Religious Chaplains in NCAA Basketball

Article: http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/freedom-from-religion-group-targets-ncaa-basketball-teams-for-having-chaplain-82735/

            Recently, the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to file lawsuits on a handful of public universities that have religious chaplains assigned to sports teams.  The list of schools includes some big names like Louisville, Wichita State, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma and Virginia.  Some schools openly fund a team chaplain while other universities use techniques to avoid suspicion of religious establishment.  Some schools try to give more secular meanings to these job titles.  For example, Virginia has a coach listed as the “Director of Player Development” who spoke later at Liberty University on the importance of people finding themselves through Jesus rather than perseverance and hard work.  In addition, Oklahoma has Scott Thompson listed as a Character Coach.  At first glance, this title might appear to mean a coach devoted to keeping team spirit high.  However, character coaches are associated with the religious organization  “Nations of Coaches” which has bible verses on its website and a whistle with a cross as its logo.  Wichita State also has a coach associated with the Nations of Coaches organization.  The head coach of the Louisville basketball team named his friend, who happens to be a priest, the team’s unofficial chaplain.  Kansas University has a chaplain who retired from the NBA to change the lives of athletes “with the message of Jesus Christ”.  The University of Maryland also openly employs a pastor as their chaplain.  He happens to be associated with the Nations of Coaches, too.

            In Virginia’s case, I believe the Freedom of Religion Foundation would need more evidence to support their case for an Establishment violation here.  Accusing the school of using a misleading job title to portray secular purposes might be true.  However, saying the coach spoke at another university on his belief of Jesus is not enough evidence to support any violation here.  I believe they must find inconclusive proof, such as forced team prayers, to have a case for an establishment violation here.  In addition, if the coach has all the necessary credentials, like the Kansas chaplain that quit the NBA, it would be even harder to prove any violation.  There is no law against hiring a coach with the necessary credentials and allowing him to speak his mind on religion matters.  However, Kansas listed this man as a chaplain. Therefore, I believe the Freedom from Religion Foundation would have a case here for an establishment violation because it is for the purpose of further aiding religion.  I believe they also have a case for a violation by Oklahoma as well as Wichita State, who both chose to use more secular job titles like Virginia did.  The reason these are better cases for establishment is because these coaches are listed as Character Coaches.  Although this title might seem facially secular, it is directly linked to the religious organization Nations of Coaches.  Therefore, the public university’s funds, which come from the hard work of people from all different religious and nonreligious backgrounds, shouldn’t cover the salaries for these coaches.  This is why the Freedom from Religion Foundation would also have a great case for an establishment violation against the University of Maryland.  Here is a case of a publicly funded university openly paying a pastor as their chaplain who happens to be associated with the Nations of Coaches, as well.  Finally, I do not think the Freedom of Religion Foundation would have a great case against Louisville.  Although he is a priest, it is unofficial because the school does not pay him.  I believe it is fine to have an unofficial team chaplain if some of the players and coaches enjoy having one to go to when they feel the need.  However, like I said about the Virginia case, any evidence of forced prayer or similar activity could bring lawsuits for violations of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, whether this particular chaplain is officially connected to/paid by the school or not.  Any coach hired by a school must be there for the secular purpose of coaching basketball.

Religious Opinion Shot Down in Yet Another University

This example of establishment issues in public schools comes to us from May of last year, so the case is a little bit dated, but I still feel it poses some controversy worth talking about.  Daniel Harper is a student at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma who was disciplined by the university for distributing fliers that were religious in nature.  In an article by WorldNet Daily (usually just referred to as WND) describing the situation, Harper's fliers consisted of expressions of his opinion stating that a group called World Mission Society "was a pyramid scheme 'fronting as a religious organization' and distorted the Bibles teachings."  Another student of Cameron University--who remains unnamed--was offended by the viewpoint that Harper's fliers presented, and made a complaint to the university.  After hearing of this complaint, the university then began its disciplinary procedures on Harper and his actions.

What is interesting is that Harper was actually found in violation of the Equal Opportunity Policy, which is outlined in the university's Employee Handbook.  There have been obvious complaints about this, since Harper is a student and not an employee.  In addition to this rationale, the university officials also told Harper that he could not distribute the fliers because "other students found them offensive and he didn’t receive prior approval."

However, the most surprising rationale that Harper received from the university came from an Equal Opportunity Officer named Thomas R. Russell, who told Harper that the policies of the university are above "those amendments to the Constitution," and that the rights outlined by the First Amendment are merely "foundations," and that the university's policies serve to build off of them, but not necessarily to abide by them.

Harper filed suit against Cameron University with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).  Senior Legal Counsel for ADF, David Hacker, argued that public universities are supposed to be an open place where students are free to express their ideas, and that the "First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all students, regardless of their religious beliefs."  The ADF has also pointed out that the university allows various other groups and individuals to express their views on campus.  Another ADF Senior Counsel member, Kevin Theriot, also made the statement that the university officials "don’t get to pick and choose which theological viewpoints can be expressed on campus."  Both ADF and others who have expressed complaints over this case hope that Cameron University will revise its Expressive Activity Policy and its Equal Opportunity Policy to truly parallel the amendments of the Constitution.

This case sounds similar to one of the cases we have discussed in class, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia.  Student Ronald W. Rosenberger's case was somewhat different in that he was asking the university to provide the funding for the publication "Wide Awake," which contained a religious viewpoint.  As we know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosenberger, claiming that the university's denial of funding constituted viewpoint discrimination, which violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.  The situation is the same here: Cameron University is using viewpoint discrimination against Daniel Harper's fliers, which is unconstitutional.

I would definitely say that Harper's free exercise rights were violated here.  I was also appalled at the fact that Russell blatantly stated that the university's policies went above the amendments of the Constitution.  That is obviously not right.  So what do you guys think? Should Daniel Harper be allowed to distribute his fliers even though they may be offensive? Or should Cameron University's policies be upheld and kept as they are?

Objections to Abortions for Child Refugees

In recent months, the Obama Administration has issued a new rule to takes effect June 24 that would force pro-life Christian organizations to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. If the organizations fail to perform the abortion or notify the government to make the arrangements themselves, then the group is no longer eligible for federal aid.

The groups whom are pro life have avidly fought this rule and claim that they will not take these measures as supporting abortions would be a fundamental undermining their faith. By refusing to comply, many of the organizations will loose their funding and subsequently “diminish their potential to serve vulnerable, innocent children who come to this country with great needs” (http://liveactionnews.org/breaking-obama-admin-tries-to-force-christian-organizations-to-participate-in-abortions/). Six out of nine refugee resettlement organizations are faith based and thus they claim that the majority of these organizations will loose their funding as they refuse to refer the abortions.  Before these rules were enacted, if a child who came to them was pregnant they would provide health care access but in a manner that was “consistent with their religious beliefs”.

The Obama administration claims that they have in fact attempted to accommodate faith based groups as they allow the faith-based organizations whom are opposed to abortions to partner with other organizations or simply refer the child to the federal government. Thus, the organizations do not actually participate in the abortions but simply outsource the child to a third party.

The faith based organizations claim that this violates the Religious Freedom Restorations Act of 1993 which states that US federal law can not “substantially burden” a person’s free exercise of religion. Is the Obama administration denying funding to faith-based groups and to favor groups that coincide with their own ideology?

In my opinion, the Obama Administration is not substantially burdening the organizations free exercise of religion. Groups that provide care for refugees should do so regardless of whether they have to relay someone to a third party or not, even if it is against their religious belief. They do not have to provide the abortion themselves, and to claim that it will “diminish their potential to serve vulnerable, innocent children” shows that these organizations are not devoted to their mission of helping the children. I would think that their religion would tell them to continue helping the children regardless of whether they had to be referred to have an abortion or not.

Another point that I found interesting that the pro-life organizations failed to bring up was about what the children wanted. Although they are typically under aged individuals, people who are victims of sexual assault have the right to choose for themself whether they would like an abortion or not regardless if their parents are no longer with them. Often, as refugees, these organizations are the only option that the children have. To not allow them even the option to have an abortion because of the organization’s religious views does not seem right to me. Instead, if the child thinks that they should have an abortion it is in their every right to have one.

A last contentious part of the rules was that the organization’s also had to begin to recognize people on the gender of their choosing and to train their staff in the complexity of LGBTQI.  This subscribes to the belief that gender is not a physical or biological trait and instead an emotional one that it chosen by each individual.  The organizations again are claiming that these rules do not protect the organizations moral objections.

This is a practice is one that is completely understandable for the Obama Administration to support. Determining gender by the rules of LGBTQI has become accepted by society and now should be accepted by the organizations regardless of their religious objections. Again, some of these organizations are the only option for child refugees, and to not identify them in the manner that they deem acceptable would be a violation of that individual’s fundamental rights.  

(Photos taken from Catholic Relief Services- an organization providing help to child refugees)

Videographer Latest to Deny Service for Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony

Yet another privately owned small business has been put under the national spotlight after refusing to provide services to a same sex couples wedding ceremony.  Just one of many cases that have frequented the news and court system recently, however there seems to be a greater precedent being set forth regarding cases like these.

In this case, a company called Next Door Stories in Ohio, whose job is to film big moments in people’s lives for them, namely weddings, has denied its services to a lesbian couple. The couple contacted the company and came across employee Courtney Schmackers. Over email, Schmackers responded to their request for her to record the ceremony by replying “Unfortunately at this time I do not offer services for same-sex weddings.” The couple then aired their grievances over social media, and it since has been picked up my major media outlets such as CNN. The couple claim to be very upset by being denied service, as Moffit told CNN, “I couldn't believe it. It is a small business, and I thought this was a tight-knit community. We wanted to support local commerce, and to get that kind of response was astounding.

Courtney Schmackers 

Recently, cases similar to this have been ruling against the small business, generally forcing reparations through fines. A florist in Washington state, a baker in Oregon and a photographer in New Mexico all lost their cases under religious claims that aiding a wedding ceremony for same sex couples was to them inherently wrong, and against their religious beliefs and principles. The precedent set forth in the Jack v Philips case basically gave the court the right to trump the business owners ability to operate his/her business in accordance to their religious practices due to a compelling state interest. Even though in his view, baking a cake for a same sex marriage would in his mind be a direct violation of what he claimed to be a core part of his religion, and that by the government forcing him to bake a cake for a ceremony such as this was essentially restricting his religious liberties. The court however ruled against the man. I think that if you applied that same precedent here, Next Door Stories would most certainly be forced to pay fines to the couple, and would lose the case as it is the same sort of denial of service.

Even though the courts have been ruling in favor of same sex couples and against denial of service based on religious beliefs as of late, people are still very unsure as to what the outcome of this case might be.  Grant Stancliffe, who is advocate for LGBT couples said, “This is one of those situations that shows how bizarre it is that Ohio as a state doesn’t have a statewide anti-discrimination law that covers gay and transgender people.”  So even though there are are certain municipalities that have ordinances against same sex discrimination for businesses, the town of Bexley is apparently not one of them, so technically by Ohio state law and the rules set forth by the chamber of commerce and the City of Bexley, Schmackers had every right to deny the couple service based on their sexual orientation.

Jenn Moffitt and Jerra Kincely 

In my opinion, I think that the precedent set forth in the Philips case is dangerous, and can be have the effect of limiting certain individual’s rights and abilities to practice their religion, and be able to conduct their business as they see fit. My problem is that these businesses have all been small and privately owned, and I believe they have the right to deny a certain service if it is in direct contradiction with their own personal beliefs. If they believe that this action is essentially equivalent to committing a sin, it is not the place of the government to tell them that they have to temporarily part from their religious beliefs to accommodate a couple who could easily find another business that would be willing to help them. I don’t believe that they should have complete and total ability to deny service in every circumstance. For example denying a member of the LGBT community general service for certain things is blatant discrimination which cant really be backed up by legitimate religious beliefs, but the fact that it is a wedding, and that this is a ceremony that many people in our country find “unholy” and “in direct opposition with their religious beliefs” is what in my mind justifies a business’s ability to deny service in this instance. I would argue that providing businesses with this ability is would not necessarily be wielded as a sword, but more of a shield to protect against the governments intrusive tendencies into religious freedoms and commerce. Also many of these cases have resulted in these businesses being boycotted, which has in turn forced them to go out of business, which is a practice I fully endorse. In the capitalist system in which we are operating I think it is up to the consumer to recognize when a company or business has certain discriminatory practices, and that they have the ability to stop being a customer if they detest their actions. Once again I am not saying that businesses should have the right to deny service to whomever they wish, but I think in cases that come into direct contradiction with their religion, they shouldn’t be forced to subdue their religious duties.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/03/20/videographer-refuses-film-ohio-same-sex-wedding

http://www.westernjournalism.com/lesbian-couple-accuses-wedding-videographer-discrimination/

Indiana Passes Religious Freedom Bill

           Indiana recently passed what is being referred to as a “religious freedom bill”. This bill ensures business organization owners that they will not have to go against their religious beliefs in order to help certain customers, such as the cake store owner who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. A more recent case such as this came about recently involving a videography business that refused to film a wedding for a same-sex couple. Are these business owners required by law to provide their services if it means going against their religious beliefs? This bill says no, they do not have to because their religious rights are protected.

            The main issue with the bill passing is that many believe it will simply be used as a means to justify discrimination against homosexual individuals and couples. Those who are in favor of passing the bill deny this claim, but during a time when so many cases similar to the ones listed above have occurred, and as the Sup

reme Court is getting closer to legalizing same-sex marriage, it seems questionable what the true intent is. This raises the issue of whether private companies should be legally allowed to discriminate against potential customers based on his or her own religious beliefs.

            I think the bill is constitutional seeing as it is facially neutral and does not directly target any specific group of people. However, I think upon further inspection and once the bill is in action, it is extremely discriminatory in nature. Business owners should be able to look beyond their own beliefs because they are offering goods to the public and should not be able to pick and choose their customers. However, this bill would legally allow them to do so. Some would argue that because it is a private company that the owners should be allowed to choose who they provide services for, especially in situations where the customers could find another company to bake a cake or film a wedding. I think this should not be the case because business owners should not be legally allowed to discriminate.

            With this bill becoming a law, there will without a doubt be higher numbers of the LGBTQ community, as well as others, being turned away for services. My main issue with this bill is that it has no boundaries, meaning anyone could be discriminated against with the owner claiming that helping them would go against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not that is actually true. This could even end up extending to a surgeon who does not want to perform surgery on someone because of his or her religious beliefs. This highlights a life or death situation, but this bill would make it legal for said surgeon to turn the patient away, and I do not think this should be allowed.

            It is true that business owners have their own religious beliefs, but I think by starting a business and offering one’s services to the public you then somewhat put aside your personal beliefs to have a successful company. Although this bill protects business owner’s religious rights, it consequently takes away the rights of those who will be discriminated against. America’s roots are in protecting the minority and ensuring that everyone has equal rights, and I think by passing this bill it is hindering a large population of people who have already been targeted for quite some time.  Although facially neutral, this bill is legalizing any and all discrimination, and it will lead to a slippery slope of private business owners stretching the bill as far as it can go to deny services to anyone they choose. The bill should not be passed.

            What do you think? Do the religious rights of business owners outweigh the rights of customers to not be discriminated against? Should the bill become law?

Freedom of Speech on Public Transit Advertisements

The article can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-philly-public-buses-must-run-ads-linking-muslims-to-hitler/

Anti-Islamic advertisements, including the one pictured above, will soon be plastered on buses and trains in the Philadelphia and New York areas. These ads link Muslims to Hitler in a photo with the caption: "Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world, Haj Amin al-Husseini." The purpose of these advertisements is to end United States aid to Islamic countries. The ads insinuate that the Islamic religion inherently hates the Jewish population, and that these sentiments are written in the Quran. To many, this seems hateful and discriminatory. These advertisements can be seem by some as hate speech. But, are the public cities of Philadelphia and New York City allowed to prohibit these advertisements? Is that a violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech?

First, it is important to note that the subways, trains, and buses are public domain. The MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) in NYC, and the SEPTA (The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) in Philadelphia are forms of public transit. This is not a private company deciding what advertisements it wishes to display.

The ads are being published by a non-profit based in New Hampshire called The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). The group argued that these advertisements were relevant and appropriate "in light of the fact that many Jews (and Christians) are being persecuted in Islamic countries in the Middle East." SEPTA, however, prohibits advertisements that disparages any groups based on sex, race, sexual orientation, religious preferences, disability, etc. SEPTA argued that these ads promote hateful speech against innocent civilians among its one million daily customers. SEPTA, therefore, worked to block these ads from reaching the public.

AFDI, however, filed legal complaints against SEPTA arguing that their Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment was being violated. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, a conservative non-profit group, believed that they had the right to get their message across to the millions of people who take public transit. 

When this case was brought to court, the judge ruled in favor of the AFDI, saying that SEPTA was in fact violating the group's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. "It is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements." Goldberg wrote, "While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations." So, while the court agreed that the advertisements were disparaging, the judge found that to restrict these ads is to restrict the First Amendment rights of this group.

I agree with the court's decision on this case. While I may not agree with the hateful speech written on these advertisements, I believe that every person should have freedom of speech, not just those that we agree with. These advertisements are not doing physical harm to anyone, and are simply trying to garner support for their somewhat unpopular opinion. SEPTA has run advertisements in the past that take stances on public issues such as animal cruelty, fracking, contraception, etc. If we allow groups such as Planned Parenthood or the NRA to advertise their beliefs, which are often offensive to some, why shouldn't we allow groups such as this nonprofit from New Hampshire to state their religious and political beliefs? Simply because I do not agree with their beliefs is not a good enough reason to block their right to their freedom of speech.

These ads display very strongly worded messages of hate about the beliefs of Islam. I wondered whether or not the correctness of the speech on the advertisement would affect how the court ruled. If, in fact, Islamic Jew-hatred was not in the Quran and there was no evidence of this hatred, would that make the advertisements unconstitutional? After some research, I found that the First Amendment amendment even protects incorrect speech. So, the validity of the argument on the ads are irrelevant in this instance.

I believe that the city of Philadelphia did the right thing by making it clear to the public that they do not promote the beliefs of this group, but by also respecting the findings of the court and adhering to the First Amendment. I believe that this case is different from others that we have looked at, such as the gay marriage cake, because it is a public institution that cannot deny customers in advertising simply because they wish to.

What do you think? Should public transit, such as SEPTA, be forced to display advertisements that go against their beliefs and, in their opinion, promote hate speech? Or should freedom of speech be protected whether the group is promoting love or hate?

Religion at the Forefront in Presidents's Speech in Selma

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama spoke in Selma, Alabama at a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” when Alabama state troopers attacked 600 people attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery to protest their lack of voting rights. President Obama’s speech focused on honoring and recognizing these early champions of civil rights and expressing the ways where the country still can build on the progress it has made. It is important to note the role religion played in his speech.  President Obama chose to conclude his speech by quoting from the book of Isaiah:

“When it feels the road’s too hard, when the torch we’ve been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah:

‘Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint.’

We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.”

Obama’s use of the passage in Isaiah and his references to God is an example of the complex relationship that government has with religion. The exact nature of what this relationship should be has been debated ever since the framing of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment wrote that the amendment built “a wall of separation between Church & State.” In Everson, Justice Hugo Black invoked “the wall of separation” as a useful interpretation of the first amendment and added, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” This idea of separation has surfaced many times in the Supreme Court, notably in the form of the Lemon Test.

If one were to hold a separationist interpretation of the First Amendment, one could logically come to the conclusion that President Obama violated the Establishment Clause in the speech he gave in Selma Alabama. Acting in the highest office in the land, Obama endorsed religion in a way that was not neutral to all religions or between religion and non-religion. The term, “Those who hope in the Lord,” asserts a certain element of exclusiveness. The importance of God seemed foundational to the speech and Obama did not seem to respect the wall of separation. And Obama would certainly not be the first president to beach this wall. Nearly all US presidents have invoked God in their inaugural addresses.

However, I believe that “the wall of separation between Church & State” is not a good interpretation of the First Amendment. Thirty-seven years after the Everson case, Justice Burger wrote in Lynch v. Donnelly that the wall of separation is a useful metaphor that reminds us that any kind of established church is prohibited but is not an entirely accurate description of the practical relationship of government and religion. Rather than separation, the first amendment “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” In the case of Obama’s speech in Selma, I do not believe that anything he said was hostile to a particular religion or lack of religion. His use of religion appealed to what Burger describes as “an unbroken history of official acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” While there are certain instances that I believe tradition should not be used as an excuse for establishing religion, Obama’s speech does not establish religion. Unlike cases of formal public school prayers or pledges, the issue here does not involve people being forced to partake in any kind of religious activity. While Obama was acting as an agent of the state, he still is an American who is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. If Obama believes that America has a sacred promise, he has the right to express that belief in the same way other people have the right to disagree with it. Allowing politicians to talk about religion upholds neutrality between religion and secular beliefs. If we limit what presidents and other employees of the US government can and cannot say, we are beginning to create a state that restricts ideas and judges what constitutes as religion.

Do you think President Obama overstepped his bounds and established religion in his speech at Selma? Please respond in the comment section below.

Navy Chaplain's Career in Jeopardy over his Religous Beliefs

Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-navy-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-of-navy-for-christian-beliefs-135392/

Earlier this week I was watching the news when I was introduced to the story of Lt. Commander Wes Modder, a Navy Chaplain, who was recently removed from the promotion list, reassigned, and now has his career in jeopardy for what he claims are his religious beliefs. Most of the literature online, including the op-ed piece I used as my main source, strongly supports Modder’s ability to preach what he believes to be the word of God. First I will summarize the stated role of a Navy Chaplain and the information pertaining to this particular situation regarding Lt. Commander Wes Modder and then will explain my opinion on the matter.

Chaplains in the armed services must be specifically endorsed by a particular denomination in order to serve. Their stated role(s) according to the military is to provide “moral and spiritual support” as well as fulfilling the “everyday spiritual needs” of the men and women in uniform. However, it is worth noting that if a Chaplain fails to stay true to the teachings of their faith, their denomination can withdraw their support.

Modder, has been in the military for nineteen years, and is endorsed by the “Assemblies of God”. In addition, he served as the force Chaplain of the Navy Seals and has an extremely decorated record. In his last review Modder’s superiors wrote that he was “the best of the best” and also a “consummate professional leader”.

Nonetheless, on December 6^th of 2014, Modder was confronted by an assistant of his and a pair of Equal Opportunity representatives who presented him with a five page long document filled with grievances against him. The document detailed Modder’s views on “same-sex relationships/marriages, homosexuality, different standards of respect for men and women, pre-marital sex and masturbation.” After several complaints, Modder’s commanding officer wrote a “detachment for cause” letter which declared that Modder was “unable to function in the diverse and pluralistic environment” of the Navy. The commanding officer also suggested that Modder be taken off the promotion list, separated from his unit, and also be brought before a Board of Inquiry.Modder has stated that he feels discriminated because of his beliefs and declares that "Every fiber in my being wants to run away from this – but if I do I'm not being obedient to the Lord," he continues to say that “I need to stand up for righteousness and this is something I cannot walk away from." Without a doubt, Modder is in a difficult situation, as his attorney Mike Berry states Modder is in “in a catch-22 between his faith and his career”. An argument similar to what we have read about in class in Braunfield V. Brown.

This controversy is further compounded by the fact that Modder is nearing his 20-year anniversary of military service and if his case is not resolved by Sept. 1, his pension and retirement benefits could be in jeopardy.

What would appear to be the fundamental question at hand is should Modder, in his paid position as a Navy Chaplain, be allowed to preach his personnel beliefs that are sometimes controversial such that  homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching? Surprisingly on this matter the official statement from the Pentagon seems to answer the question outright. In the official statement it is declared that “The Navy values, and protects in policy, the rights of its service members, including chaplains, to practice according to the tenets of their faith and respects the rights of each individual to determine their own religious convictions.” If this truly is the policy- it seems that Modder did absolutely nothing wrong and is justified in exercising his religion.

Yet while I understand that Modder has a right to freely exercise his religion, I believe that in his role as a Navy Chaplain he should not be voicing these beliefs. He is supposed to serve as a spiritual supporter of these brave men and women and it is unfair to some who do not hold his beliefs to be subject to an open desecration of how they choose to live their lives. Apparently, Modder berated an unmarried women for getting pregnant and also declared that homosexuality is wrong. 

Modder is resolute in his beliefs and firmly claims that "The values that the military once held – just like the Boy Scouts of America – are changing. The culture wants this. Culture is colliding with truth. That's at the heart of this." While I respect Modder’s beliefs and commend him for his service to this nation, who is he to determine what the truth is? I understand Modder cannot disregard what he believes but I don’t believe serving as a Chaplain of a religiously diverse military is the best career for someone with these beliefs. What are your thoughts on this situation? I found it particularly complex because as a Chaplain who must be endorsed, Modder is in a way doing his job by practicing his beliefs. Do you think that perhaps the Navy’s policy should change? 

First same-sex marriage issued in Texas despite state ban

Two women in the state of Texas, Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, were wed on Thursday in what was the state's first same-sex marriage despite the fact that Texas has a statewide ban on same-sex marriage. Goodfriend and Bryant were married and given a marriage license by a county clerk in Austin, Texas. The couple claimed that, because of medical reasons, they could not wait any longer for same-sex marriage to become legal in their hometown.

Hours after word got out that a same-sex couple had been wed, the Texas Supreme Court blocked all other gay couples from obtaining marriage licenses because of legal challenges. Because of the fact that that Goodfriend and Bryant were given a valid marriage license, much debate has come up regarding whether the license is valid or not. "The same-sex marriage license ... is void, just as any license issued in violation of state law would be," stated the attorney general. The license was given from a county judge after the Travis County Court stated that the couple was given permission to wed because of their medical excuse. The Texas Supreme Court still clearly defines marriage as a legal and emotional bond between a man and a woman and was supported by an overwhelming majority vote. A lawsuit has since been filed against the clerk who issued the marriage license to the couple, which makes it seem as if the state will allow same-sex marriage any time soon. 

When faced with hundreds of reporters after their wedding, Goodfriend and Bryant held the hands of their daughters and said to the state of Texas, "There are thousands of gay Texans, Everybody knows one or two or three. Even if you don't know, you do know them. They may not feel safe to be out but you know them...There are many other Texans, thousands of Texans who would like to be able to have their loving, committed relationships recognized". 

I support same-sex marriage and believe that it should be legal in all 50 states of America, but unfortunately, it is not nor will it be for many years. I personally do not think Goodfriend and Bryant should have been granted a marriage license at it is still illegal in the state of Texas and ignites the idea of the "slippery slope". The couple, regardless of medical conditions that claimed their marriage could not wait, broke the law of Texas. I'm sure there are many other same-sex couples that could think of excuse after excuse in order to obtain a legal marriage license, but the fact is, these licenses are still illegal in the state of Texas. I think that Goodfriend and Bryant should have either traveled to a state where same-sex marriages are allowed in order to obtain one instead of becoming exceptions in their home state. As Goodfriend said herself, there are thousands of gay Texans who would love to have their relationships recognized by the state, and I'm sure hundreds of those thousands of gay couples could think of medical, legal, or other reasons to be granted these licenses, but they are still illegal. There should be no exceptions.

Do you think Goodfriend and Bryant should have been granted this marriage license? Are medical excuses a good enough reason to obtain them, even after given permission from a local county court?