Recent Articles
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Sunday, February 8, 2015
- 0 Comments
Article can be found here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865621202/Californias-ban-of-Scout-affiliated-judges-flies-in-the-face-of-religious-freedoms.html
California judges must abide by a code of ethics that dictates their professional and personal lives. One section of this code speaks directly to this issue: “A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” The Court argues that prohibiting BSA membership will ‘promote the integrity of the judiciary’ and ‘enhance public confidence’ in the system.
I believe that preventing California State Supreme Court judges from participating in the Boy Scouts of America is a blatant infringement on their constitutional rights of free association, free speech, and the free exercise of religion. California judges should not be prevented from being leaders in the BSA. These judges are permitted to gain membership to organizations such as The National Rifle Association, the Council on American-Islamic relations and even the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Many of these permitted organizations have strong political and social values just as the BSA does.
As we have discussed in class, being a member of an organization does not necessarily mean that all of your values are determined by that organization. For example, just because you are a Catholic does not mean that a juror will disagree with the death penalty. Being a leader in the Boy Scouts does not mean that a judge will be biased against homosexuals in their court.
Additionally, California’s code of conduct contains exceptions for some organizations that discriminate- namely religious ones. For example, Californian judges can be members of the Catholic Church even though it discriminates against women by preventing them from becoming priests. Likewise, Orthodox Jews ban women from becoming rabbis. However, judges in California are permitted to gain membership to these churches and congregations. Despite these discriminatory practices, the state does not believe that membership with these organizations will make judges biased based on gender. Clearly, the ban on organizations that discriminate on the basis of gender has some exceptions.
To me, this almost seems like the state government is preferencing religion over non-religion. To make such blatant exceptions to this discrimination rule shows a partiality to religion. While the Boy Scouts of America have values deeply connected with religion, it is not a religious organization. It doesn’t seem fair to grant exceptions to religious institutions but not to private organizations.
Furthermore, a person’s values do not necessarily change depending on which organizations they are a part of. Judges are expected to be fair and impartial at all times. These attributes should be clear and unquestionable before they are appointed as judges. If a judge is somehow homophobic, restricting his or her admission to the Boy Scouts of America will not change his or her mind. This could also lead to a slippery slope for judges and their restrictions. If we prevent them from joining an organization that has an unpopular opinion, what is to stop the government from preventing judges from joining a certain political party or volunteering for a nonprofit organization that works to empower women, for example? Many organizations take stances on issues such as gender and race. Would we bar judges from joining these organizations because of this?
The Boy Scouts of America are legally protected in prohibiting homosexuals from being leaders in their organization due to their religious preferences. Though it is an extremely unpopular opinion to many, the BSA is exercising its freedom of religion right granted in the First Amendment. This issue is extremely important because judges are the ones that society expects to be upholding constitutional rights. Instead, they are having their rights restricted in order to keep their jobs.
Do you think the government has a right to restrict its judges from joining certain organizations based on their values?
Article can be found here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/02/indiana-senate-poised-allow-hiring-based-religion/22759821/
A proposed bill in Indiana had created great controversy. Senate Bill 127 is intended to allow those who run religious-affiliated organizations to have greater protection in hiring, specifically when it comes to religion. Religious-affiliated organizations that receive public funding, including hospitals and universities, would be allowed to discriminate in hiring based on the organization's religious views and beliefs. Additionally, the bill would allow these organizations and employers to require that employees follow the organization's religious creeds and tenets.
Social Conservatives have generally supported the bill, which is set to be voted on this week. They claim that an organization with religious ties should not be directed or influenced by the state. They say that the First Amendment protects religious organizations by allowing them to hire whomever they want with no government interference or burden. If an organization does not want to hire someone who doesn't support their mission, then why should they? Religious-affiliated organizations and businesses should be able to maintain their religious identity while providing social services using public funding.
Liberals have, for the most part, opposed the bill. They claim that an organization receiving public funding should not be allowed to discriminate against those who do not share the organization's religious views. If a religious-affiliated organization is using money that the public and state have funded, the organization has a responsibility to treat all people of all kinds equally. The government has an interest in overseeing that organizations that are run with the help of the public are not discriminating against any group, an interest that does not conflict with any First Amendment protections.
I think that the most important part of the bill to take into consideration is the fact that these organizations are receiving public funds. If these organizations are going to use state funds, I believe that they have an obligation to support the public as a whole. If these organizations were to use only private money for their endeavors, then they should be allowed to run as they please. Once they take money from the public, however, they should be forced to run as public businesses do. A homosexual, for example, should not have to help fund an organization's project while that organization has the freedom to reject that homosexual's application based on his/her personal or religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects religions and religious organizations from state interference when those groups are practicing or organizing privately, but the same does not hold true for when those religions or organizations are connected to the public monetarily. These organizations have a duty to hire people of all beliefs and religions if those people are to pay for the organization's projects. The government has a compelling interest to make sure that everyone is treated equally in a case like this.
As for the part of the bill that would allow these organizations to force employees to follow its practices and beliefs, how can it be decided if an employee has properly or successfully followed the organization's tenets? It seems as if the religious organization would have to delve into its employees' personal lives to an extent that boarders on privacy invasion if it wanted to see if the employee truly followed religious tenets. How can the organization know whether the employee took birth control or not? How about if the employee attended church or not?
This bill seems both unconstitutional and confusing. Do you believe that all religious-affiliated organizations should be able to discriminate in hiring, no matter where there funding comes from? Are these organizations protected by the First Amendment? And should the employees have to conform to religious tenets, or is would this requiring too much of employees?
In 1942, the United States Congress officially adopted the Pledge of Allegiance but the phrase “under God” was not officially added to the pledge until 1954. The court noted that the House Report for that amendment to the pledge indicated the intent to emphasize that political authority comes from God but that the language “under God” was not attempting to establish a religious institution. The House Report states that “A distinction must be made between the existence of a religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God. The phrase ‘under God’ recognizes only the guidance of God in our national affairs.” The court stated that following the Plaintiff’s reasoning, the very Constitution that they are appealing to could be deemed unconstitutional due to the acknowledgement of a God. The court stated that this would be “an absurd proposition which the Plaintiffs do not and cannot advance here.”
During the preceding, the court heard from Samantha Jones, a high school student who argued that students have the right to say under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. In response to the court’s decision, Jones said, “We all have the right to remain silent, but nobody has the right to silence anybody else.” Eric Rassbach from the Becket Fund, which supported Jones, argued “The Pledge is not a prayer to God, but a statement about who we are as a nation. Dissenters have every right to sit out the Pledge, but they can’t silence everyone else.”
I disagree with the arguments put forth by Jones and Rassbach and believe the court was wrong in dismissing this case. The language under God may not be establishing a particular sect of religion but it does establish the sects of religions that believe in God. Therefore, it excludes those who do not have that same belief. The writers of the amended Pledge may not have had the intent to establish religion but the intent is largely irrelevant to its actual effect. One can be a firm believer in a certain principle but can be imperfect in applying that principle. The fact that the phrase under God and other language have been accepted as religiously tolerant in the past should not be an excuse to avoid taking steps to ensuring greater religious freedom today.
As noted above, it has been argued that removing under God from the pledge would be a violation of the rights of students who wish to remain reciting the current version of the Pledge. A similar argument was made in Engel v. Vitale (1962) in the defense of the daily recital of a prayer in a New York school district. In the court’s ruling that this practice was a violation of the Establishment Clause, the court reminded us that it is “neither sacrilegious nor antireligious” for the government to stay out of writing or sanctioning prayers. Taking under God out of the Pledge would not be an attack on anyone’s freedom. Students do not need the school to lead them in the Pledge in order for them to say it. Individuals would still be able to freely say their own version of the Pledge on their own time. The fact that the government does not sponsor something does not mean that they are attacking it.
In Samantha Jones’ defense of the current version of the Pledge, she says “The phrase ‘under God’ protects all Americans – including atheists – because it reminds the government that it can’t take away basic human rights because it didn’t create them.” While the dialogue in court decisions has a different take on the purpose of the Pledge, I would suggest that the use of under God is not necessary to remind the government of the natural freedoms we have. The version of the Pledge before the amendment in 1954 reads as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I believe that this version of the Pledge accomplishes all the same goals of promoting freedom and patriotism without establishing any religion. Since the original version of the Pledge did not have the phrase under God it would be natural for the country to readopt an older version of the Pledge
Do you think that the phrase under God violates the Establishment Clause? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Alyce Conlon was employed by the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (IVCF) in Michigan as a spiritual director. IVCF is an interdenominational, Christian, student-led ministry, which has been involved on college campuses for more than 70 years. The organization’s beliefs and ideals can be further explained on their website. Her duties here included providing religious counsel and prayer to students. When Mrs. Conlon informed the organization that she was contemplating divorce, IVCF put her on paid, and later unpaid, leave. Her employment with IVCF was then terminated. Included in IVCF’s employment policy is that “where there are significant marital issues, IVCF encourages employees to seek appropriate help to move towards reconciliation” and reserves the right to consider the impact of separation or divorce on people the employee may interact with.
Alyce Conlon filed a lawsuit against InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA alleging that the termination of her employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Michigan law.
The key factor to consider in whether or not Conlon has the right to claim her firing because her marriage was headed to divorce is ministerial exception. Ministerial exception, which was first seen in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Churchand School v. EEOC , entails that religious employers may discriminate against their employees without any court review. This case is also the first opportunity since the Hosanna-Taylor ccase for this court to address ministerial exception. Ministerial exception is grounded in the First Amendment and precludes the application of Title VII and other employment discrimination claims concerning the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Both parties agree that the ministerial exception typically applies to federal employment-law claims. The dispute arose because Conlon claims IVCF waived the exception. However, whether the exception attaches at all is purely a question of law i.e. the ministerial exception is a limitation that can never be waived.
On February 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to enforce state and federal gender discrimination laws on one of the nation’s largest Christian campus ministries.
Some cases of ministerial exception may provide for a slippery slope, however, I do not believe that there is a slippery slope in this ruling. Although Conlon did not directly serve the organization as a minister per say, her role as a spiritual director implies that most of the work she did was ministerial in nature. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from interfering with the decision of a religious organization to fire one of its ministers.
Although IVCF is not a church, the purpose of the organization is to advance the practice of Christianity in college and is a religious group, as is defined under Hosanna-Tabor. The organization’s employment policy even states that separation or divorce could cause IVCF to consider the impact of such an event on the individual’s position within the organization. It is evident that ICVF, as a Christian organization, wants “ministers” who they employ to spread Christianity throughout college campuses to embody the highest Christian ideals. It is therefore evident that a poor marriage, in IVCF’s eyes would in turn inhibit the ability for Conlon to spread the organization’s message effectively to the students. Here the sincerity of the religious practice is key to the very foundation of IVCF, giving them had every right to fire Mrs. Conlon from her position as spiritual director.
This ruling is now considered an important precedent in protecting religious institutions from government entanglement. How long will it be until another case comes along to uproot this precedent? I believe one recent event that could find issues or solace in this ruling is the Indiana Senate Bill 127 that would allow religious affiliated organizations to hire people based on their religion. Conlon’s case could be used in this instance to provide basis or argument against the passing of this bill. It will be interesting to see how Conlon v. IVCF will be used by courts throughout the nation in future discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations.
Politically speaking this seems to be a non-issue for both Democrats and Republicans. Speaker Boehner, a Catholic himself, told reporters that "We're humbled that the Holy Father has accepted our invitation and certainly look forward to receiving his message on behalf of the American people.” Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, also of the Catholic Faith, issued a statement declaring she is looking forward to Pope Francis’ “call to live our values, to protect the poor and the needy, and to promote peace.” In such a divided Congress this seems to be a rare instance of mutual agreement. It is extremely unlikely that any politician will come out and oppose the Pope’s address to Congress as the ramifications of such a bold stance would be dire. Nonetheless, there still are some who feel uneasy about the Pope’s address.
These people assert that Pope Francis addressing Congress is a blatant example of the government “establishing religion”. Not only would the Pope’s visit be an establishment of religion but it would be an establishment of religion in the epicenter of American government! They also reason that if the government is truly neutral than shouldn’t the leaders of all religious faiths be extended invitations to address Congress? And thus the hallowed slippery slope is created. Certainly it is fair to ask how it can be that the Pope gets this unique opportunity to address the people’s elected lawmakers whereas leaders of other religious groups do not.
Well hold on, the timing of Pope Francis invitation is extremely interesting. Speaker Boehner’s invitation to the Pope comes on the heels of his controversial invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to also address Congress. In the case of Netanyahu, the invitation was met with much criticism. While Netanyahu and the Pope do not hold identical roles one can assert that the Israeli prime Minister is the closest Jewish equivalent to the Pope. It is worth noting that technically the Pope is also a head of state. Still, these same people argue that if Catholics and Jews are being allowed to address Congress what about other religions? After all, Catholics make up roughly twenty two percent of the United States, and Jews make up less than two percent. That’s a huge percentage that doesn’t seem to be represented in this capacity.
This is a very unique situation and there is no legal case that I could find that sets a precedent for the constitutionality of the Pope’s address. Nonetheless, I believe that Pope Francis should be allowed to address Congress. Although he is a religious figurehead, it seems as if the content of the Pope’s address will be apolitical and an embodiment of many of the values our country was founded on. Therefore, I do not view this address as an establishment of religion, especially since the Pope is a head of state. According to the House of Representatives website, over the past century, foreign heads of state and heads of government of over forty nations have addressed Congress. Yet even if his classification was not as a “head of state”, the enormous following the Pope has and his general message of peace, and aiding the needy, is secular in nature and certainly makes him someone who should be able to receive an invitation to address Congress. This occurred in 1994 as Mother Theresa addressed Congress at the National Prayer Breakfast. However, I must say that if the Pope used this forum to preach a more non-secular message, I would not be in favor of him addressing Congress.
Since it is already announced the Pope will address Congress we now must wonder what sort of precedent this sets moving forward. If the next Speaker of the House is Muslim can they invite a Muslim leader to address Congress? What about if the next speaker is from another Christian denomination? While I view the Pope as a unique guest, I can foresee how this could be something to follow moving forward.
Surprisingly, there has been little literature dedicated to these fundamental questions about the Pope’s address to Congress. Do you think he should be granted this forum? Or is this an establishment of religion?
 |
| Travis Holdman |
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?
Monday, February 2, 2015
Monday, February 2, 2015
- 0 Comments
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.
