Recent Articles
Monday, March 16, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
- 0 Comments
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama spoke in Selma, Alabama at a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” when Alabama state troopers attacked 600 people attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery to protest their lack of voting rights. President Obama’s speech focused on honoring and recognizing these early champions of civil rights and expressing the ways where the country still can build on the progress it has made. It is important to note the role religion played in his speech. President Obama chose to conclude his speech by quoting from the book of Isaiah:
“When it feels the road’s too hard, when the torch we’ve been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah:
‘Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint.’
We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.”
Obama’s use of the passage in Isaiah and his references to God is an example of the complex relationship that government has with religion. The exact nature of what this relationship should be has been debated ever since the framing of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment wrote that the amendment built “a wall of separation between Church & State.” In Everson, Justice Hugo Black invoked “the wall of separation” as a useful interpretation of the first amendment and added, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” This idea of separation has surfaced many times in the Supreme Court, notably in the form of the Lemon Test.
If one were to hold a separationist interpretation of the First Amendment, one could logically come to the conclusion that President Obama violated the Establishment Clause in the speech he gave in Selma Alabama. Acting in the highest office in the land, Obama endorsed religion in a way that was not neutral to all religions or between religion and non-religion. The term, “Those who hope in the Lord,” asserts a certain element of exclusiveness. The importance of God seemed foundational to the speech and Obama did not seem to respect the wall of separation. And Obama would certainly not be the first president to beach this wall. Nearly all US presidents have invoked God in their inaugural addresses.
However, I believe that “the wall of separation between Church & State” is not a good interpretation of the First Amendment. Thirty-seven years after the Everson case, Justice Burger wrote in Lynch v. Donnelly that the wall of separation is a useful metaphor that reminds us that any kind of established church is prohibited but is not an entirely accurate description of the practical relationship of government and religion. Rather than separation, the first amendment “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” In the case of Obama’s speech in Selma, I do not believe that anything he said was hostile to a particular religion or lack of religion. His use of religion appealed to what Burger describes as “an unbroken history of official acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” While there are certain instances that I believe tradition should not be used as an excuse for establishing religion, Obama’s speech does not establish religion. Unlike cases of formal public school prayers or pledges, the issue here does not involve people being forced to partake in any kind of religious activity. While Obama was acting as an agent of the state, he still is an American who is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. If Obama believes that America has a sacred promise, he has the right to express that belief in the same way other people have the right to disagree with it. Allowing politicians to talk about religion upholds neutrality between religion and secular beliefs. If we limit what presidents and other employees of the US government can and cannot say, we are beginning to create a state that restricts ideas and judges what constitutes as religion.
Do you think President Obama overstepped his bounds and established religion in his speech at Selma? Please respond in the comment section below.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
- 0 Comments
Earlier this week I was watching the news when I was introduced to the story of Lt. Commander Wes Modder, a Navy Chaplain, who was recently removed from the promotion list, reassigned, and now has his career in jeopardy for what he claims are his religious beliefs. Most of the literature online, including the op-ed piece I used as my main source, strongly supports Modder’s ability to preach what he believes to be the word of God. First I will summarize the stated role of a Navy Chaplain and the information pertaining to this particular situation regarding Lt. Commander Wes Modder and then will explain my opinion on the matter.
Chaplains in the armed services must be specifically endorsed by a particular denomination in order to serve. Their stated role(s) according to the military is to provide “moral and spiritual support” as well as fulfilling the “everyday spiritual needs” of the men and women in uniform. However, it is worth noting that if a Chaplain fails to stay true to the teachings of their faith, their denomination can withdraw their support.
Chaplains in the armed services must be specifically endorsed by a particular denomination in order to serve. Their stated role(s) according to the military is to provide “moral and spiritual support” as well as fulfilling the “everyday spiritual needs” of the men and women in uniform. However, it is worth noting that if a Chaplain fails to stay true to the teachings of their faith, their denomination can withdraw their support.
Modder, has been in the military for nineteen years, and is endorsed by the “Assemblies of God”. In addition, he served as the force Chaplain of the Navy Seals and has an extremely decorated record. In his last review Modder’s superiors wrote that he was “the best of the best” and also a “consummate professional leader”.
Nonetheless, on December 6th of 2014, Modder was confronted by an assistant of his and a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives who presented him with a five page long document filled with grievances against him. The document detailed Modder’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.” After several complaints, Modder’s commanding officer wrote a “detachment for cause” letter which declared that Modder was “unable to function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Navy. The commanding officer also suggested that Modder be taken off the promotion list, separated from his unit, and also be brought before a Board of Inquiry.Modder has stated that he feels discriminated because of his beliefs and declares that "Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I'm not being obedient to the Lord," he continues to say that “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from." Without a doubt, Modder is in a difficult situation, as his attorney Mike Berry states Modder is in “in a catch-22 between his faith and his career”. An argument similar to what we have read about in class in Braunfield V. Brown.
This controversy is further compounded by the fact that Modder is nearing his 20-year anniversary of military service and if his case is not resolved by Sept. 1, his pension and retirement benefits could be in jeopardy.
What would appear to be the fundamental question at hand is should Modder, in his paid position as a Navy Chaplain, be allowed to preach his personnel beliefs that are sometimes controversial such that homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching? Surprisingly on this matter the official statement from the Pentagon seems to answer the question outright. In the official statement it is declared that “The Navy values, and protects in policy, the rights of its service members, including chaplains, to practice according to the tenets of their faith and respects the rights of each individual to determine their own religious convictions.” If this truly is the policy- it seems that Modder did absolutely nothing wrong and is justified in exercising his religion.
Yet while I understand that Modder has a right to freely exercise his religion, I believe that in his role as a Navy Chaplain he should not be voicing these beliefs. He is supposed to serve as a spiritual supporter of these brave men and women and it is unfair to some who do not hold his beliefs to be subject to an open desecration of how they choose to live their lives. Apparently, Modder berated an unmarried women for getting pregnant and also declared that homosexuality is wrong.
Modder is resolute in his beliefs and firmly claims that "The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That's at the heart of this." While I respect Modder’s beliefs and commend him for his service to this nation, who is he to determine what the truth is? I understand Modder cannot disregard what he believes but I don’t believe serving as a Chaplain of a religiously diverse military is the best career for someone with these beliefs. What are your thoughts on this situation? I found it particularly complex because as a Chaplain who must be endorsed, Modder is in a way doing his job by practicing his beliefs. Do you think that perhaps the Navy’s policy should change?
Two women in the state of Texas, Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, were wed on Thursday in what was the state's first same-sex marriage despite the fact that Texas has a statewide ban on same-sex marriage. Goodfriend and Bryant were married and given a marriage license by a county clerk in Austin, Texas. The couple claimed that, because of medical reasons, they could not wait any longer for same-sex marriage to become legal in their hometown.
Hours after word got out that a same-sex couple had been wed, the Texas Supreme Court blocked all other gay couples from obtaining marriage licenses because of legal challenges. Because of the fact that that Goodfriend and Bryant were given a valid marriage license, much debate has come up regarding whether the license is valid or not. "The same-sex marriage license ... is void, just as any license issued in violation of state law would be," stated the attorney general. The license was given from a county judge after the Travis County Court stated that the couple was given permission to wed because of their medical excuse. The Texas Supreme Court still clearly defines marriage as a legal and emotional bond between a man and a woman and was supported by an overwhelming majority vote. A lawsuit has since been filed against the clerk who issued the marriage license to the couple, which makes it seem as if the state will allow same-sex marriage any time soon.
When faced with hundreds of reporters after their wedding, Goodfriend and Bryant held the hands of their daughters and said to the state of Texas, "There are thousands of gay Texans, Everybody knows one or two or three. Even if you don't know, you do know them. They may not feel safe to be out but you know them...There are many other Texans, thousands of Texans who would like to be able to have their loving, committed relationships recognized".
I support same-sex marriage and believe that it should be legal in all 50 states of America, but unfortunately, it is not nor will it be for many years. I personally do not think Goodfriend and Bryant should have been granted a marriage license at it is still illegal in the state of Texas and ignites the idea of the "slippery slope". The couple, regardless of medical conditions that claimed their marriage could not wait, broke the law of Texas. I'm sure there are many other same-sex couples that could think of excuse after excuse in order to obtain a legal marriage license, but the fact is, these licenses are still illegal in the state of Texas. I think that Goodfriend and Bryant should have either traveled to a state where same-sex marriages are allowed in order to obtain one instead of becoming exceptions in their home state. As Goodfriend said herself, there are thousands of gay Texans who would love to have their relationships recognized by the state, and I'm sure hundreds of those thousands of gay couples could think of medical, legal, or other reasons to be granted these licenses, but they are still illegal. There should be no exceptions.
Do you think Goodfriend and Bryant should have been granted this marriage license? Are medical excuses a good enough reason to obtain them, even after given permission from a local county court?
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.
