Recent Articles

Monday, April 9, 2012

"The Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania

Monday, April 9, 2012 - 0 Comments


            
 
            
      ABC News reports that State House in Pennsylvania passed a provision that declares 2012 “The Year of the Bible.” The resolution passed on the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously in January. The ABC article reports that “some members later said they did not realize its content and regretted their votes.” The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), based in Madison, WI, filed a lawsuit stating that this violates the Establishment Clause. This organization “includes Atheists and Agnostics” and is typically associated with such a viewpoint. The FFRF is requesting a federal judge to order the Pennsylvania to stop distributing the flyers and to “rule that the state government isn’t Judeo-Christian.”
            The republican senator primarily associated with the bill, Rick Saccone, is not phased by the lawsuit, calling it meritless. The article quotes Saccone, stating “God has always been a part of our government. To deny that is to deny history. And that's all the resolution is — a recognition of a book that has been so important in our nation's history."
            Establishment Clause cases have often been tricky. Frequently they involve a question of government allowance of religion, such as public display of religion cases. In such cases (such as Marsh v. Chambers, Lunch v. Donnelley, and Allegheny v. ACLU) the question becomes whether or not private citizens can display religion on government property. This case is different. It involves private citizens suing over governmental displays of religion.
            It seems clear that this is a governmental endorsement of Christianity. A state legislature cannot officially declare a “year of the Bible” without an implied preference for a particular religious viewpoint. The Bible is directly associated with Christianity. Additionally, although a particular entanglement of church and state is bound to exist, government legislation endorsing a particular viewpoint is unnecessary and dangerous. The FFRF is certainly warranted in their request for the government to stop distributing the flyers. It may be argued that the resolution does not require citizens to follow a particular viewpoint and therefore is not dangerous. However, it still associates a state government with a particular religious viewpoint, which is discriminating and has the potential for dangerous implications.
            The FFRF’s second request, for the federal judge to rule that this is not a Judeo-Christian nation, seems more obscure. Is this the role of the federal judge? Even though these pamphlets breach church-state separate very suspiciously, there has not been any official declaration of Christianity as a state religion. This seems to be a desire for affirmation and solidification from the FFRF more than a legal junction. I am not sure that this part of the request is warranted or necessary. However, I imagine that the intention of the FFRF is to prevent instances like this happening again. An official declaration may help provide certainty.
            In the end, this case begs the question of the nature of governmental endorsement of religion. Endorsement can still be a reality even when it is not declaring an official state religion. The nature of this endorsement is one of promoting a particular religious viewpoint. The FFRF has legitimate concerns that warrant a lawsuit against the resolution.            

Imprecatory Prayers: Protected or Profane


In a Washington Post article published on the 6th, David Gibson describes the recent judiciary ruling by District Court Judge Martin Hoffman regarding “imprecatory” or “curse” prayers. The case in question was brought by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), with the goal of removing what Weinstein described as undue religious influence in the armed forces. The lawsuit was directed at a former Navy chaplain named Klingenschmitt, who posted on his website, urging followers to prey for the MRFF’s downfall. Judge Hoffman ended up ruling in favor of the defendant in this case, arguing that there was no evidence that recent acts of vandalism of Weinstein’s property were connected to the prayer in question. Weinstein responded “We are disappointed in the ruling because we believe the judge made a mistake in not understanding that imprecatory prayers are code words for trolling for assassins for the Weinstein family, I don’t think the judge understood that these are not regular prayers.” Imprecatory prayers are nothing new in the public forum of America, and have garnered a lot of attention since President Obama was elected.
                That said, this case does raise important questions which were left unaddressed in the ruling. Chief among these questions is the protection such prayers have under the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech and religion.
As much as it chafes me, I have to agree with Judge Hoffmans ruling. The protection afforded such religious rhetoric ties the states hands until a clear connection between the prayer in question and any criminal acts can be established. That said, I believe that the ruling could have gone in favor of Weinstein if Klingenschmitt were still an acting Navy chaplain. If that were the case, Weinstein could argue an establishment clause violation. The difference between the two situations arises out of the fact that as an active chaplain, Klingenschmitt would be representing the Government and the conversation would no longer be in an open forum. One counter argument to this position would be the precedent of “civic deism,” even though that concept has only been used to justify such things as opening prayers before congressional meetings and the presence of the 10 commandments in Courthouses. I would counter such an argument by raising the question of the intended role of the Chaplain within the structure of the armed forces, and whether such prayers fell within the scope of his positions duties, especially if that prayer was directed at another member of the armed services.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Defense Of Marriage Act Challenged By Binational Same-Sex Couples

Sunday, April 8, 2012 - 0 Comments

         In Washington, DC there has been an up rise in the number of marriage lawsuits that are challenging DOMA. DOMA which stands for the Defense of Marriage Act says that only a man and a woman joined together as husband and wife by law are able to receive marital rights such as obtaining a green card for a foreign born spouse. In this article the couples that are challenging DOMA are bi-national same-sex couples. Couples that have at least one partner that was not born in America and happens to be gay or lesbian have been rejected on their application for a green card.  In this article the advocacy organization of Immigration Equality has teamed up with these couples to address the discrimination placed on same-sex couples for marital rights. The Immigration Equality organization has recognized that these bi-national same sex couples have no legal options to turn to. The government has denied the request to change DOMA and rejected residency applications. This is what they believe illustrated the unconstitutionality of this law.
          I agree with the Immigrant Equality and the bi-national same-sex couples that this law is unconstitutional. With gay marriages being accepted there really is no use for DOMA in regards to discrimination policies and constitutional laws. There is no use for DOMA because it implements discriminatory actions by rejecting a couple just because they do not consist of a man and a woman. By rejecting bi-national same-sex couples while allowing all marital rights to monogamous couples is showing this discrimination and that the law is being unfair.
       Santiago Ortiz one of the American partners of a foreigner stated that "We're being denied our rights, because we are a family." Although his statement comes from his own interpretation of the situation it brings me to my main point. Which is how religion fits into all this? I believe that religion is the root of this problem. The government from early history has been influenced by religious backgrounds and their teachings. Through this influence they have come to construct a system that enables the Christian ideas that influence them and are enforcing it in public. By giving out such rules the government has set up what they want their country to represent. In this case the government does not want the country to represent a nation that not only allow gay marriages but are open to equality in their acceptance.
           The role that religion plays in this case relies on the implications of a liable marriage which the government (Christian influenced) recognizes. The implications that DOMA puts on marriage is an example of this. This Act in accordance with government recognition of a real marriage and the perks that come along with it resembles the same notions from the book The Mormon Question which discussed Christian ideas on the topic of marriage. The government officials in this book acknowledge their own definition of marriage which was framed by Christian beliefs as being monogamous and between one man and one woman. I believe that the DOMA law is a modern way of restricting newly accepted marriages such as gay and lesbian ones.
         This case acknowledges DOMA’s disregard for same-sex couples as an issue regarded as unconstitutional and liable to be challenged. On the other hand I recognize this article as displaying a matter of which discrimination is produced from the latter of early American history intertwined and influenced by religion. Religion was the starting block for defining marriage and law made it official. Religion has influence DOMA and the law is holding firm in keeping it.

Another article: present case related to DOMA





Dispute over Ten Commandments Bill in Tennessee

In Tennessee, there has been a dispute regarding a new piece of legislation headed by Representative Matthew Hill. The bill authorized local governments to display the Ten Commandments with other historical documents within the local courthouses. The bill is not supported by everyone. Some believe that it is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property. It is feared that this bill would violate the Establishment Clause.
    In Rutherford County, Tennessee some officials put the Ten Commandments on display and were instructed to take it down after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the county. Hill’s new bill would allow courthouses to display the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States and state constitutions, which are integral to the development of American law and symbolize American freedom and the nation’s history.
    The likelihood of the bill being signed is overwhelming. The Tennessee House approved the bill 93-0 and the Senate voted 30-0. Matthew Hill brought the bill forward after reading about groups like the American Civil Liberties Union suing governments over the issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property.
    The context in which these items are on display is extremely important. If the Ten Commandments were the only thing on display, there might be a constitutionality problem according to the Supreme Court’s historical jurisprudence. If the Ten Commandments are displayed equally with other historical documents, then the display may pass constitutional muster. Tennessee is not the only state that is trying to get this type of legislation passed. Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia have tried to pass similar legislation. This year in Georgia, the House approved a similar bill 161-0, the state Senate approved the legislation 41-9 on March 30th, 2012.
    I think that this bill will have no problem with being signed and I think it is completely constitutional. This situation reminds me of the Supreme Court case of Van Orden v Perry. Van Orden challenged the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol building because he believed that the display violated the Establishment Clause. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court held that the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause because the monument was in a park surrounded by other historic monuments. The decided that the display was a part of national tradition and it was commemorating historical documents that celebrate the United States. The Supreme Court stated, “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause”.
    I agree with the Supreme Court, I see nothing wrong with putting the Ten Commandments up in courthouses, if it’s primary purpose is to commemorate the history of the United States. If it was standing by itself, or if it had an overbearing religious tone then I believe  it is unconstitutional. This is very similar to the Lynch v Donnelly case. In Lynch, the Supreme Court held that a nativity scene placed on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it was surrounded by other non-religious symbols of the holiday season.  The Supreme Court has consistently held the displays that include religious material are not automatically unconstitutional.  As long as the intent of the display is not meant to promote religion, but for some other legitimate purpose, it may be constitutional.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Is Religious Freedom for Individuals or Organizations?

Saturday, April 7, 2012 - 0 Comments


Who could possibly want to fight against more religious freedom?  That is a question that Coloradoand Floridaare bringing to the public this coming elections season.  The questions are not the same, but considering the timing it is likely that they are both responses to the debate over contraceptives that we have spent so much time discussing over the last few weeks. 

In Florida the proposed amendment will repeal the law that forbids the government from providing financing to religious organizations.  The opposition worries that this will open the door to more voucher programs sending students to parochial schools instead of public schools.  In Colorado the proposal is vaguer.  It simply seems to restate principals from the constitution.  The proposed extra text can be found here.  It mostly changes things I believe by adding religious organization to the clause which is part of what is being debated when it comes to the issue of religious freedom.  Do organizations have rights, or is it simply a matter of individuals.  The issue that this is likely responding to makes it even more complicated since the individuals that make up the organization seem to have a difference of opinion from the organization itself.

Was the wording of our constitution meant to protect religious organizations or just individuals in their personal belief?  It is a question that is fraught with a lot of baggage.  The religion that many Americans follow is one that is centered on individual choice and interpretation, but that is not the way with all religions.  By favoring a legal system that favors the individual over the organizations that they may belong to are we in fact favoring a certain type of religion? 

I agree that the rights of the individual are what this country is built on and not the rights of organizations, but I do not think that that means that the organizations have to be completely stripped of rights.  I think that the Catholic Church has the right to disagree with birth control and I think that parishioners have the right to leave the church if they disagree with it.  I also think that if they are an employer then they should follow the same laws as other employers and receive the same benefits.  By this token I actually do not see a problem with the proposal in Florida.  I think allowing religious organizations the same rights to government money that nonreligious organizations receive is completely constitutional.  I agree with the opposition that it could lead to more voucher programs providing money to parochial schools, but that was already held up as constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons.  The one in Colorado is a little more troubling, but not enough that I disagree on just the surface.  I think it leaves too little space for the government to decide that the rights of the individuals or the benefit of the people around the organization trumps their rights.  Like so many things with the interaction between religion and law it is difficult to see just what the effects of either of these initiatives will be if they make it to law.  

Monday, April 2, 2012

Religious Biases, a Highly Contested Debate

Monday, April 2, 2012 - 0 Comments



Vanderbilt University, in Nashville Tennessee, is currently facing an issue related to non-discrimination policies on campus and their affects on religious groups. According to the school’s non-discrimination policy; any student can be a member or run for office of any student run group.
The Catholic group on campus, Vanderbilt Catholic, begs to differ. Their current president claims that anyone running for an officer position should share the same beliefs as the group. However, this slowly sinks into quicksand with the university’s anti-discrimination policy. Vanderbilt is not the only university facing the same issues.
Vanderbilt is using the defense of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In this 2010 Supreme Court case, the courts “required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.” Vanderbilt is obviously not the first university to tackle this problem. Colleges in North Carolina, California and New York also have experienced identical or similar concerns.
Ayesha Khan, Legal Director, American United for Separation of Church and State, weighs in on this contested debate and more specifically the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case.
Professionally, I want to work in diversity public relations. I do not understand why discrimination, especially faith-based discrimination is still relevant. Why can we not look past insignificant details and realize the bigger picture of interconnectedness? This is not just a “Catholic issue”; this applies to all religious groups, regardless of faith or doctrine. Someone’s religious background should not be a determinate in their abilities to perform certain tasks, or any tasks for that matter.

I think that Vanderbilt is doing the ‘right’ thing in this situation. Not only is the university upholding their non-discrimination policy, but they are also trying to prevent further occurrences of this. Cases like Christian Legal Society v. Martinez prove to be beneficial for the support of the university and general support of anti-biases. I agree with Vanderbilt. I think someone’s religious background or lack of religious background is not sufficient support in denying them the right to participate in activities, or to run for a position within the organization.

I am involved with several organizations on campus and I cannot imagine the backlash that would come from someone being denied to participate due to their involvement in a particular religious group.
As I mentioned before, this is not just a Catholic issue. This problem is broad reaching and has larger implications for religious groups, not just Catholic, and not just college affiliated. We need to steer away from religious persecution of minorities. To be completely honest, I’m sick of this being something we discuss. We need to make more strides toward a hyper-inclusive American culture.


Preston L.

School District Told to Replace Web Filter Blocking Pro-Gay Sites

Christiana Torere
April 2, 2012


According to a t NY time’s article, students using the computers at Camdenton High School in central Missouri have internet access to the web sites for Exodus International, as well as People Can Change, antigay organizations that counsel men and women on how to become heterosexual. Students are upset with the fact that they are able to access discrimination websites against gays but have been denied access to the Web sites of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, or the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
The students at Camdenton High School have been able to read Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy. But they have been blocked from reading Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that held that laws criminalizing sodomy were unconstitutional.
The decisions to block websites protecting gay rights are not left up to the school superintendent, board members, or the district Web master, instead the district's Web filter determine which sites would be open to students and which would be blocked. Since the passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act in 2000, public schools have been required to use Internet filters that protect students from pornography and obscenity. However, the actual person who created the filter that blocks these pro-gay websites remains unknown. The identity of the person is protected behind URLBlacklist, a company that sells filter software to schools.
Pat Scales of the American Library Association said "These filters are a new version of book-banning or pulling books off the shelf, the difference is this is much more subtle and harder to identify."
Anthony Rothert, a Civil Liberties lawyer based in St. Louis said, “Over the last year, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials from hundreds of school districts around the country to make changes in their Internet screening systems to eliminate bias” All agreed to the procedure except for Camdenton High School, which the A.C.L.U. sued last summer.
The lawsuit happens to be the first of its kind. It does not claim that the rural district of 4,200 students purchased the software with the intent of discriminating. Rather, it says, once there were complaints about the filter last year, school officials refused to replace it. An investigator for the A.C.L.U. has been able to figure out how the filter works, but not who developed it.
Camdenton High School has arranged for students wishing to access any pro-gay websites that is blocked by the URLBlacklist filter can file an appeal to the district's Web master.
In a hearing in federal court in October, Thomas Mickes, the lawyer for the Camdenton school district told the judge, "Just because the A.C.L.U. or some other liberal group says, 'Hey, you know, I don't like what you're doing, you've got to change that,' and if we don't change it, then somehow we're showing discrimination, that's not the law. That would be crazy."
After reading this article, I thought about the court cases we read in class over the past weeks, and if the intent was not to promote discrimination then there isn’t a case, but by them allowing websites to be accessed that were against gay rights puts them at risk for discrimination, which is why I believe there is proper cause for a case. The intent was to save students from being gay not just to shelter them from pornography. This is similar to how schools would find a way to go around the laws in the cases we discussed last week. If the intent was to only practice the Internet Protection Act in 2000 as stated, then why was antigay organizations websites provided?

Subscribe

Donec sed odio dui. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio. Duis mollis

© 2013 Religion & American Law. All rights reserved.
Designed by SpicyTricks