Religion & American Law

Under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there is a religious exemption causing quite the controversy. The exemption states that all employers must provide contraception and sterilization as a part of their employees health coverage, unless you are a religious institution opposed to such things as it applies strongly to your religion. This exemption is not solely for churches or other places of worship, but it also applies to religious-based schools and hospitals. Due to the widespread nature of this exemption, it is not solely Catholics that will be affected.

This exemption means that everyone hired to work at a religious based institution, for example a Catholic hospital, can be denied the healthcare benefits of contraception, even though the majority of employees may not share those beliefs or they may even not be Catholic at all. Thus, this exemption may create more unwanted pregnancies and babies. It may also result in more sicknesses, due to women trying to get an abortion cheaply, since their healthcare does not cover it. However, there is also the push for religious-based hospitals to become more secular in their policies, particularly since so few employees at such institutions are Catholic at all. Another aspect to consider is that almost 1/5 of all hospitals in the United States are Catholic. That is a lot of women that will not be allotted affordable birth control by their healthcare provider.

Another reason why this exemption seems so unfair is because the Department of Health and Human Services recently mandated that employers insurance coverage for their employees must include contraceptive services and counseling free of additional cost, unless they are covered under religious exemption. Thus, if every other employee across the country is receiving these benefits, why should some people be denied that right? This is particularly an issue because most of the people hired at Catholic hospitals are hired for a secular purpose and no aspect of their job entails any sort of religiosity. If one’s job does not entail any sort of religious work, then why should their healthcare benefits deny you things because of a religious belief?

There are some highly religious people that are gunning towards an even more inclusive religious exemption. As it is, I believe that this exemption has enough state interest that it should not have been included in the first place. This is one instance of belief vs. action where the state should intervene. Even though these are religious based institutions, they exist for secular purposes. If the institutions serve a secular purpose, than the healthcare offered to their employees should be secular as well.

If an employee does hold those Catholic beliefs, than she does not have to make use of the added healthcare benefits, but don’t take it away from others who do not share those beliefs. I understand religious exemptions for perhaps a church, but I do not believe that religious exemptions should apply to institutions that have secular purposes.

On September 1, 2011, a Christian rapper known as “B-Shoc”(Bryan Edmonds) performed at New Heights Middle School, an under-performing public school in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Following his performance, Christian Chapman, a Christian pastor, was brought on stage and performed an “altar call,” during which he preached and encouraged students to commit their lives Jesus Christ. Video footage was taken and shows that both Edmonds and Chapman were clearly preaching their faith to these students. In the video, Edmonds stated, “Because of this, people in public schools are going to get to know who Jesus Christ is. And that’s what I’m excited about.” Additionally, Chapman preached, “A relationship with Jesus is what you need more importantly than anything else.” Chapman also posted various messages on his twitter page which display his intent to increase the amount of school students “giving their lives to Christ.” This situation immediately received attention from the American Civil Liberties Union as they have launched an investigation alongside the school principal to determine whether or not the concert/assembly was a First-Amendment violation. Click here to view the article, and here to view the video post.

Clearly, there is an evident issue at stake, as an assembly overtly advertising a Christian message was permitted to occur at this public school. Although no law suits have been filed, this demonstration has the potential to head in that direction, especially considering the numerous Supreme Court cases which have occurred in response to prayer and worship in public schools (the author’s refer to a 1985 Supreme Court ruling which overturned prayer in an Alabama school district). Chapman and Edmonds have the right to express their religious beliefs, but holding an assembly in a public school where their views were pressured and encouraged among the student body is extremely controversial. As mentioned by the author, this incident violates the First Amendment as religious neutrality was breached in this assembly.

Although many people (including a student who stated, “They touched the lives of some very important people — our youth. The overall experience was astounding”) saw the event as a positive occurrence, there were numerous implications that Chapman and Edmonds failed to recognize. The fact that the administration could permit a Christian worship service to occur in the school gymnasium during school hours is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The anti-establishment clause has clearly been violated, and Chapman and Edmonds should not have been permitted the right to conduct a worship service this public school setting. They have the freedom to share their beliefs with others, but certainly not at a public school. As indicated by his Twitter posts, Chapman has a clear motive where he has made it his goal to obtain as many converts as possible. Allowing Chapman access to a public school student population is unfairly advantageous for him since his beliefs are unwillingly being inflicted upon a secular crowd in an institution where learning is the primary focus and religious neutrality is demanded (by federal law). Giving Chapman this opportunity is completely unconstitutional. Chapman has every right to express and share his religious beliefs, just not in a public school. Additionally, during this assembly, Chapman performed an “alter call.” This was a visual display where kids were asked to stand up if they chose to commit their lives to Jesus. Unfair pressure was placed on the students who did not want to line up because they chose not to “turn to Jesus.” Again, this is completely unconstitutional and should not have occurred. Before any work can be done to fix the internal academic issues, the school must put some serious effort into fixing the errors they just made. Yes, the message evoked by Chapman and “B-Shoc” may be positive and encouraging to some students, but holding a worship service in a public school is illegal by all means as it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. This type of assembly should never be permitted to occur again in any public school in South Carolina as well as the rest of the nation.

According to religious leaders in Britain, there has been a recent surprising revival of polygamy. This revival stems from an increase of the number of young British Muslims who are taking a second and third wife. A special report by the BBC Asian Network unveiled a report regarding the revival of polygamy based on findings from the Islamic Sharia Council, which provides legal advice and guidance to Muslims. The council admitted that they have had an unusual amount of questions about polygamous marriages, such that recent data has revealed polygamy is among the top ten reasons cited for divorce. Wives claim they cannot tolerate the competition with the other wives.

Within Britain, Polygamy is illegal. However, Muslim men are allowed to have a multitude of wives under Sharia law through a religious ceremony called the nikah. These second, third, and fourth wives are not recognized by British law but are seen as legitimate within certain Muslim communities. Khola Hasan, adviser to the Islamic Sharia council, said it was obvious that polygamy in the younger generations is on the rise and out of 700 applications for divorce in the past year, 43 were cited with polygamy as the reason. Hasan said her research revealed three main reasons for this revival. One deals with the increase in the number of young Muslim men who want to practice a more orthodox form of the religion. These men know that it is illegal to be married to more than one woman but continue to do it anyway. These marriages, however, were noted as having one of the lowest records of succeeding. Hasan proceeded to speak about how the wife usually does not want a divorce and wants her husband to continue supporting the children. Thus instead of living together and fighting, the husband will simply just take on another wife.

A similar case would be seen with Imran Patel, who is a second-generation Pakistani living in Birmingham. He was married by the age of 18 to a woman of his parent’s choice. Seven years later, he fell in love with another woman who was divorced with children. Instead of getting a divorce himself, he decided to marry the second woman. Patel said that while he did not initially tell his first wife, she easily accepted the situation when he told her months later. He claims to love them both and has created a unique schedule to accommodate his life style.

Perminder Khatkar, who was part of the investigation by BBC said there was also concern for wives in these polygamous marriages that are unaware that they have no legal rights. The Muslim Council recommended that those who marry under Sharia law should have a contract stating who is entitled to what. The contract requires the consent of all parties involved and could be challenged in British court.

In my opinion, polygamy should never be tolerated. From a woman’s perspective, it is disrespectful and degrading. How could one man love and treat five women equally and justly? It is not fair to have multiple women tolerating a competitive environment in their own marriage. Financially, the burden of supporting such a large number of people is outstanding. How could a father let one child be sent to college but say no to the next? There seems to be no logical balance for polygamous marriages and usually results in a lose-lose situation.

As we have seen in the case of Reynolds v. US, the law cannot in interfere with religious beliefs but can interfere with the practice of those beliefs. Polygamy can be seen as a political threat and not civilized. Monogamy is crucial to order and social liberty. As with the Reynolds case, the young British Muslim men are aware that polygamy is illegal however continue to marry under Sharia law. These men are committing a crime of bigamy and there is no benefit of this type of marriage to not only the parties involved, especially the woman, but also the government. I do agree, however, with the Muslim council enforcing those who will be wed under Sharia law to create a contract that settles who gets what if there were to be a divorce. Also, the issue of the women being completely unaware that they have no legal rights is unacceptable. Everyone needs to be aware of what they are truly getting themselves into. Overall, it comes down to a simple question; could you see yourself happy in a polygamous marriage?

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that elementary school principals are immune from liability for preventing students from passing out religious-themed items. The Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case, also known as the “Candy Cane” case was originally filed by parents of elementary students after school principals told the children they could not distribute their religious gifts. The students were banned from handing out candy cane pens with religious messages on them, giving out tickets to a religious play, and writing “Merry Christmas” on holiday cards sent to troops overseas. Attached to the pens were little cards titled “Legend of the Candy Cane” and explained the Christian origin of candy canes.

By a 10-6 vote, the Court agreed that principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill deserved qualified immunity from being assessed punitive damages for their actions, reversing a district court's ruling that could have subjected each of the principals to monetary damages.

In the Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case the school principals argued that the First Amendment protection of Free Speech does not extend to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public schools. Government officials, on appeal, claimed that elementary school students are too young to have free speech rights. This case did not just involve two principals and some students; it threatened the basic rights every American is given, regardless of their age. The court ruled on November 29, 2010 that it is clearly established that elementary students have First Amendment rights. Had the court ruled in favor of the principals they “would have literally have stripped away the First Amendment rights of 42 million U.S. school children overnight," Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford (attorney for the parents of the elementary students) notes. "So we're very grateful that the court refused to do that. They said the First Amendment does apply."

Although this case is closed, what is currently under dispute by those involved is the lack of punishment for censoring the elementary student’s right to free speech. By limiting the rights of elementary students, these principals taught such young children that they do not have given rights. Not only did the principal’s actions take away rights, they violated a law and were not punished for it, what kind of message does that send to kids?

The 5th Circuit Judge Fortunato “Pete” Benavides said that “the many cases and the large body of literature on this set of issues' demonstrate a 'lack of adequate guidance,' which is why no federal court of appeals has ever denied qualified immunity to an educator in this area.” Essentially, since there is no precedent for handling teachers who violate students’ rights by trying to keep religion and the state separate, it’s okay to let them get off without any punishment. Also during the trial, the principals claimed that religion in school is a very confusing area. This statement could also set a precedent that any educators who are involved in a similar situation can just claim they don’t understand.

Personally, I believe that the principals should not be immune from liability for preventing elementary students from passing out religious-themed items. They broke a law, now they have to suffer the consequences, which most likely won’t be that detrimental anyway. Although I recognize that these educators were trying to keep religion out of the schools their actions took away elementary students basic rights. In any other free speech case there have been consequences, just because they are educators should not give the principals an exemption. If anything, the court should enforce the law more strictly on the principals because their actions directly affect children. I applaud the actions of the Liberty Institute who are considering appealing the issue of the principal’s immunity, because of the precedent it would set by leaving it unchallenged.

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.