FBI training gone wrong?

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

Religion in the Military?

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

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

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

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

Refusing Service to Same-sex Civil Unions, A Constitutional Right

Very shortly after same-sex civil unions became legal in Illinois, a local male couple searched for options of a place to make their partnership official. These men wanted their wedding to be quaint and quiet, just like their lifestyles. In searching for a place to have their wedding, they asked two local Bed and Breakfasts if they could hold a wedding there. According to the article posted in the Chicago Tribune, both places asked said that they would not host a same-sex civil union, one for blatantly religious reasons and one because they will “just be doing traditional weddings.” The two men, Todd and Mark Wathen, are filing a lawsuit against both establishments after filing a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. The Department claimed that there was substantial evidence of a civil rights violation. The couple ended up having the ceremony in their backyard, but refuses to be quiet about their case.

Recently, with many states legalizing same-sex marriage, Americans have seen many similar conflicts arise. Most of these conflicts bring up the constitutional claim that we the people have the right to exercise our religious beliefs freely. In the past, the Supreme Court has stated that “freedom of belief is absolute, but freedom to act cannot be.” For this to be a case of discrimination, it would have to violate the state of Illinois’ Human Rights Act, which protects people that are discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. This then brings up a battle with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which essentially protects religious freedoms from intrusion by the government. As we have often mentioned in class, this opens up a can of worms, or creates a slippery slope, because claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act beats the Human Rights Act is also claiming that people are allowed to discriminate based on religious convictions.

Personally, I feel that both of the Bed and Breakfasts should be allowed to deny the same-sex couple of their establishment for use of a same-sex wedding. Of course, this would have to be true for every same-sex couple. Once an exemption is made, then there would be discrimination. The reasons for my opinion align with strict separationist arguments, that practicing your religion of choice should be unhindered by the government. There is certainly a great deal of grey area here because I do not believe that a religious group or religious people should be allowed to do whatever they want. Here, the owners of the Bed and Breakfasts did not agree with same-sex marriage due to their religious beliefs, so I feel that they should be allowed to deny the couple’s request. The couple could easily find another place that would support their wedding. Also, most Bed and Breakfasts double as the owners’ homes. Don’t we have the right to disallow people we don’t want in our homes from entering them? This makes the issue even easier to decipher for me because had this been a public location, I would have much more trouble backing up the owners of the establishment.

This case reminds me of the situation of door to door promoters. If any religious group comes up to your door, you have the right to not listen to them and to not let them into your home. This can be for any reason, including religious beliefs. Since the Bed and Breakfast is private property, I feel that constitutionally the owners have the right to allow or disallow service to whomever they please.

Math Teacher’s Classroom Banners Don’t Add Up

Click to View Article

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

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

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

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

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

Star of David outside Town Hall?

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

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

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

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

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

Independence Day or Establishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can the First Amendment Protect Discrimination?

The government of Illinois has recently decided to enact a law that legalizes civil unions.  This law will present same sex couples with many of the legal rights that married couples enjoy.  Though the Illinois government has decided to accept civil unions, there are still many people who continue to discriminate against homosexuality in the state. 

Todd and Mark Wathen, a homosexual couple from Illinois, desired to have their civil union ceremony at a Bed and Breakfast in central Illinois.  After being rejected by the Beall Mansion Bead and Breakfast, they decided to ask another establishment, Timber Creak, to hold their ceremony.  Timber Creak responded to their request by saying that they will never hold a same-sex civil union because they believe, “homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it.”  After receiving this refusal, the couple has decided to sue both establishments for violating their civil rights.  The business owners think that it is within their rights protected by the First Amendment, the freedom to practice religion, to discriminate based on their beliefs, but when religious freedom conflicts with the civil rights of others, one of these freedoms must suffer.

This suit will focus on the extent that the Free Exercise Clause allows for the violation of the civil rights of others.  The shop owners believe that since their religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, they have the right to deny civil unions to same-sex couples.  Though the owners may have religious reasons to not allow civil unions on their property, they are clearly violating the rights of homosexuals.  They are trying to legitimize their discrimination based off of their religious beliefs, but allowing religion to protect discrimination is a dangerous arena that could lead to some ugly situations.  The civil rights of homosexuals must be protected, even if it means limiting others’ freedom to practice religion.

In the case Cantwell v. Connecticut, an important distinction was made between the freedom to believe, and the freedom to practice religion. Justice Roberts wrote that the freedom to believe is an “absolute” freedom that the government cannot limit, but the freedom to practice, “in the nature of things…cannot be” absolute.  Many cases have reaffirmed that in certain situations the government may limit peoples rights to exercise their religion.  The major question now becomes, when can a government interfere with the free practice of religion.

In the case West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the justices focus on how far the freedom to exercise religion, protects religious actions.  An important part of this case is how the court decides if an action is protected or not.  The court must look to see if the action infringes on the “rights asserted by any other individual.”   By denying same-sex civil unions, the actions of the owners are limiting the civil rights of homosexuals protected by the 14^th amendment.  Since the rights of others are being violated by these actions, the court has the right to limit the owner’s freedom to practice their religion.

Though forcing the owners of the Bed and Breakfast establishments to hold civil unions would be violating their freedom to exercise religion, when actions conflict with the rights of others they cannot be allowed.  There is a thin line that determines when a religious action can or cannot be limited by the state, but discrimination certainly should be prevented at all costs.  We cannot allow discrimination to be practiced, and if protecting against it means limiting others’ freedom to practice religion, then freedom of religion must suffer.

If discrimination based off of sexuality can be protected, then what’s to stop discrimination due to race, ethnicity, or even... religion?  Protecting the owner’s actions under the 1^st amendment would technically legalize discrimination.  If this discrimination was practiced against people due to their religion, well that would just be protecting one persons' right to practice, which in turn, would limit another's.  The courts must side against the owner’s freedom to practice religion in this case, but by doing so they will be protecting the civil rights of many others.

Fine for Buggy Safety?

Earlier this week, nine Amish men from Kentucky were sent to jail for not paying traffic fines and court costs. This dispute originated when the men in question were driving buggies on public roads without displaying reflective orange triangles on the back of their vehicles. Displaying these triangular warning signs goes against Amish religious practices and their principles of being "plain people." Many Amish sects believe that wearing bright, eye-catching colors is a display of pride which is viewed as inappropriate under their religious beliefs. Based on these principles, the arrested men do not use orange reflective signs on their buggies. They were willing to use grey reflective tape or lanterns but refused to display the orange signs and have been imprisoned for up to ten days.

The main issue in this dispute concerns the free exercise rights of the Amish individuals. Their desire to refrain from displaying bright colors is a devoutly held religious belief which is accepted as sincere. From the perspective of members of strict Amish sects, the forced display of an orange reflective triangle violates their first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The primary argument of the state officials is that by not displaying bright orange reflectors, the Amish are putting themselves as well as civilians in automobiles in danger. For this reason, the officials feel there is a compelling state interest in forcing Amish buggies to display orange reflective signs. Establishment is not an issue in this case since the traffic law being discussed was created with entirely secular purposes with no intention of affecting any particular religious group.

The officials claim that the forced display of bright, reflective symbols constitutes a compelling state interest. As discussed in Reynolds v. US (1879), many actions can be restricted in order to protect the compelling state interests of peace and order within our society. Traffic laws require all slow moving vehicles to prominently display bright orange reflective triangles on the rear of their vehicles. By having a specific symbol denoting potential dangers on the road, state officials attempt to alert all motorists immediately to potential hazards. Since Amish buggies are considered "slow moving vehicles," they should be required to display orange triangular signs for the safety of all those on public roads. If a different symbol such as grey stripes were used, other motorists may not recognize the hazard as quickly, potentially resulting in additional accidents.

The precedent from Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) would not mandate judgment in favor of the Amish in this instance. This ruling dictates that a regulation cannot target one specific religious group, similar to the way the Mormons were targeted by the anti-polygamy laws of Reynolds v. US (1879). Since the traffic law being discussed is a statewide law and was not intended to have any religious focus, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) does not apply here. The traffic law has the entirely secular purpose of protecting the safety of all motorists regardless of religious beliefs.

While it is important that as few regulations as possible which restrict the free exercise of religion are enforced, in this instance the safety of the public must come first. By driving buggies on public roads which are used primarily by motorists in automobiles going much faster than buggies, the Amish are creating a potential hazard for both themselves as well as other motorists. The requirement that they display a symbol which quickly warns other drivers of the potential danger is not overbroad in scope and is enforced to protect the safety of the populace. If certain groups of Amish individuals do not want to abide by these laws, laws which protect their own lives as much as those of other drivers, then they should not be driving buggies on public roads with speed limits greater than those capable of a one horsepower buggy. The state law does not force all Amish to display a symbol which contradicts their religious beliefs, but rather the law requires cooperation by those driving on state-maintained roads who may pose a danger to the safety of our citizens. If these individuals wish to drive buggies on public roads, then they must abide by traffic safety laws in order to protect the safety of all those on such roads, be they driving a car, truck, or buggy.

Rights and Religion Clash in Court

In San Francisco, the Hastings College of Law, which is part of University of California, allows over sixty recognized groups to use meeting space, bulletin boards and whatever else they please to do, as long as they follow one rule: religious discrimination is not permitted. Unfortunately, the Christian Legal Society group thought that they were exempt from this rule. The Christian Legal Society decided that nonbelievers and homosexuals are allowed to be a part of their club, however, they cannot become voting members or assume leadership positions. In addition, the Christian Legal Society’s discrimination was not only geared towards homosexuals, it was also aimed towards heterosexual men and woman who participated in sexual activity before marriage. After not being pleased with the outcome of the California court’s decision to rule against the group, the Supreme Court decided to pick up the group’s case and rule out whether or not this religious group’s standards for members is constitutional.

Hastings College shortly withdrew their recognition from the Christian group. In addition, the law school made it clear to the public that their school promotes an open membership to all student groups and all groups must accept all group members as voting members, no matter their belief. Since Hastings is a public institution it is a moral obligation to promote anti-discrimination. According to the first amendment, all institutions should require a religious freedom atmosphere, whether the school is private or public. Public schools are often known to be more diverse and more accepting to different beliefs or cultures, however, if this court case took place at a private law school the same issue would still be raised. There is no private versus public school vendetta when it comes down to religious discrimination, it would still be frowned upon by the majority at any school.

In this new era most court cases involving religious freedom are usually associated with homosexuality, which applies to a lot of people, especially in San Francisco, the unofficial gay capital of The United States. This is why I found this case to be even more interesting, it occurs in a city where almost everyone accepts homosexuality as a part of their life; if they are not gay, they probably know one or more people that are. The people in the Christianity group should realize that given the location of where they are attending school, more people are likely to be homosexual and should be accepting rather than expelling.

In addition to the Homosexuals who experienced discrimination, all people who have participated in sexual activity prior to marriage aren’t allowed to vote in the Christian group either. I have seen many discrepancies regarding sexual orientation discrimination but this is the first time I have seen discrimination involving sex prior to marriage. This is a surprise to me because college is usually known for its, lack of better terms, sex, drugs, and alcohol. Although people are supposed to go to school for education, one night stands and hookups is what college is usually associated with, especially based on movies and television shows. Law school comes after four years of college, and my guess is that unless students are very religious, most people did not wait for marriage to engage in sexual activity. Furthermore, I would assume by the time most people attend law school they would not be able to vote in the Christian group at Hastings according to their standards.

Air-Conditioning Takes Priority over Secularity?

Many American households display a similar iconic photo in a widely visible spot in their home: a framed picture of their high school graduate walking across the stage in cap and gown, accepting their diploma. But for graduates of Brookfield Central and Brookfield East Public High Schools in southern Wisconsin, this proudly displayed memory contains another focal point: a 20-foot tall cross above the stage.

Brookfield’s graduation had traditionally been held in the school’s gymnasium, which was much too small and too hot for the graduating class, their families, and their guests to sit comfortably during the ceremony. In 2000, the students requested to hold the ceremony in a nearby nondenominational evangelical Christian church because the venue was much larger and more comfortable than any space the school could provide. The senior class approved the venue change by a majority vote, and the superintendant, who happened to be a member of this church, agreed to hold the graduation in the church’s huge theater, on the grounds that the church provided more space, amenities, and convenience than the school’s gym, and allowed students to invite more guests than they would have if the ceremony was held at other local, secular venues.

Students and families from the school and Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit arguing that holding graduation ceremonies in a place of worship violates the Constitution and makes some attendees feel uncomfortable, and requested a court order to force the schools to find an alternate, secular venue. This week, a three-judge panel of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that as long as the graduation ceremony didn’t hold religious elements, there was no government endorsement of religion, and therefore no violation of the Religion Clause.

Walking across the stage at high school graduation to accept a diploma is considered a rite of passage in American schools, and forcing public school students in a multi-cultural and multi-religious town to choose between asking their families to sit in a mega-church to watch them accept their diploma under a giant cross or skip this momentous occasion all together is not Constitutional. The 7^th Circuit Court found that as long as the ceremony did not contain religious messages or religious pressures, no endorsement of religion was taking place. Essentially, they found that as long as religious paraphernalia was only visible and present but not explicitly mentioned, there was no problem.

But, with this ruling, there is a huge problem. This church, although large, air-conditioned, and “convenient”, is a widely accepted and extremely visibly a place of worship. Pews contained Bibles, prayers, and hymnals, and a giant cross above the stage. One student claimed that the ceremony, which did not mention any denomination or the church itself, was completely secular, and therefore an appropriate venue. But since when are courts okay with the presence of religious paraphernalia or venues for supposedly secular settings as long as they aren’t “explicitly mentioned”? Would it be okay for a schoolteacher to hold class in a room of a nearby church simply because the church’s multipurpose room, while decorated with Bible verses, was larger than the school’s? What if a Judge held Court in the Synagogue down the street because the Court was overscheduled and overcrowded? According to this Court’s reasoning all of these situations could be acceptable because no religious messages are explicitly stated or endorsed—the groups are simply using the venue out of “convenience”, with no religious intent. The consequences of allowing a public high school to hold a secular graduation in a church for convenience reasons are somewhat limited in scope, but the consequences of allowing this "convenience" excuse for violating the Religion Clause to become precedent has dangerous implications because oftentimes, secularity does require extra effort, and these standards should be upheld for future cases where a lot more is sacrificed in the name of convenience.

Verbal messages and readings, while important, are not everything—no one can claim that simply omitting religious speech makes holding a ceremony in a church non-religious. Sitting in an empty church in silence, even while no one else is present, is still a religious activity because churches are still an obvious place of worship, regardless of what the venue is being used for. What if you were planning your Muslim wedding and the Imam tried to convince you that it would make more sense to hold your ceremony at the Catholic Church down the street because it’s bigger, and air-conditioned? True, it’s not a Mosque, but don’t worry—they wouldn’t say or read anything Catholic, so no one will notice the venue at all…right?

Anti-Shariah might be Anti-American

Tomorrow morning, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will make a critical ruling on the constitutionality of a measure that prohibits Oklahoma judges from considering Islamic law to settle cases.

Back in November of 2010, the state voted on a referendum proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would ban Islamic law. The referendum, also known as the “Save Our State Amendment”, passed with seventy percent voter support. Immediately after the election, Muneer Awad, head of the local chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, filed a lawsuit claiming that the amendment disregards the establishment clause of the First Amendment. By condemning one religion exclusively, the government gives preferential treatment to other religions. U.S District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange agreed with Awad’s case and issued a preliminary injunction on the amendment, claiming, “the will of the ‘majority’ has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals.” Those in support of the anti-Shariah amendment have appealed this decision, arguing, “Just as Mr. Awad’s First Amendment rights are fundamental, so too are the voting rights of the 695,000 Oklahomans who voted in favor of State Question 755.”

Tomorrow’s crucial appeal decision raises the debate over two central notions of the First Amendment; the establishment clause and the right to free exercise of religion. If deemed constitutional, this amendment would render void any marital contracts or wills in Oklahoma that were drafted by Islamic religious guidelines based on the fact that they would require courts to consider Shariah law. Mr. Awad’s own will is one of these civil documents that be considered null.

In my opinion, this seems to fundamentally violate Mr. Awad’s basic right to “free exercise of religion.” Mr. Awad would not be able to formulate his will according to the direction of his religious conscience. There are circumstances in which restrictions are placed on an individual’s ability to practice their religion freely, however, these situations arise when religious practices cause substantial harm to others or in the case of state possessing a “compelling interest” to limit religious conduct. Yet within the compelling interest doctrine, the Supreme Court ruled in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah that a compelling interest cannot target a particular religious practice. This amendment fails to meet the compelling interest test as it exclusively targets Muslims, thus this is not a circumstance in which restrictions to an individual’s “free exercise of religion” is constitutional.

Furthermore, according to Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause means, “Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” The “Save Our State Amendment” explicitly violates the establishment clause by condemning Islamic law, essentially making it inferior to all other religions in the eyes of the government.

Those who support the amendment proclaim they have a “fundamentally political right to vote”, yet to me it seems irrational for one to believe they should be given the ability to vote on another’s civil liberties and constitutional rights. The Appeals Court will be making a decision on this case tomorrow, almost exactly 10 years after the September 11th attacks. That decision has incredible power. It has the power to highlight either the worst of American culture; the intolerant anti-Islamic sentiment that has permeated our society in the decade following 9/11... or to highlight the best of our culture; the promise of freedom that those throughout the world look onto as both a sanctuary and an inspiration.

Cross-ing Boundaries?

After September 11, 2001 many found it difficult to show signs of hope, or optimism after the tragic events that had occurred earlier that day. However, during the removal of what remained of the World Trade buildings on September 13, 2001 one man, Frank Silecchia, found something that would instill faith and hope in many Americans. What he found, was two metal beams twisted into what appeared to be a cross. This cross has remained at Ground Zero for the past ten years, and if everything goes accordingly, is to be relocated in the 9/11 Memorial Museum in the near future. However, the American Atheists organization is protesting the inclusion of this religious symbol stating the necessity for “absolute separation of government and religion”. The organization claims that adding the cross to the museum is a “’repugnant’ attempt to promote religion on public land”.

This cross, has been at Ground Zero for the past ten years. It has been a symbol of hope and faith for many of those who have visited the site, whether or not they see it as a symbol of God’s existence. Now, this organization of atheists is claiming the placement of the cross within the 9/11 Memorial Museum would be unconstitutional and is an uncalled for mixture of religion and state. In their presented case, the American Atheist organization protests the inclusion of the cross unless equal space is provided for Non-Christian memorials within the museum as well.

I believe that the cross should be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. It is not as if it was man-made, but rather was formed naturally amidst such a tragic event. Also, while looking into this topic, I came across many quotes from those who cleaned Ground Zero, saying that they cut mini forms of this cross from the rubble at the site not because they were Christian, but rather because they felt that it gave them a purpose. It is not as if the museum would be favoring Christians, it is that no other religiously affiliated symbol was formed during the fall of the towers. The cross can be seen as a sign from God for those who choose to believe so, but it can also be seen simply as a sign of hope. It has been an important part of Ground Zero for the past ten years and should continue to represent September 11, 2001.

The American Atheist organization has a reasonable claim, but how do you represent your community that prides itself upon believing in nothing? Would all, what they see as, non-religiously affiliated parts of the museum be representing their space? This museum is about what happened on September 11, 2001 not about what people believe to be politically correct and fair to all. This metal cross was formed on September 11^th, making it a part of history. Also, it is not as if you have to walk by the cross in order to enter the museum. If you do not agree with it being a part of the memorial, do not go visit that section. I would think atheists would be more content knowing that they were not forced to see the cross seeing as it will have its own section of the museum, whereas when it is the center of Ground Zero, it is a little more difficult to ignore.

Atheists get Cross at Ground Zero

In this article by The Wall Street Journal, a group of atheists have filed suit in New York state court in response to a cross that has been constructed at Ground Zero. the group claims that the cross is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by promoting a particular religion on government property. They go on to stress that people are having particular religious traditions pressed upon them that may not be their own. Dan Blair, communication director for the American Atheists says, "To turn this memorial into a Christian prayer site is to disrespect and dishonor non-Christians who died at the hand of Muslim Terrorists that day."

A Christian legal advocacy organization, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), responded by saying "This is another pathetic attempt to re-write the Constitution and re-write history by removing a symbol that has deep meaning and serves as a powerful remembrance to that fateful attack."

While the ACLJ is very confident the case will fail in court, I am not so sure. In a similar case in 2003, Glassroth vs. Moore, a federal judge ordered the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments from a state judicial building. The first amendment does not allow the establishment (or promotion) of a particular religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another.

While Ground Zero is a spiritual place to many who go to pray and pay their respects to any who died, the construction of a religious monument on-site breaks the first amendment. At first I found myself skeptical of this case, considering that symbols or emblems of other religions could be included at the site, however the public display of religious symbols of any kind is still obtrusive to atheists, who do not carry any of those beliefs. Atheists have the right to attend Ground Zero to pay respects to any who died without being subjected to the ideologies of Christianity or any other religion.

While I am sure those who constructed the Cross has good intentions, namely to pay respect to all Christians who died, the construction of the Cross infringes on the rights of all others who may feel slighted by the large cross or feel that the government is neglecting their own religion (or lack thereof) and playing favorites with Christianity.

Only by removing the Cross from Ground Zero, and perhaps reconstructing it nearby, on private property--not government property, can everyone be happy and comfortable while visiting Ground Zero. Although Ground Zero marks a sad and tragic day, it should not be a place that holds ties to any specific religion or set of beliefs.

The ACLJ appears very confident that this case will be thrown out, why do you think they are so sure? Do you think the construction of this Cross is a violation of the first amendment? Can you think of any way to find a satisfactory compromise where Christianity/other religions and atheists share Ground Zero? Or are the atheists in the right completely and the Cross should be removed from the site to an alternate private location? I find it unfortunate that a location so highly cared for and marked, one sense of the word or another, as sacred by the entire country is being legally disputed by major religions. Until some clear legislation about what is and is not permitted on this site is made, this strife will surely continue for yet another decade.

WWJD: Does Jesus Love Nukes?

Following the publication of Truthout’s controversial report, the Air Force suspended its war ethics training for new nuclear missile launch officers after concerns by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation were raised by 31 missile launch officers. The mandatory briefing had been taught by military chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for nearly 20 years. The issue at stake here is whether the US Air Force is violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause by citing the Old and New Testament as moral support for warfare in ethics training.

According to David Smith, the Air Force Education Training Command spokesman, the briefing was intended to be within an academic setting which would facilitate discussion. Nevertheless, as presented in a PowerPoint presentation war, exclusively represented through Christian doctrine, is good and righteous. As cited in the PowerPoint slides, St. Augustine’s “Qualifications for Just War” are to “avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order.” Another section of the presentation states that in “Revelation 19:11 Jesus is the mighty warrior,” implying that Jesus himself is a proponent of warfare. These quotations from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament not only are Sparknotes versions of the original texts, but they also impose Christian doctrine on officers in training to be a “disciple of Christ,” a blatant establishment of religion through the federal government.

The Air Force, understandably, wants assurance that officers will be willing to launch nuclear weapons at command, despite the officer’s moral reservations. This raises the fundamental question of whether or not a nuclear weapons officer can ever be ready to fulfill the duties of his or her position, knowing that their action will kill thousands of non-combatants. Though I cannot speak for all the officers present in the ethics debriefing, I know that this training could never prepare me for a job that I would never want to do. One has to ask oneself the question, at that moment, do you believe in the mission?

Through the ethics training, the Air Force was attempting to have officers premeditate their decision. However, by presenting religious iconography which augments the concept of St. Augustine’s “Christian Just War Theory,” in addition to quoted scripture within the training slides, officers were mandatorily subject to an establishment of Christian theology as inexorably linked with the decision to partake in nuclear warfare. Moreover, the Air Force education training assumes that all officers need Christian justification for their service. Directly following the PowerPoint presentation, missile officers in-training, signed a legal document which stated that they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) if commanded by the President of the United States. Since the officers signed the legal document after exposure to Christian theology, as interpreted by an Air Force chaplain, arguably, this document violates the no religious test mandate of the Constitution which states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to….public Trust under the United States” (Article VI, Section 3). Yet, the boundaries of the military are not necessarily clear due to bureaucratic institutions so is this training a violation of the 1st Amendment since it is funded by federal tax dollars? Despite one’s answer to this question, I am sure that all can agree that religious teaching within the military creates a dangerous precedent which may enervate the establishment clause in general.