact he refused Kastner’s alternative options belies his ulterior motive for hanging the banners. The options offered to him – hanging a poster of the complete Pledge of Allegiance or hanging smaller posters was a fair and equitable response to the situation. The fact Johnson chose to remove the banners completely and take the matter to court proves the banners were of particular religious importance to Johnson and were not a way to celebrate American heritage, like he originally stated. As the 9th Circuit so aptly pointed out, as a teacher, Johnson is not speaking as an individual but as a public employee. He is expected to be a voice of neutrality within his classroom and therefore should focus more on displaying posters of mathematical equations, leaving his religious views to the confines of the Christian club, not his calculus classroom.
