Recent Articles
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
- 0 Comments
The types of 19th and 20th century cases concerning religious classes we are discussing in class, are currently making their way through Canadian courts. A school in Drummondsville, Quebec decided to replace former Catholic and Protestant religious courses with an Ethics and Religions class in their curriculum. The course teaches several world religions and ethics tied to the faiths. A case was filed by a couple from central Quebec who wanted to remove their child from the required Religion and Ethics course. “They claimed the class violated their freedom of religion by forcing their child to be exposed to religious beliefs that were different from the family's.” A unanimous Supreme Court verdict upheld the lower court decisions to refuse the parents from exempting their child out of the class because they were unable to prove that their religious rights were infringed. The mother, known by her initials S.L., said such classes shouldn’t be required at such a young age because it really weakens the foundation parents try to build in order to indoctrinate their children in their own faith. About 1,600 requests for exemptions were filed when this course was first introduced, and the number has decreased to 50 since then. The parents who filed this suit and their lawyer have clearly expressed that although they have lost this case due to the lack of evidence, this ruling leaves the door open for future challenges against the course.
Because this in an international case, to discuss the salient issue in this case, we must know how Canadian law considers religion. Canadian law in general, and Quebec law specifically, have moved to a more neutral existence of religion in government regulated places, like schools. Quebec in 1997, was constitutionally exempted from providing funding to religious based schools. In 2000, Catholic and Protestant religious education classes along with nonreligious moral education classes continued to be part of the curriculum in public schools. The main public schools network offers the choice between moral or religious education. Since 2008, The ERC(ethics and religious culture) course eliminated the choice in moral or religious education in public and private schools. The ERC has become compulsory and several cases have been raised due to its controversial nature, this one being one of them.
Seeing the history of the Quebec law, it is only natural that this ERC course would cause controversy. This change is so recent that these types of cases will challenge this installation. Since most schools had the choice between moral and religion education, most schools operated with a curriculum with protestant and catholic religion education courses along with traditional education. The ethics and religious culture teaches about religion rather than teaching religion, which was prevalent prior to the ERC course. Christian majority took for granted the presence of Christian religious classes offered in school, but after the change, it has become clearly unconstitutional to allow such classes in the school. Quite frankly, I agree with court that the parents have been unable to prove how this ERC course is an infringement on their religious rights. In fact, this ERC course has allowed free exercise for students of all faiths. Allowing religious education in school infringes upon the rights of those students who don’t follow that same faith. To allow all students a fair opportunity for free exercise, religion should exist in public places in a strictly academic form. If this case was being decided in the US Supreme Court, they would definitely refer back to the Schempp case which sets up the 3 basic principles to govern religion in public schools. The ERC course isn’t promoting religion in schools, instead the former Christian classes was guilty of this principle. I don’t think the ERC course has any influence on the students as to keep them from initiating religious practices on their own. The ERC course allows schools to satisfy the third principle which states that they can teach about religion but not religion itself. Therefore, the US Supreme Court would rule the same way the Canadian courts did on this matter.
In the Washington Post Omar Sacirbey wrote an article discussing the decline in fervor of anti-Sharia laws. The anti-Sharia laws are designed to keep judges from considering Islamic law or any other foreign law (like the JewishBet Din tribunals) when making any judicial decisions. Last year there were 22 states had already passed the bill or were considering it. In the last couple weeks anti-Sharia legislation has died done or been withdrawn. This activity has gotten people wondering if it will stay like this or if people are having a change of heart. On the front it looks like it. Sacirbey says that if you look further you will find out from many of the politicians that the reason it has died down or been withdrawn is, because there was not enough time to discuss it. Some states do not plan to reintroduce the bill next year, but other states do when there will be enough room and time on the docket. In the states where the legislation is still alive, those advocating for the bill are receiving a lot of criticism. There are polls showing that the numbers are down from last year of Americans thinking Muslims wanted to impose Sharia law. Many critics say this bill is aimed at discriminating against Muslims.
The problem to me is quite obvious. This bill seems directly aimed at discriminating a certain religion, Islam, but it also affects other religions. In the legislation it does not just say that the bill is against foreign law being considered but Sharia is listed just as specifically. This bill is designed to not allow judges to take into consideration foreign laws when making decisions. For example, in divorce rulings judges would not be allowed to use a religion's law or a foreign law to help make a decision. In Muslim marriages there are marriage contracts signed. A lot of times it is not exactly something that is verified in court or notarized. This law would make it so that the marriage contract would not be allowed in helping rule in a divorce. Marriage contracts are, in most cases, in favor of the woman and she may actually get less what is due here, because to the courts her marriage contract could be void.
I agree with those criticizing this bill. For me it just seems that Americans are not happy unless they can band against someone they deem as different. Therefore if they are different, then they must be dangerous. The Americans did it with the Mormons, Pueblo Indians, and Jehovah's Witnesses and now it is happening with the Muslims. Catholics have also faced their share of discrimination in the United States. I feel that this is a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment. After all the Supreme Court cases we have looked at in class, I would hope that if this made it to the Supreme Court that it would be struck down as unconstitutional. I feel that this is inhibiting religions to practice as they want. In any case I feel that the court needs to take everything into consideration and this bill would just make it so that not a whole picture would be presented in court. Those so against Muslims and Sharia need to become more educated about what they are so against and they may not find that they are so different after all.
Last week, the Tennessee Senate passed legislation allowing “alternative” scientific theories to be taught in public schools essentially allowing creationism and other “pseudosciences,” as labeled by critics, to be taught in Tennessee science classrooms. The law seems dangerous to opposition who claim that teaching theories that are largely denied by the scientific community threatens the proper education of students and poses a threat to the separation of religion and secular education. To many, this legislation may seem to be a step backwards in the secularization of the public school system made during the 20th century; however, a closer look at the judicial history of the matter reveals that Tennessee’s legislature may be an unexpected step towards greater educational freedom.
The 1968 Supreme Court case, Epperson v. Arkansas, ruled that the Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools was unconstitutional as it violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Justices in the case ruled that while states should exercise their right to specify their school curriculum, banning a particular branch of knowledge because it is contradictory to religious dogma “hinder[s] the quest for knowledge, restrict[s]the freedom to learn, and restrain[s] the freedom to teach" (Epperson v. Arkansas). The Epperson case was one of many Supreme Court cases that would “secularize” the public school system and allow room for a scientific, non-religious voice in the classroom.
The Epperson case provides an unusual precedent by which to examine the current Tennessee legislation. Just as the teaching of Darwinian Theory or climate change should not be prohibited in public schools, the teaching of alternative theories like creationism should not be denied either. To deny the teaching of such alternative views would be to suppress knowledge and prevent true educational freedom. The only boundary that has the potential to be crossed here is that of religious propagation. The law leaves much room for pedagogical error and trusts teachers to present the material in a balanced way that does not support or favor the said "alternative" theories. It is indeed a slippery slope here; how much confidence do we have that teachers will present secular and religious theories in an evenhanded way without violating boundaries set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment?
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
