Recent Articles
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
- 0 Comments
In Volusia County, FL, there have been protests by right winged residents over what the groups argue to be an unfair balance between Islam and Christianity in school texts books. The protesters contend that the two volume world history textbook series devotes an unequal amount of pages describing the foundation of Islam. The school contends the page count is necessary in order to allow for a greater understanding of its cultural impact in the Middle East. The groups have been demanding the school provide replacement textbooks that devote a proportional amount of pages for both Christianity and Islam. “Critics say the 1,000-page book devoted too many pages to the rise of Islam without providing equal coverage to Christianity. One Lake County activist suggested patriotic schoolchildren should be encouraged to rip out the 32-page chapter on Islam, though he later recanted his position.” The school contended that the reasoning behind the unequal coverage was simply a matter of chronology. “Because Mohammed, the founder of Islam, wasn’t born until about 570 A.D., the chapter on Muslim civilizations is found in the second book. By the time Volusia County students read about him, they’ve already learned about the rise of Christianity in the sixth grade.” The school is not backing down and pledged to continue covering all major religions that “help us understand the modern world”. With the debate continuing to heat up, some individuals, who champion the inherently secular nature of public school’s, argue that religion should not be taught in school. These individuals will denounce the schools approach of using religion as a tool to develop a greater understanding of the world.
In this particular case, the court will eventually struggle with the question of whether or not Volusia County is violating an aspect of the Establishment Clause. More specifically, is the County showing preference to one religion over the other (Islam v. Christianity, Judaism, etc), or is the County unlawfully adding religious curriculum into its public schools. In the first argument, the school would have to prove a secular purpose of devoting more material covering the religion of Islam. This would be a requirement in order to pass the Lemon test which may or may not be convincing enough to some. On the other hand, the school may be challenged by the law to take all religion out of its curriculum. The landmark case Epperson v. Arkansas paved the way for secular public schools. Molleen Matsumura fromThe National Center for Science Education makes an excellence point regarding the famous case; “...the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.” This principle could likely be applied to the Volusia County Public School system. In short, if no secular purpose is legitimately contended, the district needs to prescribe to the law which would either provide for a balanced approach toward the implication of religious curriculum or it needs to ban it all together.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that this case, like a plethora of others, will help mold the future for public schools in the United States. I believe this case helps discover the attitudes toward the secular nature of public schools as well as aid in the understanding of the social shift in our country. In addition, this particular case may serve as an example of how religiously motivated controversy could lead to protest. The article specifically cites that attempts at holding meetings have been futile due to the serious potential for violence. It may be time for public schools, of all regions, to realize that without religion in the schools there may be a decreased potential for vicious debate. It goes without question that the schools willingness to teach religion in schools lead to the protests and likely a change in curriculum. I feel that the religion in public schools, especially K-12, should take religion out of its textbooks (curriculum) in order to remain secular and to avoid social consequences. More specifically, this change could prevent unintentional indoctrination, social pressure, and violent protest. With social issues aside, I will even go as far as to contend that the constitution argued for a strict separation and that there is not justifiable secular purpose to teach any form of religion in public schools. I also fundamentally disagree with the focus of the article covering the debate in Volusia County. I feel the author brought in politics by slamming the “conservatives” for being anti-muslim and or radical Christians. I feel the politics in the public school debate plays too much of a role. I feel that this debate should transcend political ideology and instead focus on the fact that the public school system is generally an extension of the state. The same state that is apart of the infamous quote; “separation of church and state.
After reading, do you feel that Volusia County needs to be fair and balanced with its incorporation of religion in textbooks or do you think the County needs to take religion out of their textbooks and classrooms?
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
- 0 Comments
On October 22, 2013, Joshua Dubois’s book, The President’s Devotional, was published and made available to the public. Dubois is a Pentecostal preacher and the former head of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The book is a compilation of 365 of the thousand daily devotionals that Dubois emailed to President Obama each morning during his first term and into his second. Each devotional includes a Bible passage, a short prayer, and, often, a reference to relevant and difficult national issues. The goal of the emails was to help the President cultivate his Christian faith and maintain a close spiritual relationship with God. President Obama called the reflections meaningful, and those around him said the emails grounded and motivated him.
The Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships was established by the Bush administration in 2001 to “[form] partnerships between government and non-profit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to more effectively serve Americans in need.” Since its inception, the Office has received some criticism from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union who argue that the Office uses government funds to support religion. The White House, however, ensures that the Office strengthens the capacities of faith-based and community organizations to provide social services in ways that are consistent with Constitutional guarantees. The Obama Administration established an Advisory Council for the office made up of religious and secular leaders from various faiths and backgrounds and has been working to expand the office’s responsibilities.
The specific daily devotional practice has caused controversy because it was not part of Dubois’ job description. Critics have argued that there were more pressing duties and issues for Dubois and his office to be addressing. The daily religious reflections have also been criticized because the specifically Christian prayers and lessons were composed and sent to the President using government time and money. Dubois argued that although he spent an average of an hour to an hour and a half every day writing the emails, he usually did so on personal time and often from his personal email rather than his White House account. Dubois, in addition to writing these daily devotionals, also strongly advocated for Rick Warren to give the invocation at President Obama’s first inauguration.
Under the First Amendment, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that establishes religion. Despite this seemingly straightforward constitutional command, Establishment Clause jurisprudence has varied greatly throughout the Court’s history. In Epperson v. Arkansas, the Court ruled that the government must be neutral and non-preferential with respect to religion, and must not be hostile to or promote any religion or non-religion. The Lemon Test, which originated in the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision of 1971, controlled Establishment Clause jurisprudence for many years. In Wallace v. Jaffree, some members of the Court began to push back against the use of the Lemon Test and take a more accommodationist perspective, arguing that government action can have religious purposes rather than just secular ones. The Court has also used Justice Kennedy’s coercion test and Justice O’Connor’s endorsement test to determine constitutionality in religious establishment cases.
In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, the Court simply mentioned that school districts allowing religious groups to use their facilities after hours passes the Lemon Test without going into detail about the prongs of the Test. Justice Scalia, in his concurrence, related the Test to a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.” Scalia found fault with the Court’s continued use of what he saw as an unconstitutional test, and argued that Justices only invoke the Test when they want to strike down certain practices that violate it. In one of the most recent establishment cases, Mitchell v. Helms, the Lemon Test was used, but the effect and entanglement prongs were combined. Recent cases have also brought up conflicts between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The issue at stake here is whether government composition of prayers and Bible lessons for the President establishes the Christian religion in America.
It is important to note that no President thus far in American history has been an atheist or a follower of a non-Christian religion. Religious beliefs of presidential candidates can greatly influence their electability, and can affect how they lead if elected to the position. President Obama is a Christian who came to religion in adult life after not being raised in a religious household. I do not think that Dubois was writing the President’s devotionals with the intention of promoting or establishing one religion in the U.S. President Obama is a Christian and Dubois wrote the prayers with the goal of helping the President express his faith and ensure its importance in his busy life. Based on more recent Establishment Clause jurisprudence, with movement away from the Lemon Test, I do not think the daily devotionals are an establishment of religion. They may not have a specific secular purpose, but I agree with some members of the Court who have argued that religious purposes can be permitted so hostility to religion does not occur.
I think the argument could also be made that the government is being neutral towards religion in this case. Dubois wrote specifically Christian prayers and lessons because the President is a Christian, not to promote Christianity over other religions. It just so happens that this is the religion of the current President and all those who have come before him. While I think the country would benefit from leaders with more religious diversity, this is the reality in the U.S. And while I agree with critics that Dubois should not have written the prayers with government time and money because that was not one of his duties, the White House and Dubois, in this case, were expressing the importance of religion in the lives of Americans, not establishing religion in America.
What do you think? Are you comfortable with the daily devotionals? Do they constitute an establishment of religion?
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
- 0 Comments
The United States Senate just passed a bill to be voted on called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, better known as ENDA. This bill would ban employers from firing, refusing to hire or discriminating against workers or job applications based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Senate vote to hear a debate on the bill ended up being 61-30, clearing the 60-vote procedural Senate hurdle by one vote. The vote results showed seven Republicans crossing party lines and affirmed the passage of the bill to be debated among Congress members. This bill is groundbreaking, considering that the Senate has not deliberated a federal nondiscrimination law concerning sexual orientation since 1996, and it is the first nondiscrimination bill to include the protection of transgender people. Federal nondiscrimination laws are already in tact to protect workforce discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, and a number of other factors. However, it still remains legal in most states to fire or refuse to hire people because of their sexual orientation. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia offer protections to people of all sexual orientations.
There is one big concern for Republicans: the religious implications of a bill like this. If there is a concern for Republicans, there is a concern for everyone because the bill will not be passed through the House without the consent of both political parties. The Catholic faith is leading the loudest protest to the bill, saying that their constitutional guarantee of free-exercise is infringed upon if they are not offered an exemption from the implications of this bill. Catholic’s state that they are vehemently against “unjust discrimination,” including those who experience same-sex attraction. The Church basically says that the same-sex attraction is okay, but if one actually acts of the attraction that is a whole other story, and the church is asking for the right to discriminate based on “conduct,” rather than just “status of sexual attraction.” A murky distinction if you ask me…
Three bishops from the Catholic Church wrote a letterto the US Senate explaining the problems they see in the ENDA bill. The Church wants an exemption from the bill because they believe it has five fundamental flaws and ultimately impedes on Catholic followers’ free-exercise of religion. The five flaws are that the ENDA bill: lacks a BFOQ exemption, needs status/conduct distinction, supports marriage redefinition, rejects the biological basis of gender, and threatens religious liberty. For our purposes, only the first and last points are relevant towards the constitutional debate, however the other points are well articulated and entertaining if you’d like to read them in the hyperlinked letter above.The first complaint is that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act does not have a BFOQ exemption. A BFOQ is a “bona fide occupational qualification,” for cases where employers are offered an exemption to the nondiscrimination laws because they see that it is not unjust to consider certain aspects of job applicants. The Church argues that only racial discrimination does not allow a BFOQ, and that discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, and national origin discrimination do offer BFOQ exemptions. Therefore, the church is asking for a BFOQ exemption because they argue that if they are not offered one, sexual orientation is being put on the same playing field as race and racial discrimination.
The second complaint is that the Catholic religious liberty and constitutional right to free-exercise is being challenged by the nature of the ENDA bill. The Catholic Bishops argue that ENDA could be a way to punish what many religions – including the Catholic religion – teach. Thus, arguing that the bill, and therefore the government, is implying that follower’s of the Catholic faith will be punished if they act in accordance to their religious doctrines.
I will now, respectfully, counter each argument the Church has offered. I wish to advocate that the ENDA, as it is, does not place enough of an infringement on Catholic’s free-exercise of religion. To me, the factt that a term such as “unjust discrimination” even exists is questionable, at best. All discrimination is unjust no matter what basis it lies under. I do not find the distinction between same-sex attraction, and same-sex action that the church lays out compelling. The Church basically approves of celibate people who have same-sex attraction and hide it by not acting on it, and suggest that it is "just" to discriminate against sexually active homosexuals and that discrimination should be protected in law. As for the BFOQ argument, it is compelling and something I did not know before. However, once I researched more I found out that this statue is rarely used, and courts have interpreted it very narrowly. According to Title VII, race or color is not included in the BFOQ because the state acknowledged that there couldn’t be any reason that would justify discrimination on the basis of race of color. These are the basis that allow discrimination under the BFOQ:
“In order to show that a discriminatory action was allowable as a BFOQ, an employer must prove:
1. There is a direct relationship between the protected characteristic and the ability to perform the job duties;
2. The bona fide occupational qualification directly relates to the “essence” or to the “central mission of the employer’s business”; and
There is no less-restrictive, reasonable alternative available to the employer”
The court has made these guidelines specifically strict and very hard to apply. One of the few cases where a BFOQ was awarded was in International Union, UnitedAutomobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et.al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc. In that case, the employer established a policy excluding fertile women from working in a position that required exposure to high doses of lead, in order to protect the possible unborn fetuses from damage due to the lead exposure. The courts have never approved this BFOQ exempt status to a group of people, and it is hard to believe that the state could award it to a group as large and as powerful as the Catholic Church.
For the second argument the Church makes, I can see that there may be a burden on the religion. However, their free-exercise burden is outweighed by a compelling state interest to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If the Catholic Church were to receive this exemption, it would apply to other religiously affiliated institutions beyond just churches, such as hospitals. The state also has a compelling interest here to intervene to ensure that the hospital has, let's say a heart surgeon, who is most qualified for the job of saving people’s lives, regardless of his or her sexual orientation.
It was found that there are roughly 8.2 million gay and lesbian employees nationwide according to estimates released by the Williams Institute at UCLA in which researchers drew their estimate from U.S. Census data on the public- and private-sector workforce. If the government offers the Catholic Church an exemption, there could be 8.2 million Americans without a job due to discrimination—that doesn’t sound very American to me. Therefore, the state has a compelling interest to deny the Catholic Church this exemption because human rights and equality are secular American values that, in this case, trump religious free-exercise.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
- 0 Comments
This is a question that the Supreme Court of India is currently wrestling with when deciding whether schools can teach yoga.
This is also a question that has been raised in the past few years in the United States, most recently in July in California. In the Encinitas Union County School District, children are required to attend 2-30 minute sessions of yoga per week. Should the students wish not to participate in yoga, they do have alternatives that would fulfill the health and wellness school requirement instead. On top of this, yoga poses now have basic kid-friendly names like peacock pose or crisscross applesauce pose. Even with the offered alternative and the renamed poses, parents of two-children in the district decided that teaching yoga has a religious component and thus has no place in schools. They thus proceeded to sue the school district.
The parents’ attorney, Dean Broyles, apparently argued in court that yoga is inherently religious and thus teaching it in public schools violates the constitutional separation of church and state. While it is important to remember that “the separation of church and state” is not explicitly in the constitution, the argument that teaching yoga in schools helps to establish religion can be made.
In American culture today, one might laugh at the idea that yoga is a religious practice. Yoga classes are taught in most gyms and there are studios all over the country, teaching a variety of forms of yoga from vinyasa to bikram. In the past decade, the fitness world has even seen the creation of yoga hybrid classes, where yoga is combined with other exercise disciplines like kickboxing and pilates. The American College of Sports Medicine and many doctors even stand behind yoga as a form of exercise. Studies have found that yoga can lower stress and blood pressure, improve balance and flexibility, and provide an array of other health benefits. Most American people would agree that they view yoga as a form of exercise, one that around 20 million Americans practice.
But yoga still has religious affiliations. Yoga is practiced as a part of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Yoga appears in all three of these major world religions’ religious texts/associated works. The Hindu American Foundation even claims that yoga and Hindu philosophy cannot be separated and that yoga is "a Hindu way of life." Religious practice aside, few deny that there is a spiritual component to yoga, the word itself meaning basically “to unite” or “to join together,” and this component is definitely entwined with philosophical and theological thought of Asian religious traditions.
A prominent Southern Baptist Minister, Albert Mohler, particularly views yoga as a religious practice and even wrote an article in which he explained how yoga contradicts the Christian religion. In the article, Mohler says that, “when Christians practice yoga, they must either deny the reality of what yoga represents or fail to see the contradictions between their Christian commitment and their embrace of yoga.” The contradictions apparently rest in the spiritual goals of many poses. So are many Christians simply denying the reality of what yoga represents?
Going on the American Yoga Association website also yields very interesting results for the religious nature of yoga. The general information page claims that yoga does not have a creed and thus it is not a religion, but in the preceding paragraphs talks about how the first step of classical yoga, yama, entails refraining from violence, casual sex, hoarding etc. While obviously no one practices yoga as a religion, such beliefs could easily reflect a religious creed. Besides this, relevant to this case in particular is the author of this posts’ claim that yoga should not be practiced by children under 16.
Despite all the information that points to a definitive link between yoga and religion, I believe that because yoga is primarily strictly an exercise in America that it can be taught in public schools. I do agree that the alternatives and changes that the school district offered/made are necessary to protect the constitutionality of the yoga requirement, however. Should an alternative to yoga not have been made, then I think that an establishment case could have been made (although it still would have been difficult). On a separate note though, I do think that the school district should look into the safety of kids practicing yoga.
So what do you think? Is yoga religious in nature? Should it be taught in public schools? If it is taught, should there be alternatives and alterations made to its practice?
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
- 0 Comments
There have been many tricky court cases involving the establishment clause in our nation’s history. Recently in October of this year, a new situation has been brought to light. Records have shown that in the city of Cincinnati, there has been a 51 percent increase in homicides from 2012 to 2013. This is disturbing news for many and as a result, community members will participate in multiple prayer walks involving fourteen different communities in the area. The prayer walks themselves are not the issue at hand, but the fact that the Cincinnati Police Department issued a statement, along with several pastors in the community, inviting all citizens to participate in the prayer walks. In response to this invitation by the Police Department, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) wrote a letter in which they openly criticize the police department for their support of the initiative. The FFRF used many strong and critical statements in their letter such as the phrase, “Public officials should get off their knees and get to work.”
The issue, which the FFRF states, is the actions of the CPD conflicting with the first amendment and the rights of the citizens. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion and the FFRF holds the view that the establishment of religion is indeed occurring here. In the FFRF’s written letter, Andrew L. Seidel states, “It is a fundamental principle of the Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the government cannot in any way promote, advance, or otherwise endorse religion.” The statement comes from the Supreme Court’s commonly held stance that there must be neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion. According to the FFRF, the CPD’s support of these prayer walks is not only coercive, but offends and excludes citizens who do not believe prayer to be the proper response to this situation. The letter asks that the police department responds to the letter with the changes they are enacting to remedy these constitutional violations.I believe the FFRF makes valid points and seems persuasive in regards to its interpretation of the first amendment. It correctly cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the Epperson v Arkansas case in which a law that forbade the teaching of evolution in a public school was declared unconstitutional. In the majority opinion the court mentioned the fact that the government must remain neutral in regards to religion. Clearly in the case at hand, the government represented by the CPD, has declared its support of a religious cause by involving itself in the invitation. One might even cite the Lemon test, that has been commonly used in establishment cases, stating that this clearly violates the second part of the test forbidding a promotion of religion over non-religion. The FFRF also incorporates alarming statistics regarding religious areas and non-religious areas. Among the statistics, the FFRF states that the least religious areas of the world have the lowest reported homicide and violence rates. Therefore, people should see this declaration of prayer in order to alleviate violence as a ridiculous and unsupported notion. The FFRF seems convincing, along with the majority of establishment cases that have be ruled in concordance with its opinion, however I am not persuaded.
I see this issue as an opportunity to return the original intentions of the founders of this nation. I’m persuaded by the fact that, despite the very Christian undertones written into the constitution, the fathers were concerned with religious freedom for all. I read the first amendment as an invitation to people of all religious convictions and therefore as a constitutionally proscribed positive relationship between the government and religion. Justice Reed makes a compelling argument while dissenting in McCollum v Board of Education. The case concerns an Illinois law allowing religious groups to come into the public school to teach religion for a half hour during the school day. The court ruled this unconstitutional even though students were not coerced into attending these religious classes. Justice Reed states, “The prohibition of enactments respecting the establishment of religion do not bar every friendly gesture between church and state.” In this case, the CPD is merely a “connector” allowing multiple like-minded groups the ability to come together. It is important to note that the CPD, in the two walks that have been held thus far, have not participated as uniformed police offers in the walks. This shows the CPD’s commitment to its governmental separation from religious support. In addition, in more recent cases involving the first amendment the Supreme Court has chosen to focus on the idea expressed in the first part of the Lemon Test, that a secular purpose must be present. Clearly the focus of the CPD’ invitation is the prevention or curtailment of crime. The CPD’s hope is that these prayer walks may bring the community together, encourage peace, and discourage violence. Furthermore, if we must judge sincerity, we may consider the fact that members of the CPD have not even participated in the prayer walks as governmental officers.
While I do think the FFRF makes valid points, and I think that the Supreme Court would indeed side with the FFRF here, that decision seems wrong to me. I agree with Justice Rehnquist in his opinion that the wall of separation must be put aside. We must destroy the hostility that exists between the government and religion. Were the FFRF to win this case before the Supreme Court I think those religious individuals who live in America should be concerned for their religious freedom. What are your opinions?
In the Jewish community, a women does not have the right to divorce their husbands, in order for a divorce to be final, the husband must give permission, called a get. If a husband refuses to give a get, the marriage is still in full effect and the wife becomes an “agunah”—a chained women. A husband must give a get at his own free will, but there have been Jewish law tribunals that encourage these obstinate husbands to give gets. A common decision would be a tribunal who will ban the husband from his synagogue until he does grant and give a get. Under civil law, the wife does have the option and right to get divorced and remarried, but many women refuse to do so because it would undermine them and their children and most likely would become outcasts in their communities.
Earlier this month, two New JerseyRabbis allegedly planned the kidnapping and torturing of reluctant husbands who had refused to grant their wives a legitimate Jewish divorce. The purpose for the Rabbi’s actions was to force these men to consent to their wives’ request for divorce under Jewish law. These two rabbis charged $10,000 for a tribunal ruling that would allow the use of violence against the men and $50,000 to hire people to kidnap and torture the men. These two rabbis were caught due to a federal sting operation. An undercover female FBI agent had reached out to Rabbi Epstein and expressed that she wanted a divorce and had described her husband as a businessman in South America, who had refused to give her a get. Rabbi Epstein urged her to have her husband travel to New Jersey; subsequently, Rabbi Epstein and Rabbi Wolmark organized their own rabbinical court to issue a religious order that would authorize the use of violence to obtain a forced get. Eight of Rabbi Epstein’s associates met at a New Jersey warehouse where they had finalized the kidnapping plan and the FBI agents moved in to arrest the group.
This makes me question whether it is Jewish tradition to conduct this kind of act to obtain a divorce. After some online research, I came across an article in The Jewish DailyForward where it explains what possible resolutions have emerged in rabbinical courts that could be used to obtain a get. Shockingly, a rabbinical court can in fact authorize the use of violent force against a husband. It is unimaginable that a husband would cruelly leave his wife trapped in a nonfunctional marriage and therefore it is believed that the use of force could serve as a medium to free the husband’s inner desire to do the right thing and convince him to grant his wife a get. The use of violence and forced coercion could protect some of the community’s vulnerable members, such as these wives. However many believe that these acts of violence and torture not only violates United States law but also Jewish Law. Any rabbinical court decree that is secured with acts of bribery would be considered invalid; violence visited on a husband pursuant to such a tainted decree would only induce him to grant an invalid divorce. Ultimately, the use of violence involves the extortion of money from people it was meant to protect, and also leads to illegal brutality and attracts questions of religion validity. Do you think this is enough religious evidence to justify the use of violent torture to grant a divorce? Is there any compelling state interest to intervene in this resolution?
This sparked my curiosity even further and I looked into other possible resolutions that have been used in the Jewish community. This particular incentive embraces the use of a contract opposed to coercion. The Beth Din of America, which is one of America’s most prominent rabbinical court took the initiative and drafted a prenuptial agreement that could be used within the Jewish community. This prenuptial agreement would require the husband to provide his wife with a daily support payment of $150 for each day the two no longer live together. Some believe that this agreement is a successful alternative to granting gets because it navigates a variety of legal complexities. The daily payment simply continues the husband’s obligation to support his wife and therefore cannot be seen as financial coercion. The prenuptial agreement does not require the husband to grant a religious divorce but only to make payments if he fails to do so, thereby enabling courts in the United States to enforce the agreement without violating constitutional prohibitions.
In Connecticut, this past January the court enforced this “Jewish prenup” above constitutional objections, noting that the terms of the agreement did not undermine the separation of church and state. In Light v. Light, Rachel Light sued in Connecticut Supreme Court saying that the couple had separated years earlier but that Eban Light had refused to grant her a get. Rachel Light asked the court to enforce the provision in the prenup ordering her husband to pay her a sum for each day he refused to grant the get. Eban Light argued that the prenup is a religious matter and therefore is unconstitutional for a secular court to enforce the contract. Judge Gould found that enforcing the prenup was no different from enforcing a secular contract and cited Odatalla v. Odatalla where a New Jersey court enforced an Islamic mahr agreement that had been signed in Iran. And in Avitzur v. Avitzur, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it is constitutional for a secular court to enforce a ketubah, or marriage contract, to prevent an agunot. Judge Gould treated this Orthodox prenup in the same routine we would have treated any other secular prenuptial contract.
In this case I would have to agree with Eban Light that this is a religious contract and therefore should not be interfered by a secular court. By the court already deciding on this case, it creates an entanglement because a court is developing and establishing a ruling based on a religious matter. Since the court ruled that Eban Light must pay his wife until he grants the get, the court is validating this religious prenuptial agreement that was created by a religious institution—Beth Din of America, therefore creating a preference to address religious matters not maintaining a separation of church and state and this why I strongly believe that rabbinical courts should address the enforcement of these prenuptial agreements not "secular" state courts.Would you say the same?Do you believe that the use of violent force is justified as a traditional religious practice used in obtaining a get and therefore the state/federal government should not interfere and allow such actions to occur? In your opinion, is it constitutional for a state court to enforce the "Jewish Prenup"? Is there any compelling state interest to intervene with both these resolutions?
JBS is a food processing company located in various areas of the United States. One of its places of operation is in Grand Island, Nebraska. In past years, there has been some contention between the company and its Somali Muslim employees. The Muslim employees believe they should be granted exemptions during the work day to practice their religion, as granted by their rights in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, but JBS believes this burden on their religion is not as great as the burden the exemptions would have on the company.
In 2007, about 80 to 100 of the Muslim employees protested working at JBS because the company had denied the Muslim employees’ request to use their “informal breaks”, such as bathroom breaks, to pray. Instead, JBS expected them to pray during scheduled breaks. In addition, in 2008, JBS refused to move the scheduled meal break to a time that corresponded with the sunset prayer time in order to accommodate for the observance of Ramadan.
This issue was brought to the court by the EEOC, and the decision was made on October 11, 2013. The court decided in favor of JBS, denying the Muslim employees of the exemptions. Judge Camp had to decide whether the accommodation would generate a larger cost for the employer and other non-Muslim employees, or if it would generate a larger religious burden for the Muslim employees. After reviewing the case, Judge Camp decided that the use of “informal breaks” for prayer and the change in meal time would both result in a greater “undue hardship” for JBS than for the Muslim employees. With respect to prayer during informal breaks, if operation of the production lines were not stopped entirely during the prayer breaks, the remaining workers would have the pressure of working faster and harder, which would be hazardous for them. If the production were slowed down during these prayer breaks, the meat would be contaminated after being exposed to the air for a longer span of time. With respect to the change in meal time, JBS argues that a 30-minute break for all employees would provide a situation where the cattle would remain on the “kill floor” for more than 45 minutes, meaning a decrease in the meat’s value, and ultimately a financial loss for JBS.
The question here is whether this case was decided correctly. Should the Muslim employees have been provided the accommodation for their religious practices during work time? Everyone is entitled to the free exercise of his or her religion, as granted by the First Amendment and the Muslim employees are clearly denied the ability to exercise their religious practices in accordance with their beliefs. Is the “undue hardship” incurred by JBS a great enough concern compared to the burden imposed on the Muslim employees?
This issue is similar to the matter of contention seen in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), with regards to hindrances on free exercise of one’s religion. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that Goldman would not be allowed the exemption to wear his yarmulke while on duty in the hospital for the Air Force. The Court argued that there was a compelling state interest for uniformity among the members of the Air Force. They believed the burden imposed on this mission as a result of Goldman wearing the yarmulke was greater than the burden imposed on Goldman’s right to free exercise of religion. Since this court ruling, though, the decision has been altered, in which members of the Air Force are now allowed to wear yarmulkes. In light of this understanding, was the decision in EEOC v. JBS USA the correct one, or is the religious burden great enough to garner an accommodation?
Though both Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) and the present case appertain to the issue of free exercise of religion while on the job, I believe there is a difference in how they should be decided. While Goldman should have been allowed the exemption to wear his yarmulke, the Muslim employees still should not be granted the accommodation. Knowing that religious discrimination is a significant issue concerning constitutional rights, the employers at JBS needed sufficient reason and evidence to deny the Muslims’ ability to participate in their religious practices while at work. In that respect, JBS had adequate grounds to impose the religious burden on the Muslim employees. The accommodations would not only be detrimental to the success of the company as a whole, but would also burden the non-Muslim employees that would have to make up for the work missed while the Muslim employees left for prayer. While I do see that the Muslims feel this decision denies them of their constitutional rights, the accommodations for the Muslim employees would have too large a harmful, though unintended, effect on the company and employees that ultimately outweighs the Muslim employees’ rights to practice their religion.
