Recent Articles
Home » All posts

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Drawing the Line Between Risk and Religion in Daycares in Indiana

Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 0 Comments


Throughout the news we hear constant debates over the role of religion in high schools and middle schools but new developments in Indiana are asking about its role in daycare.  During last month an infant drowned who was attending a religious affiliated daycare that is registered as a non-profit and receives government funding but is not registered with the state as a daycare.  This tragic incident has many questioning why these non-profits are not licensed within the state and can still function as a daycare.  Within this debate there remains a balancing act between the power of government regulations within religious institutions and the right of a religious institution to function without government influence.
     The debate about the non-profits in Indiana stems from the question of why these religious daycares are not seeking the licensing that their secular counterparts are.  Some state that this move is to avoid “most state oversight” and this claim may carry some weight.  One example that has many supporting this claim is the number of regulations that the two types of daycare have to abide by such as; “licensed centers must follow 192 rules; the unlicensed faith-based ministries, 21”.  To further this sides argument the article states that “restricting religious expression isn’t one of them”.  

On the other side many are claiming that they are retaining their right to teach religion in their daycares. Many on this of the debate fear that allowing the government into the school beyond the current regulations could open the door for limiting religious expression.  One man states that “we would not want to see a tragic moment in a church be used for government oversight”.  There becomes a real fear that the government is attempting to enter the church through the door of the daycare.
This issue is important to our discussion because it shows the current debate going on where the role of the government belongs within the practices of the church.  For the government there is a concern for the children in the daycares that are not licensed because the safety regulations are limited.  While there is a concern for the children, there is also the concern at where the line must be drawn on the issue of governmental regulations within the practices of a church.  For me, I have to say that the concern of the children really comes to the forefront of my mind.  One incident has already occurred due to the lack of regulations for safety issues within the nonprofit organizations. I believe that there can be a limit to what kind of regulations that the government enforces and still keep a separation of religion and state concerns.  For the state the concern is the children while for the religious institution it is the freedom for religious expression.  This debate is bringing to light the ever-long struggle to find that fine line between government interference and religious freedom and putting it within the context of the typical daycare.

How Religion Affects the Argument for the Legalization of Marijuana

- 0 Comments


Pat Robertson of “The 700 Club” fame has recently in an interview stated that he believes marijuana should be legalized.  This on its surface seems like a shocking argument, but then when you listen to what he is saying it begins to make a bit more sense.  One of the first quotes they offer from him is, “I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”  Throughout the article the arguments he makes are based more on secular views than Christian ideology. 

A second article on the statement involved the reporter interviewing various Christian leaders concerning their opinion on whether marijuana should be legalized or not.  Surprisingly the split was not simply based on whether they believed the use of marijuana to be a sin or not.  They quote Reese, S.J., senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, as saying, “There’s a tradition within Catholic theology that the purpose of law is not to outlaw every sin. Prohibition was a classic failure of trying to do that,"

In all honesty what I find interesting about the pair of articles here is that it is the reporters and not the Christians that are interested in talking about religion.  In the New York Times article Pat Robertson’s arguments mostly talk about social justice, comparison to alcohol, and the cost of trying to fight a war that we have already lost.  His two comments on religion are that he believes “in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up” and a statement about problems he had with alcohol before turning to God.  Even his two comments that could be tied to religion are not really core arguments.  The first is a statement that could be looked at as a statement of the proper way of deterring crime and the second as a biographical comment.

The second article goes more into the religious side of the matter.  Unlike the interview with Pat Robertson the second article looks at possible interpretations of the Bible’s stance on the use of marijuana.  A large section of the article is devoted to religious questions that were not even touched in the New York Times article.  They discuss the various ways of interpreting the Bible that could lead to seeing the use of marijuana as a sin or not, and then they discuss the opinions of various leaders about the legalization.  This is where we get the discussion that shows that the split of Christian leaders that do or do not think it should be legal does not neatly follow the same lines as those that think it is or is not a sin.

Overall the two articles combined show a move within some areas of Christian faith to look at laws with their secular effects in mind.  The articles show various Christian leaders that are pushing for social justice and an accounting of how effective a law is not whether the prohibition in the law matches to a Christian sin or not.  I believe this article shows several groups of people that while they do not disregard their religion also do not see it as something that they should enforce upon others. 

Controversy over Atheist Billboard in New York

- 0 Comments

An advertisement created by a national atheist group was supposed to be displayed on a billboard in an area with a high Jewish and Muslim population. The controversial nature of the advertisement stemmed from the fact that it was written in Hebrew and Arabic stating, "You know it's a myth... and you have a choice." The advertisement was never put on the billboard because the owner of the building was opposed to the advertisement.
    The President of the American Atheists, David Silverman was surprised that the billboard was not being put up. Silverman thought that this was a result of religious bigotry. Silverman, who was raised in the Jewish faith said, "They've been the victims of religious bigotry and now they're the purveyors". The advertisement was moved out of the residential area and place in an area of town that had more visibility. The advertisement ended up getting placed off of a busy highway. Silverman said that it was good that the billboard still went up, but they were specifically targeting this particular Brooklyn neighborhood.
    Silverman argued that they were interested in posting the billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood because they knew that there were people who were undercover atheists that were afraid to speak up for their beliefs. They wanted to assist those who grew up in the orthodox Jewish faith and converted to atheism to speak up about their true beliefs. Silverman said that he received over a dozen emails from Hasidic atheists that had believed they were alone until they heard about the ad campaign.
    I think that the atheists had the right to put their billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood, despite the fact that there was an abundant amount of Jewish and Muslim people that lived there. Even though it might be crude to most, the atheists have the right to express their opinion. However, I understand that the advertisement had the potential to offend some of the residents. The intent of the American Atheist group was not malicious in nature. Their intent was to empower those who thought that they were alone in their particular situation. I am also taking into consideration that the building is privately owned and the owner of the building has the authority to decide what goes on the building and what does not.  
    The owner of the building either objected to the content of the advertisement itself or how it would affect his business, or a combination of both. By erecting the sign on the side of his building there might be a chance that he would lose business. There is a high probability that the people looking to rent from him are either Muslim or Jewish because of the neighborhood. It could be possible that the owner of the building was either Jewish or Muslim and could have objected to the advertisement based on his own beliefs. While the atheist have the right to free speech, the building owner's private property rights trump the atheists free speech rights. In the final analysis, the American Atheist's right to free speech was never truly violated, they were just prevented from exercising them at that particular location.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Sex Selection & Abortion

Friday, March 9, 2012 - 0 Comments

Sex Selection & Abortion

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/index.php
Prepared by Krishan S. Nehra, Senior Foreign Law Specialist

Sex Selection & Abortion: India

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/india.php
In this article, the author uses four (4) similar Laws in four (4) different countries to compare and contrast each countries unique perspective on a similar subject, which is “Sex Selection and Abortion”.  Canada, a nation with no legal law prohibiting abortion, uses a sort of moral and ethical standard to prohibit medical practitioners from engaging in practices that allows the parents to terminate a fetus based on its gender.  Whereas a more conservative nation, such as India, uses the law to ban certain forms or types of abortion with a maximum of three (3) year prison term as the ultimate deterrent.
Abortion is a despicable, evil, peculiar practice that should be abolished worldwide.   Using the sex of a child as the motive for indulging oneself in such a simple and utterly disgraceful act only compounds the offense.  No matter the justification, to take a life without legitimate cause is murder.  Abortion is bad not only because it takes the life of an innocent child, it also damages the body of the mother in the process.  Abortion is seen as a mechanism to control population growth; however, there is no need to enforce such tactics, when other more humane methods of controlling human population exist. 
On the issue of a Government allowing for crimes against its citizens to include children through the practice of Abortion is justification for that Nation losing its legitimacy.  Any individual that willingly subjects an innocent to the dismemberment and torture of abortion deserves punishment at the greatest extent allowed under the law.  Government sanctioned abortions in public hospitals, such as is the case in India, given the circumstances of the abortion, is a violation of the taxpayer’s rights and a misuse of government funds. 
Regardless of the government, the power that it inherits is derived from the people.  To murder a defenseless individual despite the rationale such as birth defects, undesirable sex, etc. is a violation of Divine Law.  Even animals recognize and obey the natural law that is inherent in all living creatures.  While it is well documented that various species of mammals engage in infanticide there is usually a legitimate reason that can be explained through scientific rationale and reason for such occurrences.  Humans are viewed as the most evolved and advanced species on earth.  If this is a true statement, then why would we endorse and give legitimacy to such barbaric and heinous practices such as abortion?  To injure oneself and kill ones offspring is counter intuitive and goes against the whole notion of evolution and Divine Order.  The purpose of evolution is to survive from generation to generation by successfully passing on ones genetic code via ones offspring.  Divine Law, clearly prohibits Abortion because it is an affront to God and a sin against one’s own body.   Any Nation that legalizes such barbarism is destined for anarchy.

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. 

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