Recent Articles
Home » All posts

Monday, March 5, 2012

Religious Revival

Monday, March 5, 2012 - 0 Comments

The Kansas City Star published an article stating that religion still plays a role in politics. The Star presents both sides of the support and opposition of religion in politics.

Carol Swain, a politics and law professor at Vanderbilt says, “That’s the heart of the Bible Belt. People who are religiously devout feel that they are under attack and that’s driving more people to elevate a candidate’s religious stance in their decisions.” I too, can attest to the heavy influence of religion and politics, especially in the South. However, I do not think personal beliefs should be the sole determinate of political candidacy.

I am originally from Washington, D.C. and grew up surrounded by the political world. Now, living in Atlanta, there’s a different political ‘vibe’ so to speak. In my opinion, religion is much more heavily emphasized in political candidates.

In the book, “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation ?”, the author John Fea argues that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Instead, he asks to look at the historical context of the founding fathers. He also asks to look at larger implications of using religious language in the politic sphere.

I do not think that religion should play such an intricate role in politics. I think it is deceptive to use religion as a platform during political campaigning as well. I am not foolish enough to think that people do not unconsciously or consciously intermix the two. However, people should look more closely at the legitimate political qualifications of the candidate, rather than their personality traits or religious ties.

Religious conservatives, for example, would argue for the involvement of religion into politics. I would counteract this point by using the example of the initial founding of the United States and the support of keeping politics and religion as two separate entities.

Lawrence M. Krauss, from The Huffington Post, also writes his opinion on the matter of religion and politics. Krauss also realizes the impossibility of completely separating the two spheres. He uses the example of potential presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Santorum’s lack of support for abortion and birth control. Including Santorum’s outlandish claims of birth control causing more abortions.
To reiterate, his Catholic views should not have such a heavy influence on his views or over his political persuasion. And moreover, his religion should not be a legitimate excuse to limit women’s reproductive choices. Complete separation of religion and politics is a lofty goal. But religion should not play such a vital piece in deciding a candidate’s credentials.




I wonder who she would select for presidential candidacy?


Preston L.

Breakaway Anglican Churches Ordered To Return Property To Episcopal Church By April 30

- 0 Comments

A Virginia Judge ordered seven congregations that separated from the Episcopal Church to return all property to the local diocese by April 30; the property included anything from valuable land to sacred chalices. This had been a closely watched case that eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court. According to Judge Bellows ruling back in January of 2007, the Congregations had the right to leave the Diocese of Virginia, but were not entitled to the Episcopal Church property.

The conservative congregations must return an estimated $40 million worth of property, according to The Washington Post, including several large historic churches. They must also return chalices, prayer books, crosses and some of the money they had on hand before they separated from the Episcopal Church. The breakaway congregations were also ordered to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" when referring to their names. Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston stated, "We hope that this will mark the end of this lengthy litigation." Jim Oaks, a spokesman for the breakaway church is extremely furious with the ruling. Oakes speaks on behalf of the churches by stating, that the congregations are "prayerfully considering their legal options." Oakes said they are particularly upset at Judge Bellows' order to turn over donations given to the congregations before they left the Episcopal Church.

The congregation decided to depart from the denomination back in 2006 and 2007, due to the frustration of the Episcopal Church's liberal theology, which includes consecrating gay and lesbian priests as bishops. The congregations are now part of the rival Anglican Church in North America.

Although I can understand the congregation’s decisions to leave the Episcopal Church, I still honestly believe the Judge Bellows ruling was fair game. The congregations had the right to leave, but it is absurd for them to take the property that belongs to the denominations after they have officially separated themselves. The decision for the church to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" is a little much. I compared this situation to marriage, after you have been apart of something or someone for a substantial amount of time, I think you should be entitled to a name. I also believe that asking for money the congregation had on hand is being a little greedy, but for the most part I believe the ruling was fair and the congregations should defiantly return the property back to the Episcopal churches, especially since the property holds high monetary value.

Middle school girl reprimanded for saying ‘I love you’ in native language

- 0 Comments


When I read the title of this article it automatically caught my attention, although I did not see any significance till I read the article itself. A Catholic school in Shawano, Wisconsin reprimanded a student for telling her friend “I love you” in her native language. Miranda Washinawatok was also not allowed to play on her middle school basketball game because the teacher took offense to her speaking in her native language. Since the incident theschool officials and teacher have sent letters of apology, but Washinawatok’s mother is trying to get the teacher, Julie Gurta, fired because the letter did not read as an apology but instead continue the accusation of the her daughter’s guilt.  In the video, Washinawatok says that the language is part of her culture, and this plays an important role in the fact that the teacher was Polish and would not want for their to be restriction put on her language. There was a clear denial of language in this case and the school and its staff definitely took the wrong actions toward the student. This only goes against the fact that this was a Catholic school, and the past struggles that people of that faith had to experience in the past. One has to realize that Native American tradition is part of this girl’s identity, which includes the language, so the unfair punishment toward the girl should have been avoided.

The history of past discriminations of the Native American has been a major hill that has to be overcome.  Native Americans have been victims to harmful punishment that was both physical and emotional in the past. The United States cannot say that they never have wrong Native Americans in the past, when there is clear evidence that genocide of the culture, tradition, and of the people was in fact happening in the past. One can look at the Catholic missionaries among others that went onto the Native American’s land and set up missionaries to convert the Indians to their religion, until the Indians finally established their own. Although one can argue that the only reason a “religion” based on that of the Protestant and Catholic religions specifications that surround them was established was so that they could continue practicing their traditions and cultures that were being restricted by the federal government. Tisa Wenger wrote in We Have a Religion, that the Native Americans understood the value of naming their practices under the label of “religion” since their freedoms would be guaranteed and that they were defending their tribal identify. This may also apply to this case in which the student may make claim that she has the right of freedom of speech guaranteed to her by the civil discourse of the United States, and that the teacher was and is to be reprimanded herself for breaking a law. One can say that the Native Americans have been placed outside of the scope of the freedoms that are guaranteed to the people of the United States. 

Santorum Gets it Wrong

- 0 Comments

Rick Santorum recently made a statement that a speech given by John F. Kennedy made him “want to throw up.”  The speech he refers to was given by Kennedy on September 12, 1960, where he expressed his views on church-state separation.    Santorum was sickened by this speech because he believed Kennedy supported keeping people of faith out of the public square.   However, Santorum got it all very wrong.   Kennedy’s brilliant and eloquent speech addressed to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was a turning point in American history, a moment in history where he had to address the topic of being a presidential candidate who was Catholic.     
This article highlights Kennedy’s speech and his definition of church-state separation in the face of opposition, opposition being the “historic Protestant fear that a Catholic could not support separating church from state.”   The speech was addressed to Protestant ministers, which, the article states, were some of the “most skeptical, if not hostile, voices which challenged Kennedy’s candidacy.”   Kennedy referenced the chief topic as the “so-called religious issue.”   At that time, 25 percent of the voters said they would not vote for a Catholic, compared to today’s voters of only 7 percent who oppose the prospect of a Catholic president.   
Kennedy’s views on church-state separation are not what Santorum asserted.   Kennedy never discussed or alluded to keeping people of faith out of the public square.   Rather, Kennedy publically and fully embraced his faith, which “happened to be Catholic,” and declared that he would not “disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”   He promised to “resign the office” if a conflict arose between his conscience or following national interest.   Additionally, he cautioned against officials using religion as an instrument to impose their religion on the nation.
In the speech, Kennedy envisioned “ . . . an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches . . . ”   He further envisioned America’s religious liberty as stated in the First Amendment, where the government does not take sides on religion.  . . .  where the founding fathers “fought for the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom.”  . . . “ . . an America where religious intolerance will someday end. . where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind. . .”
Sadly, Santorum decontextualized the speech by removing it from its historical moment and reinterpreted it to fit with the political discourse of social conservatives of 2012.  More appropriately, he simply misused this speech.    What does Santorum’s response and behavior towards this speech reveal?  Mostly, it reveals that Santorum cannot read critically and understand a speech given in its historical environment or understand its relevance to him as a Catholic presidential candidate fifty years later.  In 1960, Catholics and other religious minorities were trying to assert their religious freedom according to the First Amendment in a Protestant dominant nation.   Kennedy refers to the First Amendment and to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom for constitutional and historical backing. 
It also reveals a disconnect between the struggle for religious freedom and the prevalence of religious intolerance towards certain religious groups in 1960 to present day of a pluralistic society where ‘Christian’ affiliation does not appear to be a force of contention – where Santorum’s Catholicism is not an issue.   The disconnect is evidenced by the political and social conservative discourse that propels [Christian] religion into the political arena, creating a dominant theme and highlighting how one displays zeal towards their faith as a necessary component for presidential candidacy.  
This is precisely what Kennedy cautioned against, for government not to take sides on religion. . for no bloc voting of any kind . . .  Perhaps todays voters are able to see the real issues beyond a candidate’s religion or their religious zealousness and are not merely ‘bloc voting.’  Perhaps today’s voters are more intelligent than the audience to whom Santorum believed he was speaking.  I want to believe that the nation is moving forward to embrace religious liberty of the First Amendment and the freedom to believe or not to believe.   The noisy political discourse today appears to be using religion as an instrument, not to question their religious [Christian] affiliation, but to measure the degree of one’s religious zealousness and how that would translate in the political arena.    Surely rational arguments exist beyond Santorum’s misstep.
For a full reading on Kennedy’s September 12, 1960 speech:    
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Santorum, Kennedy, and the Separation of Church and State

Sunday, March 4, 2012 - 0 Comments

At the end of February, presidential candidate Rick Santorum relayed his nauseated response to President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech regarding “the absolute separation of church and state.” In this editorial, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sides with Santorum that an “absolute” separation is impossible although he states that Santorum “clearly missed some of the careful nuances of Kennedy’s speech.” While President Ronald Reagan’s name has been batted around recently as well I wonder if Santorum is attempting to highlight tensions between himself and fellow Catholic President Kennedy due to scandal brought to light earlier that month with an extensive interview with Mimi Alford.

After expressing his gastrointestinal distress, Santorum proclaimed “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” This exhibits not only Santorum’s literal, uninformed reading of history but a very narrow view as it appears he can not understand why American citizens of other or no faiths are uncomfortable with this. This completely threatens the separation of church and state which apparently is not as solid and uncontested as believed. Mohler states that it is impossible to have a complete separation of the government and all religious institutions as evidenced by the continuous flow of legal proceedings regarding faith based conflicts. In addition, “Human beings are composite creatures, and there is no way that authentic religious beliefs can be safely isolated from an individual’s total worldview.”

It is in this way that Kennedy diverges from Santorum and Mohler on ideas of church and state. In 1960, then candidate John F. Kennedy was facing a similar problem as Mitt Romney. As a Catholic presidential candidate, Kennedy had to prove to the American public that he would work for and with Americans within the defined secular, American laws and not act as a puppet for the Pope forfeiting American autonomy to Catholic rule. The American people wanted this separation, at least from the Catholic Church. Many of his contemporaries described President Kennedy as able to “compartmentalize his life” in this way, for better or worse, in both the political and personal spheres. I assume, although it is not stated explicitly, that Santorum views this compartmentalization as equally destructive to America as it has been to President Kennedy.

We do need different guidelines to operate in the diverse areas of our world especially the American president, whose decisions have far reaching effects on diverse groups of people. I agree with Mohler that our beliefs, religious or not, are part of who we are and influence our decisions. However, politicians are required to make decisions based on American law not religious doctrine. Kennedy reaffirmed the American ideal of religion as being dependent only on the individual’s conscience and therefore one can not incorporate religion into the government and impose these beliefs, with no legal grounds, on other individuals. Although there is obviously overlap between legal and religious realms in The United States this does not mean we should throw our hands up and stop trying to navigate this grey area and in the process make some Americans vulnerable with the loss of their civil liberties.

Santorum Backs Nullifying Existing Gay Marriages

- 0 Comments

           A recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle claims that Rick Santorum supports the creation of a constitutional amendment which would not only prohibit same-sex marriages, but also nullify the validity of same-sex marriages that already exist. Such an amendment would affect over 100,000 couples whose marriages have already taken place as well as those who plan to marry in the future. Despite increasing public opposition, Santorum appears confident in his position, stating that, “Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right.” True enough, but public opinion does have significant influence in both Congress and the House of representatives, which require a majority vote to pass a new amendment. Santorum is not alone in his sentiments, however. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich also support an amendment which would ban gay marriage, though neither has voiced support for nullifying those that already exist.
Such widespread support among Republican candidates is troubling, but not surprising; American history is plagued with instances of government support for Christian morals and traditions over those of other religions. One such case is that of the Pueblo Indians, whose dance ceremonies were considered “barbaric” and “immoral” in the eyes of the American Government. Though they were eventually permitted to practice their dances by claiming protection under the First Amendment, they endured years of religious persecution and personal sacrifice in the process. The Mormons were another group to experience such persecution at the hands of the Federal Government, though their use of the First Amendment as a means for defending the practice of polygamy was significantly less successful than that of the Pueblos. In the 1879 Reynolds v. United States case the Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom was not a sufficient defense for the practice of polygamy, citing examples of human sacrifice as practices akin to plural marriage. Once again, the government imposed its Christian morals on a group whose practices were considered inferior or immoral. The same is true of Santorum and his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage – he would be using the power of the Federal Government to impose his own religious views on the American people.
This imposition of Christian morals and traditions by the government and its leaders is detestable. You cannot in one moment argue for “freedom and justice for all” and in the next moment impose your beliefs on another. Often we talk about the First Amendment in terms of Americans’ freedom to choose which religion they wish to practice, but what of the freedom from religion? Is Christianity the necessary default for American citizens who do not wish to practice any one religion or can they determine “right” and “wrong” for themselves? Certainly, a person’s private practices should have minimal bearing on other people’s rights (i.e. no human sacrifice or destruction of private property), but there is absolutely no valid reason why Rick Santorum or any other candidate should be permitted to ban gay marriage or nullify existing marriages, the least of which being established Christian morals and traditions.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Muslim Judge Thows Out Case on Attack of Man Dressed as Zombie Muhammad

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - 0 Comments


This past Halloween in the city of Mechanicsburg, PA, a parade was held where people could dress in costume.  A group called the Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to attend with costumes that included a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammad.  Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim spectator, was offended by the zombie Muhammad costume, worn by Ernie Perce, and physically attacked Perce.  Elbayomy stated that he felt compelled to “do something” because he believed that to have Muhammad depicted as a zombie was a crime.  Both Perce and Elbayomy filed reports against each other to the police, but only Elbayomy was charged with harassment.  The case was seen in District Court with Judge Mark Martin who dismissed the case against Elbayomy and called the victim a “doofus.”  The judge, who according to the article has served several times overseas in the Middle East, stated that if this incident had taken place in the Middle East, Perce would have been the criminal and put to death.

Another article (disclaimer: there is a picture of Perce in costume in this article)notes that Judge Martin recently converted to Islam and stated during his ruling: “I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we could speak what’s on our mind, not to p*** off other people and cultures, which is what you did…You are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights…You’ve completely trashed their essence, their being.  I’m a Muslim.  I find it offensive.”

As Judge Martin states above, this is a case about the First Amendment, both in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Perce believed he had the right to express his opinions in whatever fashion he wanted and that by dressing up as a zombie Muhammad he was expressing his freedom of speech.  Elbayomy, on the other hand, believed that he had the right to defend his beliefs by attacking someone offending his faith.  Because Muslims believe that there should be no images of Muhammad, Perce was insulting Elbayomy, the Muslim faith, and the memory of Muhammad by portraying a zombie Muhammad.  However, is a physical attack justified by the offense?

While I am sympathetic to Elbayomy’s view and consider a zombie Muhammad (or any zombie religious figure) blasphemous, I do not agree with the actions of the court.  Yes, what Perce did was offensive and he probably should have respected the beliefs of others when deciding on a Halloween costume.  However, he broke no laws (national, state, or local) when he dressed in his costume.  He has the right to express himself in whatever fashion he feels appropriate as long as it does not violate any laws.  Elbayomy was offended by Perce’s costume but that does not give him the right to attack another in anger.  There are several legal, non-violent alternatives that Elbayomy could have utilized instead of attacking Perce.  The legality of an action is not a judgment on its tastefulness.  Just as the Westboro Baptist Church is within their rights to picket funerals, which many find distastful, Perce is within his rights to dress up as a zombie Muhammad.  And, as we have seen in court cases such as Reynolds v United States, 98 U.S 145 (1878) (in which it was determined that even though polygamy was considered a religious duty to those of the Mormon faith, that did not mean that federal laws could be broken in the name of religious freedom), Americans have the right to believe whatever they want, they just may not have the same right to actin whatever way they want.  Elbayomy may not believe that what Perce did was correct, but that does not mean he had the right to act in the way he did.  Judge Martin’s ruling is favoring Islam by throwing out the case, and that is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment which does not allow for the government to favor or disfavor “one view of religion over another.”

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