Religion & American Law

Travis Holdman

Indiana State Senator Travis Holdman recently proposed Senate Bill 127, which stated that religious-offiliated organizations, such as hospitals, universities, or daycares, were now able to discriminate potential employees based on their religion and would require those that were hired to follow certain religious tenants. The bill would allow these organizations to do so while still receiving state contracts.

Holdman, a Republican, claims that the reasoning behind the newly passed bill (Senate Bill 127) was to assist the Indiana Wesleyan University, a private, Christian, liberal arts college that is connected with the Wesleyan Church, in receiving state workforce training grants. Just last year, the University was questioned the school's religious lifestyle mandate, which violated state contracting requirements against employment discrimination. Regardless, the bill was easily passed last Tuesday by the predominantly republican senate with a vote of 39 to 11. 

Senator Holdman is continuing to claim that this does not give these religious organizations an excuse to discriminate, but instead will help them make their organizations a smooth success. "It's not a legal license to discriminate" Holdman said. "It just says we're going to pull ourselves in line with federal law that allows for this kind of carve out, this kind of exemption, for faith based organizations." Holdman also stated his concern that Indiana relies on many religious organizations for a variety and services, and that this bill will ensure that the organizations continue to succeed and benefit the people of the state. 

Opponents of Senate Bill 127 are infuriated. Fellow Indiana senator Karen Tallian argues that the language of the bill would allow employers to go against federal laws. "This is outrageous" Tallian exclaimed. "How many tenants must you conform to? Do you have to go to church every Sunday? Can you eat meat on a Friday?" Other's argue that these religious organizations could easily continue to show bias in who they hire, as long as they no longer continue to receive public funding. "Once a religious institution takes public funding or bids on public projects, they should then have to follow the rules like public businesses do in regards to discrimination based on any trait-- sex, race, gender, sexual and gender orientation, etc." stated Chris Paulsen, spokeswoman for Indiana Equality Action. Questions for this bill have risen quickly, such as will employers be able to ask potential candidates about private and personal matters, such as their use of birth control? 

I personally feel that Senate Bill 127 should not have been passed by the state of Indiana, or by any state in the future, as it promotes discrimination towards people, people of the public, who basically fund these organizations. If these faith-based hospitals, universities, daycares, or other corporations are receiving public funding, they should not be allowed to pick and choose who they hire based on the person's religious beliefs, nor should they force their employees to follow religious tenants. If they wish to do so, they should no longer be granted state contracts from the public. These groups are being funded by people of different religions and have no problem taking money from other groups of faith, yet they do not wish for others to work for them unless they have the same beliefs. I believe that these organizations are trying to take advantage of the best of both worlds, or as some would say, "have their cake and eat it too." Either these organizations need to stop receiving public funding and continue to discriminate their employees, or they should hire people of any beliefs without requiring them to follow certain faith practices and still be granted public funding. It can't be both. 

Do you think religious organizations should be allowed to show bias towards who they hire based on religious beliefs if they are receiving money from the public? Do you think this bill should have been passed? 

Iknoor Singh is a native of Queens, New York and a second year student at Hofstra University. In the fall of 2014, Singh was refused enrollment to the universities' Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program due to his lack of compliance with U.S Army grooming and uniform rules. Singh is a follower of the Sikh faith. Part of this faith practice requires that the men keep their hair long, grow a beard, and wear a turban.

Hair (or kesh) is one of the five articles of faith for Sikhs, they believe hair to be a symbol of love for God and keep it long as a sign of respect for all he has given them. Singh feels that cutting his hair, shaving, and removing his turban to comply with US army grooming and uniform rules would be compromising his faith to his religion. Singh wrote, "I could't believe the military was asking me to make the impossible decision between my country I love and my faith."

Singh made a formal request for a religious accommodation from the U.S Army, but was denied. This confused and upset Singh because the U.S Army grooming and uniform rules make accommodations for other faiths and exceptions on facial hair policy for medical reasons, as well as allowance of wigs to cover balding.

With the support of ACLU and UNITED SIKHS, Singh has filed a law suit against the U.S Army in the US District Court for District Colombia. Singh writes, "Religious beliefs and practices shouldn't prevent military service where, as in my case, they don't pose any risk to the military and they don't harm others." In addition to the violation of the first amendment free exercise clause, Singh feels he is being discriminated further due to a perception given to his people by the events of 9/11. Singh feels that, due to their appearance, Sikhs are often stereotyped as "terrorists" and barring them from military service is only enforcing this incorrect and offensive stereotype.  

Singh's case is an example of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment, as well as violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Both the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA are designed to grant people the freedom of religion and insure that they will not be treated differently or unjustly based on their religious views. Not allowing Singh to join the United States Army Reserves program due to his religious beliefs is a clear violation of the clause.  

I think Singh is justified in his decision to sue the U.S Army for violation of his first amendment right, and violation of the RFRA. The U.S Army grants accommodations to other religious groups and to people for medical reasons. Allowing Singh to have his long hair, beard, and turban by no means negatively impacts the procedures or integrity of the U.S Army. What is the difference between a beard for medical purpose or a beard for religious purpose? They look the same and would have the same impact no matter what the purpose for growth. No one is hurt by Singh being granted a religious accommodation, but when it is not granted it is a violation of his freedom of religion and should be dealt with accordingly. This issue is important because it represents a long tradition of strict order and formality in the Army that must be put aside in order to become a more diverse and accepting organization. I believe apart from the religious discrimination Singh is facing, he is also facing a discrimination based on stereotypes connected to 9/11 and the terrorist groups involved. This "double edged sword" of discrimination is putting Singh in a position no one should have to be stuck with. Singh speaks four languages and wants to be involved in military intelligence. At the end of the day Singh is an American citizen who wants to dedicate his life to defending and protecting the country he calls home, a country which was founded on religious tolerance. That same country he's so willing to sacrifice for is forcing him to choose between his religion and his country. In my opinion joining the military is an admirable endeavor and to prevent someone from enrolling in a military organization based on religious beliefs is fundamentally wrong. The Army should be more receptive to the diversity of Americans wanting to protect the country they love and make accommodation that allow all religious beliefs to proudly serve their country instead of being castaway. If this type of religious discrimination goes on in the U.S army it has potential to divide the organization and act as a form of oppression to minority religious groups. The U.S Army should be a cohesive organization that has a primary concern of defending the United States and citizens should be united by their commitment to that purpose, not divided and discriminated by their religious beliefs and practices.  

Singh summarizes his dilemma well when he writes, "Choosing between one's faith and one's country is a decision that no one should have to make." The U.S Army and the ROTC are institutions that should respect and accommodate all religious practices. Iknoor Singh was discriminated and prevented from joining the ROTC at Hofstra due to the U.S Army's unwillingness to accommodate his Sikh practices despite their lack of negative implications or harmful intent. Singh is justified in his suit against the U.S Army on the grounds of exclusion based on religious practice.   

You can watch Iknoor Singh explain his situation himself here. 

            The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspected Boston Bomber, has been placed on hold for yet another week. This process of moving back the trial date has been occurring for the past month. The reason for pushing the trial back is the extensive time that is being taken to select a jury. While it has been incredibly difficult to find unbiased individuals in the greater Boston areas, the process has become even harder due to religious ideals. In order for Tsarnaev’s trial to proceed, all potential jurors must be able to impose the death penalty or life sentence with no possibility of release. However, this criterion has effectively eliminated almost half of the greater Boston area. 46% of the population in this region identify as Catholics, according to Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. The issue that emerges from this statistic is that all these people are effectively eliminated from serving on the jury due to religious ideals. The question then is whether religious ideals are allowed to be censored in the public forum in order to gain a more unbiased viewpoint.

The article can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/25/boston-bombing-jury-selection-excludes-observant-catholics/22121061/

During Bill de Blasio's campaign for mayor of New York City in 2013, he vowed to reverse a city policy that prohibits public schools from renting out space to churches.  De Blasio won the election with 73 percent of the vote, which some might argue would constitute a mandate, yet he has still not overturned the policy.  The power to change the policy lies within de Blasio's executive control, yet his administration has changed its standpoint on the issue, as explained in a Christianity Today article.

De Blasio's administration filed a brief supporting the city's current standpoint on the policy stating that banning churches from renting public schools "does not involve any government-imposed prohibition, restraint, or burden on religious exercise."  They argue that prohibiting churches from renting places to worship in public school spaces is "viewpoint neutral," and they are therefore not inhibiting anyone's first-amendment rights.

The New York City Board of Education believes that allowing churches to rent space in public schools gives churches a government subsidy because they avoid paying higher rental prices at other sites throughout the city.  They argue that permitting them to worship at New York City public schools would constitute an establishment of religion.  Public schools are intended to be forums that are open to the public and viewpoint-neutral, and the New York City government has decided that allowing churches to rent spaces in public schools is not neutral.

Green v. Galloway is used as precedent for New York prohibiting churches from renting spaces.  They use this case to argue that the city can prohibit services "simply because all religions do not hold to them."

I completely disagree with what the city has decided.  I understand the fear that New York City has of establishing a religion, but if New York were impartial to all religions, and allowed all religions to worship in rented school buildings, establishment would be avoided.  In a separate Christianity Today article discussing the original Court of Appeals ruling permitting the ban of churches renting public spaces, the author argues that churches do not make a school a church any more than a Boy Scout troop renting the space would make it a Boy Scout Lodge.  The church is simply using a public space, to exercise their freedom of religious speech and worship, and this in no way constitutes an establishment of religion--especially if other religions are permitted to worship in public schools.   If the city only allowed churches--not synagogues, for example--to use public schools, that would be a clear establishment of religion, but by opening the use of public schools to all religions, New York City would remain neutral avoiding establishment, and increase revenue for the city by collecting rental fees.

Because churches are wanting to rent space in schools outside of regular school hours, I would even argue that forbidding churches from using this space would be discrimination and an impediment to their free exercise of religion.  No one is being subjected to attend these worship services, and students are most likely not on school grounds during the times when religious groups would be using the space, so there is no argument that people would be forced to be subjected to these doctrines.  Preventing a church from using a public school as a place to worship could also pose the threat of disbanding the church.  The city sees providing the church a lower price to rent space as a government subsidy, but it could be all that the organization can afford.  If not allowed to rent space at public schools, the church might not be able to pay rent at other locations throughout the city, which I view as a bigger threat to their free exercise.  I see banning churches from renting space in public schools to worship on weekends as an unnecessary hindrance to their free exercise of religion.