Recent Articles
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
- 0 Comments
Interestingly enough, there is no actual position of Mufti in Islam. They are self appointed authorities, with no official authority placed upon them by Allah. There are arguments that the Grand Mufti does not officially "represent Islam" yet he is one of the most influential and visible leaders of Islam. That sounds to me like someone who does represent Islam. In this unfortunate situation, it is likely that the Grand Mufti's fatwa is influenced by his political needs.
I disagree with the rhetoric of destroying any religious place, be it a church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Muftis in Arab are more politically influenced. In Islam it’s not about what a Mufti would say, it’s about what the Quran and sahih hadeeths (saying of prophet Muhammad) recommend. According to Islamic law, Islam preaches tolerance and religious freedom, and I don’t believe there is a single verse in any sacred Islamic scripture which mandates a destruction of others faith by force. Islam condones peace and acceptance by faith and not force. Islam is purely based in belief and faith. Just like any other religion it cannot be forced, and if it is forced, there is no longer any faith. No faith and hence no Islam. You can destroy churches but you cannot destroy somebody's beliefs or faith. There's a battle for the heart and soul of Islam.
As Americans we have an impassioned belief in religious freedom. Now, at a time when our nation and surrounding nations are faced with severe religious instability, the challenge emerging again is how to preserve religious liberty for all. There may be temptation to legislate against an Islamic center being built near Ground Zero or to prohibit a pastor from publicly burning Qurans, but coercion is the wrong road to take. The taking away of religious freedoms in any nation, will result in violent religious persecution and conflicts are likely to increase. Religious liberty cannot be taken for granted, and all faith groups have a stake in protecting the fragile rights of religious freedom.
While I have been trying to stay out of the argument of the contraception debate, I feel that it is becoming too prominent now to ignore. This week, we have seen a strong objection from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. On CNN's Belief Blog, two journalists posted this article regarding the new proposal of religious exemption. Along these same lines, a fellow professor at Georgia State Universtity also wrote an opinion piece on Religion Dispatches that compliments this article from CNN and my thoughts quite nicely. First, the article posted on CNN is looking to the growing numbers of religious exemptions pertaining the contraception policy. On the legal side of things, President Obama is proposing that rather than the religious institution paying for the contraceptive coverage that the insurance policy would pay . Here, we see not only the individual being exempt but also the religious institution. What started as a debacle over Catholic hospitals and institutions is now turning to religious universities. In the conference call that took place on Friday, the new policy is suggesting a "four-part definition of who might qualify." Marrapodi and Yellin note that the definition entails, "the group must have religious values as its purpose, primarily employ people who share those religious beliefs, primarily serve persons who share those beliefs and be a nonprofit organization." Marrapodi and Yellin go on to write that earlier in the year when the mandate was first being introduced, "Religious colleges and charities were all but written out of the definition, so they would not be included in the exemption. . . .the administration said it does not want the new definition used as a precedent for future policies and regulations."
This is where I would like to interject and pose my concern. As noted in Ravitch's law reader, there has been a historical shift in how the U.S. Supreme Court deals with the Establishment Clause and further, the messiness involved in the "public purse." The shift began with the Supreme Court enforcing a "high and impregnable wall" between the church and state in regards to the Everson vs. Board of Education case. Moving forward with the Lemon vs. Kurtzman case in ( ), we note a shift in the Justice's ruling that there will always be an entanglement of law and religion and that sometimes fuzzy lines must be drawn to avoid "excessive entanglement" and that religious freedom still be upheld and honored. This shift is apparently still recognized today as we can see with the changing of the definition of who might qualify for religious exemption regarding the contraception mandate. As Dr. Ruprecht writes in his article (linked above), "If you want to run as a Catholic hospital or a Catholic university and not offer the full array of health care services to women as mandated by the state, then don't implicate yourself in any federal or state funding. Not one penny." While Dr. Ruprecht suggests that this is a "pretty simple solution," I would argue that on the surface it presents itself as so, but with such a historical shift in Justice's opinions, I am not sure that the Supreme Court would want to go back in time per se. While I understand that the Justice's in the Lemon vs. Kurtzman trial were honestly trying to uphold the importance of the First Amendment for its people, I fear that the more the government allows for such blurry lines to be drawn and to be weary of their decisions (aka, not wanting the new four-part definition of who is exempted to be used later) is allowing for "excessive entanglement" to intensify. Where does the government draw the line in such a predicament? While the public sees that the government is remaining consistent in their decisions (in a sense), there are consequences developing that I fear might be worse (or even avoided) had the government continued recognizing a "high and impregnable wall" that stands between church and state. As the plot thickens, I am interested to see if/where the contraception mandate moves in the progression of the courts.
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).
