Sunday, September 25, 2011
In Norman, Oklahoma Kaye Beach is suing the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety for not allowing her an alternative to a high-resolution biometric photo for her driver’s license. The Department of Public Safety in Oklahoma requires all new drivers’ license photos to be taken with a high-resolution biometric camera and the photo to be stored in a database that can be accessed by international organizations. Beach, a devout Christian, strongly believes that Christians should not participate in any global numbering identification systems and sites passages from the Book of Revelation as her evidence for objecting to having the photo taken.
In March, Beach applied to renew her driver’s licenses and upon learning that biometric photographs were used she sought out the Department of Public Safety and tried to arrange for an accommodation to be made, specifically stating that the reason for her not getting the photograph taken was for religious beliefs. Beach even offered to submit a low-resolution photograph to be used instead of the high-resolution biometric photograph. The Department of Public Safety denied her request for submitting a low-resolution photo and did not offer any other alternatives to her. Beach therefore, does not have a valid driver’s license which means that she is being deprived of common benefits and services such as, being able to obtain prescription medications, rent a hotel room, or use her debit card. Beach claims that by not granting her an exception the state is in violation of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, specifically claiming that having high-resolution biometric photographs does not serve a compelling state interest and therefore, her right to religious freedom is being denied.
The clause of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act that is being challenged is section 51-253 that states, “No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is: essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest”.
I believe that Beach will win this case. By not allowing her to renew her license with anything less than a high-resolution biometric photograph, Beach’s rights are being infringed upon. She sincerely has a religious belief that restricts her from getting a biometric photograph taken and then entered into database that could be accessed internationally. The state should allow her to submit a low-resolution photo to be used for her driver’s license. While I understand the desire of the state to use a high-resolution biometric photograph for drivers’ licenses it should not be the only option. Requiring all drivers’ license photographs to be a high-resolution biometric photograph is not “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest”. So, due to her religious beliefs, Beach does not have a valid driver’s license and consequently, she is being deprived of everyday liberties that many of us take for granted. Therefore, the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is substantially burdening Kaye Beach and is in violation of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act.
In Santa Ana, California, Orange County Superior Court sentenced fifty-six hours of community service and three years of informal probation to ten Muslim students convicted of disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, at the University of California Irvine during his speech about U.S. – Israeli relations. Each man stood up, one by one, and shouted various prepared statements. One such statement included “propagating murder is not an expression of free speech.” Judge Peter J. Wilson claimed that the episode did not merit jail time, and that the probation period had potential to be reduced if the community service was completed by the end of January 2012. The ten students were guilty of two misdemeanors to conspire and then disrupt the ambassador’s speech.
Prosecutors claim that the men interfered with Oren’s right to free speech. Defenders of the students, however, point to another incident of “Islamophobia”. This phobia specifically characterizes those prejudiced, or those who experience hatred against Muslims, or an irrational fear of Islamic culture, particularly after September 11, 2011.
This incident garnered national attention over free-speech rights particularly because the trial centered on conflicting views of who was being censored. Prosecutors posited that Michael Oren’s speech was “shut down” once the students interrupted his talk. It appears that this incident goes beyond free-speech rights. It would have made more sense if the students were convicted of “disrupting the peace.” Typically crimes of this sort are defined as unsettling proper order in a public space through one’s actions by creating loud noises or using offensive words likely to incite violence. The news article gave very few specific details about what each student called out during the speech, but perhaps some of their statements fostered violent behavior. If so, the school dealt with these students correctly.
Certainly this incident calls into question the interpretation of the First Amendment, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Both parties, the ten students and Michael Oren, obtained the right to freedom of speech. I am still unclear though as to what specific law the ten students broke. Undoubtedly it was incredibly rude of them to shout during a public speaking event, but shouldn’t they just have been asked to leave if they were disrupting the presentation? It seems a little excessive to be subject to community service as well as an extended period of probation. Furthermore, this verdict discourages political expression by demonstrating that speaking out will certainly lead to negative consequences. Other Muslim students also potentially feel ostracized and worry they will be treated differently from other students. It is important to note that similar outbursts have occurred during speeches by Israeli officials on other college campuses, yet have not prompted disciplinary actions from either the university or law enforcement officials.
Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council proclaimed, “the heart of America has died today.” Syed refers to the fact that the right to protest and the right to free speech challenge tenets of democracy. This verdict eclipsed both of these rights for all ten Muslim students.
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.
