Blacklisting Boyscouts

Article can be found here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865621202/Californias-ban-of-Scout-affiliated-judges-flies-in-the-face-of-religious-freedoms.html

California State Supreme Court recently passed a bill prohibiting state judges from being members of the Boy Scouts of America. The Court’s reasoning behind this was that the Boy Scouts discriminate against homosexuals and promote heterosexuality as a norm. In 2000, in a case entitled ‘Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,’ the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, has the constitutional right to exclude a person from membership when ‘his or her presence affects the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.’ The BSA does allow homosexuals to be members of the organization, however there are restrictions for Scout leaders and other volunteer positions. The Boy Scouts have a strict religious policy maintaining that ‘no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.’ Atheists and agnostics are excluded from the BSA.

California judges must abide by a code of ethics that dictates their professional and personal lives. One section of this code speaks directly to this issue: “A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” The Court argues that prohibiting BSA membership will ‘promote the integrity of the judiciary’ and ‘enhance public confidence’ in the system.

I believe that preventing California State Supreme Court judges from participating in the Boy Scouts of America is a blatant infringement on their constitutional rights of free association, free speech, and the free exercise of religion. California judges should not be prevented from being leaders in the BSA. These judges are permitted to gain membership to organizations such as The National Rifle Association, the Council on American-Islamic relations and even the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Many of these permitted organizations have strong political and social values just as the BSA does.

As we have discussed in class, being a member of an organization does not necessarily mean that all of your values are determined by that organization. For example, just because you are a Catholic does not mean that a juror will disagree with the death penalty. Being a leader in the Boy Scouts does not mean that a judge will be biased against homosexuals in their court.

Additionally, California’s code of conduct contains exceptions for some organizations that discriminate- namely religious ones. For example, Californian judges can be members of the Catholic Church even though it discriminates against women by preventing them from becoming priests. Likewise, Orthodox Jews ban women from becoming rabbis. However, judges in California are permitted to gain membership to these churches and congregations. Despite these discriminatory practices, the state does not believe that membership with these organizations will make judges biased based on gender. Clearly, the ban on organizations that discriminate on the basis of gender has some exceptions.

To me, this almost seems like the state government is preferencing religion over non-religion. To make such blatant exceptions to this discrimination rule shows a partiality to religion. While the Boy Scouts of America have values deeply connected with religion, it is not a religious organization. It doesn’t seem fair to grant exceptions to religious institutions but not to private organizations.

Furthermore, a person’s values do not necessarily change depending on which organizations they are a part of. Judges are expected to be fair and impartial at all times. These attributes should be clear and unquestionable before they are appointed as judges. If a judge is somehow homophobic, restricting his or her admission to the Boy Scouts of America will not change his or her mind. This could also lead to a slippery slope for judges and their restrictions. If we prevent them from joining an organization that has an unpopular opinion, what is to stop the government from preventing judges from joining a certain political party or volunteering for a nonprofit organization that works to empower women, for example? Many organizations take stances on issues such as gender and race. Would we bar judges from joining these organizations because of this?

The Boy Scouts of America are legally protected in prohibiting homosexuals from being leaders in their organization due to their religious preferences. Though it is an extremely unpopular opinion to many, the BSA is exercising its freedom of religion right granted in the First Amendment. This issue is extremely important because judges are the ones that society expects to be upholding constitutional rights. Instead, they are having their rights restricted in order to keep their jobs.

Do you think the government has a right to restrict its judges from joining certain organizations based on their values?

Proposed Bill Would Allow Religious-Affiliated Organizations that Receive Public Funding To Discriminate in Hiring

Article can be found here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/02/indiana-senate-poised-allow-hiring-based-religion/22759821/

A proposed bill in Indiana had created great controversy. Senate Bill 127 is intended to allow those who run religious-affiliated organizations to have greater protection in hiring, specifically when it comes to religion. Religious-affiliated organizations that receive public funding, including hospitals and  universities, would be allowed to discriminate in hiring based on the organization's religious views and beliefs. Additionally, the bill would allow these organizations and employers to require that employees follow the organization's religious creeds and tenets.

Social Conservatives have generally supported the bill, which is set to be voted on this week. They claim that an organization with religious ties should not be directed or influenced by the state. They say that the First Amendment protects religious organizations by allowing them to hire whomever they want with no government interference or burden. If an organization does not want to hire someone who doesn't support their mission, then why should they? Religious-affiliated organizations and businesses should be able to maintain their religious identity while providing social services using public funding.

Liberals have, for the most part, opposed the bill. They claim that an organization receiving public funding should not be allowed to discriminate against those who do not share the organization's religious views. If a religious-affiliated organization is using money that the public and state have funded, the organization has a responsibility to treat all people of all kinds equally. The government has an interest in overseeing that organizations that are run with the help of the public are not discriminating against any group, an interest that does not conflict with any First Amendment protections.

I think that the most important part of the bill to take into consideration is the fact that these organizations are receiving public funds. If these organizations are going to use state funds, I believe that they have an obligation to support the public as a whole. If these organizations were to use only private money for their endeavors, then they should be allowed to run as they please. Once they take money from the public, however, they should be forced to run as public businesses do. A homosexual, for example, should not have to help fund an organization's project while that organization has the freedom to reject that homosexual's application based on his/her personal or religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects religions and religious organizations from state interference when those groups are practicing or organizing privately, but the same does not hold true for when those religions or organizations are connected to the public monetarily. These organizations have a duty to hire people of all beliefs and religions if those people are to pay for the organization's projects. The government has a compelling interest to make sure that everyone is treated equally in a case like this.

As for the part of the bill that would allow these organizations to force employees to follow its practices and beliefs, how can it be decided if an employee has properly or successfully followed the organization's tenets? It seems as if the religious organization would have to delve into its employees' personal lives to an extent that boarders on privacy invasion if it wanted to see if the employee truly followed religious tenets. How can the organization know whether the employee took birth control or not? How about if the employee attended church or not?

This bill seems both unconstitutional and confusing. Do you believe that all religious-affiliated organizations should be able to discriminate in hiring, no matter where there funding comes from? Are these organizations protected by the First Amendment? And should the employees have to conform to religious tenets, or is would this requiring too much of employees?

Court Dismisses Notion that Pledge Establishes Religion

Last week, a New Jersey state court dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance which includes the phrase under God. John and Jane Doe are parents of a child in the Matawan-Aberdeen School District and happen to be atheists and Humanists who do deny the existence of any kind of deity. They insist that because of their humanist beliefs, their child is unable to fully recite the pledge and feels excluded from other children when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited even though the recitation of the pledge is voluntary. The American Humanist Association, who filed the suit with the Doe family, argues that the pledges portrayal of a belief in a god implies that people who do not believe in a god are less patriotic.

In 1942, the United States Congress officially adopted the Pledge of Allegiance but the phrase “under God” was not officially added to the pledge until 1954. The court noted that the House Report for that amendment to the pledge indicated the intent to emphasize that political authority comes from God but that the language “under God” was not attempting to establish a religious institution. The House Report states that “A distinction must be made between the existence of a religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God. The phrase ‘under God’ recognizes only the guidance of God in our national affairs.”  The court stated that following the Plaintiff’s reasoning, the very Constitution that they are appealing to could be deemed unconstitutional due to the acknowledgement of a God. The court stated that this would be “an absurd proposition which the Plaintiffs do not and cannot advance here.”

During the preceding, the court heard from Samantha Jones, a high school student who argued that students have the right to say under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. In response to the court’s decision, Jones said, “We all have the right to remain silent, but nobody has the right to silence anybody else.” Eric Rassbach from the Becket Fund, which supported Jones, argued “The Pledge is not a prayer to God, but a statement about who we are as a nation. Dissenters have every right to sit out the Pledge, but they can’t silence everyone else.”

I disagree with the arguments put forth by Jones and Rassbach and believe the court was wrong in dismissing this case. The language under God may not be establishing a particular sect of religion but it does establish the sects of religions that believe in God. Therefore, it excludes those who do not have that same belief. The writers of the amended Pledge may not have had the intent to establish religion but the intent is largely irrelevant to its actual effect. One can be a firm believer in a certain principle but can be imperfect in applying that principle. The fact that the phrase under God and other language have been accepted as religiously tolerant in the past should not be an excuse to avoid taking steps to ensuring greater religious freedom today.

As noted above, it has been argued that removing under God from the pledge would be a violation of the rights of students who wish to remain reciting the current version of the Pledge. A similar argument was made in Engel v. Vitale (1962) in the defense of the daily recital of a prayer in a New York school district. In the court’s ruling that this practice was a violation of the Establishment Clause, the court reminded us that it is “neither sacrilegious nor antireligious” for the government to stay out of writing or sanctioning prayers. Taking under God out of the Pledge would not be an attack on anyone’s freedom. Students do not need the school to lead them in the Pledge in order for them to say it. Individuals would still be able to freely say their own version of the Pledge on their own time. The fact that the government does not sponsor something does not mean that they are attacking it.

In Samantha Jones’ defense of the current version of the Pledge, she says “The phrase ‘under God’ protects all Americans – including atheists – because it reminds the government that it can’t take away basic human rights because it didn’t create them.”  While the dialogue in court decisions has a different take on the purpose of the Pledge, I would suggest that the use of under God is not necessary to remind the government of the natural freedoms we have. The version of the Pledge before the amendment in 1954 reads as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I believe that this version of the Pledge accomplishes all the same goals of promoting freedom and patriotism without establishing any religion. Since the original version of the Pledge did not have the phrase under God it would be natural for the country to readopt an older version of the Pledge

Do you think that the phrase under God violates the Establishment Clause? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below. 

Religious Organizations Can Hire (And Fire) For Religious Reasons

Alyce Conlon was employed by the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (IVCF) in Michigan as a spiritual director. IVCF is an interdenominational, Christian, student-led ministry, which has been involved on college campuses for more than 70 years. The organization’s beliefs and ideals can be further explained on their website. Her duties here included providing religious counsel and prayer to students. When Mrs. Conlon informed the organization that she was contemplating divorce, IVCF put her on paid, and later unpaid, leave. Her employment with IVCF was then terminated.  Included in IVCF’s employment policy is that “where there are significant marital issues, IVCF encourages employees to seek appropriate help to move towards reconciliation” and reserves the right to consider the impact of separation or divorce on people the employee may interact with.

Alyce Conlon filed a lawsuit against InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA alleging that the termination of her employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Michigan law.

The key factor to consider in whether or not Conlon has the right to claim her firing because her marriage was headed to divorce is ministerial exception. Ministerial exception, which was first seen in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Churchand School v. EEOC , entails that religious employers may discriminate against their employees without any court review.  This case is also the first opportunity since the Hosanna-Taylor ccase for this court to address ministerial exception.  Ministerial exception is grounded in the First Amendment and precludes the application of Title VII and other employment discrimination claims concerning the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.  Both parties agree that the ministerial exception typically applies to federal employment-law claims. The dispute arose because Conlon claims IVCF waived the exception. However, whether the exception attaches at all is purely a question of law i.e. the ministerial exception is a limitation that can never be waived.

On February 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to enforce state and federal gender discrimination laws on one of the nation’s largest Christian campus ministries.

Some cases of ministerial exception may provide for a slippery slope, however, I do not believe that there is a slippery slope in this ruling. Although Conlon did not directly serve the organization as a minister per say, her role as a spiritual director implies that most of the work she did was ministerial in nature. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from interfering with the decision of a religious organization to fire one of its ministers.

Although IVCF is not a church, the purpose of the organization is to advance the practice of Christianity in college and is a religious group, as is defined under Hosanna-Tabor. The organization’s employment policy even states that separation or divorce could cause IVCF to consider the impact of such an event on the individual’s position within the organization. It is evident that ICVF, as a Christian organization, wants “ministers” who they employ to spread Christianity throughout college campuses to embody the highest Christian ideals. It is therefore evident that a poor marriage, in IVCF’s eyes would in turn inhibit the ability for Conlon to spread the organization’s message effectively to the students. Here the sincerity of the religious practice is key to the very foundation of IVCF, giving them had every right to fire Mrs. Conlon from her position as spiritual director.

This ruling is now considered an important precedent in protecting religious institutions from government entanglement. How long will it be until another case comes along to uproot this precedent? I believe one recent event that could find issues or solace in this ruling is the Indiana Senate Bill 127 that would allow religious affiliated organizations to hire people based on their religion. Conlon’s case could be used in this instance to provide basis or argument against the passing of this bill. It will be interesting to see how Conlon v. IVCF will be used by courts throughout the nation in future discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations.

Should the Pope be allowed to address Congress?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/05/us/politics/ap-us-pope-congress.html

Last week it was announced by Speaker of the House John Boehner that Pope Francis would address Congress during his upcoming visit to the United States. While the news of this unprecedented address has seemed to excite many it also raises some serious questions about the separation between church and state. The fundamental question being does the act of having the Pope, the official leader of the Catholic Faith, addressing the elected legislative branch, violate the establishment clause.

Politically speaking this seems to be a non-issue for both Democrats and Republicans. Speaker Boehner, a Catholic himself, told reporters that "We're humbled that the Holy Father has accepted our invitation and certainly look forward to receiving his message on behalf of the American people.” Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, also of the Catholic Faith, issued a statement declaring she is looking forward to Pope Francis’ “call to live our values, to protect the poor and the needy, and to promote peace.” In such a divided Congress this seems to be a rare instance of mutual agreement. It is extremely unlikely that any politician will come out and oppose the Pope’s address to Congress as the ramifications of such a bold stance would be dire. Nonetheless, there still are some who feel uneasy about the Pope’s address.

These people assert that Pope Francis addressing Congress is a blatant example of the government “establishing religion”. Not only would the Pope’s visit be an establishment of religion but it would be an establishment of religion in the epicenter of American government! They also reason that if the government is truly neutral than shouldn’t the leaders of all religious faiths be extended invitations to address Congress? And thus the hallowed slippery slope is created. Certainly it is fair to ask how it can be that the Pope gets this unique opportunity to address the people’s elected lawmakers whereas leaders of other religious groups do not.

Well hold on, the timing of Pope Francis invitation is extremely interesting. Speaker Boehner’s invitation to the Pope comes on the heels of his controversial invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to also address Congress. In the case of Netanyahu, the invitation was met with much criticism. While Netanyahu and the Pope do not hold identical roles one can assert that the Israeli prime Minister is the closest Jewish equivalent to the Pope. It is worth noting that technically the Pope is also a head of state. Still, these same people argue that if Catholics and Jews are being allowed to address Congress what about other religions? After all, Catholics make up roughly twenty two percent of the United States, and Jews make up less than two percent. That’s a huge percentage that doesn’t seem to be represented in this capacity.

This is a very unique situation and there is no legal case that I could find that sets a precedent for the constitutionality of the Pope’s address. Nonetheless, I believe that Pope Francis should be allowed to address Congress. Although he is a religious figurehead, it seems as if the content of the Pope’s address will be apolitical and an embodiment of many of the values our country was founded on. Therefore, I do not view this address as an establishment of religion, especially since the Pope is a head of state. According to the House of Representatives website, over the past century, foreign heads of state and heads of government of over forty nations have addressed Congress. Yet even if his classification was not as a “head of state”, the enormous following the Pope has and his general message of peace, and aiding the needy, is secular in nature and certainly makes him someone who should be able to receive an invitation to address Congress. This occurred in 1994 as Mother Theresa addressed Congress at the National Prayer Breakfast. However, I must say that if the Pope used this forum to preach a more non-secular message, I would not be in favor of him addressing Congress.

Since it is already announced the Pope will address Congress we now must wonder what sort of precedent this sets moving forward. If the next Speaker of the House is Muslim can they invite a Muslim leader to address Congress? What about if the next speaker is from another Christian denomination? While I view the Pope as a unique guest, I can foresee how this could be something to follow moving forward.

Surprisingly, there has been little literature dedicated to these fundamental questions about the Pope’s address to Congress. Do you think he should be granted this forum? Or is this an establishment of religion?

Indiana Allows Discrimination Towards Employees

Travis Holdman

Indiana State Senator Travis Holdman recently proposed Senate Bill 127, which stated that religious-offiliated organizations, such as hospitals, universities, or daycares, were now able to discriminate potential employees based on their religion and would require those that were hired to follow certain religious tenants. The bill would allow these organizations to do so while still receiving state contracts.

Holdman, a Republican, claims that the reasoning behind the newly passed bill (Senate Bill 127) was to assist the Indiana Wesleyan University, a private, Christian, liberal arts college that is connected with the Wesleyan Church, in receiving state workforce training grants. Just last year, the University was questioned the school's religious lifestyle mandate, which violated state contracting requirements against employment discrimination. Regardless, the bill was easily passed last Tuesday by the predominantly republican senate with a vote of 39 to 11. 

Senator Holdman is continuing to claim that this does not give these religious organizations an excuse to discriminate, but instead will help them make their organizations a smooth success. "It's not a legal license to discriminate" Holdman said. "It just says we're going to pull ourselves in line with federal law that allows for this kind of carve out, this kind of exemption, for faith based organizations." Holdman also stated his concern that Indiana relies on many religious organizations for a variety and services, and that this bill will ensure that the organizations continue to succeed and benefit the people of the state. 

Opponents of Senate Bill 127 are infuriated. Fellow Indiana senator Karen Tallian argues that the language of the bill would allow employers to go against federal laws. "This is outrageous" Tallian exclaimed. "How many tenants must you conform to? Do you have to go to church every Sunday? Can you eat meat on a Friday?" Other's argue that these religious organizations could easily continue to show bias in who they hire, as long as they no longer continue to receive public funding. "Once a religious institution takes public funding or bids on public projects, they should then have to follow the rules like public businesses do in regards to discrimination based on any trait-- sex, race, gender, sexual and gender orientation, etc." stated Chris Paulsen, spokeswoman for Indiana Equality Action. Questions for this bill have risen quickly, such as will employers be able to ask potential candidates about private and personal matters, such as their use of birth control? 

I personally feel that Senate Bill 127 should not have been passed by the state of Indiana, or by any state in the future, as it promotes discrimination towards people, people of the public, who basically fund these organizations. If these faith-based hospitals, universities, daycares, or other corporations are receiving public funding, they should not be allowed to pick and choose who they hire based on the person's religious beliefs, nor should they force their employees to follow religious tenants. If they wish to do so, they should no longer be granted state contracts from the public. These groups are being funded by people of different religions and have no problem taking money from other groups of faith, yet they do not wish for others to work for them unless they have the same beliefs. I believe that these organizations are trying to take advantage of the best of both worlds, or as some would say, "have their cake and eat it too." Either these organizations need to stop receiving public funding and continue to discriminate their employees, or they should hire people of any beliefs without requiring them to follow certain faith practices and still be granted public funding. It can't be both. 

Do you think religious organizations should be allowed to show bias towards who they hire based on religious beliefs if they are receiving money from the public? Do you think this bill should have been passed? 

Impossible Decision Between Country and Faith

Iknoor Singh is a native of Queens, New York and a second year student at Hofstra University. In the fall of 2014, Singh was refused enrollment to the universities' Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program due to his lack of compliance with U.S Army grooming and uniform rules. Singh is a follower of the Sikh faith. Part of this faith practice requires that the men keep their hair long, grow a beard, and wear a turban.

Hair (or kesh) is one of the five articles of faith for Sikhs, they believe hair to be a symbol of love for God and keep it long as a sign of respect for all he has given them. Singh feels that cutting his hair, shaving, and removing his turban to comply with US army grooming and uniform rules would be compromising his faith to his religion. Singh wrote, "I could't believe the military was asking me to make the impossible decision between my country I love and my faith."

Singh made a formal request for a religious accommodation from the U.S Army, but was denied. This confused and upset Singh because the U.S Army grooming and uniform rules make accommodations for other faiths and exceptions on facial hair policy for medical reasons, as well as allowance of wigs to cover balding.

With the support of ACLU and UNITED SIKHS, Singh has filed a law suit against the U.S Army in the US District Court for District Colombia. Singh writes, "Religious beliefs and practices shouldn't prevent military service where, as in my case, they don't pose any risk to the military and they don't harm others." In addition to the violation of the first amendment free exercise clause, Singh feels he is being discriminated further due to a perception given to his people by the events of 9/11. Singh feels that, due to their appearance, Sikhs are often stereotyped as "terrorists" and barring them from military service is only enforcing this incorrect and offensive stereotype.  

Singh's case is an example of a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment, as well as violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Both the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA are designed to grant people the freedom of religion and insure that they will not be treated differently or unjustly based on their religious views. Not allowing Singh to join the United States Army Reserves program due to his religious beliefs is a clear violation of the clause.  

I think Singh is justified in his decision to sue the U.S Army for violation of his first amendment right, and violation of the RFRA. The U.S Army grants accommodations to other religious groups and to people for medical reasons. Allowing Singh to have his long hair, beard, and turban by no means negatively impacts the procedures or integrity of the U.S Army. What is the difference between a beard for medical purpose or a beard for religious purpose? They look the same and would have the same impact no matter what the purpose for growth. No one is hurt by Singh being granted a religious accommodation, but when it is not granted it is a violation of his freedom of religion and should be dealt with accordingly. This issue is important because it represents a long tradition of strict order and formality in the Army that must be put aside in order to become a more diverse and accepting organization. I believe apart from the religious discrimination Singh is facing, he is also facing a discrimination based on stereotypes connected to 9/11 and the terrorist groups involved. This "double edged sword" of discrimination is putting Singh in a position no one should have to be stuck with. Singh speaks four languages and wants to be involved in military intelligence. At the end of the day Singh is an American citizen who wants to dedicate his life to defending and protecting the country he calls home, a country which was founded on religious tolerance. That same country he's so willing to sacrifice for is forcing him to choose between his religion and his country. In my opinion joining the military is an admirable endeavor and to prevent someone from enrolling in a military organization based on religious beliefs is fundamentally wrong. The Army should be more receptive to the diversity of Americans wanting to protect the country they love and make accommodation that allow all religious beliefs to proudly serve their country instead of being castaway. If this type of religious discrimination goes on in the U.S army it has potential to divide the organization and act as a form of oppression to minority religious groups. The U.S Army should be a cohesive organization that has a primary concern of defending the United States and citizens should be united by their commitment to that purpose, not divided and discriminated by their religious beliefs and practices.  

Singh summarizes his dilemma well when he writes, "Choosing between one's faith and one's country is a decision that no one should have to make." The U.S Army and the ROTC are institutions that should respect and accommodate all religious practices. Iknoor Singh was discriminated and prevented from joining the ROTC at Hofstra due to the U.S Army's unwillingness to accommodate his Sikh practices despite their lack of negative implications or harmful intent. Singh is justified in his suit against the U.S Army on the grounds of exclusion based on religious practice.   

You can watch Iknoor Singh explain his situation himself here. 

Religious Freedom and Jury Duty

            The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspected Boston Bomber, has been placed on hold for yet another week. This process of moving back the trial date has been occurring for the past month. The reason for pushing the trial back is the extensive time that is being taken to select a jury. While it has been incredibly difficult to find unbiased individuals in the greater Boston areas, the process has become even harder due to religious ideals. In order for Tsarnaev’s trial to proceed, all potential jurors must be able to impose the death penalty or life sentence with no possibility of release. However, this criterion has effectively eliminated almost half of the greater Boston area. 46% of the population in this region identify as Catholics, according to Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. The issue that emerges from this statistic is that all these people are effectively eliminated from serving on the jury due to religious ideals. The question then is whether religious ideals are allowed to be censored in the public forum in order to gain a more unbiased viewpoint.

                According to the practices of the Catholic Church, the death sentence is not to be used when “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.” Having these individuals sit as jurors for Tsarnaev trial would potentially eliminate the death penalty from consideration. However, this fact isn’t a guarantee. Many Catholics would still support the death penalty. This uncertainty comes from a wide range of reasons from simply being loose supporters of the Catholic teachings to the local attitude towards the Boston Bombing incident. The article, however, makes the claim that no matter these other facts, due to the extraordinary decision that would need to be reached even the less-observant Catholics would turn towards the Church for guidance. It is due to this that many feel that Catholics should not sit on the jury in order to leave the death penalty open as an option

                The issue that is in contention from this article is whether religious ideals can be eliminated from a court room or should they be present since one is to be judged by a jury of their peers. In my opinion, Catholics should not be disqualified due to their religious teachings. In order for someone to be tried fairly in a court of law, they should have a highly represented body of their peers decided the facts of the case. To achieve this, a varied of religious preferences should be present in the court room. Due to the large percentage of Catholics, this must be especially true in this case. While the 1^st Amendment grants religious freedom, I do not think that it has the ability to deny religion from public services. It can lead to a slippery slope for a varied of other public services positions. One such example could be denying certain religions from the line of duty because they don’t believe in killing another person. If our society denies the responsibly of one public service, such as jury duty, what other duties could be denied to certain religions down the road. Just because an individual identifies as a religion doesn’t mean they uphold all the views of that particular religion. In this case I believe Catholics should be allowed to sit on the jury, even if there presupposed beliefs do not correspond to what the court wants.

                The question that needs to be answered is whether a secular body, such as the government, can deny an individual from a public responsibly due to their religious preferences?

The article can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/25/boston-bombing-jury-selection-excludes-observant-catholics/22121061/

Worship Services on Public-School Property

During Bill de Blasio's campaign for mayor of New York City in 2013, he vowed to reverse a city policy that prohibits public schools from renting out space to churches.  De Blasio won the election with 73 percent of the vote, which some might argue would constitute a mandate, yet he has still not overturned the policy.  The power to change the policy lies within de Blasio's executive control, yet his administration has changed its standpoint on the issue, as explained in a Christianity Today article.

De Blasio's administration filed a brief supporting the city's current standpoint on the policy stating that banning churches from renting public schools "does not involve any government-imposed prohibition, restraint, or burden on religious exercise."  They argue that prohibiting churches from renting places to worship in public school spaces is "viewpoint neutral," and they are therefore not inhibiting anyone's first-amendment rights.

The New York City Board of Education believes that allowing churches to rent space in public schools gives churches a government subsidy because they avoid paying higher rental prices at other sites throughout the city.  They argue that permitting them to worship at New York City public schools would constitute an establishment of religion.  Public schools are intended to be forums that are open to the public and viewpoint-neutral, and the New York City government has decided that allowing churches to rent spaces in public schools is not neutral.

Green v. Galloway is used as precedent for New York prohibiting churches from renting spaces.  They use this case to argue that the city can prohibit services "simply because all religions do not hold to them."

I completely disagree with what the city has decided.  I understand the fear that New York City has of establishing a religion, but if New York were impartial to all religions, and allowed all religions to worship in rented school buildings, establishment would be avoided.  In a separate Christianity Today article discussing the original Court of Appeals ruling permitting the ban of churches renting public spaces, the author argues that churches do not make a school a church any more than a Boy Scout troop renting the space would make it a Boy Scout Lodge.  The church is simply using a public space, to exercise their freedom of religious speech and worship, and this in no way constitutes an establishment of religion--especially if other religions are permitted to worship in public schools.   If the city only allowed churches--not synagogues, for example--to use public schools, that would be a clear establishment of religion, but by opening the use of public schools to all religions, New York City would remain neutral avoiding establishment, and increase revenue for the city by collecting rental fees.

Because churches are wanting to rent space in schools outside of regular school hours, I would even argue that forbidding churches from using this space would be discrimination and an impediment to their free exercise of religion.  No one is being subjected to attend these worship services, and students are most likely not on school grounds during the times when religious groups would be using the space, so there is no argument that people would be forced to be subjected to these doctrines.  Preventing a church from using a public school as a place to worship could also pose the threat of disbanding the church.  The city sees providing the church a lower price to rent space as a government subsidy, but it could be all that the organization can afford.  If not allowed to rent space at public schools, the church might not be able to pay rent at other locations throughout the city, which I view as a bigger threat to their free exercise.  I see banning churches from renting space in public schools to worship on weekends as an unnecessary hindrance to their free exercise of religion.

The IRS and Politics

As 2016 presidential elections quickly approach, many supporters of political candidates are increasingly advocating for their choices. However one group of people are prohibited from vocalizing their preferences. All religious affiliated organizations are banned from promoting candidates for election or in return will risk losing their annual tax exempt otherwise. The IRS moniters churches and makes sure they don’t abuse their authority over their congregation through sermons or any political comments. However, the article states that as the elections approach, many church officials fear that comments even made by guest speakers can cost them their church. It is important to continue to enforce a separation of church and state. Pastors and religious leaders can misuse their spiritual authority and implicitly impose their political views on their congregation. Unfortunately, some say these tax restrictions conflict with first amendment rights. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), believes that the IRS selectively chooses which organizations to target and monitor. Despite assisting in educating pastors on their restrictions regarding political views, ADF believes that IRS conflict is unavoidable. The cases they choose to investigate are extremely varied and subjective to factors that many lawyers don’t even understand. These unpredictable risks cause pastors and other religious affiliated leaders to sensor their sermons and personal anecdotes that may relate to their religious practice and teachings.

            Ultimately, separation of church and state and the first amendment are challenged in this unresolved issue. Any citizens of this country has the liberty to express his or her own opinion freely in public and press. However, those who decide to take leadership roles in nonprofit organizations are then separated from the average citizen, and scrutinized for their vocalized views. Does this mean the first amendment rights no longer applies to preachers? The article states that “In the case of Branch Ministries vs. Rossotti, the IRS went after a church that put an ad in USA Today telling Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton. Stanley said that for their defense they submitted hundreds of pages of newspaper articles of churches doing the same thing who were not prosecuted, demonstrating a long history of seemingly arbitrary enforcement”. In a case like this, where political choice was seen as a religious obligation, the election is potentially swayed. But swaying voter’s candidate choices through unpolitical reasoning is not uncommon to the United States. For example, in the Obama vs McCain election of 2008, 97% of African American voters voted for Obama. This is not to undermine his qualification as president. Although, with such high numbers and the social factors of the time, it is reasonable to say that the African American community had other influence regarding their presidential choice, outside of their political preferences. Many celebrities also advocated for Obama, sending the message to their fans on who to vote for. In some ways, it is arguable that celebrities have more power in society than religious leaders. Ultimately, social and personal factors will always sway the poll. I feel that prohibiting the church from vocalizing their opinions during election season is unfair and unrealistic.

I think the government is justified in checking on the types of political messages pastors send out to their congregation. However, I feel that completely limiting their ability to speak on these issues takes away their rights as a citizen in this country. A pastor’s political views do not necessarily represent the entire church.  They should be able to speak individually, as a voting citizen. I think the government should interfere with religious groups when their leaders influence followers to choose candidates based on the promise of salvation. Although separation of church and state protects the government from the influence of the church, we must also remember that religious entities have rights. Churches of any kind should be able to advocate, believe, and promote as they please in the privacy of their own worship. If they do not abuse their relationship with their followers, I don’t see why they cannot advocate for their views.

These issues are important to us all because regardless of religious or nonreligious preference, the government is interfering with the rights of our communities by censoring particular groups of people. Religion is just as much of a personal opinion as a political belief. If we are all free to practice and share our religion, we should as well be granted the ability to speak on political beliefs from a spiritual lense without fear of the government. Churches deserve the same freedom to advocate as celebrities and secular figures do. The rights granted in the constitution should be distributed equally.

“End Blasphemy Laws campaign launched by international Coalition”

In the wake of the murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine, there has been a european movement to put an end to blasphemy laws across the globe. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) as well as the European Humanist Federation (EHF) represent over two hundred humanist and secular organizations around the world. Their stance is that blasphemy laws restrict the freedom of the press, and the freedom of expression. Their movement is open to all advocates of freedom of expression, with a large base in the Atheist Irish. 

If you recall, Charlie Hebdo Magazine is a french satirical magazine, which was the subject of a murderous rampage where two islamist gunmen forced their way into the magazine’s Paris headquarters and gunned down twelve members of the magazine’s staff. The movement comes to the defense of the magazines generally satirical nature, and more specifically, their satirical content regarding religion. 

Sonja Eggerickx, president of IHEU, said that “in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings there have been renewed calls to abolish blasphemy and related laws in almost every country where they still exist. Our organisations have worked for many years to protect this important right: to question, criticise, and yes, even ridicule, religion. The idea that it is wrong to satirise religion lends false legitimacy to those who murder in the name of being offended. The idea that it is taboo to question or to criticise religious authorities is one reason why sexual abuse in the Catholic Church persisted so long.”

In addition Pierre Galand, EHF president, said “Our campaign does not target laws against incitement to hatred, which are legitimate. What we are concerned about is laws which restrict freedom of expression about religion. As a first step, we want to see the remaining laws against blasphemy and religious insult in Europe repealed.”

While this movement is centered around the blasphemy laws in Europe, it is inevitably an issue which will migrate to the political realm of the United States. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This clause guarantees the civil liberties of free speech and a division between church and state, as well as extends free exercise of religion to citizens. This is the concept which i find a contention with. The crucial aspect to be investigated here is that protection is extended to the people, not the religion. No religion is protected by the constitution. Ideas are not protected under the constitution, the people who embody those ideas are. 

While federally, blasphemy laws are unconstitutional, there are many states which still have blasphemy laws on the books. While many of these laws were enacted centuries ago, they still hold as viable laws. The general tone behind the laws is that any spoken or written blasphemous act against God shall be punishable by a fine and some amount of jail time. These laws directly conflict with the free exercise clause of the first amendment. I believe that there should be a complete abolishment of blasphemy laws in the United States across all state level constitutions. These laws inhibit a citizens ability to freely criticize and ridicule a particular religion, which is a right protected by the first amendment. I believe that the revival of this movement across Europe should call into question our own state laws, and begin the process of the repealing of such laws. Given the concepts of free exercise and freedom of expression, why is this movement important? 

The full articles consulted can be seen through the links below.

Main Article: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/end-blasphemy-laws-campaign-launched-by-international-coalition-1.2085483

Related Constitutional Source: http://www.wsusignpost.com/2015/02/01/constitution-protects-the-right-to-offend-and-criticize/

Religious Rights’ of Prisoners and Compelling State Interest in Regulating Action

In Knight v. Thompson, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit appellate court and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided on new criteria based largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs.  In Knight v. Thompson, several Native Americans incarcerated in Alabama brought suit against the Alabama Department of Corrections because of the department’s “regular haircut policy.”  These Native American prisoners assert that maintaining long hair is a requirement of their religious beliefs.  Knight v. Thompson is very similar to a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, Holt v. Hobbs. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim man—Gregory Holt—incarcerated in an Arkansas prison had the religious right to grow a half-inch beard. By remanding Knight v. Thompson, the Supreme Court is broadening the scope of religious rights granted to prisoners. Additionally, the Supreme Court is demonstrating consistency in its decisions concerning prisoners religious rights by choosing to not “blindly defer to prison policy based on the specific facts of the case” (Chaffee, Merriam, Seeman 2015).  

In both Supreme Court cases, the Alabama and Arkansas Departments of Corrections cited that they had a compelling state interest to restrict the length of prisoners’ hair and the length of prisoners’ facial hair, respectively. The cases differ, however, in how seriously the Supreme Court has regarded these compelling state interests. In Holt v. Hobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that while he respects the state’s compelling interest to uphold prison security he asserts that “the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously” (Wolf 2015).  The Supreme Court, therefore, overruled the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of Gregory Holt.  In Knight v. Thompson, however, the Supreme Court only vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided using the rulings of past Supreme Court cases (like Holt v. Hobbs) as a guide.  The Alabama Department of Corrections presents stronger evidence in favor of its compelling state interest to limit the length of Native American hair.  For example, there is concern that inmates might hide contraband in their hair.  In fact, there was an incident in which a razor blade cut the hands of a prison staff member while he was searching an inmate’s hair. Additionally, there is concern for the health of prisoners with long hair.  For instance, a black widow spider once wove a nest in an inmate’s hair.

       In my opinion, Knight v. Thompson is a more difficult case to decide than Holt v. Hobbs.  I agree with Justice Alito’s assessment that there exists little threat to prison security by allowing a man to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons.  However, allowing an inmate to grow long hair obviously generates greater risk to prison security.  There are many who argue that prisoners should not be afforded religious rights in prison as they have forfeited many of their rights by committing and being found guilty of a crime.  However, Congress has specifically recognized a prisoner’s right to worship while incarcerated in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed in 2000.  While it can be argued that restricting the length of a prisoner’s hair or facial hair will not inhibit a prisoner from worshipping, prisoners may contend otherwise.

            Ultimately, I believe that prisoners should have the right to freely exercise their religion as granted to them by the First Amendment.  However, if there presents a compelling state interest to restrict some religious rights for the sake of prison security, these cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis where the threat to prison security is seriously considered.  If the 11^th District Court finds that the Alabama Department of Corrections provides strong evidence of a compelling state interest to restrict the length of Native American inmates’ hair, than the court should rule in the Alabama Department of Correction’s favor in Knight v. Thompson.

Do you agree with my assessment of judging religious rights cases concerning prisoners on a case-by-case basis?  Or should there be some level of consistency in deciding these cases for the sake of religious neutrality?