Recent Articles
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
- 0 Comments
On February 18th, it was reported that a Detroit couple's child was declined to be seen by her pediatrician. The reason for the pediatrician's refusal was the fact that the child had two mothers. Krista, the baby's biological mother, and Jami Contreras were the mothers who took their child to see Dr. Vesna Roi. Like most caring parents, Jami and Krista took the time to research and talk to the best pediatricians in the are for their newborn daughter, Bay. They came across and decided upon Dr. Roi. Dr. Roi had been practicing pediatric medicine for 19 years. She was a doctor who took a holistic approach to treating children, which Jamie and Krista found to be an important criteria and one of the main reasons they chose Dr. Roi. Jami and Krista went into the doctor's office for a prenatal visit and explained that they were married and were very interested in having Dr. Roi as Bay's pediatrician. At the time, Dr. Roi showed no issues with the couple's sexual orientation and even told them to schedule an appointment when the child was born. The couple were optimistic about their baby's new pediatrician and scheduled the appointment.
Even though Dr. Roi never explicitly stated that it was her religious beliefs that is preventing her from treating the child, it can be inferred from her statements in the letter such as "After much prayer..." and "Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice..." The question is whether or not Dr. Roi has the right to discriminate against patients based on her religious beliefs.
The state of Michigan currently holds no law against discrimination against the LGBTQ community. In fact, only 22 states in the US do. Due to the lack of a law, there is no criminal or civil suit filed in this case. However, had there been statutes in place should Dr. Roi have been allowed an exception for her religious beliefs?
I believe that in this case, Dr. Roi should be compelled to see and treat the child. I believe that her religious exemption is trumped by the code and policies of the American Medical Association (AMA). "Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination," the AMA said in a statement. These guidelines are only advisory, however I contend that they should be the guiding principles for all doctors. All doctors are also held to the ethical standards of the Hippocratic Oath, which I believe supersedes the religious convictions of Dr. Roi. This oath is often cited when doctors during war time treat enemy soldiers. Obviously they differ in belief, but these doctors are able to overlook this difference and treat any human to the best of their ability.
The most pertinent precedent to this case established by the US Supreme Court was in Reynolds v. United States. The court established in this case that there is a distinction between religious belief and the actions that stem from that belief. The state cannot establish law that mitigates belief. As a result, the Court believed the First Amendment forbade the state from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action. In this case, there is a secular state interest in providing the best healthcare possible for the citizens of the state. There is substantial reasoning and precedent as to why Dr. Roi should be compelled to treat baby Bay.
I believe that this case has some similarities to the Phillips case, where the court compelled the Colorado baker to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple despite the baker's religious objection. In this case the good is medical care, which is a necessary good. In that case the good was a cake. The vitality of medical care along with the precedent set in Phillips further affirms my belief that courts would compel Dr. Roi to treat Jami and Krista's child despite her religious objection. I believe that Dr. Roi's religious objection holds no bearing here as the importance for proper medical care trumps her ability to discriminate. Jami and Krista sought out Dr. Roi and made an educated decision as to the doctor they wanted for their child and should not be denied proper care. The question I would raise is had the child been in critical condition, would Dr. Roi still object to treating her? I believe that she would put her beliefs aside.
Do you believe that Dr. Roi should be allowed to discriminate as to which patients she takes because of her religious beliefs?
You can read the full article here.
Representative Jerry Sexton (R-Bean Station) proposed the HB 615 bill to the Tennessee code that states, “The Holy Bible is hereby designated as the official state book”. In an online poll, 81% of Tennesseans opposed the amendment to make the Bible the state book. Rob Boston, a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke out about this choice and thought that a secular book would be a more appropriate choice. He wrote, “Going with the Bible slights the many authors who are either from these states or who have written about them in significant ways (or both)”. He thought that using the Bible as the state book was singling out a specific religion and making everyone else "second-class citizens."
In January, three Mississippi representatives also proposed bills to make the Bible the state book of Mississippi. Representative Tom Miles (D-Forest) thought that “The Bible provides a good role model on how to treat people, they could read in there about love and compassion”. People who opposed this bill argued that declaring the Bible as the state book was making the statement that Christians were trying to dictate their religion to non-Christian members of their communities.This bill has also been proposed in Louisiana.
The importance of the Bible in American history has been debated throughout America's existence. President Ronald Reagan made 1983 the national "Year of the Bible" which shows that Americans do believe that Bible has shaped American lives. Even if the Bible has been an important part of America's history, I believe it is unconstitutional to allow state governments the ability to declare the Bible as a state book.
State books are meant to represent qualities that are special and specific to each state in America. I think that declaring the Bible as the state book violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment because the state is declaring that the Bible encapsulates the best parts of its communities. If Tennessee were to pass this bill then it would be telling everyone in America that Tennessee is a Christian state and the government is trying to help Tennesseans pass laws that help protect their Christian lifestyle.
Later in the article Clark mentions the resolution Representative James VanHuss (R-Jonesborough) is trying to pass in Tennessee. VanHuss is trying to add a resolution to the state constitution that says, “We recognize that our liberties do not come from governments, but from Almighty God, our Creator and Savior”. This is another example of how, in my opinion, the representatives in Tennessee are attempting to destroy the American values that are protected by the Constitution.
Representatives Sexton (R-Bean Station) and VanHuss(R-Jonesborough) are attempting to break the Establishment clause of the Constitution because they are trying to help their state government become religious and maintain Christian values. Our country was founded on the belief of separation of church and state and if bills, like the HB 615 bill in Tennessee, get passed our country will start dividing and the religious majority will hold all of the power in our government.
Do you think that the states should be allowed to declare the Bible as their state book? Should state governments be allowed to amend statements that are strictly religious to their own constitutions?
A Bill was recently proposed in Oklahoma that would put severe restrictions on marriages in the state. House Bill 1125 would require a clergy or religious leader’s signature on a marriage license. This would eliminate the use of judges or state officials in performing marriage ceremonies. In order for a couple to be married, they would have to have a religious leader tied to their marriage license. This creates a difficult situation for same-sex couples, couples who have minority religious preferences, or atheist couples. Couples would need the signature of, ““…an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi.” This seems to discriminate not only against those who are not religious, but also those whose religions do not have a such individual.
The reasoning for this Bill is to return marriage to its traditional definition. Rep. Russ said, “Put it back to what it was supposed to be and was originally a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow.”
If a couple chooses not to get a religious signature, they do have the option of obtaining a common-law marriage license, however, common-law marriages in Oklahoma do not ensure all of the benefits that a marriage does. This means that couples that choose not to have their marriage signed off on (or couples whose marriage is not approved by clergy and therefore they could not obtain the signature) would be at a severe disadvantage.
This indirectly discriminates not only against same sex couples, who are generally not accepted by mainstream religious sects, but nonreligious people as well. This Bill clearly violates the Establishment Clause because it would result in “excessive government entanglement” by making a religious signature mandatory in a governmental marriage license.
There is also no secular purpose for passing the law and therefore the Bill violates the separation of church and state. The only purpose of this Bill is to bring religion into state affairs.
In my opinion, this Bill should not be allowed to pass. Our marriages should be secular, as should our bodies that pass laws, whether they be at the federal level or the state level. Governments exist to be the voice of the people, not to restrict the rights of its citizens for religious, not secular reasons.
Do you think that this advances religion in state affairs? Furthermore, what issues, if any, do you find with this Bill?
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.
