Religion & American Law

The LGBT population in the United States has seen massive progress in the last 20 years. It is amazing to think that in the 90‘s, homosexuals were not allowed to be open about their sexual orientation while serving in the military because of their presumed sexual promiscuity, and the homophobic fear of making the heterosexuals feel uncomfortable. This trend of sexual discrimination is quickly dying out. Last Friday, the Pentagon issued two memos allowing same sex marriages to be performed on United States’ military bases in states where same sex marriages are legal. These ceremonies can also be performed by military chaplains, but they have the right to refuse if same sex marriage does not conform with their religious views. “The guidance further clarifies chaplains are ‘not required’ to participate in a private ceremony if doing so is contrary to their religious beliefs...such ceremonies doesn’t constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by the Pentagon.” (Michael Key, Washington Blade) The determination of using these facilities will now be made on “a sexual-orientation neutral basis” (Michael Key, Washington Blade). This, along with ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, are major steps toward equal marriage opportunities for the United States’ LGBT population, especially amongst our servicemen and women. The LGBT community is thrilled about the Pentagon’s decision, Aubrey Servis who is the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said, “the guidance ‘strikes the right balance’ between allowing gay service members to marry and the respect for religious beliefs [of the chaplains].” (Michael Key, Washington Blade)

Starting in his election campaigns, President Obama has consistently been a strong Gay rights advocate. The military has a convoluted history with LGBT movements. In 2005 a bill titled The Military Readiness Enhancement Act attempted to amend the DADT policy and execute complete nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but was ultimately rejected by Congress. I feel that DADT is a blatant due process violation because it does not protect the rights of the homosexuals who were dismissed from the military because of their sexual orientation. Also, it clearly invades on their right to freedom of speech, simply because if a heterosexual man or woman is allowed to openly discuss their sexual orientation or even their sexual exploits, why should a homosexual have to hide their preferences? During the waiting period of the DADT repeal there were still several cases of men and women being discharged because of their sexual orientation. I feel that these citizens should have the right to reenlist after being denied their legal rights.

The militaries approval of same sex marriage and elimination of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy are two very positive developments in this popular social issue. However, only six states have passed laws offering same sex marriage thus far. So for homosexuals that want to get married, there is still a long road ahead and a fight that has yet to be won. For now, this is one small step in the right direction for same sex marriage, while still providing a necessary balance. The military chaplain’s maintain their right to refuse participation in the ceremony, while those who serve our country gain the right to get married at a military base.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/30/pentagon-clarifies-rules-allowing-same-sex-weddings/

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/10/military-clears-way-for-same-sex.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2011-09-20/military-gay-ban-repeal/50472964/1

Sunday, October 2,2011 is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, where pastors around the country will speak openly about American politics. These religious leaders are performing this movement so that they may practice their free exercise of religion. With these sermons, the pastors are attempting to bring about religious debates in court against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The group behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday is the Alliance Defense Fund, which is a legal defense group, whose goals are to “keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense of religious freedom, the sactitiy of life, marriage, and the family,” and have been doing so since in 2008. This event sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, is a stand against “government intrusion in the pulpit.” Pastors want to be able to talk to their congregations about issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, and about the political candidates that support their religious beliefs about those topics and other religious sensitive ones like them. Unfortunately, by promoting candidates or opposing candidates in politics these pastors will be breaking the law, which is their clear intent. By doing so, they will be violating the Johnson Amendment, which was approved by Congress in 1954 which says that charities and church can not engage in any political campaign activity. What the alliance and pastors hope to achieve is to prove in court that this amendment is in violation of the First Amendment, and that pastors should be able to speak for or against political candidates.

There have been many secular verse non-secular issues in the United States, and in many cases it seems to be an issue of something government run is not secular enough, like prayer in a public school, but in this case it is something privately run by a religious organization calling for secularity. The pastors feel that their First Amendment rights are being violated because the IRS is dictating what they can and cannot say when it comes to moral and social issue and candidates running for office. Not only is their issue with the amendment, but with consequences of breaking the law. If pastors are investigated and found guilty of promoting or opposing a candidate running for office, their church may lose their tax exemption. These religious leaders feel they are being censored by this unconstitutional law, and are fighting it. Their plan is to tape their sermons and mail the tapes to the IRS to give them clear-cut evidence that they are going against the amendment.

In this particular case, I think that the amendment banning pastors to speak about political issues from their pulpit is unconstitutional. I feel that it is an infringement on their First Amendment rights. They are putting political candidates in a religious perspective for their congregation, and the members of that congregation can agree or disagree with their analysis. It is not as if the pastors are going to the polls with their members and forcing them to pick candidates that agree with their religion’s beliefs.

After reading this article, I remembered reading about how Rick Perry went to visit Liberty University and talked about his religious epiphany as a young man. By relating to the students of the college through his religion, he was attempting to gain votes. If a future presidential candidate can campaign using religion, why can’t the pastors join in?

Vanderbilt University has placed the Christian Legal Society, a university-funded campus group, on probation because the group’s bylaws regarding leadership positions fail to adhere to the University’s non-discrimination policies.

Vanderbilt claims that CLS violates the University policy prohibiting groups to “preclude someone from a leadership position based on religious belief,” according to Vanderbilt’s Director of Religious Life, Rev. Gretchen Person. CLS bylaws provide that chapter officers “subscribe to the Christian Legal Society Statement of Faith.” For Vanderbilt, such a religious requirement by a religious organization discriminates against those who disagree with the group’s core beliefs but may still want to run for office of the group.

A quick look at the Statement of Faith will reveal that it is nothing less than reasonable and that it is highly unlikely for any CLS member – particularly one who wants an officer position – to reject the Statement. The controversial Statement of Faith is basically a truncated version of the Nicene Creed and proclaims one’s belief in the Holy Trinity, in the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary, in His death for our sins, in His resurrection, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in the Bible as the Word of God.

As CLS understands it, chapter leaders are not coerced into any belief set. No one is forcing chapter leaders to believe anything they do not want to, and no one is forcing anyone to run for office. Group membership and holding office are entirely voluntary actions. Furthermore, CLS is not barring some students from running for office. If while in office, someone violates their conditions of officership, it is perfectly fine for the group to file an impeachment of sorts. Any term of employment comes with conditions. It is not the place of a university to dictate what those conditions may be as long as the conditions do not physically harm students.

Furthermore, one of the points of any group is that group members share and further a certain set of core beliefs. To have group leaders who do not ascribe to the group’s beliefs would counter the purpose of having a group. Religious organizations are centered on religious belief, and therefore it is completely reasonable for a religious group to require officers to abide by the beliefs of the group.

While Vanderbilt’s policy that groups should not discriminate against religious beliefs seems sound, the policy may force religious groups to contradict their actual mission statement. Just because secular groups cannot (and should not) discriminate because of religious beliefs, does not mean the same rules should apply to religious organizations. Although this may seem like a double standard, allowing religious groups to require certain religious beliefs in order to hold leadership roles simply recognizes the difference in purpose between religious and secular groups. For a secular group’s message to thrive, the religious views of the leaders are irrelevant. But for a religious group’s message to survive, the religious views of the leader can make all the difference.

Vanderbilt’s placing of religious groups such as CLS on probation violates those groups right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. By dictating who can and cannot lead religious groups, the University inhibits the group’s ability to express their religious beliefs, thus violating the group’s right to free exercise.

Vanderbilt, in seeking to create an environment welcoming to all students, has created an environment hostile toward religious organizations. It is not the religious organizations that should be put on probation and forced to change their bylaws. Rather, Vanderbilt’s policy should be updated to recognize the free exercise rights of religious groups.

On October 5, 2011 the Supreme Court will face one of the most important religious liberties cases it has seen in over decades. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (No. 10-553) addresses the ministerial exception and a religious institutions ability to discriminate against employees. The exception allows organizations to discriminate against ministerial personnel who violate their ideologies. In this case a teacher, Cheryl Perich, was fired after she returned from sick leave for narcolepsy. Even though Ms. Perich claimed to be fully recovered and her condition brought under control with medication, church officials requested she resign. She repeatedly refused and threatened the school with legal action. The church’s teachings state that disputes should be handled internally and not through the legal system. This insubordination led to her dismissal from the school. What the Court is examining is whether or not Ms. Perich’s responsibility were sacred or secular and if she should be included under the exemption.

What is under dispute specifically in the case may appear menial but its effects on the ministerial exemption and liberties of thousand of church employees can be massive. Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC does not serve as the clearest example for the violation of religious liberties, but it serves as an example of discrimination to occur within the workplace. A clearer example of this is would be what if a biology teacher at a religious school admitted to believing in evolution or a janitor in charge of cleaning the sanctuary came out as being homosexual. This ruling could give the church immunity against federal intervention on antidiscrimination laws. According to the Chronicle,

It would leave hundreds of thousands of teachers without the protection from discrimination and retaliation that Congress intended to afford them. They would be "unprotected against retaliatory dismissals" for activities such as reporting health violations or sexual abuse, or fighting for better pay. Nothing in the right of free association—or, indeed, in any right under the Religion Clauses—grants religious organizations such a sweeping exemption from neutral and generally applicable antidiscrimination laws.

I am very interested in seeing the outcome of the courts decision. In my opinion the church was not out of line for firing their employee after she threatened officials with legal action. There are reasons why institutions have policies such as Hosana-Tabor’s dispute process. Legal action brings about negative press to the church, which is why it prefers to deal with matters in house. Ms. Perich clearly violated this rule and her employment was appropriately terminated. What I fear is the free exercise of the church may expand too far. Should religious institutions be able to discriminate against whomever they want undermining the protections offered to employees by a wide variety of federal laws? Should have Reynolds been given the right to multiple wives?

The highly anticipated Broadway show The Book of Mormon opened on March 24^th and has been selling out shows ever since. Before its debut late March, the musical received some negative publicity – with people claiming that the play was “blasphemous” and “boundary pushing.” The play’s masterminds – Trey Parker and Matt Stone – were the reason for most of these accusations. Parker and Stone are the creators of South Park, a popular American animated sitcom often accused of offending various religious practices and beliefs.

After its opening show in March, The Book of Mormon received rave reviews, and did not stir the pot as much as many had anticipated. Rather than viciously mocking the Mormon faith, the musical used subtle and witty humor to take a closer look into the Mormon religion. This, in turn, has furthered conversation about religion, faith and what it means to be religious in society today. According to the show's page on broadway.com:

The Book of Mormon follows two young missionaries who are sent to Uganda to try to convert citizens to the Mormon religion… Upon their arrival in Africa, Elders Price and Cunningham learn that in a society plagued by AIDS, poverty and violence, a successful mission may not be as easy as they expected.

The show humorously assesses the Mormon faith by showing viewers what it’s like to be a Mormon living in society.

In her article for The Huffington Post, Silpa Kovvali assesses the boundary-pushing of The Book of Mormon. After viewing the show, she concludes that although the play does touch on some sensitive religious topics, it does not blatantly cross any serious lines. She said she was “entertained, not insulted” by the boundary-pushing of The Book of Mormon. She believes that the show poses tough questions that require complicated answers, and that there is no holy book “malleable or sophisticated enough” to provide these answers. Kovvali understands that a satirical musical cannot be a primary source for religious truth and understanding. The questions that religious faiths pose are too complex to be answered in a 3 hour musical. That being said, Kovvali appreciates the questions that The Book of Mormon suggests. She says:

How can someone armed solely with his scripture claim to know the best way to earthly salvation? Isn't it cruel in its recklessness to promote the notion that serious problems can be solved through religious belief, which after all can't fill empty stomachs or exterminate the maggots in one's scrotum?

For Kovvali, The Book of Mormon “humanized a religious minority that is often subject to mean-spirited parody and immature, unclever humor…” Instead of blatant name-calling and offensive religious slurs, Trey Parker and Matt Stone cleverly poked fun the Mormon religion, and showed their audience how it can often be tough to strictly abide to a particular faith such and Mormonism.

As we have seen in class, the concept of blasphemy is tricky to deal with from a legal perspective. The potential controversy that surrounded The Book of Mormon before its debut reminds us that religious topics are frequently debated once an issue gets the attention of the public. It also poses many questions involving the Constitution and the ever-evolving relationship that exists between church and state in the United States. Questions for discussion include: 1. Had The Book of Mormon been more blasphemous and offensive, should it have been allowed on Broadway? 2. Where do we draw the line legally with cases involving blasphemy today? Should a line exist at all? 3. Do the victims of blasphemy deserve a say when their faith is directly offended? 4. Should we allow complete freedom of speech regarding blasphemy cases, or should we protect the rights of those offended?

In my opinion, The Book of Mormon has had a positive effect on the often uncomfortable conversation that occurs between people of different faiths. There will always be controversy when people express what they believe in. What Trey Parker and Matt Stone have shown us is that, if done in the right way, we can all express our particular religious preferences without any legal conflict or controversy. Of course, blatant acts of blasphemy should still be reprimanded, but I believe that in order to promote religious freedom and tolerance, there needs to be communication between those of different faiths. The Book of Mormon, in my opinion, provides us with a wonderful way to communicate. The irony around the concept of blasphemy and The Book of Mormon is that three of the most controversial figures in entertainment today have created a show that, rather than being distasteful and offensive, promotes a civilized discussion regarding faith and religion in America, and proves that religion need not be a topic of such controversy in our country today.

A small town in southern Alabama has given local judges a new weapon in the war on crime: religion.

Bay Minette, Ala. has initiated Operation ROC: Restore Our Community; a program in which qualifying first time offenders of non-violent misdemeanors may choose to attend church services once a week for a year instead of going to jail or having to do community service. Under the program, pastors would partner with local law-enforcement by monitoring the attendance of participating offenders; if they complete the program and check-in all 52 weeks, then their case is dismissed. So far, 56 churches in the Bay Minette area have decided to participate in the program.

Supporters of Operation ROC have praised the program for being an alternative to the traditional punitive sentences facing most criminals, giving offenders a better chance to be rehabilitated. As the Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland said, “its not a crime prevention program. It’s a crime intervention program.” He continued by saying “we’re hoping that through this program for the next year, we will take a substantial number who are sentenced and turn them around and let them become productive people in the community.”

Supporters also point to the fact that the program has the potential to save the taxpayers a substantial amount of money. Alabama has a high incarceration rate and faces prison overcrowding. By giving offenders an alternative to jail, the state may avoid incurring the cost of their incarceration (assuming the person in question completes the program).

While it is obvious that this program has nothing but the best of intentions, one must still question its constitutionality. Groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have already criticized the program, claiming it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued a statement that in part says that it is “a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the state cannot coerce citizens to participate in religious practices.” Supporters of the program have countered by arguing that participation in the program is strictly voluntary and that no one can be forced to attend church in lieu of incarceration.

So, the issue at hand here is “does offering a religious alternative to traditional sentences constitute an establishment of religion?” The ACLU says yes, but established legal precedent says no.

The arguments presented against Operation ROC are similar to those presented against Alcoholics Anonymous. For many years, judges would sentence offenders of alcohol-related crimes to mandatory AA meetings for a certain length of time in lieu of sending them to jail. However, several lawsuits were eventually filed due to discomfort felt by the offender in meetings because of the role of religion in AA (for instance, several of the program’s 12 steps mention God). Federal courts have ruled time and time again (or instance, in Griffin v. Coughlin (1997)) that mandatory AA attendance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the overt role of religion in the organization. However, those same courts ruled that presenting AA attendance as an alternative to incarceration and allowing offenders to choose between the two does not constitute an establishment of religion, nor does it constitute, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation put it, “coercion to participate in religious practices.”

So, if participation in Alcoholics Anonymous is an acceptable alternative to incarceration if presented to offenders as part of a choice of possible punishments, why can’t Operation ROC be an acceptable alternative as well? There isn’t really much of a difference between the two: both are religiously oriented rehabilitative programs offered as alternatives to incarceration that offenders have the choice to participate in. If one program is acceptable, the other should be as well.

I thought it was interesting that neither side of the debate addressed the issue of “what if a person’s denomination (or religion as a whole, in the case of Muslims, Jews, etc.) is not represented in the group of participating churches?” If that is the case, the person has a couple options. First, they can choose not to participate in the program if they do not feel comfortable with any of the participating churches. It is after all a voluntary program, both for the offender and for the churches. Just as the court cannot force someone to attend church, it also cannot force a place of worship to participate in the program; both would be unconstitutional. The other option available to the offender is to just do the bare minimum to complete the program. The only stipulation of the program is to attend one of the participating churches once a week for a year; it does not say anything about believing anything you hear while you are there or having to participate in any activities while in attendance. If a person wanted to check-in with the pastor and then take a nap in the back pew every week for a year, they would still satisfy the requirements of the program (although they would be missing the point of participating in it entirely). This isn’t a make it or break it issue, but if this program is ever challenged in court, it will surely be addressed.

There was a Israeli diplomat, Michael Oren, speaking at UC Irivine about Israeli relations. During his speech, 10 Muslim men stood up and spoke; their comments were individual and included “propagating murder is not an expression of free speech”. Their interruptions were choreographed, and speeches preplanned. This event went to court. In Orange County a judge found them guilty of disruption and sentenced them to 56 hours of community service and 3 years of informal probation. The judge said that this situation did not require jail time and the probation could be reduced if executed within the year.



The issue at hand is both free exercise and freedom of speech. Was it right for the judge to convict these individuals for exercising their right to express their religious views? Was this conviction a direct infringement on a person’s right to free speech? For me, this case is more about free speech. Was what they did, rude? Absolutely. But, I do not think that it was unconstitutional. Of course, these Muslims did block Oren’s chance to speak freely. But what they did does not justify a court ruling, let alone finding them guilty. Technically, the court is judging whose free speech trumps whose.

Some have offered their opinions on the matter. An Islamic Shura Council of Southern California commented that this ruling is evidence that islamaphobia is present in Orange County. He argued that this is going to cause a “slippery slope” as a reason for justifying the suppression of freedom of speech and further phobia in the country. I agree with him. This court ruling has likely set the standard. I wonder how the court would have judged if it was an Islamic extremists speaking and Christians stood up and spoke their beliefs. I don’t know if it would have been the same ruling. It is important to keep in mind that this event is occurring post-9/11. Circumstance has much to do with this event.

One aspect of the incident that I wish that I had more information on is what exactly were these individuals saying. If they were making comments that pushed people to think that they were going to harm others or themselves in the near future, they I might argue that this ruling is justified. But, if they were making comments that simply went against the views of Oren and were strictly political, then it’s a different story.

In conclusion, I think that more information needs to be researched as to the specific comments. But, to me, it does seem like the court did actively suppress these Muslims freedom of speech.