Recent Articles
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
- 0 Comments
More adjustments have been made to President Obama’s healthcare mandate which demands all contraception be offered free of charge to the individual. The mandate originally stated employers must provide insurance which offers contraception at no cost to the individual. Last month, the mandate was adjusted so that the fiscal responsibility lay on the insurer rather than the employer. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration moved the financial burden once more from the insurer to the administrator of insurance to ensure that religiously affiliated universities will not have to “pay, arrange, or refer” contraception for students. Also as outlined in recent statements regarding the mandate, the exemption which previously applied only to houses of worship has been expanded to include other “religiously affiliated groups”. The requirements of qualifying groups include that the purpose of the group must be motivated by religious values, the group must primarily employ people who share in those beliefs, and the group must have a nonprofit tax exemption status. The most recent statements about the mandate also state that all students at religiously affiliated universities may still receive contraception at no cost through insurance companies, despite the moral objections of the universities.
Responses to these adjustments have come from bishops, the Department of Health and Human Services, and religious universities. Mary Ann Walsh, a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops noted the administration’s disregard for their religious traditions by mentioning, “I’m surprised such important information would be announced late Friday on St. Patrick’s Day weekend as we prepare for the fourth Sunday of Lent”. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argues the adjustments to the mandate both respects the religious freedoms of the church and effectively provides women with affordable healthcare coverage. Steve Schneck, of the Catholic University of America seemed more appreciative of the Obama administration’s diligence in appeasing the Bishops, and suggests the Bishops should be happy about these changes. The final response from the US Conference of Bishops reiterated the religious liberties at stake, as well as the administration’s failure to include other religious entities in the exemption. The demand for all private health care insurers to provide contraception is still unreasonable and the exemption is still too narrow.
The Obama Administration’s decision to transfer the fiscal responsibility from the insurer to the administrator failed to appease the bishops in that the revision failed to include all religious entities, and therefore failed to address the concern of religious freedom of the church. The Department of Health and Human Services is looking to alleviate the financial concerns associated with the mandate and ensure that nonprofit religious groups are not held responsible in financially supporting the mandate. The U.S. Conference of Bishops is more concerned with what the mandate says and who it applies to, regardless of where the financial responsibility lays. For any progress to be made in appeasing religious groups, the Department of Health and Human Services will need to pay close attention to the grievances of the groups in opposition to the mandate rather than constructing compromises on fiscal foundations.
Is There Too Much Religion in our Politics?
According to this article, "For the first time since 2001, a plurality of Americans say there is too much religious talk from politicians." The survey in question was taken by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a group that should be noted as Religiously inclined. According to the poll, 38% of Americans think that there is too much Religious rhetoric used by politicians, while 25% think there is not enough. Another 30% stated that the amount of Religious rhetoric used by politicians is "just enough." Compare this to 2010, when responders to the same poll answered differently. 37% said that they believed there was too little talk of faith compared to 29% who said there was too much. What could make such a difference in just two years? It is not a changing of political strategy, but rather a changing in political proximity. What I mean by this is that candidates have recently been more inclined to talk religion in order to fire up their base with a new presidential election around the corner. This has been especially true for the Republican candidates, and Rick Santorum might be the leader of the pack when it comes to intertwining religion and politics.
Over 60% of Santorum's supporters said that churches should express political views, while 57% of Romney's supporters said churches should stay out of politics. This makes it seem that strict evangelicals are more likely to support Santorum if he was the Republican candidate that if Romney was it. However, maybe these candidates should look to another poll by the same group to decide if their Religion-heavy campaigns are truly going to help them win the election. When "asked whether churches should be involved in politics," 54% of Americans "said they should stay out," while only 40% said that "it was fine for churches to express political and social views. This shows that a majority of Americans would rather Religion take a back seat to political issues in the upcoming election, something the Republicans need to be aware off.
The poll also recognized a large split between Democratic and Republican responders on the question regarding "religion entering the political realm." Almost half of Democrats (46%) said that there was "too much religious talk from politicians," while only a quarter of Republicans (24%) came to the same conclusion. Interestingly, the percentages for both groups has increased since 2010. Clearly this shows that Republican voters in general are much more favorable of Religion being at the forefront of their candidate's platform. However, this does not mean that the Democrats can exclude religious issues from their campaign. The recent healthcare debate has soured some voters on Obama, specifically Catholics who feel that their Religious Freedom is being persecuted by being forced to provide coverage for birth-control devices. According to another poll, 23% of responders said that President Obama is "unfair to religion." For context, only 17% thought that in 2010.
What do you think about the pervasiveness of Religion in Politics? Are these results close to what you thought they would be? What do these statistics tell us about America today? What do they tell us about the upcoming election? Please leave some comments with your thoughts.
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.
