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?  

Should the Muslim call to prayer be allowed to play from Duke Chapel's bell tower?

         Duke University gave permission to students to begin a weekly Muslim call to prayer from the Duke Chapel on Friday January 16th but then canceled these plans after a significant amount of criticism and “credible security threats”. The 'adhan', is the chant would have been announced from the Chapel bell tower each Friday. The chapel’s description states it as, “a Christian church of uniquely interdenominational character and purpose, welcoming people of all faiths and circumstances,” and over the past years Muslim students have gathered to pray in the chapel’s basement.

After reading Duke's announcement, Franklin Graham, the president of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, began trying to force the university to reverse their decision by calling donors and alumni to withhold future donations. Graham states, “It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” and, “Using the bell tower, that signifies worship of Jesus Christ. Using (it) as a minaret is wrong.” The dean of the Duke Divinity School also raised concerns about the use of the chapel for the Muslim call to prayer. He states, “There are serious questions…about the wisdom and propriety of allowing Duke chapel to be used for this purpose. Despite some common beliefs and traditions, Christianity and Islam stand in significant theological tension with one another.”

Due to the vase number of calls the decision was overturned but the call to worship was announced in a different way. The members of the Muslim community gathered on the quadrangle outside of the chapel. This is a place where many interfaith programs and activities have been located. This video, from the Washington Post, shows the call to prayer on the quad as well as a few student reactions after the event.

This issue is relevant to our lives because colleges are supposed to be places to help foster tolerance, equality, and peace. College students are the people that are meant to lead the next generation and if universities are refusing to be tolerant of religious views, then they are sending the message that intolerance is acceptable and that some beliefs are more important than others. Duke’s decision to not allow the call to prayer to be heard from the bell tower shows that people, like Franklin Graham, are not willing to be part of a changed American society that accepts all religions. This issue was especially relevant because of the timing of the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper on January 7^th 2015. Due to the view of Islam throughout the world,  many Muslims are not viewed with respect and equality as they deserve. The fact that Duke canceled the public call to worship shows that people still are afraid and intolerant of Islamic beliefs.

I think that Duke University should not have made the decision to cancel the call to worship from the bell tower. It is the responsibility of the world to stand behind the Muslim community and not ostracize them any further. If this church tower was not connected to a college in any form I would respect the decision to not allow the call to prayer to be announced because it is a church used for only one denomination. The Duke Chapel is connected to a prestigious university and publicly states that it welcomes people from all different types of religions. Since the chapel has been a location for Muslim prayers before, I do not see why the public call to prayer would be any different. Muslim students should not have to hide in the basement to pray and if they want to help unite their community they should be allowed to do so, especially on a college campus.

Does the removal of a hijab also mean the removal of constitutional rights?

The Dearborn Heights Police Department is now facing a lawsuit after a Muslim woman was forced to remove her hijab while being photographed after being arrested.  Malak Kazan was driving with a suspended license when a police officer pulled her over for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested her.  While she was being booked, the police officer asked her to remove her hijab, which is an optional Muslim head-covering worn to remain modest while in the presence of men who aren’t in her immediate family. Kazan explained that removing this would violate her faith and requested that a female officer instead help her, which would allow her to keep in line with her faith. This request, however, was denied, and the Kazan had to remove her hijab in front of the male police officer in order to be booked. She then decided to sue because they “denied her constitutional rights.”

This case is reminiscent of the recent Supreme Court case where the justices ruled a Muslim prisoner had the right to grow a short beard as a part of his religious faith. Much like that case, Kazan was attempting to exercise her right to practice her Muslim faith. Issues such as this are increasingly important as the United States adjusts to the ever-growing population of religious and ethnic minorities. While the United States has always prided itself on being very religiously tolerant, it seems like recent history puts this to the test much more than the first 200 years of this country did. With more immigration of different groups of people, the US has found itself in a place with more diversity than possibly imagined when it was founded. In regards to the Muslim faith, this has left the country and its tolerance at odds for a variety of reasons. First, there’s the fact that the Muslim religion has become linked to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, there are several more visible practices of the Muslim faith that have been seen as interfering with security practices, such as the growing of a beard in prison and wearing a hijab during a booking. The linkage between Muslims and extremist violence created in the first problem perhaps unfairly exacerbates this security concern. The interaction between law and religion is not one that occurs in a vacuum; as impartial and fair as we would like to believe the system is, personal and societal factors influence it.

With that being said, I believe this case did violate Kazan’s right to exercise her religion. While some may argue that the police were simply doing their job in booking her, it seems like doing this job was done at the sake of her right to freely exercise her religion. It is not that the police forced her to remove her hijab, but that she was forced to do so in front of unrelated men. As law professor Larry Dubin notes in the article, if she had done so in the presence of a woman it most likely would not have resulted in a lawsuit. This leads me to question the refusal of Kazan’s request for a female police officer.  Her right to free exercise would not have been violated if she had been able to remove her hijab in the presence of a female officer. Was there absolutely no female officer available to do the job or was the policeman just trying to finish the booking, which led him to violate Kazan’s religious rights? While it may make the job a little more difficult, I believe that the police department has an interest in making sure constitutional rights are protected, and if that means needing to find a female officer, effort should be put into doing so.

Another point of interest is the fact that other instances that relate to photo identification have been granted exemptions. For example, the article notes that hijabs have been allowed in some licenses and IDs. If other exemptions like this have been made, what makes it ok for a police officer to force the removal of her hijab in the booking process? One may argue that it may have been appropriate because she was arrested, but being arrested does that mean that US citizens automatically lose their constitutional rights. The hijab only covers the hair of the female so it is not something that would obscure Kazan’s face and make it harder to potentially identify her later.

The outcome of this case may have a wider impact that just the booking process. If a federal judge were to rule that hijabs could not be worn for this, other governmental agencies may use this leeway to then make Muslim women remove their hijabs for other forms of photo identification instead of continuing to grant them religious exemptions. If the court rules in favor of Kazan, however, then more protection may be granted to the free exercise of minority religions in the future.

Constitutional Cash?

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) has recently passed a House Bill that allows public schools to be eligible for a mentorship program if they partner with a religious or faith based organization as well as a business. His 10 million dollar plan states that the faith-based component is mandatory and not optional as it was previously made to seem. The governor is making faith-based organizations seemingly more important than other types of organizations, which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Secular schools must designate a faith organization as their partner in order to receive money for the program. Senior policy analyst for the Ohio Department of Education, Buddy Harris, noted that, "The faith-based organization is clearly at the heart of the vision of the governor." The governor is in a secular position and yet he is imposing his own views upon his constituents by making the religious element necessary. He said himself, "The Good Lord has a purpose for each and every one of them (students)…” His motives could not be more clear and yet he managed to pass his agenda.

Originally, religious based organizations were just considered potential partners for the mentorship program. The addition to the Bill that made the faith-based part mandatory came after the Bill itself had already passed through both chambers of the state legislature. Essentially, legislators did not vote on the faith based aspect being mandatory, they only voted on it being a potential option. Kasich has a responsibility, as a public official, to adhere to a certain degree of transparency. In my opinion, he did not act transparently in this instance. In addition, he acted in his own best interest, which he has made clear and his own best interest goes against the First Amendment.

I think that this addition to the Bill clearly violates the Establishment Clause. In order to receive government money, schools that are secular must partner with a religious organization. Having religious views is one thing but imposing them on those who may not have the same views is a violation of the First Amendment.

Although it does not favor one faith organization over another, the addition to the Bill still makes a religious organization a mandatory aspect of the program. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the Lemon test was established in a unanimous decision. The Lemon test states that there must not be excessive government entanglement with religion and that there must be a secular legislative purpose. This addition to the bill directly breaches the Lemon test criterion.

To me, it does not make any sense to add a faith based program as a stipulation for a government program. I feel as though it is only a matter of time before there is a case to overturn this but I find it interesting that this was able to happen in the first place. It doesn’t seem Constitutional to have attached a religious stipulation in order for a secular school district to receive government funding.

The government and a Woman's Womb

This past Thursday, January 22, 2015, the house passed an anti-abortion bill. The bill was passed on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision which protected a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion. “The bill would prevent women from having their abortions covered by Medicaid; restrict a woman's ability to buy private insurance plans that include abortion coverage; and deny small businesses a tax credit, which they currently receive through the Affordable Care Act, if they include abortion care in their health insurance plans.” Learning of this recent bill reminded me of the heavily debated topic of what role the government plays in a woman’s life regarding her birth control and right to have an abortion. Not surprisingly the religious influences and support was very evident in this anti-abortion bill. 

Since June 28, 2012 when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act there has been an uprising in conversations surrounding this issue. For instance, just last year in 2014 the Supreme Court held a decision in favor of the privately owned company, Hobby Lobby. The decision exempted them from being required to provide certain forms of contraception to their female employees due to the owners religious beliefs that Plan B, Ella, Copper IUD and Mirena all terminate pregnancies rather than prevent them making them forms of abortion. As Christian’s, the requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services was violating the Green family’s (the owners) religious rights protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The Supreme Court did in fact rule with Hobby Lobby protecting their religious freedom and right to deny these services to their employees. 

Is Hobby Lobby acting within their constitutional rights by denying coverage of these forms of contraception? Whether or not one agrees with Hobby Lobby’s beliefs should not influence the answer to this question. As someone who believes that the government should not play a role in an individual’s personal life, I find the problem not to lie within the violation of religious rights but the very fact that they are imposing requirements on a privately owned company in the first place. For those who disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling there are other forms of voicing one’s discomfort than making it a constitutional matter and assuming the government has a place in the issue. One example would be boycotting the store. If you have a personal issue with Hobby Lobby not providing these forms of contraception, than do not shop at their store. The problem is that people rely too heavily of the United States Court systems to handle cultural and social  issues. However, as the court rightly decided, the requirements by the Department of Health and Human Services were unconstitutional and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Hobby Lobby, as a privately owned company, has every right to refuse any form of contraception to their employees as they so choose. 

With this new bill being passed by the House republicans, a new question arises. Due to the strong religious influences on the nature of the bill protecting ‘life’ make the bill unconstitutional because it is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment protecting the people from religion. Without the influence of religious morals, the question of pro life versus pro choice becomes more difficult to answer. It is my opinion that the bill is in fact unconstitutional and violating the First Amendment because of its religious implications. The government should not be able to make laws prohibiting a woman’s right to choose. In fact it should protect the right of freedom of choice. Just as the Supreme Court protected Hobby Lobby’s right to choose not to provide forms of contraception that were deemed to be “abortifacient”, they should also protect the rights of individuals to choose to use abortifacients or get abortions.

Religion in Public Education

Image retrieved  from CNS News which can be access here

CNS News reported on January 21st that Orange County (Fla) Public School System canceled the annual distribution of bibles on National Freedom of Religion Day. According to the news article Christian groups and the Florida Family Policy Council were prohibited from distributing bibles because that encouraged atheist and satanic groups to obtain the permission to distribute literature as well. According to the CNS article, which you be can accessed here, the Orange County System allowed bibles to be placed in common areas in schools were students had access to them if they pleased. Freedom from Religion Foundation  sued to have all religious materials banned from public schools however the court ruled against their claims. Therefore, Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a sue last year claiming an equal right to distribute literature in schools which was accepted by the court. For this year’s distribution, a satanic group entered a request to distribute literature, which resulted in Orange County cancelling all distributions and instead revising their current policy of acceptable literature in schools.

                This situation is a clear example of why it is necessary to maintain a separation between church and state. Public schools are property of the state therefore, this educational system should aim to have secular education, one that does not involve religion.  This public school system has become a battlefield for religious and non-religious organizations instead of a safe environment for children.  

                In 1971 a man named Alto Lemon sued Pennsylvania schools’ superintendent, David Kurtzman, under the claims that Kurtzman had violated his First Constitutional Amendment. Lemon argued that Pennsylvania’s reimbursement to religious schools for secular education was a violation of his First Amendment because the state was using tax payer’s money to fund religion. The Court ruled in an 8 to 0 decision that this was a violation of the First Amendment. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) the court concluded that there was excessive entanglement between church and state. Furthermore, the court made three points, first the state could only be involved if there was a secular purpose, second the state should neither promote nor inhibit religion and lastly that there should not be an entanglement between state and church.

 Orange County, however, is in violation of the decision made by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). By allowing the distribution of bibles in schools the state of Florida is permitting entanglement with the church. Additionally, the state established a religion in schools by allowing the distributions of only bibles, thus promoting Christianity. The state was not inclusive of other religions that were not Christianity. In fact, I am surprised that parents did not take it upon themselves to sue the school district for coercive religious literature.

Secondly, the refusal to remove the distribution of religious literature despite the fact that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had sued against it, was an example of religious inequality. The only place where a bible should be allowed, along with other religious literature, is in the library. Refusing to prohibit the distribution of bibles gives other religious organization the right to distribute their literature, thus neutralizing the institution. This was an inadequate decision, which endangers the secular education children should be receiving in schools.

                Schools should be an unbiased environment were children are free to express themselves and not be constantly harassed by religious affairs. Many would argue that Orange County is a predominately Christian district, therefore, making it acceptable to distribute bibles. However, I believe that this is an example of how the majority deprives the rights of non-Christians to freely go to school without any religious affiliations. Furthermore, if parents want their children to learn about their specific religious believes then, they should enroll their kids to private institutions where that religion is taught. If parents cannot afford these expenses, then they should take it upon themselves to teach their children their religion.

                Religion should be taught at home not in schools. Public schools are meant to be a safe ground for children. Orange County has exposed their children to numerous people approaching them to distribute literature about their religious belief. There is a compelling state interest in this case to remove all religious text from school in order to ensure the safety of the students. Note, this does not mean that I am against religion, it just means that religion should not be involved in public education. 

The Refusal of a Colorado Baker To Write Anti-Gay Message

    Earlier this week, in Colorado, a local baker name Marjorie Silva refused to bake a cake for a customer. Silva is the owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery. The customer, named Bill Jack, asked Silva to bake a Bible shaped cake with anti-gay images and messages written on it. Originally, Silva had agreed to bake a Bible shaped cake. However, upon learning of these specific demands Silva refused to satisfy the requests of her customer. Reportedly, the request was for Silva to write, “God hates gays” on the cake with two men holding hands and a cross on top of them. As a compromise, Silva baked the caked and offered to give Mr. Jack icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words for himself. Mr. Jack was not satisfied with this compromise, and he filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Division.

            When asked why she refused to write the message on the cake, Silva was quoted as saying, “It’s just horrible. It doesn’t matter if, you know, if you’re Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I’m gay or not gay or whatever. We should all be loving each other. I mean there’s no reason to discriminate.” Ironically, that’s exactly what she is being accused of, discrimination. Silva whole-heartedly believes that she did nothing wrong, and has even gone so far as to say that Jack should be the one accused of discrimination, not her.  Mr. Jack alleges that Silva is blatantly discriminating against him based on what he refers to as his creed. In this case, Jack is using the word ‘creed’ to refer to his own religious convictions. The question is whether or not the government has a right to step in and force Silva to bake the cake because she is discriminating against Bill Jack for his religious beliefs.

          The Jack v. Silva case comes in wake of a similar Colorado court case in which courts ruled that baker Jack Phillips was obligated to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding or face a large fine that would surely put him out of business. Phillips had originally refused to bake a cake because he felt it was against his religious beliefs to endorse a same sex marriage. Now, for the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation. I did not agree with this ruling and felt that the court should not be able to take away the right of private business owners to refuse service based on belief. I felt that this ruling violated the establishment clause by creating a law that prevented Phillips from freely exercising his religious beliefs. If the public did not agree with Phillips they have the right to protest or to boycott his bakery.

           If the courts equate these two cases they must be consistent with their original decision and compel Silva to bake the cake to Mr. Jack’s specifications. The precedent was set in the Phillips case that the government has a right to trump an owner’s beliefs and compel service if those beliefs encourage discrimination. If this precedent is applied to this case courts will say that Silva is discriminating against Jack for his religious beliefs which violates anti-discrimination laws.  

However, the courts may not equate the two cases. In the Phillips case, his religious beliefs guided his decision to not endorse a same sex marriage. This is blatant discrimination to all same sex couples which violates established law and gives the court the right to trump his religious convictions. In the Silva case, she allegedly discriminated against Mr. Jack for his religious beliefs. The difference between the two bakers is the requests of their clients. Silva has the right to discriminate against Mr. Jack because his religious beliefs lead him to request a hateful message to be printed on his cake. The courts may rule that because this message is discriminatory in nature Silva has the right to not serve Mr. Jack no matter his religious beliefs.  

      In my opinion, I believe that the court should rule against Mr. Jack. His message in itself is discriminatory and therefore I find it difficult to believe that the courts would force Silva to write the message. There is a distinct difference between Silva and Phillips. Phillips claimed his religious beliefs did not allow him to endorse a same sex marriage by baking a cake. This belief would allow him to discriminate against all homosexual couples in the future. This is why the courts ruled against him. Conversely, Silva’s convictions are actually preventing discrimination towards the LGBTQ community. However, her beliefs are in fact discriminatory towards Mr. Jack’s religious beliefs. I believe the courts will allow an exemption for Silva because Mr. Jack is utilizing his religious beliefs to explain his offensive cake design. The message the cake is displaying is discriminatory in nature, and although I do not believe that he should be prevented from displaying it I do believe that Silva should not be compelled to make the cake and that her compromise of providing Jack with the supplies is sufficient. I agree with Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the ACLU in Colorado when he says, “there is no law that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it.” Although Silva is admittedly discriminating against Mr. Jack for his religious beliefs the court should rule in her favor because she did attempt to compromise and even if Mr. Jack’s religion guided him to request that message it is still hateful in nature and should not be forced upon Silva.