Recent Articles
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
- 0 Comments
Here is the link to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/10/parents-beliefs-vs-their-childrens-health/child-abuse-under-the-guise-of-religion
Over Spring Break, I came across a very interesting article while reading the New York Times online. The article, an opinion piece, argues that states should no longer grant statutory rights and religious exemptions to parents who do not believe in medical care. These parents argue that their faith restricts them from granting their children resources including, but not limited to, immunization, health screenings, and medical care.
Most states have at least some religious exemptions, though some states have enacted exemptions that call into question whether a family’s religious beliefs are truly more important than the health of the children. Idaho, for example, has exempted parents who do not want to allow their children to have lifesaving medical care for religious reasons. As a result, many children have died in Idaho over the past few years because they were not allowed to have medical care.
While the question of whether a family’s religious beliefs should come before the interests that the state has to keep its members safe and healthy is most prominent, a factor that must be considered is also those around a sick child in this type of situation. Classmates, teachers, the parents themselves, and even strangers on the street can be immune to the sickness or disease the child has. For instance, the article states that “in 2007 just two cases of measles among religious objectors cost Oregon and a hospital $170,000. Teachers have to stay home; schools have to hire substitutes. Working parents have to stay home with children in quarantine.” Certainly, I don’t think money should be taken into consideration when trying to solve these questions. At the same time, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of its citizens and when multiple people, and possibly hundreds of people in the case of measles, are at risk of serious health issues, I believe the state needs to step in and draw the line between religious exemptions and public safety.
Another question that comes up is whether the parents should get to choose not only what their children believe in but also the resources they can have access to or whether the children should be able to choose. This is tough because often times, the children are young and not capable of choosing. While their individual rights are certainly called into question, an argument could be made that their parents pay for their bills and pay for everything they own, so the parents should be able to decide what to spend on medical care, for example. I believe that the parents should be able to decide on their own what to spend their money on when it comes to their children, so long as the child’s health and safety is not at risk. If a sickness or disease should be cured through ways that a religion may not believe in but does not need to be cured through any of those ways, the parent or parents should not be forced to choose something that goes against their religion. If, however, the disease or sickness requires immediate attention or needs to be cured through a method that goes against the parents’ religion, the state should step in and protect the child over everything else. In these circumstances, the state has a duty and that duty should not be overridden by anything else, including religion.
Should the state intervene in situations when a family's religious beliefs are the motivating factor behind their decision to risk their child or children's health? Should the child be able to have a say? Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should the state be involved in all scenarios involving health or only the more serious ones?
Friday, March 13, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
- 0 Comments
In 2012, a 6-foot-tall stone monument, inscribed with then Ten Commandments, was installed on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol, per mandate of the Oklahoma State Government. Since then, there have been two lawsuits filed against the monument. In September, an Oklahoma County District Judge ruled that the monument’s presence is not unconstitutional and can remain in its location on the Capitol’s grounds. The case at play here is a lawsuit filed in January 2014 by a New Jersey non-profit group, American Atheists Inc.
The American Atheists alleged that the monument violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government sanctioning a particular religion and other constitutional rights. This case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron in Oklahoma on March 10thbecause the plaintiffs failed to show standing upon which to bring this lawsuit. The president of the American Atheists organization, David Silverman, said “I want to be clear about this: we have a religious monument, placed on government property, by government mandate.”
I agree with the fact that the New Jersey based group had no grounds upon which to file this suit and therefore agree with the dismissal. However, I do believe that a group in Oklahoma indirectly or directly affected by this monument would have valid grounds upon which to challenge the establishment of this monument. In my opinion, either all groups who wish to do so should be allowed to have a monument on the grounds or the Ten Commandments monument should be removed so as to not show a preference of the state government toward any one religion.
By allowing the Oklahoma State Capitol to have the Ten Commandments posted on their grounds, the state is opening themselves up to a slippery slope that they may not be ready to deal with. For example, a Satanic group has already commenced building their own monument for the Capitol’s lawn as a way of protesting. A spokesperson for the Governor of Oklahoma stated that there “will never be a satanic monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol and the suggestion that there might be is absurd”. From this statement, it appears very obvious that the state has no intention to treat all religions and non-religions equal in the matter of who is allowed to resurrect a monument here. The Satanic group believes that if they are not allowed to place this statue or the state will be “demonstrating an unconstitutional double standard”. Since the Ten Commandment monument’s placement, other groups have asked to erect their own monuments including a Hindu leader, an animal rights group, and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Another case we have looked at recently that dealt with displaying the Ten Commandments in a public location is Stone v. Graham, where the court ruled that the Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom violated the Establishment Claus of the First Amendment. In this case, the court used the Lemon test to find that the posting of the Ten Commandments served “no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious in nature”. Though it still seems as though courts choose when and when not to apply the Lemon test, the Ten Commandments monument clearly violates both of these facets of the test as well. The Oklahoma State held a similar belief as the Kentucky court in Stone v. Graham that the posting of the Ten Commandments serves a historical purpose, not a religious purpose. However, I believe that it is not possible for the Ten Commandments to solely serve a historical purpose and not a religious purpose because of their fundamental nature in the Christian religion.
By not permitting all secular and non-secular groups that desire to have a historical monument on the capitol grounds, the Oklahoma state government would be prohibiting the free exercise of other, non-Christian groups. The government would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and consequently, would show that they are establishing the religion of Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause. What will happen the next time a group inevitably brings a suit to have the Ten Commandments removed? Will this case be dismissed yet again or will a group that proves to have enough standing finally give this issue the attention it deserves?
Monday, March 2, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
- 0 Comments
Brandon Farrell
The New York Police Department has disbanded its “Zone Assessment Unit,” which was used to unconstitutionally surveillance New York’s Muslim population. It is certainly a step in the right direction that this mechanism of ethnic and religious profiling has been stopped. However, in “NYPD Shutters Muslim Mapping Unit – But What About Other Tactics?” Noa Yachot reminds us not to celebrate the end of bias-based policing just yet, because the NYPD continues to utilize other tactics that operate on problematic stereotypes and unjustly target the Muslim population.
Yachot enumerates multiple abusive tactics the NYPD employs, including the use of informants who monitor innocent Muslim people, the designation of entire mosques as “terrorism enterprises,” discriminatory use of surveillance cameras, and the avowal of radicalization theories that arise suspicion against people who engage in any Islamic practice. Shutting down the “Zone Assessment Unit” was an important act of progress, but we must hold the NYPD accountable for ending all practices plagued with racial and religious profiling. Our law enforcement system is supposed to be an equalizer; punishments and investigative procedures should be consistent, and the entire process should be isolated from race, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Through religious-based policing the NYPD fail to do this, and are delegitimizing our legal system by violating our nation’s commitment to freedom from religious persecution for all.
In the wake of the Paris, Copenhagen, and Chapel Hill shootings, it is important that we consider the global context these NYPD tactics are being practiced in. In a world afflicted by religious based violence and inundated with Islam-phobia, it is essential to consider the very real dangers these types of practices are capable of perpetuating. Not only are they downright unjust, but also they are integral to sowing a fear and mistrust of the Muslim community, which exacerbates their isolation and degradation- the very isolation and degradation that generated the terrorist attacks in the first place.
These NYPD practices were born out of a fear of Muslim people, due to acts of terror committed by certain people who identify as Muslim. However, violence is not somehow inherent to Islam. We must examine what it is about our societal, political, legal, and economic structures that are so fused with prejudice against the Muslim community that they generated enough frustration within jihadists to commit acts of unconscionable violence. I am in no way excusing or trivializing the actions of terrorists. I am, however, advocating that these surveillance actions are a violation of The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. It is clear that these Muslim citizens are not being treated fairly in the same method that others in similar situations are being treated. If we are to respond to this violence in a comprehensive way that will effectively prevent future attacks, which is presumably the aim of the NYPD, we need to understand the root causes of the conflict. If the root of the problem is prejudice against and alienation of the Muslim community, these NYPD practices are making New York more dangerous instead of more safe. If progress is to come and we are to usher in peace, we must afford the Muslim community the recognition and inclusion they deserve instead of augmenting their sense of exclusion and oppression.
Appropriate responses that will effectively prevent future violence will not hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of extremists. When unconscionable acts of violence are committed in the name of Christianity, such as by abortion clinic bombers or by the KKK, perpetrators are psycho-pathologized and treated as exceptions to the rule. When this happens in the name of Islam, however, every member of that religion is held responsible by the public and is stripped of their human rights by the government. This has been happening in the US since 9/11, and is only getting worse after the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. Assuming that the 1.6 billion people that practice Islam support the actions taken by those at the fringes of their religion is to withhold the respect that should be afforded to people of every faith that practice it peacefully. Let us not forget people like Ahmed Merabet, the Muslim police officer killed in Paris. Charlie Hebdo ridiculed Ahmed’s faith and culture, and Ahmed died defending Charlie’s right to do so. We must stop subjugating the truthful, nuanced versions of the world simply because it is more convenient to blame an entire part of the populace for the actions taken by a few.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
- 0 Comments
Emily Herx was a literature and language arts teacher for seven years at a Catholic school in Indiana. For years she had been trying to have a second child, and elected to go through vitro fertilization as a means to achieve her second pregnancy. She was shocked to learn that her contract with the school would not be renewed due to her procedure. Her religious employers had deemed her a “grave, immoral sinner” for the use of the vitro fertilization, and felt she was no longer fit to teach at their institution. Emily filed a federal lawsuit against the school and the local diocese on the grounds of sex discrimination. The school responded to the lawsuit claiming that they were exempt from the federal anti-discrimination laws because “their decision to fire Emily was motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs.” After a four-day trial, the jury found that the school had in fact discriminated against Emily, and awarded her a $1.9 million settlement.
In principle, I agree with the courts decision to award Emily a settlement. In accordance with the free exercise clause, we all have the right to our beliefs. However, the church does not have the right to discriminate on the grounds of their beliefs. My contention with the case comes from the healthcare side of the issue. Part of the healthcare program the school provided for Mrs. Herx would have gone toward the payment of her procedure. When there is a financial stake in her procedure, does the school have the right to terminate her employment? Does their right to discriminate extend when they are forced to pay for the procedure that their beliefs fundamentally denounce? In this case, I believe it does. The Catholic school is a private organization, and I believe that their financial matters warrant their right to deny Mrs. Herx employment. The families who choose to send their children to this school pay tuition, which goes toward the operations and maintenance of the school. Every dollar that goes into this school does so with the expectation of their children receiving an education that is grounded in catholic roots. I don’t believe that the families would approve of the allocation of funds toward healthcare procedures that go directly against their deepest beliefs. I believe that the only reason the church has any grounds to terminate Mrs. Herx’s employment come from this fiscal perspective. Had the church held no financial stake in the matter, I believe they have no right to discriminate against Mrs. Herx.
Where do you stand regarding the sex discrimination in this case? Do you feel that the fiscal entanglement between the church and Mrs. Herx’s procedure warrants their right to terminate her employment?
Where do you stand regarding the sex discrimination in this case? Do you feel that the fiscal entanglement between the church and Mrs. Herx’s procedure warrants their right to terminate her employment?
Article:https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-religion-belief/victory-federal-jury-holds-catholic-school-accountable-sex-discri
Secondary Source:http://www.aleteia.org/en/education/article/the-real-reason-teacher-emily-herx-was-fired-for-using-ivf-5806364098035712
Forrest Knox, republican senator of Kansas, proposed a newbill that will change the setup of some foster families. Senate Bill 158 has standards that, if met, qualify foster families to be considered CARE families. The foster family must have heterosexual married guardians, nonsmokers and nondrinkers, and must attend some type of social gathering weekly. As well, if the couple decides to have other jobs, one parent must stay home while the other works. “The home will provide a comfortable, informal, stable and secure setting – a traditional home with a loving father and mother,” Knox said. Knox even admitted that he hopes to see those who go to church applying for this foster program. CARE families are different than regular foster families because CARE granted more control over their foster kid’s lives. They are granted permission to homeschool train them and be funded for this training by the government. According to the article, each homeschooled foster child would be granted roughly $3,838 that is intended to service their academic needs. However there are few regulations and limitations with this money. The money does not have to go towards a secular curriculum. The parents have the freedom to teach them however they please. This bill has other loop holes that are being challenged amongst senators, such as excluding biological parents from making decisions about the foster children.
The bill is undeniably controversial, especially with the standards set in place. Some may argue this is a violation of separation of church and state because it promotes certain moral values upheld by Senator Knox. It discriminates homosexual couples from participating in this public program, for no other reason than a ‘stable and secure setting’ for the children. The requirement to attend a weekly social group larger than a family does not have any clear unconstitutional flaws. However, it is arguable that this standard advantages candidates who go to religious groups to be eligible for the CARE program more than others. The nonsmoking and nonalcoholic environment most definitely has benefits in keeping the foster kids safe. However, the intent behind these rules are questionable. If this is a public program for those in Kansas, it should have secular standards and secular reasoning behind these standards.
The education factor is another controversial portion of the bill. In class we have discusses several cases where the state is compelled to fund the education of religious schools in order to better the child and allow them the same educational opportunity through academic materials, field trips, and even teaching. We have discovered that there is a narrow line between what is acceptable and unacceptable via standards like the Lemon Test in determining whether public funding for private schools is unconstitutional. With this bill, the choice of education for the child will not be the decided by the biological parent, but by foster guardians. With the requirement of “weekly social gathering attendance” the households of these families will very likely be religious. These values can become entangled in their homeschool curriculum. It would be impossible to regulate what and how the foster parents decide to teach their kids. Therefore funding these academics would be unconstitutional.
I think this bill shouldn’t be passed because of its several inconsistent standards. Public programs such as foster care, are supposed to provide a safe and positive environment for children who are parentless or come from abused backgrounds. The CARE families embody only one type of ‘betterment’ and I believe it is based from Knox’s moral views on a “healthy family”. Same sex marriage is illegal in Kansas but disqualifying their household from applying to this program, when they cannot be a ‘stable and married’ household by law makes no sense. They are considered unfit because they are not married, but they are prohibited by the law. Also, the money grant for homeschool education is debatable. I don’t think it is constitutional that the government needs to fund a public program to potentially sponsor religious education. These kids should be able to receive public education, being that it is a stable and monitored facility for their growth. I think this bill will and can lead to several slippery slopes. For example, I’m sure Knox did not intend for the families weekly meetings to be at nontraditional or radical religious groups. With 41% of Kansas being Christian or Catholic and 50% identifying as religious, it is quite clear who is advantaged in this bill. I think the foster care system should instead be improved to seek the betterment of the child, rather than implementing a new program that is biased to religious households.
A case brought forward to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sought to overrule a court martial conviction against a Marine Corps member who disobeyed a lawful order. According to facts of the case, the appellant printed copies of “the biblical quote ‘no weapon formed against me shall prosper’ on paper.” Once these were created, the appellant would cut the quotes into different sizes and post them on her desk in three different places. The reasoning behind this placement was that she was a Christian and this was a way of exercising her faith. The arrangement the quotes were aligned in signified the holy trinity of the Christian faith.
After being given a court martial conviction for defying an order to remove the biblical quotes, the appellant sought out charges claiming that her freedom of exercise had been violated. Under this protection, the appellant felt she had the right to express her beliefs through this religious motivated action. However, the court rejected this appeal. According to the court, “the definition of a ‘religious exercise’ requires the practice be ‘part of a system of religious belief”.” Since the appellants practice of placing cut out biblical quotes isn't a wide held practice of the Christian faith, and then it isn't protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the 1stAmendment. The courts stated that “for these reasons, we reject the appellant’s invitation to define ‘religious exercise’ as any action subjectively believed by the appellant to be ‘religious in nature’.”
The question that emerges from this case is whether all religiously motivated activities, such as the pasting of biblical quotes on one’s office desk, are protected under the Free Exercise Clause. It can be taken further to include whether any action that has personal religious meaning should be covered under the Free Exercise Clause.
Looking at it from the perspective of the courts, it could be understood that practicing one’s beliefs in any manner can be seen as a slippery slope. Someone can say that human sacrifice is an expression of their personal faith, and as such, cannot be attacked as illegal due to 1st Amendment protections. On the point of this instance leading to a slippery slope, I agree with the court’s ruling. The issue that emerges for me is that many people express their beliefs in various different ways that are held as constitutional even though it isn't considered “part of a system of religious belief”. For example, on street corners in almost any major city, protesters can be seen seeking to gain attention on the behalf of a certain issues. These issues can range anywhere from religious to social beliefs. Protesting isn't considered part of the religious system of any religion. However, these people are expressing their beliefs that are deemed as religious through this option that isn't covered by an established religious body. Thus, my opinion tends to side more with protecting the individual’s religious freedom.
I believe that the court ruled incorrectly in determining what is protected under the Free Exercise Clause. People should be allowed to express themselves religiously in whatever means that are appropriate for themselves. However, the slippery slope dynamic must be noted and certain stipulations to my opinion should be created in order to avoid the potential issues of having unlimited freedom to express oneself religiously. The means in which someone expresses themselves religiously should be protected as long as they are not harming society or any other individual. For this case, we can see that no harm was being committed to society or another individual. The actions of the appellant also do not harm a compelling state interest, and there are no social restrictions (such as a law or common social norm) which would restrict the appellant. While the appellant’s religious activities in this case can be seen as not harmful, others could try to evoke more violent or hurtful measures as personal religious practices. These activities should not be covered under the Free Exercise Clause. Since the appellant was only placing Bible quotes throughout her desk and it wasn't infringing on anyone else’s rights, she should have been granted protection under the Free Exercise Clause.
What are your own opinions of this case? Should unlimited personal religious exercise be seen as covered under the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment as long as it doesn't harm another’s basic rights? Has the court ruled appropriately in the decision for this case?
The case can be found at: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2015/03/court-martial-conviction-for-refusal-to.html
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His opposition is so great, in fact, that he has stated that he would not recognize same-sex marriage in his court room. Justice Moore’s public outcry to same-sex marriage emerged on the heels of two District Court rulings that declared that Alabama’s anti-marriage laws were unconstitutional. On February 9, 2015 District Judge Granade legally recognized same-sex marriage in Alabama in two cases: Searcyv. Strange and Strawser v. Strange. Moore, however, is attempting to defy this ruling by ordering state judges to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moore and other state officials appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay—or an application for review of a case by the Supreme Court—but were denied. In an interview, Moore asserted that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on same-sex marriage going as far as to say that “When a word’s not in the Constitution clearly, the powers of the Supreme Court do not allow them to re-define words and seize power” (quoted in Doug 2015, 2). In Alabama, today, 11 counties still refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and 9 have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.
Defying his oath to uphold federal and state law by appealing to God constitutes excessive entanglement between religion and the government. Furthermore, it violates the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion. Moore, however, believes that he is not bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling and has said that if a same-sex marriage case came before him he would dissent. Moore even compared same-sex marriage to slavery, citing the Dred Scott Case in 1857, in which a Supreme Court Justice dissented against the ruling that free blacks could not be recognized as citizens. Moore appealed to Dred Scott to defend his stance on same-sex marriage, stating “They ruled black people were property. Should a court today obey such a ruling that is completely contradictory to the Constitution?” (quoted in Doug 2015, 1). In my opinion, this comparison is ridiculous and if a comparison is to be made between the two cases it would seem more viable as an appeal in favor of marriage equality.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—passed in 1996—was unconstitutional, as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. DOMA was a federal law which holds that states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were licensed under the laws of other states. This denied important financial benefits to same-sex couples which are allotted to heterosexual couples. DOMA shows that there is precedent for the federal government to define what marriage is and this recent ruling displays the authority of the Constitution.
Many, including Moore, believe that the decision of same-sex marriage should be decided by each individual state and not involve the federal government. While I think that each state should make its own choice, I believe that all states are subject to the Constitution—most importantly the equal protection clause. Furthermore, while I believe that everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, it is inappropriate for a State Supreme Chief Justice to invoke religious law over the laws of our nation, as he did when he claimed that “This power over marriage, which came from God under our organic law, is not to be redefined by the United States Supreme Court or any federal court” (quoted in Doug 2015, 3). When it comes down to it, the laws of the United States are governed by the Constitution and not God. Madison and Jefferson were adamant concerning the necessity of the separation of church and state and they were two of the most pivotal framers of the Constitution.
What do you think about the Supreme Court’s authority to rule on same-sex marriage? Do you think that Chief Justice Moore’s appeal to God necessitates excessive entanglement? Or does he have the First Amendment Right of Free Exercise to justify his actions?
