Recent Articles
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court will hear a case of February 25th regarding a 17 year old Muslim girl Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job at the apparel store Abercrombie and Fitch, because she is compelled to wear a Hijab as a part of her religion. The interviewer made no mention to her that the Hijab would be an issue if she received the job. She was given a score in her interview which by the company standards should have landed her the job, but was apparently denied it due to a district managers disapproval, and his recognition that her head dress might not be compatible with the companies image, which was said to be a "classic east coast collegiate style." Her "looks" score on the interview was then changed to the lowest possible one, disqualifying her from the job. The company calls for their floor models and employees not to wear any sort of headdress that is not in their dress code or to deviate in any way from the uniform that the company has approved.A federal district court ruled in favor of Elauf, but the Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie. Abercrombie’s lawyers are arguing that Elauf failed to specify her necessary accommodation during the interview process, therefore because the interviewer was made aware of her religious preference, he was not compelled to notify her of the companies strict dress code, and that a Hijab would not be permitted.
William Burgess, a senior staff attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations commented on what the supreme courts decision will mean going forward in that it would "permit an employer to discriminate against a job applicant on the basis of her religion without legal consequence if the applicant does not know that she must expressly state her need for a religious accommodation, even when she is unaware of employer policies that would require it.” I have to personally disagree with this statement in that even though she may not have explicitly known the dress code, Elauf had yet to be hired, and was still in the preliminary stages of receiving the job, and that the company and the interviewer, having later received information from her that she would need an accommodation, gave them the right to deny hiring her because of the conflict that her Hijab would conflict with the companies standards.
I think that as a private corporation, A & F have the right to set forth a dress code which can be enforced strictly. They clearly have a very particular image which is central to their brand and their ability to sell clothing, which is why I think granting religious accommodations for employees in relation to the dress code may be more of a burden to a company such as this then it would be to others. Because the company feels as though wearing a Hijab would negatively affect their image, and that it could potentially cause an economic burden, they have the right to deny her employment. What if for example the next employee to come in where to be wearing robes, and that they had to be wearing these robes at all times in order to adhere to their religion. Should that person be granted an exception as well? This brings us back to that idea of a "slippery slope" in that if they allow one accommodation, they might continue to escalate and take away certain hiring rights away from private organizations, which in my opinion is too much government intervention into the private sector. One could also make the argument that ruling against Elauf and similar people in cases similar to this would allow for greater discrimination amongst companies in terms of hiring, and that certain people may be denied employment due to their religious beliefs. In response to a claim like that I would say they have the right to set and enforce a strict dress code, and if a perspective employee feels as though that dress code conflicts with their ability to practice their religious beliefs, there are plenty of other places where they can work where a conflict like this wouldn't arise.
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/02/19/supreme-court-hear-case-headscarf-cost-muslim-teen-job/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-abercrombie-employment-law-hijab-supreme-court--20141006-story.html
 |
| Image Retrieved from ABC News which you can access here |
In a recent news article published by ABC News, a rabbi was reported going to trail for kidnapping and torturing husbands into signing divorce papers. According to ABC News, you can access the article here, Mendel Epstein lead an organized group, that charged Jewish women to kidnap their husbands and obtained a divorce. Jewish laws, according to the article, prevent women from filing for divorce known as a get. The Jewish law allows only the husband to file for divorce and if the husband does not want to get a divorce the women are forced to remain in the marriage. Epstein stated that he is a “champion of women’s right” and that older Jewish laws allow him to use torture measurement to relieve husbands of their “evil” and consent to a divorce. Epstein, his son David, and two other men were investigated by undercover FBI agents, who obtained voice recordings of Epstein’s methods of torture. Epstein is reported to be a leading rabbi in divorce cases and he is believed to have participated in 2500 divorces.
When founding fathers Madison and Jefferson talked about freedom of religion for everyone they did not mean freedom for women, African American/ Blacks, or minority religious groups. Supreme Court cases like Reynold v. United States (1879) are examples that religious freedom was directed towards white Christian males only. However, a couple years after in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) the court took a complete different stand. Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jesse and Russell Cantwell were arrested after complaints were filed against their “anti-Catholic” messages. The Cantwells were convicted of door to door solicitations in the form of playing records, and asking for contributions. Justice Roberts who delivered the opinion of the Court stated that the “Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act”. The Supreme Court in this case decided that the actions the Cantwell’s had engaged in did not show a clear and present danger to society.
The case against Epstein should be reviewed under this idea. Epstein is free to believe that he has the power of forcing husbands into signing divorce papers. However, he is not free to act upon his belief. Torture or causing physical harm on anyone is not protected under no constitutional law. Although the intentions of this man might be considered good, his actions physically and emotionally harmed other people.
Although this man is guilty of kidnapping and torturing you cannot deny the underlying problem; lack of women freedom. Not only should the court find this man guilty but they should also find this old Jewish law unconstitutional. The Jewish law deprives women of freedom and additionally, allows the torture of men who are unwilling to give a divorce. Many would argue that invalidating this Jewish law would be a violation of the free exercise of religion. However, this action of religion is causing harm to individual which is under no law protected by the First Amendment. Justice Roberts explained that an action that is a clear and present danger to society is not protected under the freedom to exercise religion.
Kidnapping and torturing as well as depriving an individual of his/her freedom it is not protected by the First Amendment or any other law. Epstein is guilty of kidnapping, torturing, and depriving people of their freedom while the old Jewish laws are guilty of enforcing laws that allow these actions.
What do you think are steps that should be taken in this case? Should the get be legal? Should Jewish women be allowed to obtain a divorce? What are some possible downsides to allowing women to obtain a divorce?
At the end of last month, from January 25 to 31, National School Choice week was held. National School Choice Week is “a nonpartisan, nonpolitical public awareness effort” which aims to educate families across the country about “effective education options for all children.” Although this sounds harmless, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warns that school choice discussions often lead to private school vouchers. The voucher system provides government funding to families whose children do not attend public schooling. For instance, the voucher may assist in covering the cost of tuition for a private school or the expenses needed for homeschooling. “There are 13 states plus the District of Columbia and Douglas County School District in Colorado with school voucher programs.”
As the ACLU points out, voucher programs are unconstitutional because they infringe upon the separation of church and state and help in the establishment of religion. More often than not, the government funded vouchers are directed towards private religious schools. Many of these religious schools discriminate against applicants “on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” Furthermore, “private religious schools are not required to comply with the same academic standards applied to public schools, and many use Christian textbooks” that teach various “inaccurate lessons.”
Recently, the ACLU filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” in opposition with North Carolina’s voucher program. Private schools which are eligible to participate in the voucher program “must administer state assessments or an equivalent exam to voucher students and report results to the state.” The crux of the ACLU’s argument against the voucher program is that “by spending taxpayer dollars to support private religious schools, the voucher program violates the North Carolina Constitution’s requirement that “[t]he power of taxation shall be exercised in a just and equitable manner, for public purposes only” (ACLU Brief). The North Carolina voucher program is therefore unconstitutional because it uses government funding, taxpayer’s money, to finance parochial schooling which does not align with a public purpose.
If we recall Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court found that the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that reimbursed private schools for teacher’s salaries, textbooks and other instructional materials to be unconstitutional. Taken for their face value, both the PA and RI statutes seemed to be neutral and enacted for the purpose of furthering secular education. The statutes attempted to avoid direct involvement with religion by placing strict regulations that “prohibit[ed] reimbursement for any course that contain[ed] ‘any subject matter expressing religious teaching, or the morals or forms of worship of any sect” (Alley 84). However, in practice, the statute was directly helping religious schools, more specifically Roman Catholic Schools. During the deliberation of this case, the Court developed a three prong analysis which could be used to determine the constitutionality of a statute; “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion” (Alley 85). In conclusion, the Court found that the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes violated the latter of the three tests.
If we apply the Lemon Test to the question before us, whether or not the North Carolina voucher system is “undermin[ing] the separation of church and state”, I believe that a similar conclusion must be drawn. Similar to the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes from Lemon v. Kurtzman, the North Carolina statute also involves an excessive entanglement with religion and therefore violates the Establishment Clause. The voucher directly is providing financial aid to private religious schools. Taxpayer’s money is being used for religious teachings from religious institutions which discriminate and exclude students based on religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Given these facts, I believe that this is one of the very “evils which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection” (Alley 85).
Monday, February 16, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
- 0 Comments
In Tennessee v. Crank, Jacqueline Crank was convicted of child neglect and sentenced to one year of probation. Crank, a member of the Universal Life Church, relied solely on prayer to heal the cancer that was killing her 15-year-old daughter. There is a state law that prohibits parents from failing to provide medical for children. When her daughter died, Crank claimed she was protected by Tennessee's spiritual treatment statute which covers anyone who "provides treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
However, the trial court concluded that her church was not a “recognized church or religious denomination”. Crank relied on Ariel Ben Sherman, another member of her church group, as the daughter's "spiritual father". Sherman was an accredited member of the Universal Life Church, which will accredit anyone who fills out an application. The Department of Child Services described the church as a “cult-like” atmosphere with about 30 members living under one roof. In fact, Sherman was caught seeking out medical attention for the cancer he had, which ultimately ended his life, as well.
Crank then claimed that Tennessee’s spiritual treatment statute was unconstitutional because it was naming some prayer as legitimate and some as criminal. The Court of Appeals stated that they did not need to answer that question because striking down the law would collapse her initial argument.
Her final claim was that this statute violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee stood by the trial court and the court of appeals in rejecting Crank's appeal. The majority stated that the statute was intended for "established institutions with doctrines or customs that authorized healers within the church to perform spiritual treatment via prayer in lieu of medical treatment." Clearly, they did not recognize the Universal Life Church as an established institution and they did not recognize Sherman as an authorized healer, considering he went back on their beliefs himself.
I agree with the narrow ruling in this case because I believe any other ruling would be unrealistic. Ultimately, I would like to live in a world where the health of all children comes first and people trust modern science. A great deal of evidence over the years has shown us that modern medicine is usually a safer bet than prayer when it comes to cancer and various other illnesses. However, I also understand that many people hold strong religious beliefs, values and traditions that they wouldn’t be ready to give up on overnight. Therefore, I am okay with this Tennessee law as long as it is referring to recognized institutions. Striking down the law entirely would bring a whole mess of religious lawsuits into court for people who use spiritual healing. On the other hand, if the state didn’t regulate which prayer was legitimate and which prayer is criminal it would create a slippery slope for any child abuser to claim spiritual healing. Although Sherman was technically qualified by filling out the application, he breached his beliefs when seeking medical attention for his cancer. This proves some invalidity within the Universal Life Church and degrades its establishment as a recognized institution.
Justice Stewart’s interpretation of Abington Township v. Schempp can justify the decision in this case. The Establishment clause was created in an effort to restrict the national government from imposing any particular religion on the country. However, states are free to establish any religious values they would like. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Tennessee has the right to determine which prayer is legitimate and which is criminal in this case.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
- 0 Comments
Currently as most of us know, there is a legal prohibition of electioneering for such organizations and/or entities. This current prohibition is termed the "Johnson Amendment," which was established in 1954. For those of us who are either unfamiliar with electioneering or just need a quick refresh, electioneering occurs when an organization publicly endorses or opposes a political candidate who is up for (re)election.
The American Humanist Association who, under this proposed bill, would also be allowed to employ electioneering practices, is not happy that this would allow churches more free speech and "untold" influence in politics. The AHA released a statement which says, "This is fundamentally un-American, and weakens the state of our democracy by giving religious leaders untold influence."
It is important, however, to keep in mind that the diction of the bill itself does not appear to favor religious organizations/churches. The most relevant section of the bill to us is stated as follows: "Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by striking “, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This wording demonstrates that all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups would truly be included, not just churches and other religious organizations. The proposed bill can be viewed in its entirety here.
Another concern is that by passing this bill into law, there would be more open support and/or opposition from churches and religious groups which creates a large window of opportunity for government and politics to be influenced and also for general coercion.
In my opinion, it would be wrong for Congress to pass this bill. Not only does it slightly violate the Establishment Clause by providing religious groups with a tax benefit, it also allows for more religious influence in government and legislation, which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly told us to avoid. Remember the wall of separation between church and state? It does not seem to be too high here.
Some might point out that the function of the bill is actually neutral, with which I am not inclined to totally disagree. However, it seems to me that this bill functions more as a slippery slope rather than a totally neutral bill in practice, even if it may be neutral in regards to intent. The author of the article I read said that passing this bill would "make things worse for secular Americans," and to an extent, I would agree.
The Republican members of South Carolina’s congress recently wrote a letter in an attempt to give religious groups on college campuses the ability to choose who can join their respective organizations. Membership is currently regulated by colleges through the “all-comers policy” that states that these clubs must grant everyone the option to join, regardless of whether or not they follow and/or agree with the beliefs of said religion.
This policy came about due to the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case in which the Christian Legal Society of The University of California, Hastings College of the Law fought against having to let students join if their beliefs differed from those of the group. The Supreme Court stated that they must treat all people equally; therefore making it mandatory for the CLS to allow anyone the option to join.
In order to avoid the all-comers policy, religious organizations have the option to move off campus and disaffiliate from any connections with the university. However, this puts the group at an extreme disadvantage because they will then not be able to receive benefits from these connections such as money, the use of campus buildings, etc. This raises the issue of whether or not schools should have the right to regulate aspects of religious organizations. It is understandable to want to limit or restrict possible discrimination by making it mandatory for groups to allow anyone membership, but the worry is that these new members will be against the religious beliefs and merely be joining in order to cause problems or be unfriendly to the members. This leaves the clubs having to choose between having focused members dedicated to the beliefs and standards of said religion, or receiving the benefits the school has to offer.
I think religious oriented groups at colleges should be able to choose who can join, and that not allowing it is a breach of freedom of association. A strong purpose of these clubs is to come together to further understand and discuss the common beliefs, but how can this be possible if the constituents are not faithful followers? However, I would also count it as discrimination to not let someone join because his or her thoughts go against the religion. It is possible that said person is actually interested in learning more about a different faith, so they want to join and gain a better perspective. Problems with this occur when dissenting members are rude to the organization and their beliefs, so I think a better way to handle this would be to have it mandatory for religious groups on campus to follow the all-comers policy, but grant them the option to remove said dissenter if he or she begins being rude and disruptive.This issue is important because it once again brings up the idea of how intertwined, if at all, schools and religions can be. Considering the religious group is located on a college campus, I believe that the school has some control over what the club is able to do because they are affiliated with said university. However, I strongly believe that taking away one’s freedom of association by not allowing groups the right to work towards commonly desired goals is clearly unconstitutional. It is true that they could avoid this policy by going off campus, but this then makes the members have to choose between gaining benefits from the school and having fully committed members, a decision they should not have to make. These groups consist of people who want to pursue their religious goals and beliefs surrounded by people with the same interests, and it is unconstitutional to disrupt this process by forcing them to take people in. This would then lead to the issue of deciding who is truly following the religion and would therefore be granted the ability to join, along with who actually gets to make this decision. There is clearly no definitive solution to the issue, but I think religious organizations have the right to choose who is able to join in order to best follow the interests of the group as a whole, and that taking this away is completely disregarding freedom of association.
What do you think? Is it constitutional for universities to have control over who can join on-campus religious affiliated organizations?
The article can be found here.
A bill was recently overwhelmingly passed by the State Representatives in Oklahoma that would allow protection for church clergy members whom refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples. The bill is deemed to, "protect clergy members from any civil claim or cause of action if they refuse to recognize the marriage of same sex couples". David Brumbaugh, the bill's sponsor, stated that, "It's not about discrimination or anything like that, its just we want to make sure [the clergy] are protected".
Although there has been some out-lash from Oklahoma's L.G.B.T community, most claim that while the bill is "unnecessary, it is not discriminatory". This is because as Reverend Walke explains, "No one is forcing anyone to officiate same sex marriages". The first amendment provides the clergy the freedom to practice their own faith, even if that entails denying a couple marriage.
The salient point that this article brings up is whether it should be constitutionally legal for people to refuse or deny service to a group of people whose rights are allowed by law? Should we expect everyone to put away their beliefs in the name of the State? Or should people with objections based on religions reasons be allowed exemptions? If we allow exemptions, for whom do we stop allowing exemptions for?
The article particularly reminded me of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple in Colorado. The couple took their complaint to court and argued that it is their "constitutional right" to not be denied service on a bases of their sexual orientation. On that first day of class, I originally agreed with the same sex couple and thought that it was wrong of the baker to not bake the cake for the couple. Upon further reflection although, it is clear to me that it is within their first amendment right to refuse service to anyone they please.
Does this then mean that clergy have the right to refuse service as well? Well, upon further research it is clear that while Colorado has a non-discrimination law in place meaning that it, “bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity” (aclu.org), Oklahoma does not. And so, private entities are allowed to refuse service based on these factors.
This non-discrimination law in general is what I think is at the heart of this argument. Basically, the bill that would give clergy extra protection is an unnecessary step that only furthers Oklahoma from adopting policies such as non-discrimination laws. That being said, are the non-discrimination laws themselves within our first amendment rights? Although it is certainly a progressive step and I by no means think that anyone should be discriminated against, is it okay to punish people whom have a religious reason they want to deny service? If we have the freedom to practice out religions, and this is within our religious, does it make sense that people have the right to refuse service even if it appears to be discriminating against a certain group?
Oklahoma’s L.G.B.T community even claimed for themselves that “freedom means freedom for everyone” and despite the nuisance of such a bill, it is only a reaffirmation of the first amendment right.
In my opinion, the bill is not unconstitutional, but it is just unwarranted. Oklahoma has no anti discriminatory laws, and the clergy should have the right to deny officiating a marriage that they do not want to be involved in. Similar to the man who did not want to bake a cake for the gay couple, although it is unfortunate, it is within his first amendment right to deny service or his own private entity.
What do you think? Should clergy have protection from persecution if they refuse to acknowledge a same sex marriage?
