Recent Articles
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
- 0 Comments
After the public backlash that arose from the Religious Freedom law in both the states of Indiana and Arkansas yet another state is seeking to create similar designed policy into their state laws. Recently, the House of Representatives in the Florida legislature passed a bill that would allow private adoption agencies to turn away gay couples on moral and religious grounds. The vote passed the House by a margin of 75-38. This bill was a response by Conservatives to an effort last month by the House to “to take an unenforced gay adoption ban out of state law”.
The bill, according to conservative republicans, “wasn't about discrimination, and said gay couples would still have dozens of agencies — state agencies and those not faith-based, for example — that didn't object to gay adoptive parents”. However, those on the other side of the room saw this bill as something completely different. Referring to the same intentions that the Religious Freedom laws of Indiana and Arkansas, Democrats saw this bill as a way to legalize the discrimination of homosexuals based on religious grounds. “‘When we come in and we start using scripture to begin to discriminate against individuals, I have a problem with that,’ said Democrat Rep. Shevrin Jones of Broward County. ‘Yes, protect the religious institution, but I say to those religious institutions as a man of faith, if it’s your ministry, do your ministry and take care of the children’”.
There is very little reason to think that this bill will be passed by the Senate next week. The main reason for this assumption is that the Senate already voted down a bill that would have struck the gay adoption ban from state law. The language between the two bills is too similar and will meet similar ends.
The issue that is brought to the forefront with this bill is whether free exercise of religion under the 1st Amendment is being further protected with this law. As we have seen in class, the Supreme Court has taken the approach of disallowing certain policies which would be discriminatory towards religious freedom of exercise. The best example would be Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. While this Supreme Court decision dealt with an animal sacrifice due to religious preferences, it established a certain precedent in the Court. This precedent became that without a compelling state interest and a narrowly tailored response, the state cannot impose restrictions on an individual’s religious preferences.
For the Florida bill, the state understands that the compelling state interest is to protect private adoption agencies from being denied free exercise of religion through disallowing them to deny gay couples adoption privileges. On the face, the bill would create a law which protects religious freedom of exercise. However, the underlying tone is that of discrimination against certain individuals based on religious grounds. It is due to this understanding that the bill should be seen as unconstitutional.
The Free Exercise Clause should be protected as long as the exercise being committed does not discriminate or harm the rights of others. So if I made the claim that I would refuse to provide a service to those of Islamic faith because their code of conduct under Sharia law does not coincide with the guidelines laid out by the Ten Commandments, I would have committed a breach of the Free Exercise Clause. The same must apply towards homosexual couples being denied the ability to adopt children from private agencies due to the agency’s religious ideals. These laws in Indiana, Florida, and Arkansas have illustrated that discrimination has found a new tool in order to accomplish its goals. This tool is the Free Exercise Clause. The rational for this clause has taken on a vastly different meaning then from its original intentions. As such, our society needs to reaffirm this meaning through action by the Supreme Court to strike down laws such as these if they come to existence. Through established precedent, laws such as this Florida bill would never get the hour of time on the floor of the House to even be discussed.
Through not only the proposed Florida bill but the Religious Freedom laws in Arkansas and Indiana, do you think that the idea of free exercise of religion could begin to lose its original intention and instead be used as a tool for discrimination based on religious grounds? If so, do you believe there is any way to resolve this conflict?
Here is a link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/florida-bill-would-let-some-adoption-agencies-refuse-gays/2015/04/09/784e74a2-defd-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html
Students for Life of America (SFLA) is the largest youth pro-life organization in the nation. Their mission is to advocate for preborn rights and ultimately abolish abortion. Katie Mcpherson and Brigid O’Keefe are both sophomores who have tried to bring SFLA to their schools. The school administrators from Davis and Fargo North High School have denied their requests to bring this group on campus. The schools classified this organization as an outside agency, which violates the no-solicitation policy. This policy prohibits students, staff, and faculty from seeking to obtain membership or support of any organization through school resources. The club cannot incorporate the school’s name in any activities, pamphlets, or events.
Kristen Hawkins, the president of SFLA, and the supporting students believe this is a form of discrimination. The North Dakota school district is being sent a request letter to reverse their disapproval as a warning. They believe the district’s decision infringes on the student’s first amendment rights and the Equal Access Act. Public schools cannot discriminate against any student run group. They believe that the no-solicitation policy applies to the exploitation of business, not to censor the student’s free speech. Jocelyn Floyd, the Thomas More Society associate, states that the topic of abortion is a controversial issue for schools. Schools are fearful of the negative publicity and tension it may bring to the school environment. Floyd continued to state that the Supreme Court has emphasized that students do not lose their freedom of speech just because they are on school’s premises.
This is an exceptional case because for the first time SFLA has experienced district wide discrimination. The SFLA club is on 300 high school campuses and has been persistent in persuading schools to allow student’s facilitation of the organization. Their ultimate goal is to spread awareness about the pro-life message to not only high school students, but to all people. The SFLA advocates feel that the school’s disproval of their program is prohibiting them from spreading their views.
The Pro Life debate has many political and religious ties and is understandably an avoided topic of discussion. The articled brought up how some administration and faculty may have strong opposing views on the pro-life versus pro-choice debate. I understand how the school may view this club as a catalyst of controversial debate on their campus. The school has an obligation to keep their students safety at best interest. However I don’t agree that fear of campus tension is a valid reason to disallow this organization from sharing their views on abortion.
I believe that every student should have the right to share their views on campus. Their first amendment rights should never be compromised. However, the school’s interest in maintaining neutrality can somewhat override the student’s request to bring organizations on campus. They are worried about their sponsorship of such a programs. When a club organization is allowed by school administration, they are funded by the school. Essentially the school’s name is attached to the organizations they sponsor on campus.
I think the school should find a way to adhere to the students wants while maintaining neutrality to such a controversial topic. Maybe instead of sponsoring the club, they can allow students to have an open forum about their views on their topic. To avoid advancing a side, the North Dakota district should allow both prolife and prochoice organizations as clubs. This way, the school is not prohibiting the students from having or sharing their opinions. Another option is to allow students to facilitate meetings by fundraising their own money or facilitating meetings with outside sponsorship. This would eliminate any suspicion that the school favors any opinions about the debate. One misconception about freedom of speech is that everyone is able to say anything without consequence. Although the students have the right and opportunity to support whatever views they have, they cannot put the school in a position that entangles in political views with a publicly funded program.
I think the no-solicitation claim is flawed in that the organization would not be exploited on the school’s campus. However, it is unconstitutional for a public school to be entangled with religious or political views such as this debate. I think if this conflict was taken to court, the schools would be granted the authority to choose which clubs were permitted on campus. Ultimately, cases like these prove that our rights are not always absolute.
What do you think? Should the organization be permitted on campus?
Jennette Martonosi has recently become outraged due to an assignment that was given to her Tenth Grade high school daughter. Her daughter, a student at Jenison High School in Michigan, was instructed to create a pamphlet regarding Islam. Part of the instructions that were given with the assignment were that in should be comprehensible enough to be able to "introduce Islam to 3rd graders." The project was assigned in the student's World History Class. The thinking behind the teacher was that in order to understand historic and current events around the world, students should have a full picture regarding other country's religion and culture- which unlike America are often times inseparable.
Outraged by the content of the assignment, Martonosi decided to make her concerns public on Facebook. Her concerns with the project were that she felt as though the assignment was promoting Islam over other world religions. Additionally, she was offended that it claimed that "Allah [is] the same God of the Christians and Jews." (A statement which I will not take to touch up on in this post).
In response to Martonosi's post, principal Brandon Graham also took to Facebook. Clarifying some of the misunderstandings, Graham ensured the concerned parents that these pamphelts were, and never were intended to be, distributed to Third Grade students. Furthermore, Islam is one of five major religions which are part of the Jenison Public Schools; curriculum. "The religions include Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam." That being said, in an additional post, Martonosi argued that, "Islam was the ONLY religion of the 4 studied so far that was given the assignment to create a pamphlet."
The question here is whether or not the First Amendment Establishment clause has been violated by promoting Islam over other religions. I do not believe that by assigning a pamphlet during the Islam section of the course promotes one particular religion over another. It simply is a way of "stirring" things up in the course in order to keep the students engaged rather than allowing the class to become mundane. If we view this issue from an accommodationist approach, than the fact that the curriculum is incorporating the five major religions- Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam- than the school is appropriately acting with neutrality (granted that some minor religions do not play such an impacting role in a course discussing World History and therefore can be reasonably excluded without acting discriminatory towards them).
In is in my opinion, however, that the assignment has violated the First Amendment. The subject is World History, and although it is important to understand the role which the five major religions play in that subject, students should not be forced to do assignments which are directly engaging with the religions in particular. For a secular purpose of understanding World History, world politics, etc, incorporation of these religions into the material does not violate the First Amendment. However, an assignment geared specifically at addressing the world religions outside of World History is no longer secular but advancing religious purpose.
Jennifer Schoenrock works as a deputy clerk handling court tasks, such as filing criminal records and certifying marriage licenses. Schoenrock has made the preemptive decision that she is not comfortable issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples: she takes no issue with civil unions, yet has qualms with certifying a license for a gay couple that uses the word marriage, when her religious beliefs tell her that she should not. She sees approving a marriage license for a homosexual couple as abetting a sin, and as an act that does not glorify God.According to Missouri's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, of which 19 other states have a similar version, states may only "impose a 'substantial burden' on a person's religious freedom if it has a 'compelling interest' and is using the 'least restrictive means' to accomplish that interest." If Schoenrock were to be put in a situation in which she were asked to certify a marriage license for a homosexual couple, her employer should accommodate her religious request unless there were no less restrictive means by which the government could accomplish its goal of certifying a gay marriage. Schoenrock's employer should be able to easily meet her request so long as there is another clerk available to issue the marriage license.
In Schoenrock's office, where fourteen other deputy clerks are available and capable of certifying marriage licenses, finding a suitable replacement to handle licenses for gay couples should not be an issue. In the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Montana, where gay marriage is legal, however, county clerk Kristie Boetler said that if a clerk's religious beliefs were "so strong that you cannot [issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples], a job in my office is not for you."
This case is similar to those in which private-business owners were guided by their religious consciences and decided not to serve homosexual customers, yet I would also argue that this case is different in significant ways from those we have previously studied. In situations in which an individual owns his private business I would argue that he has complete authority to determine whom he would like to serve. In Schoenrock's case, however, she is acting as an agent of the state working at a state courthouse. I will contend that Schoenrock should not be forced to certify marriage licenses to all homosexual couples as the Yellowstone clerk suggested; yet if no other clerks were present to handle the request, Schoenrock's status as an agent of the state administering government documents would require her to comply with the request.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their religious beliefs, unless it poses an undue burden on the employer. I would argue that an accurate reading of this statue would prohibit employers like Boetler in Yellowstone from hiring only employees willing to certify marriage licenses for homosexual couples, but I would also argue that in some circumstances accommodation is impossible and that an employee might have to issue a license that conflicts with his personal religious beliefs. If, for example, all fourteen other clerks in Schoenrock's office were not present at the time a gay couple entered the courthouse to receive their marriage license, Schoenrock should be compelled to serve the couple and certify their license. Not doing so would place an undue burden on Schoenrock's employer and would not be satisfying the state's compelling interest of granting a marriage license to a couple requesting one.
When determining if there are situations in which a clerk might have to abandon her free-exercise rights, I would argue that they exist, but should be avoided and accommodated whenever possible. The reason that this case is different from the baker, for example, is that a baker owns her own shop and conducts business as she pleases, while a courthouse clerk works for the state doing state business.
What do you think? Are there situations in which you think a clerk might have to abandon her free-exercise rights in order to satisfy the interest of the state, or should First Amendment rights always prevail?
Monday, April 6, 2015
Monday, April 6, 2015
- 0 Comments
-->
Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock sued the Encinitas Union School District after they decided to incorporate yoga into physical education. Stephen and Jennifer believed that this program violated the religious-freedom provisions in California’s constitution. During their court briefs, Stephen and Jennifer said yoga was “a Hindu religious exercise or practice that is simultaneously physical and religious”.
The origins of yoga have been disputed but it is well known that it is closely related to Hinduism since it is one of Hinduism’s major components. The program was funded by the Sri K. Pattabhi Jois’s foundation and the yoga poses taught were adapted from Ashtanga yoga. Ashtanga yoga is built around eight pillars, which include union with the divine. Mr. Jois’s foundation trained the yoga instructors with a mission to eliminate religious connections in the practice.
This yoga program was originally proposed in 2012 and after parents complained of religious overtones the school district removed references to the spiritual or divine and also removed the curriculum description that stated, “yoga brings out the inner spirit of the child”. The poses in the program used kid-friendly names. For example the Lotus pose was called “crisscross applesauce”.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal said, “It is clear that while yoga may be practiced for religious reasons, it cannot be said to be inherently religious or overtly sectarian. In the absence of evidence that the District’s program advances religion, no religious coercion is present”. This case decided that religious practices could be deemed unreligious depending how they are taught. Since there are distinct ties between yoga and Hinduism, the foundation made their yoga practice in schools non religious by making sure the yoga instructors were teaching the physical exercise portion and not the religious practice involved in Ashtanga yoga. This program was deemed, “devoid of any religious, mystical or spiritual trappings”, and allowed to continue within the nine Encinitas Schools.
I agree with the courts that the yoga program should be allowed to continue because of the effort made to make the yoga practice not related to religious teachings. Since the program was created to non-religious, the religious-freedom provisions of California’s constitution could not have been violated. I believe encouraging children to try many different types of exercise is something extremely important in schools because it can lead to healthy life habits or a love for a specific sport. Yoga has become extremely popular in the U.S. because it has a lot of mental and physical fitness related benefits and it should definitely be allowed to be taught in a schools physical education program.
Even though I think that this program does not violate the religious-freedom provisions, I do think that this issue could lead the courts down a slippery slope. Mixing religious beliefs and education has always been a highly debated issue in our country and this program is a small religious issue compared to others in our court system today. This court case decided that religious beliefs could be extracted from religious practices to allow the practices to be taught in public schools.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
- 0 Comments
This article addresses a relatively recent change to a New York City education policy that will now allow preschools, both religious and nonreligious, to spread out the 6 hours and 20 minutes of instruction per day over 6 days, rather than 5 days. The main reason for this change is that it will now allow time for “non-program activities” during a short break that does not go towards the 6 hours and 20 minutes of secular schooling per day. The new policy also allows these schools to remain open on federal holidays, which may make it easier for the preschools run by religious organizations to close to observe their own religious holidays. It’s important to note that some of these preschool programs are tax funded and that Mayor Bill de Blasio enacted this policy in an attempt to encourage Orthodox Jewish organizations to open preschool programs.
This is a clear case of accommodation versus separation. Mayor de Blasio’s approach is to accommodate the religious views of organizations that may open preschool programs in order to increase overall enrollment in preschool. A separationist would argue that this action is clearly furthering religion by encouraging religious instruction during school and that it excessively entangles the government with religion.
Although many Supreme Court Justices have seemed to move away from using the Lemon test as a way to measure the constitutionality of laws such as this one, I do think it is a valuable tool in approaching these issues. It does, however, face many complications and interpretations in cases that have such competing interests. While some may say that this policy does not have a secular purpose (considering that it has been specifically enacted to further the participation of particular religious groups), it’d be hard to deny that increasing enrollment of preschool programs is not a secular goal. It has been proven that early childhood education can have a significant impact on later performance of students. This would clearly serve the state’s compelling interest of creating an educated population, which would help with reducing crime rate and improving the conditions of some neighborhoods. I think that this rule would pass the first prong of the Lemon test, even if it is religiously tainted, because early childhood education is part of a compelling state interest that leads into a predominantly secular purpose.
In regards to the second prong, it does seem as though this advances religion because it is blatantly encouraging religious organizations to open up preschool programs. There’s no doubt in my mind that this new rule will further religion via religious education and prayer time. Not having this policy does not inhibit the religion either. Although it may present a slight burden, the religious organizations are still free to open up preschools even without this policy in place. But by implementing this policy, Mayor de Blasio is directly advancing the religious doctrines of Orthodox Jews by making it easier for them to create these programs.
Although the Supreme Court would usually stop once the policy violates one of the Lemon statements, analyzing this case with the third prong is still valuable. This case would certainly foster excessive entanglement between religion and government. This new rule essentially allows for prayer and religious activity during the school day with a loophole that would not count this as school time. Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, says that adding this policy ”add[s] up to a religious school funded with taxpayer money.” Even though the city does not directly run these preschools programs, it is still connected to the situation deeply enough that it does foster entanglement between the secular and the non-secular.
Unlike some of the cases we’ve most recently encountered, such as Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. the City of Hialeah, this policy does not present an issue that is intentionally stepping on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Rather, it’s a case where state interest has overridden constitutional concerns about government interaction with religion. Even though I believe the city is enacting this rule with secular purposes and interests in mind, it advances religion and creates entanglement that cannot sit justly with the previous Court rulings.
Despite controversy regarding Indiana’s recently passed, “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson signed a similar bill into law on April 3, 2015. The governor originally refused to sign the bill into law, which prompted the House to amend the bill quickly in order to get it passed. The bill in its original form was, “the most extreme version of a religious freedom act in the country,” and it was amended so that it appeared closer to the federal bill already in place.
Bill 975 was passed with a 26 to 0 vote and allows businesses to refuse service to customers if the actions of those customers violate the religious beliefs of the religious business owners. One of the Bill’s sponsors described the Bill’s purpose as, "We're going to allow a person to believe what they want to believe without the state coming in and burdening that unless they've got a good reason to do so." The intention of the Bill is to protect religious citizens from being forced to participate in activities that go against their beliefs.
This Bill, like the Indiana one, appears facially neutral. Nowhere in the bill does it say anything about discrimination towards the LGBTQ community. However, many people, gay or not, believe it is implied. Bill 975 gives justification to many of the current events we’ve been talking about in class recently such as the baker in Colorado, the doctor in Michigan, and the videographer in Ohio. Under this Bill, all of these individuals would have been protected from being forced to serve the same-sex couples in each case. In addition, this Bill was passed just before the Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling regarding same-sex marriage. Many view this Bill as a preemptive measure put in place to protect religious business owners from the ruling the Supreme Court may make soon.
Although I do think that this Bill is discriminatory, I do think it is constitutional. The Free Exercise Clause was designed to protect the religious beliefs of individuals. I think forcing private business owners to do something that directly goes against their religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise clause. Their ability to freely practice their religion is compromised if they are forced to act in ways that violate their religious beliefs such as catering a same-sex wedding or making a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple.
This bill to me brings up the question of whose rights are more important? Is it the rights of people who live their lives in conjunction with their religious beliefs or the rights of people who want to be treated equally? I think it’s an extremely tough question to answer with no answer being the “right” one. What’s right for one group of people is not what’s necessarily right for another group which makes a Bill like this extremely difficult to pass judgment on.
Should this Bill have been passed? Is the right of Free Exercise more important than the rights of the LGBTQ community—who are citizens of this country too? Are the two even comparable?
