Recent Articles
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
- 0 Comments
Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) has recently passed a House Bill that allows public schools to be eligible for a mentorship program if they partner with a religious or faith based organization as well as a business. His 10 million dollar plan states that the faith-based component is mandatory and not optional as it was previously made to seem. The governor is making faith-based organizations seemingly more important than other types of organizations, which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Secular schools must designate a faith organization as their partner in order to receive money for the program. Senior policy analyst for the Ohio Department of Education, Buddy Harris, noted that, "The faith-based organization is clearly at the heart of the vision of the governor." The governor is in a secular position and yet he is imposing his own views upon his constituents by making the religious element necessary. He said himself, "The Good Lord has a purpose for each and every one of them (students)…” His motives could not be more clear and yet he managed to pass his agenda.
Originally, religious based organizations were just considered potential partners for the mentorship program. The addition to the Bill that made the faith-based part mandatory came after the Bill itself had already passed through both chambers of the state legislature. Essentially, legislators did not vote on the faith based aspect being mandatory, they only voted on it being a potential option. Kasich has a responsibility, as a public official, to adhere to a certain degree of transparency. In my opinion, he did not act transparently in this instance. In addition, he acted in his own best interest, which he has made clear and his own best interest goes against the First Amendment.
I think that this addition to the Bill clearly violates the Establishment Clause. In order to receive government money, schools that are secular must partner with a religious organization. Having religious views is one thing but imposing them on those who may not have the same views is a violation of the First Amendment.
Although it does not favor one faith organization over another, the addition to the Bill still makes a religious organization a mandatory aspect of the program. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the Lemon test was established in a unanimous decision. The Lemon test states that there must not be excessive government entanglement with religion and that there must be a secular legislative purpose. This addition to the bill directly breaches the Lemon test criterion.
To me, it does not make any sense to add a faith based program as a stipulation for a government program. I feel as though it is only a matter of time before there is a case to overturn this but I find it interesting that this was able to happen in the first place. It doesn’t seem Constitutional to have attached a religious stipulation in order for a secular school district to receive government funding.
This past Thursday, January 22, 2015, the house passed an anti-abortion bill. The bill was passed on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision which protected a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion. “The bill would prevent women from having their abortions covered by Medicaid; restrict a woman's ability to buy private insurance plans that include abortion coverage; and deny small businesses a tax credit, which they currently receive through the Affordable Care Act, if they include abortion care in their health insurance plans.” Learning of this recent bill reminded me of the heavily debated topic of what role the government plays in a woman’s life regarding her birth control and right to have an abortion. Not surprisingly the religious influences and support was very evident in this anti-abortion bill.
Since June 28, 2012 when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act there has been an uprising in conversations surrounding this issue. For instance, just last year in 2014 the Supreme Court held a decision in favor of the privately owned company, Hobby Lobby. The decision exempted them from being required to provide certain forms of contraception to their female employees due to the owners religious beliefs that Plan B, Ella, Copper IUD and Mirena all terminate pregnancies rather than prevent them making them forms of abortion. As Christian’s, the requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services was violating the Green family’s (the owners) religious rights protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court did in fact rule with Hobby Lobby protecting their religious freedom and right to deny these services to their employees.
Is Hobby Lobby acting within their constitutional rights by denying coverage of these forms of contraception? Whether or not one agrees with Hobby Lobby’s beliefs should not influence the answer to this question. As someone who believes that the government should not play a role in an individual’s personal life, I find the problem not to lie within the violation of religious rights but the very fact that they are imposing requirements on a privately owned company in the first place. For those who disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling there are other forms of voicing one’s discomfort than making it a constitutional matter and assuming the government has a place in the issue. One example would be boycotting the store. If you have a personal issue with Hobby Lobby not providing these forms of contraception, than do not shop at their store. The problem is that people rely too heavily of the United States Court systems to handle cultural and social issues. However, as the court rightly decided, the requirements by the Department of Health and Human Services were unconstitutional and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Hobby Lobby, as a privately owned company, has every right to refuse any form of contraception to their employees as they so choose.
With this new bill being passed by the House republicans, a new question arises. Due to the strong religious influences on the nature of the bill protecting ‘life’ make the bill unconstitutional because it is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment protecting the people from religion. Without the influence of religious morals, the question of pro life versus pro choice becomes more difficult to answer. It is my opinion that the bill is in fact unconstitutional and violating the First Amendment because of its religious implications. The government should not be able to make laws prohibiting a woman’s right to choose. In fact it should protect the right of freedom of choice. Just as the Supreme Court protected Hobby Lobby’s right to choose not to provide forms of contraception that were deemed to be “abortifacient”, they should also protect the rights of individuals to choose to use abortifacients or get abortions.
 |
| Image retrieved from CNS News which can be access here |
CNS News reported on January 21st that Orange County (Fla) Public School System canceled the annual distribution of bibles on National Freedom of Religion Day. According to the news article Christian groups and the Florida Family Policy Council were prohibited from distributing bibles because that encouraged atheist and satanic groups to obtain the permission to distribute literature as well. According to the CNS article, which you be can accessed here, the Orange County System allowed bibles to be placed in common areas in schools were students had access to them if they pleased. Freedom from Religion Foundation sued to have all religious materials banned from public schools however the court ruled against their claims. Therefore, Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a sue last year claiming an equal right to distribute literature in schools which was accepted by the court. For this year’s distribution, a satanic group entered a request to distribute literature, which resulted in Orange County cancelling all distributions and instead revising their current policy of acceptable literature in schools.
This situation is a clear example of why it is necessary to maintain a separation between church and state. Public schools are property of the state therefore, this educational system should aim to have secular education, one that does not involve religion. This public school system has become a battlefield for religious and non-religious organizations instead of a safe environment for children.
In 1971 a man named Alto Lemon sued Pennsylvania schools’ superintendent, David Kurtzman, under the claims that Kurtzman had violated his First Constitutional Amendment. Lemon argued that Pennsylvania’s reimbursement to religious schools for secular education was a violation of his First Amendment because the state was using tax payer’s money to fund religion. The Court ruled in an 8 to 0 decision that this was a violation of the First Amendment. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the court concluded that there was excessive entanglement between church and state. Furthermore, the court made three points, first the state could only be involved if there was a secular purpose, second the state should neither promote nor inhibit religion and lastly that there should not be an entanglement between state and church.
Orange County, however, is in violation of the decision made by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). By allowing the distribution of bibles in schools the state of Florida is permitting entanglement with the church. Additionally, the state established a religion in schools by allowing the distributions of only bibles, thus promoting Christianity. The state was not inclusive of other religions that were not Christianity. In fact, I am surprised that parents did not take it upon themselves to sue the school district for coercive religious literature.
Secondly, the refusal to remove the distribution of religious literature despite the fact that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had sued against it, was an example of religious inequality. The only place where a bible should be allowed, along with other religious literature, is in the library. Refusing to prohibit the distribution of bibles gives other religious organization the right to distribute their literature, thus neutralizing the institution. This was an inadequate decision, which endangers the secular education children should be receiving in schools.
Schools should be an unbiased environment were children are free to express themselves and not be constantly harassed by religious affairs. Many would argue that Orange County is a predominately Christian district, therefore, making it acceptable to distribute bibles. However, I believe that this is an example of how the majority deprives the rights of non-Christians to freely go to school without any religious affiliations. Furthermore, if parents want their children to learn about their specific religious believes then, they should enroll their kids to private institutions where that religion is taught. If parents cannot afford these expenses, then they should take it upon themselves to teach their children their religion.
Religion should be taught at home not in schools. Public schools are meant to be a safe ground for children. Orange County has exposed their children to numerous people approaching them to distribute literature about their religious belief. There is a compelling state interest in this case to remove all religious text from school in order to ensure the safety of the students. Note, this does not mean that I am against religion, it just means that religion should not be involved in public education.
Earlier this week, in Colorado, a local baker name Marjorie Silva refused to bake a cake for a customer. Silva is the owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery. The customer, named Bill Jack, asked Silva to bake a Bible shaped cake with anti-gay images and messages written on it. Originally, Silva had agreed to bake a Bible shaped cake. However, upon learning of these specific demands Silva refused to satisfy the requests of her customer. Reportedly, the request was for Silva to write, “God hates gays” on the cake with two men holding hands and a cross on top of them. As a compromise, Silva baked the caked and offered to give Mr. Jack icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words for himself. Mr. Jack was not satisfied with this compromise, and he filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Division.
When asked why she refused to write the message on the cake, Silva was quoted as saying, “It’s just horrible. It doesn’t matter if, you know, if you’re Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I’m gay or not gay or whatever. We should all be loving each other. I mean there’s no reason to discriminate.” Ironically, that’s exactly what she is being accused of, discrimination. Silva whole-heartedly believes that she did nothing wrong, and has even gone so far as to say that Jack should be the one accused of discrimination, not her. Mr. Jack alleges that Silva is blatantly discriminating against him based on what he refers to as his creed. In this case, Jack is using the word ‘creed’ to refer to his own religious convictions. The question is whether or not the government has a right to step in and force Silva to bake the cake because she is discriminating against Bill Jack for his religious beliefs.
The Jack v. Silva case comes in wake of a similar Colorado court case in which courts ruled that baker Jack Phillips was obligated to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding or face a large fine that would surely put him out of business. Phillips had originally refused to bake a cake because he felt it was against his religious beliefs to endorse a same sex marriage. Now, for the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation. I did not agree with this ruling and felt that the court should not be able to take away the right of private business owners to refuse service based on belief. I felt that this ruling violated the establishment clause by creating a law that prevented Phillips from freely exercising his religious beliefs. If the public did not agree with Phillips they have the right to protest or to boycott his bakery.
If the courts equate these two cases they must be consistent with their original decision and compel Silva to bake the cake to Mr. Jack’s specifications. The precedent was set in the Phillips case that the government has a right to trump an owner’s beliefs and compel service if those beliefs encourage discrimination. If this precedent is applied to this case courts will say that Silva is discriminating against Jack for his religious beliefs which violates anti-discrimination laws.
However, the courts may not equate the two cases. In the Phillips case, his religious beliefs guided his decision to not endorse a same sex marriage. This is blatant discrimination to all same sex couples which violates established law and gives the court the right to trump his religious convictions. In the Silva case, she allegedly discriminated against Mr. Jack for his religious beliefs. The difference between the two bakers is the requests of their clients. Silva has the right to discriminate against Mr. Jack because his religious beliefs lead him to request a hateful message to be printed on his cake. The courts may rule that because this message is discriminatory in nature Silva has the right to not serve Mr. Jack no matter his religious beliefs.
In my opinion, I believe that the court should rule against Mr. Jack. His message in itself is discriminatory and therefore I find it difficult to believe that the courts would force Silva to write the message. There is a distinct difference between Silva and Phillips. Phillips claimed his religious beliefs did not allow him to endorse a same sex marriage by baking a cake. This belief would allow him to discriminate against all homosexual couples in the future. This is why the courts ruled against him. Conversely, Silva’s convictions are actually preventing discrimination towards the LGBTQ community. However, her beliefs are in fact discriminatory towards Mr. Jack’s religious beliefs. I believe the courts will allow an exemption for Silva because Mr. Jack is utilizing his religious beliefs to explain his offensive cake design. The message the cake is displaying is discriminatory in nature, and although I do not believe that he should be prevented from displaying it I do believe that Silva should not be compelled to make the cake and that her compromise of providing Jack with the supplies is sufficient. I agree with Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the ACLU in Colorado when he says, “there is no law that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it.” Although Silva is admittedly discriminating against Mr. Jack for his religious beliefs the court should rule in her favor because she did attempt to compromise and even if Mr. Jack’s religion guided him to request that message it is still hateful in nature and should not be forced upon Silva.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
- 0 Comments
Earlier this year, on November 13th, tattoo parlors around the world offered free tattoos of swastikas as part of an ongoing effort to restore the swastika that the Nazis abused to its original meaning. The swastika is a symbol that originated in Hindiusm and that prior to the Nazi’s hijacking, had purely positive connotations. Unfortunately, since World War II, most western civilizations now view the swastika as a symbol of Nazism, white supremacy, and hatred. However, the swastika is still widely used in Asia and in Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
About a year ago, a concerned individual came across a pair of swastika earrings at Bejeweled, a jewelry store in Brooklyn, New York, and proceeded to send a picture of the earrings to a gossip website. As to be expected, the jewelry store quickly came under fire. The storeowner, Young Sook Kim, originally defended her decision to sell the earrings, claiming that the swastika is a symbol in Tibetan Buddhism. Numerous New York politicians responded to her defense with animosity. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer claimed, “…a swastika is not a fashion statement. It is the most hateful symbol in our culture and an insult to any civilized person.” He then proceeded to make underhanded accusations of anti-semiticismon the part of Kim by detailing anti-semitic incidents in Manhattan and Brooklyn. City Councilman Steve Levin called the storeowners actions as “totally outrageous” and claimed “they should be sensitive to what that symbol means to Jews around the world.” However, the most hostility came from State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who called Kim’s defense nauseating and stated “It’s sick. It’s insulting. It’s degrading. The average person, when they see a swastika, they see it as a symbol of hate. End of story.” City Councilman Steve Levin then decided to visit Bejeweled to inquire about the earrings at which point, the owner agreed to stop selling he earrings. Levin then reiterated his former statement, claiming, “We have to be sensitive to what each other has gone through.” Unfortunately, I think the irony is lost on Levin. |
| Bejewled Jewelry Store |
There are those who claim that it is impossible to rehabilitate the swastika after what has happened in World War II. While this is an argument I understand, it is often irrelevant, because for some people, the swastika does not need to be rehabilitated. The swastika is still used widely in other parts of the world, and for people from these parts, the swastika still has its original meaning. Another argument is that the swastika is often still used as a symbol of hatred and anti-semitism in the United States. While this is true, it is fortunately usually easy to see when the swastika is being used as a symbol of hate rather than a religious symbol by looking at the context. I therefore can find no state interest that is compelling enough to justify burdening Kim’s free exercise of religion.
Young Sook Kim was therefore denied her right to freedom of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when she was bullied, insulted, and coerced into removing an item bearing a symbol of her religion from her store. Levin was correct in saying that we need to be sensitive in what others have been through. However, this includes being sensitive to those of a minority religion that views the swastika positively, and is forced to deal with the polarized opinion of a western civilization.
Recently the Affordable Care Act, a part of ObamaCare, has been the topic of much controversy in the Private Business Realm. The Affordable Care Act requires companies of a substantial size, employing more than fifty individuals, to provide health insurance in the form of contraceptives. Companies who refuse to provide this coverage are subject to fines daily according to the number of employees who are withheld the insurance. Naturally there are exceptions to be made for this type of coverage along the lines of the First Amendment.
The purpose of contraceptives clashes with many religious organizations that see them as opposing the Creator’s intention for men and women. As result, certain non-profit religious organizations have received an exemption to the Affordable Care Act. Organizations receiving exemptions include selective hospitals, universities, and charities. This exemption, however, certainly does not apply to all private businesses. For that reason, several private business owners have separately filed for exemptions to this Act based on religious convictions and perceived immunity provided by the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after all, does prevent Congress from making a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Lower courts have recently ruled differently in regards to private businesses filing for exemptions to the Affordable Care Act. The court lifted the Act for one private chain, Hobby Lobby, based on religious reasons. Around the same time, a different court was unwilling to lift the mandate for a private manufacturing company, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation (CWSC), despite its similar appeal to the First Amendment. This certainly raises the question, how does the freedom to exercise religion pertain to the Affordable Care Act and private business owners? The response of the lower courts provides a nebulous answer to this important issue. The answer to this question is important, as it will help provide the Americans with some guidelines on who are and what is guaranteed the freedom to exercise religion. The issue also addresses what sphere(s), private or public, the First Amendment regards. For lucidity, America turns to the Supreme Court, whose impending answer I will now address.
I first address the sphere to which this issue pertains. In my opinion, the freedom to exercise religion should be contained to the private sphere and not the public as much as is possible. Religious organizations usually exist with the purpose of growing a body of adherents to one faith. These organizations inherently exercise religion by their very existence. They may provide a public service, but that does not constitute the purpose for existence. We may perceive them as belonging to the private sphere. On the other hand, private organizations that provide a public service, such as Hobby Lobby and CWSC, do not exercise religion as part of their existence. Therefore, I do not think that these should be considered as part of the public domain. So they should not exist as entities under the First Amendment that exercise religion. This is where the public and private spheres in regards to private businesses diverge. For that reason, business decisions, such as company wide health insurance, should not be subject to the religious convictions of its owners or shareholders. Private non-profit companies should be required to provide the health care mandated by the government.
Sherbert v. Verner was a 1963 Supreme Court case that dealt with an individual who was fired for refusing to work on Saturday, and was denied unemployment benefits. The Court found that this violated the woman’s right to freely exercise her religion as a Seventh-day Adventist due to a substantial burden and no state interesting compelling enough to bring about this burden. So I also ask in the midst of deliberation, does the contraceptive mandate provide a substantial burden on the private business owners without a compelling state interest? Firstly, the mandate only imposes an indirect burden on business owners. The mandate is generally applicable and was proposed with goal of benefitting women, not subverting religion. The Act does present a burden to private business owners, but that burden is merely economic. Not only that, but the burden does not prevent business owners from freely practicing religion as it pertains to their own personal lives, the mandate does not compel them to use the contraceptives. Business owners do not claim a religious tenet that forbids them from providing others with contraceptives, so the burden does not seem to substantially affect an owner’s personal adherence to religious beliefs. I also think that a state interest exists to benefit women and their families who may not be able to afford this type of coverage. There obviously exists a more full proof method to preventing conception than contraceptives, and thus I don’t deem this interest compelling to the point that it should greatly burden religious freedom. Still, the burden is not substantial, and so private non-profit business owners must obey it.
Finally, if all private business owners were granted an exemption, there is always the possibility that it will be taken to the extreme. This decision could potentially create a “slippery slope,” allowing business owners the right to prevent employees other benefits. This could essentially allow business owners to discriminate against certain employees for various reasons that they claim prohibit their free exercise. It is hard to foresee the type of corruption this might lead to, and thus it must be prevented.
All this being said, I empathize with the private business owners who feel unable to practice their religion. But, I don’t believe they are covered under the free exercise clause to be granted an exemption.
