Recent Articles
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
- 0 Comments
Recently, a condo association in Connecticut ordered Barbara Cadranel to take down her mezuzah from her doorpost arguing that it violated the condo by-laws. A mezuzah is “a prayer scroll in a small clear plastic case” that is attached to a doorpost of a Jewish home in accordance with Jewish law. According to the condo’s by-laws, decorations are allowed on doors—which are considered the condo owner’s property—but not on doorposts—which are considered common area. The condo association told Cadranel that she must take down the mezuzah or be charged $50 a day that it remains up. In this article, it does not state the reason it is against the by-laws to have the mezuzah on the doorpost. However, the article is framed in a way to make it appear that the reason the mezuzah is not allowed is because it is a religious symbol. It states “video from inside the complex showed several common areas adorned with Easter eggs and other Easter decorations.” The only comment from the condo association is that only Cadranel’s side of the story is being told, but the condo association would not explain their side. The Anti-Defamation League has agreed to help Cadranel during this situation.
An example of a mezuzah on a doorpost
As I stated previously, it is not clear if the issue at hand is because the mezuzah is a religious symbol, or because there is a rule not allowing anything on doorposts (possibly for fire safety concerns?). If the issue is because the mezuzah is a Jewish symbol, then no other religious symbols (such as Easter decorations) should be allowed in common areas and Cadranel has a fair complaint against the condo association. However, if the reasoning for not allowing anything on doorposts is a safety concern, then possibly the law hinders religion because hanging a mezuzah is part of Jewish law. Should exceptions be made for the mezuzah in this condo complex? The problem there then arises is when do religious exceptions become preference to religion?
Should this issue end up in court, I do not think I would be able to predict the outcome of the case. On one hand, the by-law was likely not written with religion in mind and was likely made for safety reasons. The law is neutral in that nothing is allowed on doorposts. However, as far as I know, only the Jewish faith requires their members to put a symbol on their doorpost. As such, even if the rule was written neutrally, the only people that will be concerned about the law are members of the Jewish faith. The law unintentionally infringes on their practice. As well, the doorpost is considered a common area and it appears that the issue is that residents are not allowed to hang decorative items in the common area. If this is the case, then charging Cadranel the $50 a day and not the other residents that placed Easter decorations in the common area is privileging one religion over another. Charging Cadranel and not the others hinders Cadranel’s free exercise of her religion. Ultimately, I believe Cadranel should be able to hang the mezuzah on her doorpost and an exception should be made in the by-laws because hanging the mezuzah is not a choice but in accordance to Jewish law. Otherwise Candranel could easily make the case for the condo association preventing her from practicing her religion.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
- 0 Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court has officially refused to consider a request by Christian fraternity and sorority groups at San Diego State University to allow them to limit membership based on religious beliefs. The court case filed in 2005 said the plaintiffs, The Alpha Gamma Omega-Epsilon Chapter fraternity and the Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter sorority which required members to be Christians and to refrain from sex outside marriage, including same-sex relationships. This requirement of the Christian fraternity violated the school’s non-discrimination policy, which made the groups ineligible for promoting themselves on university webpage, student funding, using school name in any place, reserving office or meeting space. The Federal Appeals court ruled in the case that San Diego state university can deny funding and recognition to students groups that discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation and did not violate the US constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay out of the case was due to the Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez 2010 decision that said a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that wouldn't let gays join. The Supreme Court ruled then that University of California's Hastings College of the Law could refuse to recognize campus groups that excluded people due to religious belief or sexual orientation and the school’s Non-discrimination policy did not violate the student groups First Amendment rights.
San Diego State University was happy with the Supreme Court’s decision because they didn’t want any kind of discrimination on the college campus.
Religious discrimination is very common in this country and it’s solely because we are a big melting pot in my opinion. I see the issue here as one religion (Christianity) wanting to show superiority over the other religions. It’s the West vs. The Rest. Christians have the need to separate themselves from the pack, why do they have that need? What makes Christians more superior from other men or women of faith?
I totally agree with Federal Appeals court’s decision that discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation does the not violate the US constitution and the schools have the full right to enforce their non-discriminatory policy. Wanting religious freedom is a right, but wanting religious discrimination is a violation in my opinion. Supreme Court also made a good choice by not adopting a very similar case like Christian legal society vs. Martinez in which they clearly ruled that the non-discriminatory policy did not violate student group’s first amendment rights of association, free speech, and free exercise. We may be a Christian nation, like John Fea would argue but that does not give Christians the right to discriminate other religions.
