Religion & American Law

If you do not remember the “Ground Zero mosque” that was a media sensation, in early 2009, let me refresh your memory. A community center was proposed to be built near the site of the Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center used to stand. When this story was brought to the forefront people were defending and opposing the building of the community center-given its close proximity to such an emotionally tumultuous area. Ironically, the community center was near the site, but not within the 16-block radius labeled Ground Zero.

According to Time Magazine, “nearly 70% of Americans in a CNN–Opinion Research Corporation poll say they oppose a Ground Zero mosque.” I find it hard to believe, that almost three-fourths of the population did not approve the notion to build the center, having been presented with all the facts. I think this is due to the huge amount of general islamophobia in our culture as well as the one-sided news coverage often presented.

Mike Bloomberg, New York City Mayor, says, "We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else." On the flip side, Inayat Bunglawala, a supporter of Muslim rights, states,

“Ultimately, we need to try to get to the point where our press apply the same standards to Muslims as to any other faith group or any other minority group community. Currently, no other faith group is treated with this barrage of inaccurate and often downright malicious misrepresentation in the national press. It is, of course, understandable that in view of the al-Qaeda terror threat we have seen in recent years that newspapers will often touch on the issue of Muslims and Islam in their reporting. That is, however, absolutely no excuse for their lies and incitement.”

I would agree with Inayat Bunglawala. Muslims, arguably more than any other group, is heavily persecuted not only by the members of our society, but by the leaders of our country in government and most often in news media. To avoid further potential conflict, I think legislation should review and limit the representation of minority religious groups in the country. This country is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian favoritism and this is no longer an accurate representation of the people of the United States.

To reiterate, essentially, I think the infamous ‘Ground Zero mosque’, was an example of islamophobia in the twenty-first century. I would also like to point out the parallel of religious persecution of colonial religious groups, like Quakers and Protestants, and modern day religious groups like Muslims and Mormons. It is another perfect example of how scare tactics are used in the United States as a form of control. There was no legitimate “threat” in the building of the community center, but because Islam is a heavily debated issue in the context of time and place, it is easily misconstrued and shown in a negative light.

Although this case study does not directly coincide with new legislation, it does greatly involve the larger issue of religious freedom in this country.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011400,00.html#ixzz1kwinDI4f

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2012/1/29/islamophobia-and-the-press.html

Preston L.

Earlier this month, 44 people were arrested while protesting a ban which would bar religious groups from conducting worship services in New York’s public schools. 68 congregations will be effected by the ban, but a majority, if not all, of these congregations are Christian. Led by their pastors the protestors chanted “Freedom of Worship!” They discussed their congregations’ community service record to clarify their charitable nature. New York’s Department of Education responded they were “concerned about having any school in this diverse City identified with one particular religious belief or practice.”

Did these public schools, and by extension the government, expose students to the religious ideas or activities which occurred there after hours? Some pastors claim to have no interaction with students and others admit they interact with students only after hours in the form of tutoring or other charity for students of all beliefs. While not explicitly stated in the article, it seems during the school week there are no signs of the religious organization within the school. As any exposure to these congregations in voluntary, I do not understand how the school would become identified with one religious belief.

Considering the constitutionality of this ban seems fair as protestors were chanting for “Freedom of Worship!” This ban doesn’t circumscribe these congregations’ religious freedom as they are still free to believe what they wish, practice their religion and to rent another building to worship in. The First Amendment guards against laws “respecting an establishment of religion” which includes “connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Allowing these congregations to meet does not violate the first amendment. However, these congregant’s religious freedoms aren’t being infringed either.

Secondly, they argue that when they are barred from meeting in public schools they can no longer help the community, which can be argued is a tenet of their religion. I have read multiple descriptions of this ban which is described as either a ban against religious groups meeting on public property or specifically banning religious worship in public school buildings after hours. If the latter is true, these groups will still be able to rent public schools, and the ban will not affect their ability to use the school as a base for their charity work. If it is the former, their capacity to quickly and efficiently reach those in need, especially students, may be hampered although their charity would not necessarily have to end.

An article describing the same case in 2005, discusses a judgment in favor of the congregations. However in this earlier article, the discomfort of New York City’s citizens towards churches occupying schools even after hours is more obvious. Does the government attempt to steer clear of religious groups since their mere presence is enough to make some constituents uncomfortable? Unless there are extenuating circumstances, it seems fair that all groups should be able to rent public spaces. The situation in New York illustrates that the government views religious and secular groups as separate and different entities. If these congregations are paying rent, not influencing students who attend the school during normal hours, and enriching the community why should they not be allowed to meet at schools?

In a recent New York Times article Jessica Ahiquist, a Rhode Island atheist won a suite against her schools prayer poster. Jessica Ahiquist is a die hard, outspoken Atheist who battles a dominant Roman Catholic city in her wish to have her schools prayer removed from the walls of the auditorium. The prayer has been hanging in school for almost 50years and, Jessica's wish to have it removed has struck many people in the town in a negative way. A seventh grader wrote the prayer as moral support, and the 1963 graduating class presented it as a gift to the school. The landmark Supreme Court ruled against organized prayer in schools one year after the prayer was presented. The prayer begins with “Our Heavenly Father grant us each day the desire to do our best” and goes on before it ends to say Amen.

A federal judged ruled this month in the favor of Jessica Ahiquist, stating the school prayer was unconstitutional and violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. After the decision to have Cranston High School eight feet tall, 1963 prayer removed; Residence have flooded school board meeting demanding an appeal against the ruling. Jessica has received many online threats and has to be escorted by police to school. This emotional issue has gained the attention of many including State Representative Peter G. Palumbo who called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a radio talk show. Many florists refused to deliver Jessica flowers sent from a national Atheist group. The group later decided to file a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. Despite of the negative attention Jessica has received, many supporters of her wish have praised her for her bold efforts. A support group based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 in scholarship funds.

When looking at an issue like this one you have be careful and put your feelings behind you because although I see nothing wrong the prayer, it is definitely unconstitutional. The fact that the majority of the school approves of the prayer and the battle is against one person does seem unfair. The prayer has been hanging in the school for nearly 50years and was there before organized prayer was banned from public schools for this reason I do believe an appeal should be granted in the wish to keep prayer in the school. I also think the main issue is control, the fact the one student has the power to change something that the majority of the community disagree with is upsetting. Often people may loose sight of what they are fighting for which leads to the questions: Are you fighting for Religious reason or Are you fighting because you want the power to control?