Monday, January 23, 2012
By now, I think we’ve all noticed how diverse the Mormon community is. Billboards, commercials, even bus signs have been showing the faces of every ethnicity you can think of in an effort to present a new image of the Mormon Church. CNN’s Belief Blog covered the church’s campaign in their article "With 'I'm a Mormon' campaign, church counters lily white image." The article points out that all the billboards and commercials are the result of a marketing strategy of the LDS Church to diversify their public image. “Since January, the LDS Church has spent millions on an ‘I’m a Mormon’ advertising campaign that features television commercials, billboards and bus signs with Mormons from African-American, Asian, Latino and other ethnic backgrounds. Just last month, the campaign entered 11 new major media markets in Texas, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington, Georgia, Arizona hitting cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix.” This campaign is an effort to get rid of the common perception of the Mormon community as one that is predominately white. So what does all this have to do with politics or law for that matter? It matters because the Mormons’ diversity campaign couldn’t have come at a better time for GOP primary candidates Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, both of which are Mormon. While the Mormon Church claims to be avoiding politics by not advertising in Iowa, South Carolina, or Florida, the campaign’s efforts may have had an unintended effect on the Presidential election. In an election year where it seems that religion does matter as voters choose their candidate, the Mormon campaign could have open the eyes of Americans to the possibility of the first non-Protestant Christian President.
In a recent article in the New York Times, President Obama’s decision regarding exemptions to his healthcare reform legislation has had a serious effect on religious institutions. Under President Obama’s new healthcare reform laws, all employers are to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including various forms of birth control, at no cost to the employee. Church-affiliated organizations are extremely opposed to this piece of legislation. Most feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in direct violation of their moral opinions. Although, exemptions may apply to employers without variations of faith among employees, the exemption is not applicable to multi faith religious institutions such as hospitals and universities. Despite arguments from several religious institutions, President Obama has made his final decision not to broaden the exemption, but to extend the compliance deadline by an additional year for religious institutions.
Although the most apparent issue at hand is the far too familiar battle between Church and State, the ongoing opposition by the Church to science and women’s rights can also be detected by moderate observation. The state makes every attempt not to inhibit institutions of faith, while still providing services to its citizens. This, however, becomes complicated when services being offered by the state are not in compliance with the moral order of its citizens as decided by their faith and the Church. The policies of the state are often allied with modern principles of science and individual’s rights. In modernity lies infringement upon tradition and ancient practices and beliefs held so tightly by the Church.
If the exemption to religious institutions is broadened, those who are in moral agreement with the use of contraception may be deprived the opportunity to receive the same healthcare benefits as those not employed by a religious institution. A nurse at St. Joseph’s Hospital may have fewer healthcare opportunities than a cashier at the local Wal-Mart, despite her moral regard towards contraception. With the exemption maintaining its current limitations and specificity, it allows people with differing religious perspectives from their employers to receive premium quality healthcare. This is a modern piece of legislation conducive to the modern society in which we operate. Our society is one in which individuals are given the opportunity to utilize readily available resources in order to maintain a higher standards of health. We have scientific evidence to prove the effectiveness of better healthcare decisions, and thus we alter our legislation and lifestyles accordingly. Although this inevitably will result in discrepancies between the separation of Church and State, this piece of legislation in no way inhibits faith based traditions, and ultimately places the responsibility of healthcare decisions on the individual.
The Congregation Ahavath Achim, a Conservative Jewish community located in Colchester, CT, has recently become embroiled in a civil lawsuit with one of its own members over the burial of a Christian woman in the interfaith section of one of the Jewish cemeteries it manages. According to a memorandum issued by Judge Robert Martin in 2011, the cemetery in question was originally managed by the Colchester Jewish Aid Congregation, which merged with Congregation Ahavath Achim in 1999. Per the merger agreement, responsibility for the cemetery transferred to Congregation Ahavath Achim with the stipulation that no non-Jew be buried in the Jewish sections of the cemetery. In 2009, Congregation Ahavath Achim elected to construct an interfaith section next to the existing Jewish section.
The plaintiff, Maria Balaban, who was previously a member of the Colchester Jewish Aid Congregation and now a member of Congregation Ahavath Achim and serves as a board member for the cemetery, has filed a motion with the Connecticut Superior Court suing Congregation Ahavath Achim for violating the terms of the merger agreement and disregarding what she says is the intended purpose of the interfaith section: to allow for the burial of non-Jewish spouses and family members and those who have close connections to Congregation Ahavath Achim. Spokespersons for Congregation Ahavath Achim maintain that the interfaith section was created as a resting place for anyone, regardless of religious or congregational affiliation. As part of the suit, Balaban, who owns multiple burial plots in the cemetery and also has many relative interred there, is requesting a temporary injunction for the disinterment and relocation of the body of Juliet Steer, the Christian woman buried in the interfaith section of the cemetery. Since Steer had no ties to the Congregation, Balaban argues that the burial and continued interment of Steer’s body violates the intended purpose of the interfaith section and infringes on her rights as an owner of burial plots in the cemetery.
While this case, at first glance, seems to be a simple matter of whether or not a legally binding merger agreement was upheld, a larger issue is at stake; that of the proper role of government involvement in religiously motivated and informed disputes. For all parties concerned, sincere religious belief and desire to adhere to a particular religious legal code has informed their respective actions throughout the events in question. In ruling on this case, Judge Martin will be called to consider and decide the merits of the competing arguments informed by religious sentiments. Underpinning both the wording of the merger agreement and Balaban’s personal concerns with the internment of Steer’s body in the cemetery is the recognition of certain Jewish burial laws that stipulate who can be interred in a Jewish cemetery and in what fashion. It is well established that Jewish law forbids the burial of non-Jews with Jews in the same cemetery. Certainly, Balaban’s religious motivations have solid ground to stand upon. Yet, to acknowledge the validity of Balaban’s religious motivations obliges us to also consider the religious motivations of both the Steer family and Congregation Ahavath Achim. It has been reported that before she died, Juliet Steer requested she be “buried just like Jesus, according to Jewish customs” and was thus interred in the Jewish cemetery under the guidance of her brother Paul Steer and the full consent and support of Congregation Ahavath Achim. Some members of the Congregation have expressed outrage with Balaban’s request for Steer’s body to be exhumed and moved, citing Jewish burial law that stipulates that a body should never be exhumed from its resting place.
If Judge Martin chooses to allow this case to continue to trial, he will, in effect, assert the right of the government to monitor, correct, and dictate the proper interpretation of religious belief, doctrine, and moral and legal codes. Allowing this case to go to trial with the possibility of granting the injunction to exhume Steer’s body strips the Steer family and the members of Congregation Ahavath Achim, including Balaban, of their ability to define their faith on their own terms and places that power directly in the hands of a jury of their "peers" who may or may not have any familiarity with Jewish burial customs. Certainly, similar court cases have done just that, often to the benefit of the deceased person’s own or familial wishes. However, in this instance, the only real potential victim in this case is the Steer family, who, unaware of the internal conflict over the interfaith section, chose to honor her wish to be laid to rest according to her sincere, though unconventional, faith convictions.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The plaintiffs argue that, “Sussex County’s promotion of the Lord’s Prayer shows favoritism towards the majority religion and excludes those residents who don’t share that faith”. They also claim that the prayer pressures those attending the meetings to participate in the recitation of the prayer since the council members can see who is and who is not participating in the recitation of the prayer. The Americans United group also claims that the prayer is incredibly specific towards not only one religion, but one denomination of religion. The rendition of the Lord’s Prayer that is recited is an Episcopalian one. They believe that this particular rendition would be “unfamiliar and disagreeable” to other denomination of Christians such as, Catholics or Congregationalists. Therefore, they argue that this specific rendition of the prayer is not only offensive to non-Christians but also to other denominations of Christians.
I agree with the filing of this case and believe that the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer is an establishment of religion by the County Council. I understand that the saying of the Prayer is a Tradition that dates back 40 years, but that does not mean that it is not an establishment of religion. The continual recitation of a prayer, specifically the Lord’s Prayer, at county council meetings is an endorsement of religion by the state and therefore the court should rule that the prayer is no longer said at the beginning of council meetings.
In Marsh v Chambers the U.S. Supreme Court held that opening legislative sessions with a prayer by a Chaplain was constitutional, mainly because it was something that is a part of the unique history of the United States. However, this case is different from that of the Sussex County Council meetings because the prayer in Marsh v Chambers was read and recited by a Chaplin and not the members in the Nebraska Congress. Therefore, I feel that the Federal Court in the Sussex County Council case will not rule the same way that they did in Marsh v Chambers. The recitation of the Prayer is said by all attending the meeting and the forum in which the meetings are held adds pressure for those attending to recite the prayer. Also, since the Prayer is so specific towards one denomination of Christianity, I believe that the Federal Court would consider the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer an establishment of religion.
Currently, the Americans United group is asking the court to put a preliminary injunction blocking the recitation of the prayer at the meetings, at least until the court reaches a verdict. Do you believe that the federal court will side in favor of the Americans United group? Or do you feel that the court will follow the precedent set in Marsh v Chambers and argue that the prayer is a part of our nation’s unique history?
