Recent Articles
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
- 0 Comments
The article is about a recent federal government decision allowing a Wyoming Native American tribe, Northern Arapaho, to kill two bald eagles for a religious ceremony. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are allowing the tribe to either kill or capture and release two bald eagles. The controversy is not the whether the bald eagles are going to be used for a religious purpose but whether they can perform their ceremonies without killing the bald eagles. A spokesman for conservation and animal rights group ask whether the tribe can use eagle feathers. The only problem is getting the feathers from a federal repository is a lengthy process.
In 2005 a young tribal member, who was participating in the Sun Dance, was arrested after he shot a bald eagle; he eventually plead guilty and was fined. Harvey Spoonhunter, a tribal elder, gave reasons for using the bald eagle, “It has been since the beginning of time with us… we get to utilize the eagle, which we consider a messenger to the Creator.” A member of the Zuni Tribe in New Mexico said using a bird in a ceremony is common because it bring awe to many people. He also believes that because of their ceremonies their language and the sense of community have survived.
The President of The Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, said he did not want to see the bald eagles killed. He also said he understood the importance of the bald eagles for Native American culture and their ceremonies. Pacelle hopes the Native American tribe can use feathers and carcasses without resorting in direct killings of the bald eagles. Since 2007, the bald eagles were taken off of the endangered species list. Another spokesman is insisting that not every tribe wants to kill bald eagles in their ceremonies it is exclusive to only a few tribes. Which means that even though a tribe has been permitted to kill two bald eagles does not every tribe will begin to kill bald eagles.
The major issue with this is the Native Americans have to ask permission before part taking in a ceremony. Before the tribe can participate in ceremony they have to ask permission to use the feathers bald eagles. In the same article by CNN, Matt Hogan, a regional director for the Fish and Wildlife Services said, “Native Americans often have to get bald eagle feathers for their ceremonies from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife national feather repository in Denver… it can take years for the tribes to get the feathers this way.” That for me is where the problem comes in, should the Native Americans have wait for years in order to perform a ceremony? Is that not conflicting on their religious freedom? Pacelle hopes that Native Americans can use the feathers rather than killing the bald eagle, but it is not fair to make them wait years before giving them feathers. This seemed reasonable when the bald eagle was still on the endangered specie list, but now that it is off should feathers not be readily available?
This article takes me back to the book, We Have a Religion: The 1920s Pueblo Indian Dance Controversy, by Tisa Wenger. In the book Wenger talks about the federal government trying to ban some of the practices of the Pueblo Indians during the 1920s. This article shows that the government is trying to understand the Native Americans and their practices, but is still interfering with Native American practices. It will take time for the government to find a balance in granting the Native Americans to use bald eagles in their ceremonies, but it is not fair for the Native Americans to suffer in the mean time.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
- 0 Comments
This issue became headlines news in 2011 when an Amish teenager died after a small utility vehicle (SUV) struck his horse-drawn buggy from behind accidently. The buggy did not have the state required orange reflective safety triangle affixed to it. In January 2012 another teenage buggy driver was hit and his buggy dragged into a ditch by a drunk driver. Five children were with him in the carriage; fortunately no one was injured. The teenage buggy driver was cited for failing to display the mandated small moving vehicle (SMV) triangle.
The dispute over the safety reflective triangles ignited a debate between law enforcement officers and the Amish in several lower court cases. Dozens of Amish men from Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee argue their religious freedom is the issue causing them to oppose the use of safety triangles and for not paying court-imposed fines related to the orange reflective safety triangles on their buggies. “We would be working against our own religious beliefs,” they say.
One of the nine Amish men jailed and spokesperson for the sect said they believe God will protect them on roadways and that they should never put their trust in a manmade object instead of God. Further, he says the bright orange color of the triangles directly violates their strict modesty code banning vivid colors. “The use of the orange triangles encroach upon their spiritual relationship
with God because the Bible admonishes them to shun those things that are of the world,” said the lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in representing the Amish.
Amish in other states (Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan) have sided with the religious freedom argument in this case noting that Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania permit Amish buggies to use silver reflective tape instead of orange triangles. With the repeated jailing of Amish men, the Kentucky legislature reconsidered their safety laws and its application to the Amish community. The Amish spokesperson sent 138 handwritten letters to Kentucky legislators prompting the Kentucky Senate to pass a bill that will allow the Amish to use reflective tape on their buggies instead of orange reflective triangles. The Amish are okay with that decision, but now they want the nine men exonerated. Therefore, in March they went to the Kentucky Supreme Court to argue that the charges against the men be dropped.
Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allow the Amish to be exempt from laws that violate their religious beliefs or should they be forced to abide by the laws like other citizens in their state?
I believe the Kentucky Senate’s passage of a bill allowing the Amish to use reflective tape on their vehicles instead of the triangles is a wise decision, but I do not believe the nine men previously convicted of disobeying the law should be exonerated. The Amish put others at risk during their fight and refusal to adhere to public safety regulations and laws. They won their fight by provisions set forth by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While the laws were in effect the Amish could have meet the safety concerns partially by using the reflective tape that had been allowed in other states. The Amish were aware of an alternative used in other states but choose to ignore the law and the public’s safety as well as their own. The Kentucky Supreme Court should uphold the law for all its
Discrimination is a reality of societies unfortunately. People discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, and nation, among other factors. In this essay, I will write about the religious discrimination that a Muslim woman named Hani Khan experienced in San Francisco Bello
In this incident, the most important thing was that Khan's scarf became a problem for the company in view not because it was an Islamic observance, but because her wearing of the headscarf violated the company's "look policy" according to the company. "The policy instructs employees on clothing, hairstyles, makeup and accessories they may wear to work."
My purpose in this essay is to ask a question: Is there a law which cannot be interpreted by different ways? Is there a law that everyone infers from this law the same meaning? I think definitely not. For example, everyone knows that in the United States Bob Jones University
In addition, especially after 9/11, the United States
Finally, I offered here an example of religious discrimination which was carried out for another reason, the appearance policy of a company. There should be a way to prevent the using of such reasons. No company does have a right to determine a policy which causes a kind of discrimination because human rights are more important than companies' or countries' policies. Otherwise, every time people may be undergone such discriminations by different reasons. What is the cause of such a conflict, the structure of laws which is proper to be interpreted differently, or there is not sufficient and explicit clauses to stop these kinds of interpretations?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
- 0 Comments
The article discusses the legal issue surrounding the speculations of their being possible concerns of money laundering taking place within this institution. Although the report relates that the vatican is not at high risk concern or the most popular group on the list it is unfortunate to have such accusations place on a institution such as the Vatican. Religion and Legal social issues seem to come up often in social issues. But to question the legitimacy of a religious group is very sketchy and less trustworthy.
Looking back at the text from the books the Mormon Question and Was America Founded as a Christian Nation. These books related religious ideas as defining and establishing the means of morality in society that influence the acceptance of such groups practice such as the Mormons polygamy. The problem with the Vatican being placed on this list is that it reflects negatively on public perception of religious organizations. What the article tells us is that the Vatican is under consideration of possible money laundering operations with more vivid details that explain why.
The reason they have been added was because of the access of large funds that circulate through the ‘Holy See”. This vulnerability in the financial structure presents situations that may form corruption or susceptible to money launderers.
I take notice of the action that the Pope and Vatican has taken to correct this problem. By creating a new system of transparency of the transactions the Vatican bank takes it reflects a sense of nobility on their part. Their actions may foreshadow past reports of corruption and possibly get the Vatican on the “white List”. This list is particularly different from the U.S.State Departments list. It includes groups that comply with international regulations and standards to prevent financial crimes that the Vatican is being reformed to.
I do believe that the Vatican may not be as corrupt as people suspect it to be and that they have made an effort based on the details of this article to display their aim to refrain from financial crimes.
In her post on March 10th, L.A. radio host Kennedy described the public reaction to her comment on Real Time with Bill Maher, that Atheism is a religion. The reaction to the comment was dramatic; to say ther least, with Kennedy’s Facebook and Twitter feed becoming “engorged with angry responses.” the question posed by this blog, over whether or not Atheism is a religion, could have far reaching effects on how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied.
The United States has been trying to deal with the position of religion since its inception and, as Kennedy points out, a lot of the difficulties that arise can be attributed to the lack of a clear definition of religion. Sadly, if I have learned anything as a Religious Studies student, it is that defining religion is as easy as telling someone who had never had a banana what a banana tastes like. The fundamentally subjective nature of religion allows the definition to be tailored to the user’s purpose. For example, one could argue that religion is the belief in a god or gods, which control human destiny. Based on this definition, Buddhism, one of the world’s largest religions would be excluded, due to its lack of a central deity(s).
The argument over the religious nature of Atheism appears to be a problematic one at first glance, but that issue disappears when you examine the definition of theism which according to the OED, means, Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. Atheism then would fall into the same category as Buddhism, with there being no “divine” deity. While some might argue the Buddha is their deity, I would respond by saying that there are many Buddha’s and everyone has the potential to achieve this state. In fact, for a long time the U.S. court systems would not accept witness testimonies from Buddhists because they did not believe in a god, negating the swearing in process. Since then Atheism has become a religion in its own right, and is an active participant in “religious” debates.
I believe the strong reaction to the argument that Atheism is a religion stems from Atheism’s adversarial position in relation to Theistic religious traditions, and the hostile nature that frequents their dialogues. The only impediment I see in Atheists succeeding is the number of self-identifying Atheists, who also identify with recognized religious traditions. Kennedy points out in her post that both sides are in agreement as to the non-religious status of Atheism, seemingly making this a moot point. I would argue that much of the publicly stated positions for both sides, are merely instances of posturing within the context of their appearance to the public and the consequences thereof.
Georgia is facing on-going controversy involving “In God We Trust” stickers on state license plates. An Atlanta Journal Constitution article describes the most recent decision, to make the stickers free to anyone citizen who wants one. This bill passed on Feb. 28th, with a 48-3 vote. Previously, the stickers could be purchased for $1 each.
This debate, however, dates back to Spring 2011. Originally, the license plates designs were put to a contest, where car owners could vote for the design for the new Georgia license plates. Some of the designs included “In God We Trust” where the county decal is typically found. In July, Republican Senator Bill Health proposed to make the motto default on all license plates manufactured after July 1, 2011. This bill, however, was dropped in committee. Health proposed the most recent legislation because he believes it to be, as the AJC article phrases it, “’ unconscionable’ for the state to profit from what he considered an expression of faith and respect.”
This issue has stirred considerable controversy throughout its run. The initial move to make the stickers mandatory struck statewide debate. Atheist groups are protesting the most recent decision to offer the stickers free of charge. One such website states, “...what state needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue when its representatives can preach their faith for free?!”
The earlier move to make the stickers mandatory seems to be a clear violation of the rights of motorists. The debate over whether or not to charge for the stickers is trickier. It seems particularly complicated because it involves a state-run service as well as individual purchases for an optional product. By not requiring the sticker to be mandatory, the state is not necessarily infringing on the rights of the individual. The concern does not seem to be one framed primarily in terms of individual rights, but rather of the right of the state to offer the product for free, which is a highly monetary concern. Thus, the legal issue at stake here is whether or not the state has the right to monetarily benefit from the sales of these stickers.
I think the decision to offer the stickers for free should be overturned. The state would benefit from the sales of the stickers, and no individual person would be at great loss for $1 per sticker. This is a luxury provided by the state, not a right of expression. Although the petitioning Atheist group cited above opposes the measure for monetary concerns, some may oppose the sticker being on the license plate at all because it is a state issued, legal license. Although I think this is a valid concern, it does not seem to be an innate infringement of rights to offer the stickers at a low cost. Sen. Health’s argument falls on the other side of the debate, that the state cannot conscientiously benefit over what he sees as a sign of respect. However, the stickers are an optional product sold by the state, not a right of individual expression. Charging for the stickers is not preventing anyone from freedom of religious expression, nor is it necessarily intruding on individual rights since the stickers are an optional addition.
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.
