Religion & American Law

On September 15th, CNN released an online report which explains how part of our legal entity, the FBI, has stepped into unsafe territory by allowing one of their analysts to give a training which blatantly discriminates and thus violates the rights of Muslims. Though FBI spokesman Christopher M. Allen states that “the instructor who conducted that training block no longer provides training on behalf of the FBI”, the religious discrimination is indisputably there and the likelihood of removing it is quite unlikely. The FBI training for new agents which is being questioned at this point was one which was given by a former FBI analyst whom explained his thoughts and ideologies about Muslims after the September 11th incident in order to better prepare new agents working within the department. The main problem here is that we are talking about a training which was held approximately six months ago. The fact that it went through though it was morally unacceptable, and there was no word about it until recently that an “FBI whistle blower” leaked the information to Wired magazine is completely unacceptable. Some of the statements within the FBI official’s passages are written with the disturbed mentality of one who has become prejudiced due to past events which lead to categorization and judgments of groups and individuals as wholes. Many of the statements expressed put down the religious beliefs of Muslims by stating that they believe that war is needed while peace is something which is temporary and much more. I believe that one of the biggest mistakes which the FBI analyst made was mixing his beliefs about a certain religion, with his job which in this case, constitutes as part of the legal system. Though there was a disclaimer before the slide, which stated this ideology was solely that of the individuals and it did not constitute that of the governments as a whole, the latter is still to blame due to the fact that they did not review the material which would be presented to their employees. If we look back in history, we can date back to the 1800s to find a very common statement which Jefferson made and that is about separation of church and state. Though many people do believe in the prior concept, it seems that some people still do not fully understand it. If religion and state were truly separated, then the state would not really have a say in where and when mosques were built as stated by Zogby. People such as this FBI analyst are wrongfully impacting the minds of people within the state and if he is not reprimanded by the legal system for his discriminatory actions, this will lead to repetitive offenses in similar manners. Though the analyst or FBI may claim that under the 1st amendment, he has the right to freedom of speech, it is also known that an individual has freedom until the point where his inflicts on that of another’s.

Recently, the United States Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz sent out a memo to Air Force leaders regarding religion and their jobs. Just over a month ago, the Air Force suspended an ethics course aimed at nuclear missile officers, which possessed references from the bible. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation discovered the Christian based themes in the documents and brought upon a review of the ethics and character building in the air force. This controversial course has been around for nearly two decades and teaches approximately 150 students per year. The training session included direct, “bible passages and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons”. At the end of the ethics training session, the missile officers were then asked to bind to a legal agreement in which they will follow direct orders to launch a nuclear missile without hesitation if necessary. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation found the use of religion in the training to violate the first amendment as it combined church and state.

In response to the report, the Air Force has removed the materials used in the training session that have religion connotations. In order to fix this dilemma, Schwartz crafted the memo stressing the importance of keeping religious favoritism out of the equation when it comes to the military personnel accomplishing their jobs. There have been instances in the past where, “well-meaning commanders and senior noncommissioned officers appeared to advance a particular religious views among their subordinates”. By indirectly or directly imposing a certain religious view, this affects the subordinates as their ethics can be altered. Schwartz believes if a unit is affected by its leader’s religious views it can degrade, “the unit’s morale, good order and discipline”. This in return hurts military personnel’s ability to dictate orders efficiently.

Especially, in the military, there should ideally be a clear-cut line between church and state. Military personnel are expected to follow orders of their commanders. If leaders start to impose their own religious views onto their subordinates, this creates more complications. Their religion can impose on whether or not they follow the commands of their officers, particularly in regards to launching nuclear missiles. Orders need to be followed through despite of the religion of the individual.

In my opinion, removing the religious aspects from the ethics course for new nuclear missile officers will only benefit them in the future. By linking the religious aspect to the military duties of the personnel complicates an already ethically challenging situation. Regardless of their religious beliefs, these individuals need to follow through on their orders. General Schwartz stresses to commanders to refrain from imposing their religious views on their subordinates, as it will only make things easier for everyone. Under the first amendment everyone has the right to freedom of religion. Included in the ethics course are numerous references to the New and Old Testament, which then violates these rights as it imposes certain religious beliefs on these individuals. By removing the religious aspects from the military training, it will be more beneficial for everyone.

Click to View Article

Bradley Johnson, a high school calculus teacher and faculty sponsor of the Westview High School Christian Club sued the Poway Unified School District alleging it violated his right to free speech by requiring him to remove banners emphasizing God from his classroom. The banners, which measured seven feet wide by two feet high, stated in large block type “IN GOD WE TRUST,” “ONE NATION UNDER GOD,” “GOD BLESS AMERICA,” “GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE,” and “All men are created equal, they are endowed by their CREATOR.” While Johnson viewed the banners as his way of “celebrating religious heritage in America,” Westview High School Principal Dawn Kastner and other teachers saw the banners as promoting a religious viewpoint that could potentially make students who didn’t share that same viewpoint feel uncomfortable. Kastner suggested that the passages contained on the banners be displayed within their historical context, such as displaying the complete Declaration of Independence or the full Pledge of Allegiance. She also suggested Johnson reduce the size of the banners, but the teacher refused telling Kastner that he had displayed the banners since 1982 and that he considered it his “right to have them up.” Johnson removed the banners and shortly thereafter filed a lawsuit against the school district in federal district court, claiming his first and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated.

Johnson argued that other teachers in the school district were allowed to hang various posters and displays that, in his opinion, were religious in nature, such as Tibetan prayer flags, a Dalai Lama poster, and a Mahatma Gandhi poster. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor finding the school district had impermissibly limited Johnson’s speech and ordered the District not to interfere Johnson’s future display.

The school board appealed the decision, and on September 13, 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling. The appeals court said that unlike Johnson’s banners, which offered a clear religious message, the Dalai Lama poster, Tibetan prayer flags, and other classroom posters did not endorse any religious beliefs. According to Appeals court Judge Richard Tallman, “One would need to be remarkably unperceptive to see the [posted] statements… as organized and displayed by Johnson and not understand them to convey a religious message.” The court’s ruling also hinged on its finding that as a high school calculus teacher Johnson speaks “not as an individual, but as a public employee.” “The Constitution,” it said, “does not permit him to speak as freely at work in his role as a teacher about his views on God, our Nation’s history or God’s role in our Nation’s history as he might on a sidewalk, in a park, at his dinner table or in countless other locations.”

Johnson plans to appeal the ruling, saying he will take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, no matter the cost.

Law and Religion come into constant conflict over the question of what can and cannot be displayed in public school classrooms. I agree with the Appellate court ruling against Bradley Johnson. While his banners portray common phrases that most, if not all of his students would recognize, the size and overall message of these banners conflict with what should be a secular classroom. Certainly they have no connection to the subject of calculus or other mathematic classes. Clearly the fact that Johnson is the sponsor of the Christian club shows that Johnson has strong ties to Christianity and that the true intent of displaying the banners in his classroom was to emphasize and impose his beliefs on all students who matriculated through his classroom. The fact he refused Kastner’s alternative options belies his ulterior motive for hanging the banners. The options offered to him – hanging a poster of the complete Pledge of Allegiance or hanging smaller posters was a fair and equitable response to the situation. The fact Johnson chose to remove the banners completely and take the matter to court proves the banners were of particular religious importance to Johnson and were not a way to celebrate American heritage, like he originally stated. As the 9^th Circuit so aptly pointed out, as a teacher, Johnson is not speaking as an individual but as a public employee. He is expected to be a voice of neutrality within his classroom and therefore should focus more on displaying posters of mathematical equations, leaving his religious views to the confines of the Christian club, not his calculus classroom.

Should a religious ceremony be permitted to take place on township property? On September 8, Connecticut politician Lee Whitnum (D) filed a lawsuit in Bridgeport federal court against the town of Greenwich, CT for allowing a Bar Mitzvah, scheduled to coincide with Israeli Independence Day, to take place in Town Hall. Local politician Peter Tesei is also named as a defendant in the case. The lawsuit charges that the ceremony and the flying of the Israeli flag featuring a Star of David outside the town hall violated the Establishment Clause.

In response, Tesei defended the township by asserting that the flags of many other countries, such as France, Italy, and Sweden, are flown on culturally significant days. He argues that the display of the Israeli national flag was no different than any of these. He also points out that the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) Federation paid the custodial fees required to clean up during and after the event. The Executive Director of the UDA Federation of Greenwich, Pamela Ehrenkranz, argued that Israeli Independence Day is not a religious event, and that the Bar Mitzvah held that day did not feature some religious prayers and blessings that would ordinarily be said. However, Whitnum disagrees, as Israel describes itself as a Jewish State.

The group than ran this event essentially rented the facilities, as they paid the custodial fees. And Tesei does make a good point that other cultural events are held at the hall without issue. If the party had merely been a celebration of Israeli independence, then I don’t think there is any problem with the Establishment Clause, even though the Israeli flag being flown for the day features a Star of David. However, because the Bar Mitzvah was held as well, I think that makes this a religious event even if certain prayers were omitted. I’m not Jewish so I don’t know if this is an apples-to-apples comparison, but I have a hard time imagining a secularized baptism. If my analogy holds, then a Bar Mitzvah couldn’t be secularized either – by its nature it is a religious event.

That being said, whether or not this event violated the Establishment Clause depends on whether or not other religious groups are allowed to hold events at the town hall in my opinion. I agree with Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who was quoted later in the article. He essentially said that either everyone has access to state facilities or no one has access – the township cannot allow one religious group to rent facilities but deny access to another. As long as the township doesn’t favor one religion over another for using its space, I don’t believe this is establishment.

The event held at town hall was religious; I have no doubts about that. But as long as the township isn’t playing favorites as to which groups can hold ceremonies at town hall, I don’t think there is a problem. If the township has space and the religious groups are willing to pay to use it, why shouldn’t they be allowed?

A candidate for the 2012 Senate primaries in Connecticut filed suit against the Bridgeport federal court claiming that the town violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when it allowed a Bar Mitzvah to be held on its property. The Bar Mitzvah, a coming of age ceremony for a Jewish boy, coincided with the celebration of Israeli Independence Day put on by the UJA Federation of Greenwich. The lawsuit also raises questions about the legality of displaying the Israeli flag. The flag, pictured below, features a Star of David, a Jewish religious symbol.

First Selectman Peter Tesei, a defendant in this case, argues, "At the request of Greenwich residents, the town of Greenwich annually recognizes various nationalities and ethnic groups and celebrates their heritage," Tesei said. Furthermore, the town acted no differently than it would on say St. Patrick’s Day when it raises an Irish flag. In addition Pamela Ehrenkranz, Executive Director of the UJA Federation of Greenwich, states the events of the day were secular and thus should be permitted as all other national or ethnic celebrations. Ehrenkranz stated, "I believe that other groups celebrate other national independence days. The celebration of Israeli Independence Day is not a religious event. It was by no means connected to a religious holiday or observance."

The case argues that by allowing a religious ceremony to take place on town property it is endorsing one religion over another. Holding the Bar Mitzvah in the town hall does, in my opinion, breach the no establishment clause of the First Amendment. There should be no religious ceremonies being held on this government property. Rob Boston, stresses in the article that, “it’s all about consistency.” Although she stated that this Bar Mitzvah was a nontraditional one, it is still implicit in the ceremony that there be Jewish prayers read, otherwise it would not be considered a Bar Mitzvah. I agree that prayer events should not be held at government property, regardless of if they are in conjunction with other events. An individual may have been going to the town hall to participate in the political activities and been met with a Rabbi performing a religious ceremony with religious texts.

This idea of consistency must be included in the other aspect of this case. The town annually recognizes other nationalities and ethnicities with flag raising ceremonies. Israel is a nationally recognized state regardless of the religious practices of those within the territory. There are many who support Israel who are not Jewish and the celebration of Israel as a country does not imply the endorsement of one religion.

Law and religion intersect here in a unique way. The political affiliations between the United States and Israel have long created controversy and angered many people who believe this to be an endorsement of the Jewish faith. The religion practiced in the state of Israel should have no bearing on whether they should be able to represent their support in the form of a flag. Although many residents do not view Israel’s independence as a reason for celebration, their disagreement does not make the event unconstitutional. The same could be said of those who object to other flag raising ceremonies for political reasons. It is note-able that no one would be taken seriously if they objected to an Italian heritage celebration on Columbus Day. In addition, the UJA Federation paid a fee of $351.83 for the use of the space and custodian cleaning. The celebration followed all of the requirements that other groups must obey. It seems that objection to the raising of the Israeli flag comes not wholly from political disagreement but from a religious bias.

I disagree with the idea of precedence raised with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. I argue that although the Star of David is a religious symbol, the flag of the country of Israel is a political object and not a religious one. In this context it is not endorsing Judaism and is celebrating a country, not a faith.