Religion & American Law

Sunday, February 12, 2012

President Obama Makes a Compromise with the Church

Sunday, February 12, 2012 - 0 Comments

If you have been keeping up with the news, there has been an uproar regarding President Obama and his new healthcare plan, more specifically the matter of contraceptives. Under President Obama’s healthcare laws, all employers are required to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including a range of birth control, which will come at no cost to the employee. As a result of this decision, as stated in this article, Obama has received much objection from the conservative Republicans and the Catholic bishops. The Catholic bishops feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in violation of their moral opinions and teachings. In spite of urging from the Catholic Church and Conservative Republicans, President Obama has made his decision and opted not to broaden the exemption.
In conjunction with this, on Friday, in hopes of squelching the opposition, Obama has come up with a compromise that allows for an employer who morally objects to contraception to opt out and instead inform its female employees where they can get coverage outside of the employee health plan. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception. “The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.”
Here we have another classic case of an organization trying to have their values/beliefs imposed on people through government injunction. These churches want the government to keep their noses out of their belief systems, but they have no problem accepting the benefits that the government provides, from police protection to street repair to outright public funding of their "secular" works via the Faith Based grants. And what are they asked to do in return for all of these tax-free benefits and funding? Obey the law. The entire relationship between the tax-payers’ dollars and the church institutions needs to be re-evaluated. Why should tax payers be forced to fund an institution that will not follow the law when operating a business that serves the public like a hospital or university? Why shouldn’t a Catholic hospital be required to provide essential health services? Contraception is not merely used for birth control, it’s also used for a great deal of other health purposes, not to mention decreasing unintended pregnancies, which serves to reduce the number of abortions. A hospital is required to serve any person who needs medical care, not just those who agree with a particular religious belief system, i.e. the Catholic Church. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the health care business if they aren't willing to actually provide medical services.
In this way, any right of action based on belief cannot be absolute. Therefore, the right to practice a religion cannot mean that any individual or organization should be allowed to do whatever they want and justify it as their "sincere religious belief". There is nothing automatically sacred about action based on religious beliefs, no matter how sincere. It is clear in the Constitution that religious laws of God are separate from the Laws of Man. And that freedom to worship is on parity with the freedom not to.

Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California

- 0 Comments

The article is about a federal appeals court that agreed with a lower court’s ruling on Tuesday about Proposition 8. The lower level court had ruled that even though Proposition 8 has passed by 52% to 48% it is in violation of the constitutional right for same-sex couples. Judge Walker, who ruled in the lower court, said that denying a same sex marriage is in violation of the Equal Protection and the Due Process clauses in the Constitution. The judges that ruled on Tuesday stated that they were not going to rule whether it was a constitutional right for a same-sex couple to marry; instead the ruling was about how Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Mitt Romney stated the decision was an attack on traditional marriage and said that the Supreme Court would eventually to decide on the issue. Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, made a statement where he explained that same-sex marriage has increased steadily from a decade ago, if it does come to vote again the outcomes may be different.

This issue is important because Proposition 8 in violation of Due Process and California is in violation of Equal protection. The 14^th amendment is about Due Process; a court cannot rule without everyone being present. The reason why Proposition 8 is in violation on Due Process is because not every same-sex couple in America’s rights were heard. When Proposition 8 was being voting on only the same-sex couples in California’s were allowed to vote. What about all the same-sex couples in other states, Proposition 8 directly affects them as well. This comes to the second issue of California being in violation of Equal Protection. Equal Protection means every state must have equal protection of a citizen’s rights. Since New York legalized gay marriage, if a same-sex couple moves from New York to California their marriage is no longer recognized. Judge Reinhardt ruled on Tuesday, “All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted a marriage license.” Since California does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples any couple moving from New York to California are now seen as being single.

Same-sex marriage has become a major issue in the past few decades. Religious people claim same-sex marriages are wrong, and that they ruin the sanctity of marriage. For Mitt Romney, who is a presidential candidate, to claim that the decision the judge made was an attack traditional marriage shows that his religion is seeping into political issues. If America is supposed to be a nation with the separation of church and state then Romney should not have made the statement he did. The argument made about gay marriage is always tied into religion, but what about atheist. Should atheist be denied the chance to marry someone of the same sex just because religious people believed same-sex marriages are wrong?

Saturday, February 11, 2012

The Treatment of Religion in Court - Special or Equal?

Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 0 Comments

In a recent article on the Religion Dispatches site, there is proposal regarding whether religion should be treated as “special.” While the article looks to the Hosanna-Tabor decision as well as the Good News Club vs. Milford Central School decision, the basis of the argument is that according the the founding fathers, “religion certainly is special” (Stewart, Supreme Court Rules Religion Special...This Time). Stewart is arguing that Constitution eludes to the fact that religion is special and that it deserves to be treated separately, but Stewart points out that recent court decisions have been ruling that religion is like “everything else.” Through Stewarts examples she is trying to show that when the court rules for religion to be treated equally, that this action is ultimately discriminatory against religion. But in regards to the Hosanna-Tabor decision, while they ruled that religion was special, the religious institution was internally discriminating against employees, but that the government cannot intervene due to the religious group having power over their employees. Stewart believes that in the Constitution it clearly states that religion is special and separate and this is a “truth about the American system.” This calls into question much of what we discussed in the Reynolds court case.

In one of our first class sessions the question was proposed as to whether we should treat religion as something special and separate? Or if religion should be treated equally as everything else, further looking to what religious freedom entails; this being a recurring theme that we come back to each week. As we saw in the Reynolds case, one can believe what they want, but religious actions and practices can and will be regulated. This calls for questions as Stewart states as in some cases the court treats religion as special, but in others religion is treated equally. It seems to be that this battle between separation of church and state will continue to be performed due to the unclear meaning of the First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” But if the exercise of such an action or practice of religion is in difference to the law, then the courts can decide how to rule such a decision? This brings forth the question that we looked to in the Bob Jones University case in which whether the biblical scripture that the institution was basing their policy over was true or not, the court withstood making truth claims, but rather decided whether the University was sincere and genuine in this belief and that they would not receive tax exemption. By treating religion as special or equal, there will be government interference. In essence, either way, religion is being treated as special because it causes such discordance within the judicial system. Recognizing one thing as a religious establishment, but constituting what is lawful actions or practices within a religion. It all comes back to the question of whether religious freedom is deemed by association or individual consciousness? I am perplexed to see what will arise over time regarding the issue and whether the judicial system actually identifies religious freedom by association or individual consciousness. With the continuous battle of such a definition, it seems clear that religion is being treated specially in the sense that the law tip toes around religion like one would around eggshells.

Is Islamic Law a Threat?

- 0 Comments

In the articleof New York Times, Islamic law in America is being discussed in terms of its possibility in a Judeo-Christian society. This article is written by Eliyahu Stern, and is around of mostly a fear about Islam. He says according to the Tennessee General Assembly, Shariah (Islamic Law) promotes "the destruction of the national existence of the United States." In addition, in the article Stern quotes words of Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential candidate, that "Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United Statesand in the world as we know it."

Eliyahu Stern thinks of these ideas as "exactly wrong" because such notions are contrast with America's successful history of religious tolerance and American democracy. Also he compares such notions to a thought in 19^th century in Europe, Jewish law is seditious. However, Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washingtonin July 2010 that "Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence, but in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”

I think these explanations are very important to show American freedom of thinking and anti-Islam movements. But Muslims are a reality of modern time in the world. They have specific beliefs, life style, and inherently rules. American laws either are based on secularism or on Christianity. For both cases, Muslims become excluded from the constitution.

Frankly, "As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of Fiqh Council of North America believe that it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens," the fatwa declared." However, I am thinking that if there is not a conflict between Shariah and the Constitution, why do some people like Gingrich consider Shariah as "the destruction of the national existence of the United States", or "a mortal threat", etc?

Maybe the Constitution reflects a Christian identity, thus radical Christians do not want Islamic law or maybe being an American requires being a Christian. We can think about many things which can be the reason. But I have three questions that even if Gingrich is correct on his idea, while there is a religious freedom in the USA, and Islam is a religion, what is the obstacle to establish Islamic law? Second is that if there is not an essential conflict between being faithful Muslims and being loyal American as FCNA claimed, why cannot people choose a different rule for their own lives? Third, is if the establishment of Shariah is a threat for the existence of the American nation or Christian America?

Friday, February 10, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Justice fails to "worship" the U.S. Constitution!

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 21^st century, would one look to a carriage design from the 18^th 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.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Ethopia vs Media

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 - 0 Comments

http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_2964_text

Ethiopia: Journalists and Politician Sentenced on Terrorism Charges

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402964_text

· Author: Constance Johnson

· Topic: Freedom of speech More on this topic

· 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 (1^st) 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

Document shows NYPD eyed Shiites based on religion

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.