Recent Articles

Monday, January 23, 2012

Thoughts on the recent Hosanna-Tabor decision

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 0 Comments

 

In the recent Supreme Court decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the court unanimously ruled to further the separation between church and state. In this article, the author applauds the court's decision and says that "all of us who think that religious freedom is a fundamental human right should be grateful." In this case, a woman's employment was terminated after she took time off due to being diagnosed with narcolepsy. In Chief Justice John Roberts' written opinion he claims that granting the plaintiff re-occupation would violate the constitution's free exercise clause by interfering with Hosanna-Tabor's ability to hire personnel that share their faith, saying,

"Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving it of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs . . . By imposing an unwanted minister the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

In a rare showing, the other eight justices on the court agreed with Roberts, almost ensuring that the precedent from this case will be followed closely. That precedent means that workers of religious institutions can't sue their employer as per the discrimination clause of the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Unfortunately, as the article points out, this means that groups that are the usual suspects for discrimination (especially homosexuals and women) would have no recourse if they feel that their termination was based on discrimination. The author of the article provides the story of a priest in Philadelphia whose contract was terminated when it was discovered he was in a long-term homosexual relationship. Apparently this sparked a public outcry, as people talked and wrote about "how horrible it was for the school to essentially fire a good man based upon his sexual orientation." However as the author put it, "That's not discrimination. That's maintaining the integrity of the faith."
The things that the woman in the Hosanna-Tabor case and the gay Priest have in common is that their jobs consist of constant interactions with people of their faith and their relative positions of authority (as a teacher, and as a priest) suggest that they have conformed to the standards set by their religion. As the Hosanna-Tabor case made its way through the appellate court system, the women argued that since she taught mostly secular subjects, the ministerial exception should not apply to her. The 6th circuit court agreed with her, but the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, insisting that forcing Hosanna-Tabor to rehire her would be a government encroachment into the church's private sphere.
While I agree that religious institutions should have control over whom they hire to represent them and their faith, I think the precedent set by this case may be overreaching. Obviously when a person's orientation or performance conflicts with the ministry and the spreading of that religion's message, the church should have the right to make executive decisions regarding their employment. However, there are many people that work for religious institutions that do not have positions of power, and their job does not involve ministry. For instance, any large church has one or more janitors to keep the place clean. If a janitor is fired and he believes it was because of some form of discrimination, does he have no legal recourse? Do you think this is fair? Please leave some comments with your thoughts.

Religion Matters: Americans not ready for a Mormon President

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 the past, Mormon’s have faced much criticism from within the Christian community, facing accusations that they are not legitimate members of the Christian faith.  Even within the larger context of American public opinion, Mormon’s are often seen as not a part of mainstream society and according to a poll cited in CNN's article "Survey:  Mormon's feel discrimination, hope," half of all Mormon’s said they have faced discrimination.  The same survey reported that 56% of Americans believe that the country is ready for a Mormon President.  However, 63% of American’s are beginning to see Mormons as part of mainstream society.  With 44% of the population still not open to the election of a Mormon President, it is clear that in this election and in politics in general, religion matters.  Although not all Americans are open to the possibility of a Mormon President, the Church’s efforts to diversify their image may have contributed to the increasingly open mind that Americans have towards the Mormon Church.   While it would seem that the religious affiliation of our Presidential hopefuls should be left out of their political platform, the reality is that whether or not their religious beliefs bleed into their political position, the American public takes religious affiliation seriously when considering their vote. 






Why do people care about Mitt Romney being a Mormon?


This article on Huffington Posttalks about one of the biggest reasons why Newt Gingrich won South Carolina over Mitt Romney.  Gingrich benefited off of Romney’s mormon faith which led him to win south Carolina with flying colors. Exit Polls show that 43% of the people who said “Religious faith mattered” voted for Gingrich while 42% of people who said “Religion faith doesn’t matter” voted for Romney.  Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who came in second in 2008 South Carolina primary race advised that Romney should address his faith to the voters. That he needs to make his faith less important somehow and focus on turning the country around.

The biggest issue here is that people in US often care about religious identity of the President of United States. There is a clear distinction between the voters that voted for Gingrich and Romney. There could be one of two reasons associated with this. One, that due to the majority of population being Christian, voters want a Christian to lead the country (one of their type) and two, that American voters discriminate against any non-Christian presidential candidate because he is not one of their type.

Why do voters care about religious faith anyway? A presidential candidate is chosen to be the president for his experience, talents, and strategies, there is no room for religious identity. I feel that Mitt Romney is being a victim; he is being discriminated against because he is not a christian. Voters need not look for a true “Christian” in a presidential candidate, just because majority of the population of the United States is Christian. We shouldn’t care what church he goes to, or if he doesn’t. What matters is, if they can turn around the economy and get back American jobs. We might as well pass a law stating that if the presidential candidate isn’t Christian, he/she shall not be allowed to run for presidency. If the church and state can be separated, so can Romney’s personal beliefs and professional beliefs. All one needs is the country’s best interest at heart to be the president of United States. I feel that Romney needs to tell the voters straight up that he is a mormon, has different religious beliefs but also has great strategies to fix the economy because of his business background. Many of the other GOP candidates are attacking Romney for his mormon faith, which is putting audience or voters in doubt and overlooking his experience. We can never end religious discrimination but what we can do is like stated above, create a bill or law that states only Christians can run for president because its rather hard to change different beliefs and opinions of millions of Americans and easier to weed out the non-Christian Presidential candidates because there aren’t many of them. I feel that is the true solution for this problem in the long run. Its time we stepped up and either opt for religious discrimination or eliminate it.

Obama Requires Religious Institutions to Offer Contraception

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.

Lawsuit requests the exhumation of Christian woman's body from Jewish cemetery

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

Should Religion Matter in Choosing Your Political Candidates?

Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 0 Comments


     In an article in the Huffington Post , Mark Osler makes the claim that we should take a candidate's religious affiliation in consideration when we go to the polls. He states that it should not matter what religion the candidate is but that what does the religion teach the candidate to do in daily life. Osler says that faith is what influence the actions that people make. As American people we are ignorant if we do not admit or even care to take this into consideration. We should determine how to vote based on what the religion tells the candidate is the right way. The religious institutions leader taking control is not the concern. One of the more final points he makes is that if there is a candidate who is religious but makes statements saying he will not let it influence his/her decision in office, the that person is not trustworthy. They are not trustworthy, because they are either being dishonest about it not influencing them or they are being dishonest about their religious affiliation. He says that at least the candidate's religious affiliation/faith help give us an indicator on the decisions they will make in office.
     The obvious problem that can be raised with this article is, what happened to separation of church and state. A candidate's religion should not matter, because they should be able to separate their personal beliefs from their professional beliefs and decisions. Or is it that their personal beliefs, like many other people, do influence every day actions, even professional ones. It is should not be advised for people to decide on a candidate based on what church they go to, but should we be so naive enough to think they would be able keep the two separate.
     I find this issue to be extremely important, especially with a presidential election nearing. It is a big issue, because this year it seems to be a reflection of the issue that people had when JFK was running for president. The bigger concern seems to be over the Mormon candidates. The media seems more focused on what religion the candidates are, instead of what their political platforms are. An article like this, in my opinion, could just add fuel to the fire. It could even cause people to feel justified for choosing the way they want to. It can cause more people to keep overlooking the important things in a political race, instead of focusing on what the people from less “threatening” religions are bringing to the political race. Voters sadly seem to be more concerned about which candidate is a “true” Christian and who is not. An article like this says it is okay to do so. It should not be okay to choose a candidate based on their religion. Many politicians are having to defend their choice of religion and not their choice of political platform, This is due, sadly, more to the fact that too many are focused on what that candidate's religion could do to America. Obviously faith can influence any persons choices, but to decide based on a person's religion is not much better than the voters who decide based on which candidate is better looking. If America had held to its prejudices against Catholics, then JFK would have never been elected. He was president for a brief time, but he was a good one. It is time to be a truly informed voter.

Certiorari to the US supreme court: Christian Legal Society vs. Hastings College of the Law


     The Supreme Court agreed to review an appeals case from the Christian Legal Society who had been denied recognition by the Hastings College of Law on grounds of discrimination. The Christian Legal Society (C.L.S) allows all students to participate in their activities but only those who “disavow ‘unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” may assume leadership positions or becoming voting members in the group. Because Hastings has an open membership rule regarding student organized groups which requires all groups to accept all new comers as voting members regardless of their acceptance of the groups’ mission, Hastings withdrew recognition from the C.L.S as they didn’t comply with the school policy. The US states court of appeals for the ninth circuit ruled in favor of Hastings and Judge Diane S. Skyes wrote to the court arguing for C.L.S by stating that the group would cease to exist if it couldn’t convey its message effectively because it had to accept members which didn’t agree with its mission. Judge Diane P. Wood argued that there would be a lack of diversity in American universities if exclusionary groups, such as C.L.S which accepted members upon conformity, were existent on campuses. 

     The main issue is that of discrimination against certain students due to their sexual orientation, and to a certain degree, also due to their religious beliefs. C.L.S required students to hold orthodox Christian beliefs, in particular, the C.L.S orthodox Christian beliefs, without which they would be unable to fully participate in the group. According to the School Policy, no student can be restricted from voting membership into a group solely due to their beliefs or sexual orientation. As a student from C.L.S states in the article, it’s hard to “reconcile anti-discrimination principles with religious freedom in the context of public higher education.” Ultimately, the court must decide whether to uphold anti-discrimination principles or uphold the religious freedom at the cost of infringement of student and human rights. 

     In my opinion, The Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit was logically and constitutionally right to rule in favor of Hastings. This case is like many others which debates over the importance of religious freedom versus anti-discrimination principle which both hold a significant place in the American legal system and History. America, as many argue, is a land of freedom and such cases challenge the American legal system to choose between certain types of freedoms such as religious and human rights (sexual orientation/lifestyle/etc.). One is allowed to exercise one’s own freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others, and in this case, C.L.S fails to abide by this criterion. C.L.S allows for all students to participate but only those with a certain set of beliefs and lifestyle can hold leadership and be voting members. This is similar to the Bob Jones vs. US(1983) where the university stated they allowed African-Americans to go to school but only if they abided by certain rules like no interracial relationships. An institution cannot refuse membership due to things like sexual orientation, lifestyle, relationship status, race, because such things are the basis of discrimination as most are unchangeable by individuals. Also, Judge Diane P. Wood has a good argument concerning diversity and its importance to current American universities. Hastings sought to protect the rights of the students which C.L.S infringed upon while exercising religious freedom, and if the supreme court rules in favor of C.L.S, it is sending the message that religious freedom holds more importance in American law than human rights do.

Subscribe

Donec sed odio dui. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio. Duis mollis

© 2013 Religion & American Law. All rights reserved.
Designed by SpicyTricks