Recent Articles
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Sunday, February 1, 2015
- 0 Comments
In the wake of the murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine, there has been a european movement to put an end to blasphemy laws across the globe. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) as well as the European Humanist Federation (EHF) represent over two hundred humanist and secular organizations around the world. Their stance is that blasphemy laws restrict the freedom of the press, and the freedom of expression. Their movement is open to all advocates of freedom of expression, with a large base in the Atheist Irish.
If you recall, Charlie Hebdo Magazine is a french satirical magazine, which was the subject of a murderous rampage where two islamist gunmen forced their way into the magazine’s Paris headquarters and gunned down twelve members of the magazine’s staff. The movement comes to the defense of the magazines generally satirical nature, and more specifically, their satirical content regarding religion.
Sonja Eggerickx, president of IHEU, said that “in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings there have been renewed calls to abolish blasphemy and related laws in almost every country where they still exist. Our organisations have worked for many years to protect this important right: to question, criticise, and yes, even ridicule, religion. The idea that it is wrong to satirise religion lends false legitimacy to those who murder in the name of being offended. The idea that it is taboo to question or to criticise religious authorities is one reason why sexual abuse in the Catholic Church persisted so long.”
In addition Pierre Galand, EHF president, said “Our campaign does not target laws against incitement to hatred, which are legitimate. What we are concerned about is laws which restrict freedom of expression about religion. As a first step, we want to see the remaining laws against blasphemy and religious insult in Europe repealed.”
While this movement is centered around the blasphemy laws in Europe, it is inevitably an issue which will migrate to the political realm of the United States. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This clause guarantees the civil liberties of free speech and a division between church and state, as well as extends free exercise of religion to citizens. This is the concept which i find a contention with. The crucial aspect to be investigated here is that protection is extended to the people, not the religion. No religion is protected by the constitution. Ideas are not protected under the constitution, the people who embody those ideas are.
While federally, blasphemy laws are unconstitutional, there are many states which still have blasphemy laws on the books. While many of these laws were enacted centuries ago, they still hold as viable laws. The general tone behind the laws is that any spoken or written blasphemous act against God shall be punishable by a fine and some amount of jail time. These laws directly conflict with the free exercise clause of the first amendment. I believe that there should be a complete abolishment of blasphemy laws in the United States across all state level constitutions. These laws inhibit a citizens ability to freely criticize and ridicule a particular religion, which is a right protected by the first amendment. I believe that the revival of this movement across Europe should call into question our own state laws, and begin the process of the repealing of such laws. Given the concepts of free exercise and freedom of expression, why is this movement important?
The full articles consulted can be seen through the links below.
Related Constitutional Source: http://www.wsusignpost.com/2015/02/01/constitution-protects-the-right-to-offend-and-criticize/
In Knight v. Thompson,the Supreme Court vacated the ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit appellate court and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided on new criteria based largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs. In Knight v. Thompson, several Native Americans incarcerated in Alabama brought suit against the Alabama Department of Corrections because of the department’s “regular haircut policy.” These Native American prisoners assert that maintaining long hair is a requirement of their religious beliefs. Knight v. Thompson is very similar to a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, Holt v. Hobbs. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim man—Gregory Holt—incarcerated in an Arkansas prison had the religious right to grow a half-inch beard. By remanding Knight v. Thompson, the Supreme Court is broadening the scope of religious rights granted to prisoners. Additionally, the Supreme Court is demonstrating consistency in its decisions concerning prisoners religious rights by choosing to not “blindly defer to prison policy based on the specific facts of the case” (Chaffee, Merriam, Seeman 2015).
In both Supreme Court cases, the Alabama and Arkansas Departments of Corrections cited that they had a compelling state interest to restrict the length of prisoners’ hair and the length of prisoners’ facial hair, respectively. The cases differ, however, in how seriously the Supreme Court has regarded these compelling state interests. In Holt v. Hobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that while he respects the state’s compelling interest to uphold prison security he asserts that “the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously” (Wolf 2015). The Supreme Court, therefore, overruled the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of Gregory Holt. In Knight v. Thompson, however, the Supreme Court only vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided using the rulings of past Supreme Court cases (like Holt v. Hobbs) as a guide. The Alabama Department of Corrections presents stronger evidence in favor of its compelling state interest to limit the length of Native American hair. For example, there is concern that inmates might hide contraband in their hair. In fact, there was an incident in which a razor blade cut the hands of a prison staff member while he was searching an inmate’s hair. Additionally, there is concern for the health of prisoners with long hair. For instance, a black widow spider once wove a nest in an inmate’s hair.
In my opinion, Knight v. Thompson is a more difficult case to decide than Holt v. Hobbs. I agree with Justice Alito’s assessment that there exists little threat to prison security by allowing a man to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons. However, allowing an inmate to grow long hair obviously generates greater risk to prison security. There are many who argue that prisoners should not be afforded religious rights in prison as they have forfeited many of their rights by committing and being found guilty of a crime. However, Congress has specifically recognized a prisoner’s right to worship while incarcerated in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed in 2000. While it can be argued that restricting the length of a prisoner’s hair or facial hair will not inhibit a prisoner from worshipping, prisoners may contend otherwise.
Ultimately, I believe that prisoners should have the right to freely exercise their religion as granted to them by the First Amendment. However, if there presents a compelling state interest to restrict some religious rights for the sake of prison security, these cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis where the threat to prison security is seriously considered. If the 11th District Court finds that the Alabama Department of Corrections provides strong evidence of a compelling state interest to restrict the length of Native American inmates’ hair, than the court should rule in the Alabama Department of Correction’s favor in Knight v. Thompson.
Do you agree with my assessment of judging religious rights cases concerning prisoners on a case-by-case basis? Or should there be some level of consistency in deciding these cases for the sake of religious neutrality?
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
- 0 Comments
Duke University gave permission to students to begin a weekly Muslim call to prayer from the Duke Chapel on Friday January 16th but then canceled these plans after a significant amount of criticism and “credible security threats”. The 'adhan', is the chant would have been announced from the Chapel bell tower each Friday. The chapel’s description states it as, “a Christian church of uniquely interdenominational character and purpose, welcoming people of all faiths and circumstances,” and over the past years Muslim students have gathered to pray in the chapel’s basement.
After reading Duke's announcement, Franklin Graham, the president of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, began trying to force the university to reverse their decision by calling donors and alumni to withhold future donations. Graham states, “It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” and, “Using the bell tower, that signifies worship of Jesus Christ. Using (it) as a minaret is wrong.” The dean of the Duke Divinity School also raised concerns about the use of the chapel for the Muslim call to prayer. He states, “There are serious questions…about the wisdom and propriety of allowing Duke chapel to be used for this purpose. Despite some common beliefs and traditions, Christianity and Islam stand in significant theological tension with one another.”
Due to the vase number of calls the decision was overturned but the call to worship was announced in a different way. The members of the Muslim community gathered on the quadrangle outside of the chapel. This is a place where many interfaith programs and activities have been located. This video, from the Washington Post, shows the call to prayer on the quad as well as a few student reactions after the event.
This issue is relevant to our lives because colleges are supposed to be places to help foster tolerance, equality, and peace. College students are the people that are meant to lead the next generation and if universities are refusing to be tolerant of religious views, then they are sending the message that intolerance is acceptable and that some beliefs are more important than others. Duke’s decision to not allow the call to prayer to be heard from the bell tower shows that people, like Franklin Graham, are not willing to be part of a changed American society that accepts all religions. This issue was especially relevant because of the timing of the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper on January 7th 2015. Due to the view of Islam throughout the world, many Muslims are not viewed with respect and equality as they deserve. The fact that Duke canceled the public call to worship shows that people still are afraid and intolerant of Islamic beliefs.
I think that Duke University should not have made the decision to cancel the call to worship from the bell tower. It is the responsibility of the world to stand behind the Muslim community and not ostracize them any further. If this church tower was not connected to a college in any form I would respect the decision to not allow the call to prayer to be announced because it is a church used for only one denomination. The Duke Chapel is connected to a prestigious university and publicly states that it welcomes people from all different types of religions. Since the chapel has been a location for Muslim prayers before, I do not see why the public call to prayer would be any different. Muslim students should not have to hide in the basement to pray and if they want to help unite their community they should be allowed to do so, especially on a college campus.
The Dearborn Heights Police Department is now facing a lawsuit after a Muslim woman was forced to remove her hijab while being photographed after being arrested. Malak Kazan was driving with a suspended license when a police officer pulled her over for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested her. While she was being booked, the police officer asked her to remove her hijab, which is an optional Muslim head-covering worn to remain modest while in the presence of men who aren’t in her immediate family. Kazan explained that removing this would violate her faith and requested that a female officer instead help her, which would allow her to keep in line with her faith. This request, however, was denied, and the Kazan had to remove her hijab in front of the male police officer in order to be booked. She then decided to sue because they “denied her constitutional rights.”
This case is reminiscent of the recent Supreme Court case where the justices ruled a Muslim prisoner had the right to grow a short beard as a part of his religious faith. Much like that case, Kazan was attempting to exercise her right to practice her Muslim faith. Issues such as this are increasingly important as the United States adjusts to the ever-growing population of religious and ethnic minorities. While the United States has always prided itself on being very religiously tolerant, it seems like recent history puts this to the test much more than the first 200 years of this country did. With more immigration of different groups of people, the US has found itself in a place with more diversity than possibly imagined when it was founded. In regards to the Muslim faith, this has left the country and its tolerance at odds for a variety of reasons. First, there’s the fact that the Muslim religion has become linked to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, there are several more visible practices of the Muslim faith that have been seen as interfering with security practices, such as the growing of a beard in prison and wearing a hijab during a booking. The linkage between Muslims and extremist violence created in the first problem perhaps unfairly exacerbates this security concern. The interaction between law and religion is not one that occurs in a vacuum; as impartial and fair as we would like to believe the system is, personal and societal factors influence it.
With that being said, I believe this case did violate Kazan’s right to exercise her religion. While some may argue that the police were simply doing their job in booking her, it seems like doing this job was done at the sake of her right to freely exercise her religion. It is not that the police forced her to remove her hijab, but that she was forced to do so in front of unrelated men. As law professor Larry Dubin notes in the article, if she had done so in the presence of a woman it most likely would not have resulted in a lawsuit. This leads me to question the refusal of Kazan’s request for a female police officer. Her right to free exercise would not have been violated if she had been able to remove her hijab in the presence of a female officer. Was there absolutely no female officer available to do the job or was the policeman just trying to finish the booking, which led him to violate Kazan’s religious rights? While it may make the job a little more difficult, I believe that the police department has an interest in making sure constitutional rights are protected, and if that means needing to find a female officer, effort should be put into doing so.
Another point of interest is the fact that other instances that relate to photo identification have been granted exemptions. For example, the article notes that hijabs have been allowed in some licenses and IDs. If other exemptions like this have been made, what makes it ok for a police officer to force the removal of her hijab in the booking process? One may argue that it may have been appropriate because she was arrested, but being arrested does that mean that US citizens automatically lose their constitutional rights. The hijab only covers the hair of the female so it is not something that would obscure Kazan’s face and make it harder to potentially identify her later.
The outcome of this case may have a wider impact that just the booking process. If a federal judge were to rule that hijabs could not be worn for this, other governmental agencies may use this leeway to then make Muslim women remove their hijabs for other forms of photo identification instead of continuing to grant them religious exemptions. If the court rules in favor of Kazan, however, then more protection may be granted to the free exercise of minority religions in the future.
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.
