Recent Articles
Home » All posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
- 0 Comments
U.S. Supreme Court Justice fails to “worship” the U.S. Constitution!
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has suggested Egypt look at newer constitutions for tips instead of the U.S. Constitution. She believes it would be better for Egypt to take ideas from constitutions drafted more recently than one drafted more than two centuries ago.
Is Justice Ginsburg sounding an alarm for people to take notice? Founding father Thomas Jefferson recognized that the Constitution should be changed from time to time - perhaps in every generation. Although they are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, should we expect justices to "worship" it as if it were sacred -- and remove those justices from the Court if they do not appear to do so? According to a Stanford law professor, "this is not law, its politics." And based on the knee-jerk reactions of Justice Ginsburg’s critics, one might even say it’s not law, its religion.
On other occasions Justice Ginsburg has said that, "By disregarding the wording of the Constitution, we are symbolically saying the document is not important to us.” Her reference here is to the frequently mistaken views citizens have about the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Many Americans do not seem to understand that government does not explicitly give us “freedom of expression” or “free exercise of religion,” or “due process” or “equal protection under the law” -- but that those are rights that the government cannot restrict.
By becoming a member of the Super Court, did Justice Ginsburg waive her right to free speech? The Constitutions’ framers did not “worship” the document they drafted. And Americans saw fit to amend the Constitution 27 times in the 225 years of its existence. Such a document is not sacred and its meaning must be re-examined in light of change, circumstances, technology and evolving mores over time. If one were asked to design a vehicle for the 21st century, would one look to a carriage design from the 18th century? A Constitution is the by-product of shared culture’s experiences and mores. As such, one size simply does not fit all.
Responding to the questions asked of her Justice Ginsburg made several statements which helped me form an opinion. A few of them were:
"You should be aided by all the constitution writings."
"The spirit of liberty must be in the population of the people."
"We the people were an imperfect union - we are still forming a more perfect union, yet there is genius in our Constitution."
I think Justice Ginsburg offered Egypt sound advice.
Responding to the questions asked of her Justice Ginsburg made several statements which helped me form an opinion. A few of them were:
"You should be aided by all the constitution writings."
"The spirit of liberty must be in the population of the people."
"We the people were an imperfect union - we are still forming a more perfect union, yet there is genius in our Constitution."
I think Justice Ginsburg offered Egypt sound advice.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
- 0 Comments
Ethiopia: Journalists and Politician Sentenced on Terrorism Charges
· Author: Constance Johnson
· Jurisdiction: Ethiopia
For my Journal Article, I chose a recent International Posting from Ethiopia. In this article, the author Constance Johnson addressed the issue of free speech in the Nation of Ethiopia as it pertains to journalistic works. In particular, the major focus revolved around the recent sentencing of several Journalists for charges of incitement of terrorism through their craft. The sentences ranged from 14 years to Life. Besides the obvious issue of free speech, other issues were brought up such as the vagueness of Ethiopian Law and the long term implications of the practice of using recent terrorist laws and policies as a tool to restrict and silence legitimate opposition and criticism from the media.
The issues that were brought up are legitimate issues that need to be addressed on an International Scale so that legitimate law abiding Professionals in the Media are allowed to perform their duties without fear of threat or retaliation. However, digging deeper in a context of National Sovereignty and true liberty, it is my position that Ethiopia is justified in its actions of imprisoning what it perceives as a present and imminent threat to its National Security. Governments have a responsibility. In most governments, they derive their power and authority (depending on the type of government) from the citizens it represents. While someone may argue that this is not always the case, I believe that recent events as well as past historical precedence support my position. One only needs to cite the recent overthrow of the Libyan Government or the continual unrest in Syria as supporting illustrations of my case in point.
Continuing along the lines of Libya and Syria, these two (2) Nations and their recent National struggles are perfect examples as to why Ethiopia is justified in its actions in view of the Press as a real and imminent threat. The Arab Spring is perhaps the first widespread uprising or revolution that can accredit modern media as the vehicle of its inception. If Modern Media did not exist, it is doubtful that regime changes in the various Arab Nations would have occurred in the time and manner in which it did. This connection between Media and public unrest resulting in the collapse of existing legitimate Governmental entities is cause for alarm.
It is a known fact that unconventional soft means of attacking an adversary exist. Media in some respects could be referred to as a propaganda machine with an agenda of regime change or other unscrupulous motives. Here in the United States, our government employs billions of dollars and personnel to control and limit certain elements both internally and externally from influencing segments of our population. We view these controls as necessary to ensure public order and decency. However, our restrictions on the content and delivery of information while different is intended to serve the same deterrent purpose against a legitimate or perceived threat by way of the Media. Freedom of Speech has its limitations depending on the popular view of the respective Nation. Incitement for Violence, for example, is prohibited and not protected under the First (1st) Amendment, especially if harm results from this irresponsible activity. If God has granted certain unalienable rights to all mankind, irrespective, then it is reasonable to concede that these rights should be protected from internal and external threat. Governments are established to ensure peace and order and to guard against the devastations of anarchy. Therefore, it is my position that given the recent developments and historically proven influence and power of the Media, Ethiopia is justified in giving lengthy sentences to Journalists as a preventive deterrent against perceived, legiamate threats.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
- 0 Comments
In the article, the issue of investigating a person, group, or organization based solely on religion is brought to the forefront. The press recently discovered a document pertaining to the NYPD. Within the document, the NYPD is given permission to target mosques for investigation based on their population of Iranian attendees and their religious sect within Muslim. The Shiite sect within the Muslim religion is the targeted group within the NYPD’s jurisdiction and even in some areas outside NYPD’s jurisdiction.
With permission to target the Shiite religious group, the New York Police Department has eavesdropped, infiltrated mosques, and monitored Muslim neighborhoods as plainclothes officers. The jurisdiction of the document is defined as the NYPD’s jurisdiction; however, the NYPD has spread this investigation far outside its jurisdiction into New Jersey and Connecticut. The investigations and spying efforts started soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Investigations based on religion are prohibited by city law and under the NYPD’s guidelines, yet the document clearly breaks these laws and guidelines. Iranian Shiite Muslims are mostly targeted due to their origin and sect of religion. Iranian Muslims are thought to be the terrorists within the U.S., but Palestinians are targeted as well because terrorists could be of a Palestinian background.
Yes, the majority of Iran’s population is Shiite, but this sect of the Muslim religion is said to be allies with the United States in the fight against Muslim extremists. Al-Qaida and other extremist groups are Sunni Muslims who oppress the Shiite Muslims. Many Shiites sought refuge in the West from the oppressing Sunnis.
The NYPD and U.S. continue to be concerned with Iran, therefore investigations and spying continue of Iranian Muslims. The U.S. worries about reactions and efforts that would arise if the U.S. went to war or any other form of open military conflict with Iran. One mosque president in Philadelphia, Asad Sadiq, claims the NYPD is being unfairly broad. He states, "If you attack Cuba, are all the Catholics going to attack here? This is called guilt by association… Just because we are the same religion doesn't mean we're going to stand up and harm the United States. It's really absurd."
I agree that the NYPD is accusing a population based on religion due to fear of the what-if situations. Guilty by association is exactly what is being place on the Shiite group in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Just because they are the same religion doesn’t mean they stand for the same things. Many Shiite Muslims want to escape to religiously free nations to rid themselves of oppression and ridiculing. The U.S. should be the religiously free nation that the Muslims seeking refuge can go, and not a nation that creates more oppression and guilt.
The issue that has arisen from these documents is the police departments’ and other law enforcing officials’ jurisdiction and the laws and guidelines they follow based on discrimination. Targeting a group based on religion is discrimination at the root, while also threatening religious freedom.
With permission to target the Shiite religious group, the New York Police Department has eavesdropped, infiltrated mosques, and monitored Muslim neighborhoods as plainclothes officers. The jurisdiction of the document is defined as the NYPD’s jurisdiction; however, the NYPD has spread this investigation far outside its jurisdiction into New Jersey and Connecticut. The investigations and spying efforts started soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Investigations based on religion are prohibited by city law and under the NYPD’s guidelines, yet the document clearly breaks these laws and guidelines. Iranian Shiite Muslims are mostly targeted due to their origin and sect of religion. Iranian Muslims are thought to be the terrorists within the U.S., but Palestinians are targeted as well because terrorists could be of a Palestinian background.
Yes, the majority of Iran’s population is Shiite, but this sect of the Muslim religion is said to be allies with the United States in the fight against Muslim extremists. Al-Qaida and other extremist groups are Sunni Muslims who oppress the Shiite Muslims. Many Shiites sought refuge in the West from the oppressing Sunnis.
The NYPD and U.S. continue to be concerned with Iran, therefore investigations and spying continue of Iranian Muslims. The U.S. worries about reactions and efforts that would arise if the U.S. went to war or any other form of open military conflict with Iran. One mosque president in Philadelphia, Asad Sadiq, claims the NYPD is being unfairly broad. He states, "If you attack Cuba, are all the Catholics going to attack here? This is called guilt by association… Just because we are the same religion doesn't mean we're going to stand up and harm the United States. It's really absurd."
I agree that the NYPD is accusing a population based on religion due to fear of the what-if situations. Guilty by association is exactly what is being place on the Shiite group in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Just because they are the same religion doesn’t mean they stand for the same things. Many Shiite Muslims want to escape to religiously free nations to rid themselves of oppression and ridiculing. The U.S. should be the religiously free nation that the Muslims seeking refuge can go, and not a nation that creates more oppression and guilt.
The issue that has arisen from these documents is the police departments’ and other law enforcing officials’ jurisdiction and the laws and guidelines they follow based on discrimination. Targeting a group based on religion is discrimination at the root, while also threatening religious freedom.
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.
