Recent Articles
Home » All posts

Monday, April 9, 2012

Inspirational Message or Masked Prayer?

Monday, April 9, 2012 - 0 Comments


            Within our class we have discussed whether religion should have a place in the public classroom.  Even after a history of legal cases and public debates, our society still is tackling this question.  Recently, Florida has passed a bill that would allow “inspirational messages” to be read by students during events sponsored by the public school.  For many, this broad statement is a mask to endorse prayer or religious messages to be said at school events why some are arguing that it is only meant to protect heart felt messages to be said to the crowd.  Though this bill has yet to go into effect, there are already threats of lawsuits in limiting what form these inspirational messages will take.

            This bill is one that has many implications attached to it.  Throughout the history that we have seen, it was the student whose ability to practice their religious beliefs was protected.  This bill extends a protection to those practices while defining their religious practices as inspirational messages.  Again,  we see the entanglement that occurs when religion and the student is examined.  One cannot inhibit their practices but this bill extends a forum by which these practices can become public.  For example, a student can choose to open an event with a prayer.  This example has many other factors though.  Is the school only choosing students who are inclined to say a particular type of prayer?  What will happen if the student chooses to pray to Allah?  Will the school define inspirational messages in a way that only particular religions will apply?  Such questions demonstrate that such a broad term can truly harm the religious freedom of the student.  Also, as one watches the events that unfold with this bill, one may see the students religious practices come into question.  This bill begins to intertwine the place of the school and the students beliefs in a way that endorsement is possible to happen.  Additionally, such a thing can be dangerous because if endorsement occurs then a question of a place for the student’s religious beliefs in the school can occur.
            When tackling this bill with my opinion, I find that this bill can be dangerous.  The questions that I posed earlier play in my mind around this bill.  I also believe it can be a dangerous game when the students are given the freedom to choose the inspirational message at these events.  I say this not because I am against the free speech of a student but because now that speech is becoming endorsed by the state.  Such a bill brings into question the student’s right to free speech and I fear that some are using this to mask an attempt to bring into the school religious messages.  I also wonder if these messages will need to be reviewed by the school before they are delivered.  This could lead to a type of control that I consider dangerous because it ascribes power to the school to define what can and cannot be considered inspirational.  I believe there are implications to this bill that some have not thought through.  I believe we begin to play a dangerous game when we use students and their rights as a method of propagating a particular message in the public school.  In the end, I believe the we will see how the rights of students and their religious expression will come into question with implementation of this new bill.

"The Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania

- 0 Comments


            
 
            
      ABC News reports that State House in Pennsylvania passed a provision that declares 2012 “The Year of the Bible.” The resolution passed on the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously in January. The ABC article reports that “some members later said they did not realize its content and regretted their votes.” The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), based in Madison, WI, filed a lawsuit stating that this violates the Establishment Clause. This organization “includes Atheists and Agnostics” and is typically associated with such a viewpoint. The FFRF is requesting a federal judge to order the Pennsylvania to stop distributing the flyers and to “rule that the state government isn’t Judeo-Christian.”
            The republican senator primarily associated with the bill, Rick Saccone, is not phased by the lawsuit, calling it meritless. The article quotes Saccone, stating “God has always been a part of our government. To deny that is to deny history. And that's all the resolution is — a recognition of a book that has been so important in our nation's history."
            Establishment Clause cases have often been tricky. Frequently they involve a question of government allowance of religion, such as public display of religion cases. In such cases (such as Marsh v. Chambers, Lunch v. Donnelley, and Allegheny v. ACLU) the question becomes whether or not private citizens can display religion on government property. This case is different. It involves private citizens suing over governmental displays of religion.
            It seems clear that this is a governmental endorsement of Christianity. A state legislature cannot officially declare a “year of the Bible” without an implied preference for a particular religious viewpoint. The Bible is directly associated with Christianity. Additionally, although a particular entanglement of church and state is bound to exist, government legislation endorsing a particular viewpoint is unnecessary and dangerous. The FFRF is certainly warranted in their request for the government to stop distributing the flyers. It may be argued that the resolution does not require citizens to follow a particular viewpoint and therefore is not dangerous. However, it still associates a state government with a particular religious viewpoint, which is discriminating and has the potential for dangerous implications.
            The FFRF’s second request, for the federal judge to rule that this is not a Judeo-Christian nation, seems more obscure. Is this the role of the federal judge? Even though these pamphlets breach church-state separate very suspiciously, there has not been any official declaration of Christianity as a state religion. This seems to be a desire for affirmation and solidification from the FFRF more than a legal junction. I am not sure that this part of the request is warranted or necessary. However, I imagine that the intention of the FFRF is to prevent instances like this happening again. An official declaration may help provide certainty.
            In the end, this case begs the question of the nature of governmental endorsement of religion. Endorsement can still be a reality even when it is not declaring an official state religion. The nature of this endorsement is one of promoting a particular religious viewpoint. The FFRF has legitimate concerns that warrant a lawsuit against the resolution.            

Imprecatory Prayers: Protected or Profane

- 0 Comments


In a Washington Post article published on the 6th, David Gibson describes the recent judiciary ruling by District Court Judge Martin Hoffman regarding “imprecatory” or “curse” prayers. The case in question was brought by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), with the goal of removing what Weinstein described as undue religious influence in the armed forces. The lawsuit was directed at a former Navy chaplain named Klingenschmitt, who posted on his website, urging followers to prey for the MRFF’s downfall. Judge Hoffman ended up ruling in favor of the defendant in this case, arguing that there was no evidence that recent acts of vandalism of Weinstein’s property were connected to the prayer in question. Weinstein responded “We are disappointed in the ruling because we believe the judge made a mistake in not understanding that imprecatory prayers are code words for trolling for assassins for the Weinstein family, I don’t think the judge understood that these are not regular prayers.” Imprecatory prayers are nothing new in the public forum of America, and have garnered a lot of attention since President Obama was elected.
                That said, this case does raise important questions which were left unaddressed in the ruling. Chief among these questions is the protection such prayers have under the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech and religion.
As much as it chafes me, I have to agree with Judge Hoffmans ruling. The protection afforded such religious rhetoric ties the states hands until a clear connection between the prayer in question and any criminal acts can be established. That said, I believe that the ruling could have gone in favor of Weinstein if Klingenschmitt were still an acting Navy chaplain. If that were the case, Weinstein could argue an establishment clause violation. The difference between the two situations arises out of the fact that as an active chaplain, Klingenschmitt would be representing the Government and the conversation would no longer be in an open forum. One counter argument to this position would be the precedent of “civic deism,” even though that concept has only been used to justify such things as opening prayers before congressional meetings and the presence of the 10 commandments in Courthouses. I would counter such an argument by raising the question of the intended role of the Chaplain within the structure of the armed forces, and whether such prayers fell within the scope of his positions duties, especially if that prayer was directed at another member of the armed services.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Defense Of Marriage Act Challenged By Binational Same-Sex Couples

Sunday, April 8, 2012 - 0 Comments

         In Washington, DC there has been an up rise in the number of marriage lawsuits that are challenging DOMA. DOMA which stands for the Defense of Marriage Act says that only a man and a woman joined together as husband and wife by law are able to receive marital rights such as obtaining a green card for a foreign born spouse. In this article the couples that are challenging DOMA are bi-national same-sex couples. Couples that have at least one partner that was not born in America and happens to be gay or lesbian have been rejected on their application for a green card.  In this article the advocacy organization of Immigration Equality has teamed up with these couples to address the discrimination placed on same-sex couples for marital rights. The Immigration Equality organization has recognized that these bi-national same sex couples have no legal options to turn to. The government has denied the request to change DOMA and rejected residency applications. This is what they believe illustrated the unconstitutionality of this law.
          I agree with the Immigrant Equality and the bi-national same-sex couples that this law is unconstitutional. With gay marriages being accepted there really is no use for DOMA in regards to discrimination policies and constitutional laws. There is no use for DOMA because it implements discriminatory actions by rejecting a couple just because they do not consist of a man and a woman. By rejecting bi-national same-sex couples while allowing all marital rights to monogamous couples is showing this discrimination and that the law is being unfair.
       Santiago Ortiz one of the American partners of a foreigner stated that "We're being denied our rights, because we are a family." Although his statement comes from his own interpretation of the situation it brings me to my main point. Which is how religion fits into all this? I believe that religion is the root of this problem. The government from early history has been influenced by religious backgrounds and their teachings. Through this influence they have come to construct a system that enables the Christian ideas that influence them and are enforcing it in public. By giving out such rules the government has set up what they want their country to represent. In this case the government does not want the country to represent a nation that not only allow gay marriages but are open to equality in their acceptance.
           The role that religion plays in this case relies on the implications of a liable marriage which the government (Christian influenced) recognizes. The implications that DOMA puts on marriage is an example of this. This Act in accordance with government recognition of a real marriage and the perks that come along with it resembles the same notions from the book The Mormon Question which discussed Christian ideas on the topic of marriage. The government officials in this book acknowledge their own definition of marriage which was framed by Christian beliefs as being monogamous and between one man and one woman. I believe that the DOMA law is a modern way of restricting newly accepted marriages such as gay and lesbian ones.
         This case acknowledges DOMA’s disregard for same-sex couples as an issue regarded as unconstitutional and liable to be challenged. On the other hand I recognize this article as displaying a matter of which discrimination is produced from the latter of early American history intertwined and influenced by religion. Religion was the starting block for defining marriage and law made it official. Religion has influence DOMA and the law is holding firm in keeping it.

Another article: present case related to DOMA





Dispute over Ten Commandments Bill in Tennessee

- 0 Comments

In Tennessee, there has been a dispute regarding a new piece of legislation headed by Representative Matthew Hill. The bill authorized local governments to display the Ten Commandments with other historical documents within the local courthouses. The bill is not supported by everyone. Some believe that it is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property. It is feared that this bill would violate the Establishment Clause.
    In Rutherford County, Tennessee some officials put the Ten Commandments on display and were instructed to take it down after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the county. Hill’s new bill would allow courthouses to display the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States and state constitutions, which are integral to the development of American law and symbolize American freedom and the nation’s history.
    The likelihood of the bill being signed is overwhelming. The Tennessee House approved the bill 93-0 and the Senate voted 30-0. Matthew Hill brought the bill forward after reading about groups like the American Civil Liberties Union suing governments over the issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property.
    The context in which these items are on display is extremely important. If the Ten Commandments were the only thing on display, there might be a constitutionality problem according to the Supreme Court’s historical jurisprudence. If the Ten Commandments are displayed equally with other historical documents, then the display may pass constitutional muster. Tennessee is not the only state that is trying to get this type of legislation passed. Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia have tried to pass similar legislation. This year in Georgia, the House approved a similar bill 161-0, the state Senate approved the legislation 41-9 on March 30th, 2012.
    I think that this bill will have no problem with being signed and I think it is completely constitutional. This situation reminds me of the Supreme Court case of Van Orden v Perry. Van Orden challenged the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol building because he believed that the display violated the Establishment Clause. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court held that the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause because the monument was in a park surrounded by other historic monuments. The decided that the display was a part of national tradition and it was commemorating historical documents that celebrate the United States. The Supreme Court stated, “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause”.
    I agree with the Supreme Court, I see nothing wrong with putting the Ten Commandments up in courthouses, if it’s primary purpose is to commemorate the history of the United States. If it was standing by itself, or if it had an overbearing religious tone then I believe  it is unconstitutional. This is very similar to the Lynch v Donnelly case. In Lynch, the Supreme Court held that a nativity scene placed on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it was surrounded by other non-religious symbols of the holiday season.  The Supreme Court has consistently held the displays that include religious material are not automatically unconstitutional.  As long as the intent of the display is not meant to promote religion, but for some other legitimate purpose, it may be constitutional.

Subscribe

Donec sed odio dui. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio. Duis mollis

© 2013 Religion & American Law. All rights reserved.
Designed by SpicyTricks