Recent Articles
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
- 0 Comments
Omar Grayson, a prisoner at Big Muddy Correctional Center, was forced to cut his dreadlocks by an officer at the Correctional Center. Grayson is a member of the African Hebrew group. African Hebrew Israelites believe they cannot cut their hair. In Illinois, the location of the Correctional Center, inmates are allowed to have “’any length of hair’ as long as long as it ‘does not create a security risk’”. The officer claimed Grayson’s hair to be a security risk, but he did not explain why. Grayson complained about the situation; the chaplain of the center commented about the situation and “claimed that only Rastafarian inmates were entitled to wear dreadlocks on religious grounds”. Grayson appealed his situation to the Internal Prison Court and was denied his appeal based on the chaplain’s comments.
The case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals. The ruling was in favor of Omar Grayson. The court found that the prison was threatening religious freedom. They believed the chaplain’s comment about Rastafarian inmates was discriminatory towards other inmates. Big Muddy Correctional Center “lets Rastafarians wear dreadlocks and did not justify why Mr. Grayson posed a security risk the Rastafarians did not”. In an effort to award Grayson and other inmates religious freedom, the court ruled in favor of Grayson.
How did this ruling award religious freedom? The case at its heart was an issue of discrimination among religions. When the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Grayson’s forced haircut was religious discrimination, it forbid the forced cutting of hair unless it was a security threat. An officer or anyone in power over the inmates cannot force an inmate to cut their hair if they claim religious belief for hair length. They have no right to tell the religious inmate their views are wrong. However, if the person in power over the inmate has a legitimate reason for the inmate to cut their hair because of security purposes, they must be able to explain why.
Grayson’s case could have been denied if there was a compelling argument on the officer’s side about a security threat. I think the chaplain’s comment hurt the case. It makes me wonder how the case would have favored if the chaplain had not commented in this way.
This case reminds me of the Reynoldscase. The courts ruled in a similar fashion to the Omar Grayson case. Polygamy and all religious practices were allowed and could not be deemed incorrect by the law. Religion and its beliefs are/were not allowed to be dissected by the law and determined wrong. However, law could be enforced and ultimately stop the practice if there was a threat of security. Unlike the case, the court ruled in favor of Grayson and his religious beliefs because they were not a threat to security at the center. The Mormons were not granted as much favor. Due the prospective of threat on security because of polygamy, polygamy was banned and outlawed.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
- 0 Comments
Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Robert Woodward)
Before reading this article you may find yourself developing negative assumptions towards the Vatican because of the title "Vatican Makes Money Laundering List of U.S. State Department" written by Philip Pullella. Most times reporters create a catchy title in order to capture the reader's attention before actual grasp of the context of such articles. Before assuming let’s look at the text to gather proper understanding.
This article presents the issue of possible corruption in religious groups, especially those that hold very important roles in public life. What I am proposing is that the reader identify with the actions that the Vatican church officials take in this case in order to comply with international standards in prevention of this sort of corruption; aside from making blindsided assumptions and resent the Vatican.
In this article there seems to be less of an issue but more of a presentation of the Vatican’s historical involvement in the affairs of the U.S State Department’s money-laundering list. Apparently the Vatican has found itself on the list in the category of ‘of concern’. Although it may not have been of high risk concern it does put a dent in social perception of the righteousness of religious institutions. What I am referring to is the role that religion plays in society in reference to what is good or bad behavior. According to Was America Founded as a Christian Nation and We Have a Religion, religion is influential on the definition of morality in societal acceptance of groups; the Vatican should hold no exception in displaying moral behavior.
Generally, the Vatican has tried to cover up its bad blood from their past but it has also set up a new system for open communication of the transactions between the Vatican and the Vatican Bank to eliminate vulnerability to money launderers. The Vatican has made an effort to comply with the international standards against financial crimes. As a human being and associated with such a successful money producing field it’s easy to assume that there is some dishonesty or possible corruption within this institution but this report introduces what I find as positive assertion to this issue.
What is unique about this article is that the reporter presents this issue that includes the Vatican and the legal issues behind being placed on the list of money-laundering of the U.S State Department. I find that the effort the Vatican takes with details surrounding what they did in the past and what they are doing now were greatly expressed in this article. It is unique because most people do use the title to steer their train of thought before reading all the text and this one seems to be tricky in relating its information.
Religious Exemption in Michigan’s Anti- Bullying Bill
On November 2nd , 2011 a majority Republican controlled senate in Michigan passed an anti-bulling bill. According to an article in Time magazine online (http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04/why-does-michigans-anti-bullying-bill-protect-religious-tormenters), this bill did not require school districts to report bulling incidents, did not include provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they failed to act. The article states that “Michigan is already one of only three states in the country that have not enacted any form of anti-bullying legislation. For more than a decade, Democrats in the state legislature have fought their Republican colleagues and social conservatives such as Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who referred to anti-bullying measures as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.” In that time, at least ten Michigan students who were victims of bullying have killed themselves”.
The Democrats in the senate had asked for particular students that were prone to being bulled to be enumerated, such as racial and religious minorities, and gay students, however the Republican voted against this inclusion, in favor for the addition of “special” protections for religiously- motivated bulling, all 11 Democratic senators voted against the legislation, but they were outnumbered and the bill (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0137.pdf) was passed.
Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a “blueprint for bullying”. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
The Republican argument was that the addition of this “special” protection for religion was done so as to not limit the first Amendment guarantees of religious freedom to express ones religious beliefs. Ironically the bill is named “Matt’s Safe School Law”, after Matt Epling, a Michigan student that had committed suicide after prolonged bulling at school. After examining this bill, I am left wonder who exactly does it protect. I believe the bill just creates a legal loop hole for allowing students and even the school employees to get away with bulling. The social conservatives have previously unsuccessfully attempted for an inclusion of a provision that would protect religious freedom when congress expanded the definition motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation hate crime. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592)
I believe the main constitutional issues that should come into play in this situation should be the civil rights of the victims (the children being bullied). Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age. Therefore should laws infringing on the civil rights of citizens get passed? The civil rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship include the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments, and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality. The civil right of an individual is protected under the Equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[
I do not believe the “free exercise clause” of The First Amendment should be applicable when it causes harm or violates the civil liberties of others, especially children.
The main/ landmark cases from U.S. Supreme Court seem to be:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education.
Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause
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.
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.
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
Friday, March 9, 2012
- 0 Comments
Sex Selection & Abortion
Prepared by Krishan S. Nehra, Senior Foreign Law Specialist
Sex Selection & Abortion: India
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.
