Recent Articles
Home » All posts
Monday, February 6, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
- 0 Comments
An article in today’s NY Times describes a conflict that arose in Las Vegas over a special Caucus held after sundown on Saturday in order to accommodate a growing population of Orthodox Jews. Caucus goers were required to sign a legal declaration under penalty of perjury that they could not attend the regular caucus because of their “religious beliefs.” Those who refused to sign the declaration were denied access to the caucus.
This incident provides a good example of how the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment are often at odds with each other. While holding the official caucus during the day, thus preventing Orthodox Jews from being able to participate could provide a valid argument for accommodation, it raises the question of what constitutes a valid excuse for missing regular elections, and how should they be accommodated. Does religion get a special pass or is it just one of many groups who should be accommodated? The focus on Orthodox Jews in regards to this special caucus also opens the door to questions of establishment. By primarily accommodating Orthodox Jews, did the Clark County Republican Party (CCRP), which ran the caucus in question, effectively raise Orthodox Judaism above other religions?
In the past the Supreme Court has been hesitant to rule in areas of religion, especially when the Free Exercise Clause is involved. While free-exercise may be used as a defense, the declaration requirement, which explicitly limits attendance to those with a "religious excuse," places this issue squarely in establishment territory. Even though the CCRP argues that the declaration was meant to include Adventists as well, actions on the ground suggested otherwise. One person, who was refused admittance, claims that he was asked by a poll worker whether he was Jewish. More instances like this would be strong indicators of the CCRP’s true target audience.
In an article from Jan. 26, 2012, ABC news reported that the Indiana Senate passed a bill allowing creationism to be taught in schools. Fox news reportedon the same issue, emphasizing that it involves creation stories from many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology. According to the ABC news report, the chair of the Senate Education Committee believes this bill will “ultimately end up in the courts” and is “a waste of time and resources.” The bill is awaiting a decision in the Indiana House of Representatives.
Like other creationism and public school cases, Indiana is attempting to include religious creation stories in science classrooms. However, the legal issue in this case does not necessarily involve promoting one specific religion over another, or even promoting a religious standpoint over a non-religious. The legal issue at stake is that this bill allows creation stories to be included in natural science courses.
This bill presents a fascinating shift in the creationism in public schools debate. The legal issue here is different than the historical concern of teaching the Genesis creation accounts alongside theories of evolution. An inherent part of this legal debate is a promotion of these creation accounts over those of other religions. Rather, this bill begs the question of the ideological nature of scientific theories. That is, should creation stories be presented alongside scientifically founded theories in public schools?
Religious creation stories do not have a place in a science classroom. They are not scientifically founded or supported. Although I believe it is positive to expose students to many different creation stories, this curriculum belongs in a Religious Studies course, not in one on natural science. Although it may be argued that evolution is only a theory, it is a scientifically founded and supported theory. Like the theory of gravity, it is central to an understanding of modern scientific thinking.
Students would benefit greatly from an awareness of the creation stories of the religions of the world. However, creation stories should not legally be able to be taught in science classrooms. They are simply of a different category of thinking, and belong in different environments. Students will ideologically benefit from separating scientific theories from religious and cultural beliefs.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
- 0 Comments
According to TheCaucus, The Politics and Government Blog of the Times many of the Republican presidential candidates are supporting something referred to as the “personhood amendment.” This is an amendment designed to fight Roe V. Wade by declaring that an embryo is a person from the point of fertilization. The article offers the name of several candidates that had agreed to sign onto the bill by December 22nd of 2011 along with several Christian groups that are supporting the candidates in question.
I believe this proposes a multifaceted issue. On the one hand you have various Christian groups fighting what they view as the murder of unborn children protected by the secularization of society, an argument that is nearly the reverse of what early American’s argued when it came to too much religious freedom. In contrast to them you have women that do not see it as murder and want the right to regulate their bodies. Somewhere between the two you have the groups that may see it as murder, but know that it will cost them any ground they have currently to support such an extreme position.
The issue is not a completely religious issue though. According to the Times article some of the candidates are “polishing and trumpeting their credentials as Christian conservatives in their efforts to be seen as the leading Not Romney.” If the author is correct and this is in a large part less about belief and more about pushing themselves forward in the polls it leads me to wonder if they really know the ramifications of what they are trying to get pushed into law. Even in Mississippi the push to bring this amendment from the drafting board to actual law was met with resistance that spelled its defeat. Before the vote doctors relayed the information that the bill would not only ban abortions, but could also ban some forms of contraception and cause problems with fertilization clinics.
Has religion became a currency that our would be leaders use to buy their positions of power like the author suggests or do they truly believe that an amendment that drastically reduces women’s access to birth control is needed for the country. It’s a hard question to answer when politics, religion, and law all blend into each other. It’s hard to tell if they really do care about the fertilized embryos or if they are just trying to draw attention to how Christian they are in order to differentiate themselves from Romany who is Mormon. What we can see though is that this is a potential new law with far reaching implications in the religious and health worlds.
In this article, members of the Muslim community in Des Moines Iowa were upset earlier this week. They were upset because Arvinder Singh was sent into mosques around the Des Moines area to gather intelligence for the FBI. The FBI wanted Singh to spy in the mosques to see if there were any signs of terrorism.
Singh stated that he was chosen by the FBI because he appeared to be of Middle Eastern dissent and that they needed his help for the war against terror. Singh jumped at this opportunity because he had been indicted for criminal activity while trying to become a citizen of the United States. Singh claims that the FBI said that if he would spy on the Muslim churches they would grant him citizenship. Singh went around to Muslim mosques pretending to be interested in converting to Islam. He did this for seven years. The FBI supplied him with pictures and names of certain individuals that they wanted to investigate.
Dr. Hamed Baig, the president of the Islamic Center of Des Moines said, "That was really surprising, very sad that somebody would come or the FBI or Homeland Security would send somebody here to pretend to be Muslim and try to find out what goes on here". He felt that the actions were unnecessary. Anis Rehman, an executive board member of the Islamic Center of Des Moines stated that he feels violated. He feels that the intrusion of someone within the mosque for any other purpose besides prayer or socializing makes him feel embarrassed. Some people within the Iowa Muslim community feels as if their civil rights were violated. Rehman also expressed that their community is small and tight knit and is known around the Des Moines area proving that they are good people. They do not think that the September 11th attack could warrant such an intrusion by the FBI on their small religious community.
Weysan Dunn, a FBI special agent says that the agency does not confirm or deny that they hired Arvinder Singh and they expressly denied that they gave Singh a deal. The FBI states that they are determined to prove innocence just as much as they are determined to prove guilt and that if they did launch an investigation they are solely interested in finding out the truth.
I believe that the members of the Islamic community were violated. Although there is no privacy clause expressly written in the Constitution, within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence they have declared that citizens of the United States do have the right to privacy. In my opinion, I do not think that the FBI had enough probable cause to infiltrate multiple mosques within the Des Moines area. Broader implications that can stem from this invasion of privacy is that anytime the FBI or Homeland Security has a hunch that someone is doing something illegal they could send someone to spy on anyone they want, even when these intrusions are not warranted. I think that the FBI should have found other ways to gather information prior to trampling on people’s rights based only on hunches and speculation.
Just because these people are Muslims doesn't mean that they had something to do with the September 11th attack or are terrorists. Spying on any American, even Muslim Americans, without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot is not only unconscionable it is, more importantly unconstitutional. The FBI has every right to gather information to prevent terrorism, they just have to do it legally. If the Constitution does not protect Muslim Americans from this type of intrusion it may not protect Methodists, Catholics, Jews or any other religious group that may become the target of an FBI investigation.
Christian students at Vanderbilt University are currently in a fight for their right to choose who lead their organizations. Since September of 2010, Vanderbilt University has been cracking down on student led organizations after an openly gay student was asked to leave a Christian fraternity. Though this brought Vanderbilt University into national headlines about discrimination on campus, the same issue is arising in a different sort of way. Christian students have begun to launch several campaigns targeting Vanderbilt University and its non-discrimination policy involving organizations to not require their leadership to hold certain beliefs. For the Christian organization, they claim that this policy is problematic in a number of ways. One student goes as far to say that “Our new so-called non-discrimination policy threatens to destroy the integrity of each of our religious organizations”. Such a charge is one that carries much weight with it. Beyond the students, faculty and staff are also getting involved to question the administrations sudden attention to the constitutions of all the religious student organizations.
The sudden attention, many claim, is a question of religious freedom. Student groups such as the Vanderbilt College Republicans have published a video calling for the administration to recognize the religious freedom of the student. In the end the students are calling for a freedom within the higher education system to allow student groups to be just that, a student led group.
In my opinion this non-discrimination policy of Vanderbilt is a positive change to the campus that encourages all students to participate in any student group that choose to. The Christian students are worried about their right to elect officers in organizations that faith-based but one fact that remains elusive in their discussion is the fact that allstudents pay for the organizations budget and meeting space. A non-discrimination policy is a common practice that many universities ascribe to due to its ability to not limit particular students from participating in their college career. The realm of education has always been a battleground for religion and law. Prayer, evolution, creationism, etc. have been some of the issues that have been tackled in education and now there is a question of whether certain groups should have the ability to exclude certain individuals based on their person beliefs. For the Christian students in question, this is a simple request and one that should not be hard at all for the administration. On the other hand, the administration is attempting to create a campus that allows every student the opportunity to participate. In one of the videos in their campaign, a student claims that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. This notion then is linked to the right of a student organization to exclude leadership who do not go in line with the beliefs of the group. For them the right to choose the leadership is heavily intertwined with the right to religious freedom. The religious freedom quoted throughout the campaigns by the students is an attempt to link the "founding" of this country to a Christian foundation. Such a link for the student provides the opportunity for them to be able to practice their religion in the public sphere, and in this case on the grounds of a university. Beyond the history lessons offered by the students on the founding of this nation, one student states that “With this policy, Vanderbilt is going somewhere where no other university has gone before”. I would like to say that such a policy is not new and it is not something that should be seen as threatening but one that attempts to embrace the diversity of the campus and allow every student to fully participate on their campus.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
- 0 Comments
This article is about the Muslim American's petition to the Attorney General to resolve the threat that the NYPD has posted on their lives. There is a report that has surfaced that depicts the discriminatory practices of the New York police department towards Muslims in America. Although the department is taking serious measures towards keeping America safe there training and practice of focusing on residential Muslims reflects racially profiling. Their spying on this race of people came from the secret report called “U.S Iran Conflict: The threat to New York” which suggested that they expand their investigation and focus on mosques in New York. As a protector of the New York society the NYPD has a good amount of reason to keep its eyes open for any suspicious things within that community because of the events of 9/11 but I do not believe they should focus their attention on imposing on the lives of this group. The approach that the NYPD is taking is very inflicting. It is putting innocent Muslims in the category of terrorist which is unfair. BBC news has posted a video that displays the Muslim respond to this issue. The conference that they held served the purpose of encouraging peace and understanding of the Muslim community as not a threat to New York.
They have petition for there to be an investigation of the NYPD because they feel that the department is not trustworthy and that their investigation lack credibility. With no response from the office of the police department on this issue, their innocent in this matter of discrimination is to be questioned.
My opinion on this article has been stated in the first half of this post but I also have a separate opinion on this whole issue. The police departments in general usually form taskforces that pay firm attention to individuals and sometimes groups that they find threatening to society. The whole issue of Muslims wanting the NYPD to be investigated on the accusations of spying within their mosques should not be taken seriously. I say that because terrorist threats in America is an ongoing issue and if the department has token the proper measures to protect the larger population then there is no need to advertise that they are taking these precautions. I think that Muslim should realize that their lives is not in any way private because the government imposes on its citizens in some way and that this supposed discrimination happens to any group or person viewed as a threat. So live with it and continue to prove your belief of being a peaceful group which could eliminate the investigation and profiling.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
- 0 Comments
This article describes the actions of Jessica Ahlquist that took a stand against school officials about a banner that was being displayed at her public high school. The reason that this banner has caused considerable problems to arise is because of the fact that the banner features a prayer, which was offensive to the Ahlquist who is an atheist. “On Jan. 11, federal judge Ronald R. Lagueux ruled it was unconstitutional for the banner to hang at the public school,” which is clear that the federal government saw that this banner was going against the Establishment clause of the first amendment.
It is clear that the issue that are present in this article is the fact that this banner seem to some people as an entanglement of the public school with religion. Although a student wrote the prayer in 1963, the school was the one that made the decision to hang the banner for public view. The Establishment Clause has clear implications that the government was not to favor anyone one religion over another. The banner was seen to be in favor of the Christian belief with the prayer starting with “Our Heavenly Father” in which Ahlquist saw that the public school was favoring one religion over all the others by displaying the banner in the auditorium and refusing to take it down. The Establishment Clause has been challenged before about prayer in public school in the Engel v. Vitale case in which the mandatory prayer that was recited everyday that was written by the Board of Regents was ruled unconstitutional and struck down by the courts. It was seen that the government had no business in establishing or promoting a certain religion with the requirement of a certain prayer in schools. This can be seen in the case of the banner, even though it was not required to be recited, the clear acceptance and refusal to take it down by the School Board showed a clear preference and promotion of one religion.
The school tried to make it appear that he banner was hung and not taken down because it was part of the “historic and cultural” aspect of the school and that it has nothing to do with the promotion of a single religion. It cannot be seen as purely secular matter since the primary effect of the banner is to promote a particular religions prayer, and so it its in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. There is no clear secular point of the banner since it does not display any historical value, other than being produced by the student in 1963. One can also argue that the banner was in no way a form of mandatory prayer in public schools and that the banner was just hung there and that Ahlquist did not have to look at it if it offended her, in which they would not be seeing this as a religious cause but that of a free speech case. There seems to be a problem with that in which the court have ruled before that individuals have the right of free exercise of any religion of their choosing and to speak freely about it, but the first amendment does prohibit the government from interfering and accommodating one religion over another and causing entanglement of Church and State.
