The beard interfered, but Hasan is still sentenced to death row.

Former army psychiatrist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan continues to fight for his constitutional right to freely exercise his religion— despite being on death row.

Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring over 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas, and is responsible for the worst mass murder at a military installation in United States history. While the shooting rampage occurred in 2009, the courts decision was not finalized until this past August. Why the delay? To be blunt, the blame is on his beard.

In June 2012, Nidal Malik Hasan arrived at his first hearing sporting a very thick, dark beard. Even though he was not serving in the United States military at the time, he was still responsible for abiding to official army rules during this military trial, especially since he was still receiving pension despite his criminal status. Army Regulation 670-1 consists of grooming rules for members of the military and specifically prohibits growing beards and goatees—a neatly trimmed mustache is allowed at times. The main reason for this rule is for hygiene purposes along with a clean-cut appearance that the United States army has identified with since before World War I.

The original material judge for Hasan’s case, Colonel Gregory Gross, noted the beard upon arrival and immediately asked that he shave, out of respect for the laws that all members of the military are subject to. Hasan claimed that his beard was not to show disrespect, but was required by his Muslim faith and being clean-shaven was a sin. The discrepancy between legal army regulations and the constitutional freedom of religious expression put the court material on hold for about three months.

A quick flashback to Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s military career prior to the Fort Hood shooting: a loyal member of the American team who appeared to have undying pride for his country. Until colleagues noticed some odd behavior, for example Hasan’s presentation promoting islam and the religious duty of suicide bombers around the time period that President Bush’s War on Terror was declared. Members of Hasan’s family expressed that this was also the time period when Nidal started to talk openly about how he didn’t want to serve in a military that was against the Islamic faith in any way shape or form. Right before he fired the first shot at Fort Hood, Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar!”which translates to "God is Great" in Arabic.

Moreover, being Muslim is a part of Hasan’s identity that he has been open about, despite his legal duty to serve his country in a fight against radical Islamists. As someone who was born in the United States, Hasan was born with the right to believe in whatever religion he chose and the freedom to express that faith. Even though he signed a contract proclaiming his loyalty to the United States Military, his actions before and after the Fort Hood shooting serve as evidence against his own government—regardless of whether or not they stemmed from religious beliefs.

Back to the courtroom: A new material judge was put on the case, Col. Tara Osborn, and she allowed Hasan to keep his beard during the trial. The facial hair made no difference in the outcome of Hasan’s case and he was sent to the U.S. Detention Barracks at Fort Levenwoth on counts of premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder. He is the 6thUS soldier in history to be put on death row.

Once he arrived at Fort Levensworth, the officials forcibly shaved Hasan’s beard. The process was videotaped for records but details of how he was restrained or if he even needed to be restrained remain confidential. The exception that Osborn allowed in the courtroom did not fly in military prison and just as all other inmates; Hasan was required to conform to army uniforms and insignia. John Galligan, Hasan’s former civilian lawyer wants to sue the army for violating his religious liberties and that the forced shaving is a vindictive act.

Facial hair is a statement. For some, it’s a product of laziness, for others it could be for warmth but for some Muslims, facial hair is a command from Mohammed. However even among different sects of Islam, the interpretation of the beard is different; some stress the importance of length while others prefer a “cropped beard” and during the 1960’s and 70’s, more men were shaving their beards as a sign of modernity.

So Hasan has the right to believe that his beard is a religious duty…but do his religious beliefs have the right to override his signed duties to his country? By enlisting in the military, Nidal Hasan knew what he legally signed up for and was responsible for protecting the United States through any means asked of him. He went against this contract by committing murder and I think it is wrong for him to insist on keeping his beard while tangled in a system that he directly went against.

He didn’t have a beard while he was an active psychiatrist because he understood army regulations and yet he still identified as Muslim. He then committed a mass murder and expects the organization that HE LEGALLY BETRAYED to waive his responsibility to abide by A670-1. I am all for freedom of expression, but I think a line needs to be drawn when a person commits a crime against their own country. While I don’t have the power to decide whether or not having a beard is a religious duty, I do think that the evidence against Hasan shows enough proof to consider how much he deserves these inalienable rights after committing such a crime.

Which holds more weight in the U.S.:  The freedom to express one’s religious beliefs or the promises soldiers make to protect their fellow citizens? Since this death penalty case involves a member of the military, the ultimate decision is up to the president since they are commander in chief.

Accommodations Made for Muslim Woman in Crown Court

On September 16, 2013, Judge Peter Murphy ruled at Blackfriars Crown Court that a Muslim woman on trial could wear her full-face veil throughout her trial, but not while she was delivering evidence. The 22-year old black Muslim convert from East London is accused of intimidating a witness at Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Judge ultimately did make some significant concessions to the defendant. He allowed her to not testify in open court with her face uncovered and instead offered some alternatives: she would be allowed to give evidence through a live video link or from behind a screen that hid her from the main court room and only showed her face to the judge, jurors, and her counsel. He also ruled that there could be no artist’s sketch of her face while it was uncovered.

This whole issue may seem confusing to those not familiar with Islamic practices/culture, but the woman (who has not been named) claimed that it is against her beliefs to allow any man who is not her husband to see her face. Her lawyers argued that it would also breach her human rights to remove her niqab (a full-face veil that only shows a woman’s eyes) against her wishes. On the other hand, the article does note that she only just began wearing the veil last May; but Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne is now addressing the issue of whether or not the state should help prevent young women from having the veil unwillingly imposed on them.

Judge Murphy’s recent decision is at odds with previous rulings made at the Crown Court: in March 2012, a judge ruled that a woman wearing a niqab could not sit as a juror for an attempted murder trial. This ruling also occurred a few days after a college was forced to turn over its ban on students wearing the veil. Additionally, the Birmingham Metropolitan College was recently accused of discriminating against Muslims when staff, students, and visitors were told to remove face coverings so they could be more easily identified (but this was eventually overturned in response to protests).

The issue Judge Murphy is addressing here is important, especially considering the increasing level of diversity in England and Wales: should concessions be made in court to people who claim that partaking in certain actions – that the rest of society willingly does – violates their religious beliefs? Judge Murphy claims that according to the Human Rights Act (1998), the defendant has the right to manifest her religion, but some restrictions of when she can and cannot wear her niqab in court are necessary in a democratic society. While some, including the Liberty organization, agree with this ruling, others accuse the judge of “pandering” the defendant and “bending over backwards” to accommodate someone who is unwilling to follow the rules of society that everyone else follows.

This case is difficult to address because Americans are guaranteed freedom to practice their religion under the First Amendment. But of course there will be some exceptions: if the practice of a particular religion comes into conflict with other laws already in place, which has priority? In this particular case, Judge Murphy has made a legitimate effort to balance this woman’s constitutional right to practice her religion freely with creating a fair and just trial. Those who disagree with this decision argue that seeing a person’s facial expressions/reactions during a trial is critical to assessing their credibility, especially when giving evidence or being questioned.  But again, Judge Murphy has somewhat accommodated this by making sure the woman’s face is revealed during the delivery of her evidence, but covered throughout the rest of the trial.

While some may argue Judge Murphy is entering a “slippery slope” with regards to making exceptions for religion, he is still accommodating the court’s need to see the woman’s entire face at certain points throughout the trial. Additionally, a person’s body language and reactions can be read in various ways: body language, tone of voice, etc. are also legitimate ways to determine someone’s reaction or feelings towards a particular statement.

Given that this woman is willing to accept the judge’s alternative, this seems like a legitimate solution to a problem that must be addressed (given the growing diversity in England and Wales). A definitive statement must be created as soon as possible so that judges know how to handle these types of situations with very religious people in following cases. This is a small but important accommodation: Judge Murphy’s decision demonstrates his respect for religious freedom and his recognition of the importance of following established law.

Do you believe Judge Murphy made a good decision or is he granting this woman an exemption from something that is necessary for the public to follow? 

Religion, or late-morning munchies?

In a recent New York Times article, As a Religion, Marijuana-Infused Faith Pushes Commonly Held Limits, reporter Mark Oppenheimer reviewed a case regarding a Hawaii native, Mr. Roger Christie.  Christie is a religious science practitioner, the minister of the Okeluheha Native American Church of Hilo, Hawaii, and the founder of the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry.

Unfortunately however, Mr. Christie currently resides in the Honolulu Federal Detention center.  It was Mr. Christies affiliation with the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry that landed him in federal prison.  He was indicted on charges that included conspiracy to manufacture and distribute.  

Christie in no way denies his affiliation with the Hawaii Cannabis THC ministry, and believes that his operation is, "a real ‘street ministry’ serving the needs of our neighbors from all walks of life”, in which Mr Christie actually employees three secretaries and a door man.  Mr. Christies attorney will argue that in Hawaiian federal court, clients should be allowed to present a religious freedom defense at the criminal trial and should be protected by the first amendment, and specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires that the government will present a 'compelling interest' whenever it feels substantially burdened by a religious practice.  There was a similar case in New Mexico in which the Supreme Court relied on the act to permit a New Mexican church to use the hallucinogen 'hoasca' for sacramental purposes. 

This poses the debate: is this case is about legal marijuana use, or rather,  what defines a legitimate religion.  Legalized peyote or hoasca have little to no recreational value, and actually make you sick before making you high.  According to the Times article, "marijuana has a huge recreational market, diversion from religious to recreation uses; and false claims of religious use, would be major problems."  The author points out that Mr. Christies case lacks the somber tone that usually distinguishes "religion".  However, have the courts not really offered the public a coherent, clear, or current definition of religion, or any type  of law regarding starting one of your own.  Furthermore, who decides the different privileges between religions that are established and legitimate versus those more liberal and new? Is religion and freedom of religious expression a personal issue, or a constitutional issue?  

I think that the major issue here is a) the inconsistencies with marijuana legalization, but more relatively b) the disparity in the definition of and what constitutes a legitimate religion.  Perhaps it is time for the government to create some sort of council or cabinet that solely deals with religious law; a diverse collection of religious leaders that will act like a parliament, senate, or house of representatives, which could potentially legitimately and physically separate religion from federal law.  

The Affordable Healthcare Act and Religious Exemption

The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, enacted in 2009 under the Barack Obama administration seeks to provide fair and comprehensive healthcare to all Americans. One of the provisions in the bill is that businesses must include coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization, and abortifacients in the healthcare packages they offer to their employees. However, the Catholic Church and other religious groups are fundamentally opposed to these practices and have spoken out against the bill. Thus the debate begins over whether or not these groups are allowed to exempt themselves from providing coverage for what they see as an affront to their religious practices and free exercise thereof.

On September 4^th, Catholic based Barron Industries filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius alleging that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate violates their first amendment rights. More specifically, the plaintiffs find contraception use, abortion, and sterilization fundamentally immoral and wish to exclude said practices from the healthcare packages they offer to their employees.

 

Founded in 1923, Barron Industries is a fabrication and assembly plant located in Oxford Michigan, employing 56 full-time employees. Family values and a devout catholic foundation are core values practiced by both the machining plants owners, Paul and Bruce Barron, but also instilled in the plants workers. The company performs a catholic mass in their conference room regularly, and their workers are all strongly encouraged to attend. Their website goes on to state: “Our Guiding Principle is our faith in God… It is our collective goal to use our work, professional and personal lives to lead each other to eternal salvation”. The company feels as though the contraception mandate encroaches on these values. Additionally the company supports a multitude of catholic and pro-life organizations, further cementing the veracity of their Christian background.

The plaintiffs argue that the affordable care act is not neutral, as it exempts certain groups, both religious and secular, from offering contraceptive practices, but not others. Because Barron Industries is a business, they fall into the latter category. However, since their business practices are steeped in a religious foundation, they too believe they should qualify for an exemption. This creates the question of what constitutes a religious group? Since Barron Industries is 100% privately owned they hold the right to be religiously based. Yet, does that give them the right to tailor their employees’ healthcare packages to their beliefs? 

I think not. On June 28^th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) stated that the exemption is limited to religious and non-profit organizations, but not businesses.  Although religiously based, Barron Industries must operate as an equal opportunity employer and therefore must accommodate non-Catholic employees who may see the exemption as a violation of their own 1^st amendment rights. Ultimately I think that if Barron Industries, as a business, receives an exemption they would be discriminating against their current and future employees, whether or not they were practicing Christians. A business must act, in my eyes, as a neutral entity. Religious non-profits and churches involve a group of like-minded individuals coming together for a unified purpose. Being a machinist and a devout catholic are not necessarily mutually inclusive and Barron Industries should provide contraception coverage regardless. Furthermore, just because they are offering the coverage does not mean that their employees have to take advantage of it. Thus I feel that it is a moot point when arguing that this provision itself infringes on the free exercise of their religion or that it causes significant harm to any one party. 

In a similar case, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) was at odds with the HHS over having to extend birth control to its employees. As of July however, the CHA has reversed its position and no longer opposes the mandate. Moreover, additional cases such as this have continually challenged the mandate and the debate over its constitutionality does not appear to end any time soon.  What defines a religious group? Does Barron Industries deserve an exemption?

A link to the lawsuit in full can be found here.

Child Forbidden From Writing About God in School

Kayne West once said, "If I talk about God my record won't get played."  More recently, an Elementary School student has been told, "If you talk about God your work won't get a grade."

Erin Shead is a 10 year old student at Lucy Elementary who had been assigned to write about someone she idolized.  As a Christian, Erin decided to write about God and Jesus, whom she described as "His Earthly Son."  However, when she turned the assignment in to her teacher, she was told that she would have to choose a new topic and redo the assignment.  Is this fair?  Erin had not only been prohibited to profess her religious views but also had to do the assignment twice.  She did listen to her teacher and redo the assignment, choosing the perhaps equally controversial Michael Jackson as someone else who she idolized.

The school has a policy that forbids promotion of religious ideals within the classroom, but also has no policy preventing students from expressing beliefs on their own accord or in class assignments.  The distinction between the two is critical.  Clearly a teacher cannot teach religion as fact, but teachers are permitted to acknowledge that many people are religious.  Additionally, we must consult the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The question at hand is whether the content in this child's assignment is in violation of the school rule or the first amendment.

Erica Shead, Erin's mother, got involved to try to get an explanation of the school's reasoning on the matter.  Shead expressed how her daughters work had been "cute" and "innocent,"clearly not intending to be opportunistic about promoting her religious beliefs.  She believed her daughter was simply being honest about who she idolized.  They both feel that this has been a case of favoring non-religion over religion.

The school felt differently.  Though their response was brief, school spokesman Christian Ross reminded the Shead's of the school policy that, "teachers are prohibited from promoting religious beliefs in the classroom.  He also stated that the school has no policy prohibiting students from expressing their religious beliefs in class assignments.  Upon further questioning from Shead, the principal stated that the district had spoken to the Shead family about the issue and would not be making any further comments on the matter.

The fundamental issue at hand is the role of religion in the classroom.  Was the teacher justified in preventing Erin from choosing to write about God or were Erin's free exercise rights violated?  The school made their decision based on the establishment clause, fearing that allowing Erin to write about religion in a school setting was not compliant with the school's desire to follow the First Amendment.

I side with the Shead's on this issue.  I believe Erin's free exercise rights have been compromised by the school's willingness to remove all religion from it's classrooms.  The school has admitted that they have no rule preventing students from expressing religious beliefs in their assignments, such as the one Erin was instructed to complete.  Since the teacher would not have been violating the school rule prohibiting the promotion of religious principles, I do not feel that the teacher was compelled to act.

I also do not believe allowing Erin to express her religious beliefs in this assignment is a violation of the establishment clause.  The nature of the assignment is personal, choosing someone who is an idol to the specific individual.  The teacher was not in violation of the establishment clause in giving the assignment, but neither was Erin in choosing God as her idol to share with her class.  If the assignment was to write about one's personal religion, perhaps I would feel differently, but this assignment was very broad.  I do not believe that the establishment rights of other classmates would be compromised by listening to Erin share her assignment with the class.  Erin has a right to express her belief in a personal, explanatory way.  If she began to preach to the class and attempt to convert classmates, then she would be violating the establishment clause.  However, as long as it is personal and simply informative, I believe Erin should have been allowed to write about God.  Do you agree?

In God We Trust

For a moment reach into your pocket, wallet, or purse and pull out a one dollar bill. That dollar is out country currency; it is what we use to purchase the things we need and what we want. That dollar hold a lot of weight on it that help keeps this country as the great nation as it is now. There is a statement located on the dollar that reads “In God We Trust” which is known to be our nation motto. Dr. Michael Newdow and the Freedom from Religion Foundation speak out against the nation’s motto saying that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and causes harm to the Atheist and Secular Humanist religion. 

On Monday, September 9, 2013 eleven Atheists and Secular Humanists, including Newdow, took this case to the District Court of New York. Newdow and his cohort of representatives express an argument that the phrase “In God We Trust” on currency causes harm to their family and religion. The motto “In God We Trust” was first printed on USA currency in 1955 and then express as the country motto in 1956. Newdow argued that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment hindering him of free practice of Atheism and Secular Humanism in which violates his free exercise of religion. The court argues by expressing by law, “a Free Exercise claim will be sustained only if the’ government has placed a substantial burden on the observation of a central religious belief,’ without ‘a compelling governmental interest justif [ying] the burden.” In other words the government can not make person choose between following their religion and the state. Countless times the United States government receives cases such as this and looks into the problem and has not seen any reason why the motto on the dollar shows a Constitution violation. The court argues that the motto has a patriotic or secular ceremonial purpose and does not have an affect on placing one religion above others. The court dismisses the case based on the plaintiff not properly having enough reasoning to show that a burden was being placed on the religion.

This proposes a question of do the government have the right to consider what is burden to the people? The motto of the country “In God We Trust” do it holds a Christian base dominion? The Establishment Clause clearly states. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The government shall not pass a law that will respect a certain religion or stopping the free exercise of others. Even though the motto is a statement that expresses religious belief many would say, but the court declares it has more historical and patriotic reasoning. The way it is being said is up for interpretation and is not favoring one religion according to the government. Within the Atheists and Secular Humanist community it creates an interpretation of negativity because they do not believe in God as a whole. Even though Newdow is offended from the nation’s motto on currency it does not cause a certain height of burden for the government to take into consideration. Should the government have the power to tell citizens what is a burden to the citizen feelings? The government basically told Newdow that this motto being currency don’t hurt you that much so we will ignore your claim for now. I argue that the government does not have the right to tell the people what is consider a burden to them.

                                                  IN GOD WE TRUST STEREOTYPES 

           

  In my opinion the motto “In God We Trust” on currency does not force one religion over the other. As for most religion they have a god and that could appeal to all of them and though it does not appeal to atheists it does not force them to use the currency. In today’s society there are many ways to pay for things without using dollar bills or coins. We have things such as checks and direct deposit that can be transferred into one bank account without the handling of cash. What I don’t agree with is this Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in which the government can choose what is considered a burden to the people. This is why documents containing rules and regulations, The Bill of Rights for example, to protect the people from the government and the majority. In this instance the government is appealing to the majority because if a majority of people would see this as an issue the court case would have been totally different. Would that have been a big enough burden for the government to recognize?       

He was arrested before he could burn 2,998 Qurans--but were his rights violated?

On September 11, 2013, Florida Pastor Terry Jones and Pastor Wayne Sapp were arrested before they could burn almost 3000 Qurans. Jones and Sapp are members of a Florida church that is very anti-Muslim. They have taken the stance that the Muslim religion is to blame for the attacks on 9/11. They also see Muslims as being violently opposed to the separation of church and state principle, as well as being unaccepting of other religions. From Jones’ view, Muslim people dislike and persecute Christians, and therefore should not be accepted in America. Jones is famous for broadcasting these views, and causing uproar amongst Muslims in third world countries. This led to riots and Muslims attacking the Americans stationed there to help keep the peace.

Jones and Sapp had attempted to attain a park permit for this ritual. They wanted to burn 2,998 copies of the Quran as a tribute to the 2,998 people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks. However, because of a last minute location change, they did not have a permit. Despite this, Jones’ organization broadcasted that they were going to complete this Quran burning, and feel as if their arrest was a targeted arrest to prevent them from completing it and exercising their freedom of speech. They were technically arrested because they were stopped on their way to the burning transporting Kerosene-soaked Qurans in a grill that was attached to the back of their vehicle. This is a safety hazard and the two pastors now face charges of unlawful conveyance of fuel. While this is a valid charge, supporters are arguing that the arrest is unjust if it was motivated by a desire to prevent the Quran burning.

If Jones’ lawyers can prove that this arrest was a motivated one, the issue becomes whether or not Jones’ freedom of speech and freedom to exercise his religious beliefs win out when in conflict with the freedom of Muslims to exercise their religion in peace. This is a highly contentious issue. On the one hand, the first amendment does guarantee Jones the freedom of speech, and although burning a Quran is very offensive, it is a peaceful protest. However, does the government have a right to prevent it in hopes that that prevents violence from breaking out in other countries in response to the act? What about Muslim-Americans, are their rights being infringed upon by this disrespect and discrimination? Would allowing the burning of Qurans lead to even more discrimination and anti-Muslim sentiments that may eventually prevent Muslims from practicing their religion in peace?

I personally find it difficult to agree with what Jones did. He is blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few, when we know that it is unjust to stereotype every Muslim as violent and in support of the happenings of 9/11. This is a disrespectful act that could only perpetuate the animosity between Muslims and Christians, and would certainly not help convince Muslims that Christianity is deserving of respect. It is ironic that he is attacking a religion because they do not accept his. However, although many Americans may not agree with his method of executing his beliefs, does that mean he does not have the right to express them? He believes in them so strongly that he has made them religiously motivated. If he were protesting a non-secular book in the same manner, it would be easy to say that he had the right to do so.

The case becomes further complicated by the fact that his actions serve as a legitimate threat to the peace and order of society. Even in as far back as the Reynolds v United States case, concerning the right to plural marriage for religious purposes, the idea of maintaining peace and order is stressed. The court makes the decision in this case that although everyone can believe what they want, they cannot act on these beliefs if their actions will upset the peace and order of society. This is an established precedent, and one in which the court has decided overrules basic freedoms. To allow Jones to burn 2,998 Qurans knowing that it may lead to riots and American military deaths in other countries is a difficult concept to accept.

Furthermore, when the actions of one religious group interfere with the free exercise of another religious group, who is to win out? Presumably, the law should protect those who are the victims in the situation. Therefore, the law must protect Muslims from being ostracized and threatened. Although it may not seem like a big deal to non-Muslims, burning the Quran is one of the worst crimes in the eyes of the Muslim. America guarantees them the right to engage in their beliefs in peace. The government allowing the burning of the Quran when they are perfectly aware that it is taking place could be seen as a violation of this basic right. This then leads to my conclusion that Jones was rightfully arrested and should not have the right to harass Muslims solely because of his own discriminatory beliefs. 

In recent news, a adoption agency is under fire for refusing to allow same sex couples to adopt from their facilities. Catholic Charities of Boston is a renown adoption organization that has provided homes for countless children.  The organization consists of several adoption facilities that are scattered throughout the state.  Unfortunately, the organization's charitable reign is coming to a screeching halt due to a controversial battle between religious freedom and gay rights.

In the state of Massachusetts, it is against the law to discriminate based on an individuals sexual orientation.  The state's stance is that the Catholic Charities of Boston has violated this law by refusing to give children up to same sex couples.  It is the organization's stance that due to religious beliefs and obligations they simply cannot help same sex couples.  The organization specifically cites a statement by the Vatican which prohibits Catholic adoption agencies from giving children up to same sex couples.  Ultimately, the demise of the CCB was due to the states refusal to license the adoption facilities due to an unwillingness to adhere to the state's "discrimination on orientation law".  Some will argue that any organization who accepts state funds should satisfy the state, however that is beside the point.  The CCB's religious beliefs remain the main issue not state funding.  "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."
   
This  particular incident is far from isolated.  Cases similar to this are sprouting up throughout the country.  In Illinois, agencies are shutting down due to the state's unwillingness to permit religiously run adoption facilities to make judgments based on their religious beliefs.  In Illinois, the states are using their political might and wealth to ensure that individuals like Bishop Thomas Paprocki (Bishop of Springfield, Ill.) cannot continue contributing to the lives of orphaned children and families who seek to adopt.  It appears that religiously affiliated adoption agencies simply can not survive the states secular agenda. “The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable,” he said, “while less dependent on government funding and less encumbered by intrusive state policies.” - Bishop Thomas Paprocki

These incidents are very troubling due to the implications they have on religious freedom.  As a country, we are now seeing a social shift that is allowing Americans to enjoy their inherent freedom, however not everyone is reaping the benefits.  More specifically, religiously affiliated organizations will no longer be allowed to adhere to all of their beliefs.  A pick and choose attitude will be instilled when it comes to religious adherence. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for individuals to use their religious beliefs to explain their actions.  In some instances it is considered illegal to act on religious obligations that could be mentally damaging to others. It is as if the religious can only truly practice and preach in the sanctity of their homes.  The state is attempting to fix "discrimination" by discriminating against the religiously adherent. The secular repercussions to the issue at hand are equally as disturbing.  As a result of these rulings there will be less resources for orphaned children.  The care that these organizations provided was unparalleled and now this remarkable service is unavailable.  Hundreds will suffer from the loss.

If it was not clear already I feel that the Catholic Charities of Boston, and similar organizations, are being discriminated against due to their beliefs.  I feel it is within their rights to adhere to Vatican Law and continue providing exceptional care.  I refuse to entertain the state funding argument, due to its implications.  It appears the state feels that they are doing the CCB a favor by funding them, however it is the other way around entirely.  The CCB is doing the state a favor by protecting orphaned children and promoting morality and family values.  We are not an extension of the state the state is an extension of us.  On the other hand, I understand that same sex couples may feel short changed, however it is not a personal attack.  Religious adherence is something that is between an individual and their god(s), it is not something Piers Morgan can debate on television.  When we are able to respect each other and our beliefs we will truly understand, however all we have until then is what our founding fathers blueprinted for us.