Controversial Pancakes

This article from the New York Times describes the events prior to the recently held National Prayer Breakfast. The Prayer Breakfast is an event where top political, military and religious leaders from the United States meet in an effort to network with each other. While the official Prayer Breakfast is held in Washington D.C. there were a host of similar and competing events in major cities throughout the country. On the surface, these events seem to be wholly sponsored by the government. However, this is not necessarily the case. As the article states, the Prayer Breakfast is primarily sponsored and coordinated by the Evangelical Christian group known as “The Family.” This secretive religious group uses its behind the scenes influence in the political realm at various types of these networking events. A major concern about the Breakfast is that a religious group is involving itself directly in political affairs. Many American citizens are not comfortable with having a religious entity, especially one not widely known to the public, influencing powerful political officials.

The main topic of this article involves The Family pushing their anti-gay rights views onto government officials. The Prayer Breakfast is a national forum in which their beliefs can be made evident to the government. While the article explains the implications of allowing this group to articulate their anti-gay sentiments to federal officials, I believe that the Prayer Breakfast shows a more overarching legal and political problem in the United States. The Family, much like any other interest group, has the right to make their beliefs known to government. However, a larger issue forms when the institution sponsoring a governmental event is overtly religious. Should it be permissible for the government to be involved in an event that is sponsored by a specific religious organization? (Below is a video from the Prayer Breakfast which was held last week.)




This question becomes even cloudier considering The Family is not a well publicized group. They have no formal structure and tend to make their impact in Washington without much public recognition. I contend that the problem with allowing groups like this, or any religious group, to sponsor a political event stems from the American ideal of the separation of Church and State. This First Amendment legal issue has become a prevalent topic over the past decade. In this particular instance however, there is a direct overlapping of religious and political institutions. By allowing a group such as The Family direct access to federal officials, it gives the impression that certain religious causes have stronger political influence than others. This in turn, alienates citizens with alternative religious, or non-religious, beliefs. This realization appears to have some severe legal implications. Government officials attending the National Prayer Breakfast goes against every lesson about the necessary aspects of having separate political and religious spheres. While it is the case that any interest group can sponsor an event with prominent politicians in attendance, it seems strange that the largely unknown religious organization The Family is allowed to network annually with the most powerful diplomats of the United States. In my opinion, it is reasonable for individuals, religious or not, to be upset by the involvement of The Family in this event. American citizens should not simply be upset with the fact that The Family sponsors anti-gay sentiments, but rather that religious groups are allowed such direct attachment to political affairs.

A counterargument to my, and many others, issue with the National Prayer Breakfast states that these religious groups should be allowed to voice their opinions to the government just like any other institution. Admittedly, there is no empirical evidence that The Family has any more influence over political affairs than any other interest group in Washington. But this should not be the primary concern of this event. It is undoubtedly the right of every interest group to attempt to garner political support for their causes. In this light, The Family is no different. However, it is the mere possibility of a solely religious influence in the political system that is both politically and legally questionable. Therefore, it is still necessary to question the legitimacy of these types of events. The First Amendment appears to get blurred when top leaders from both spheres “network” over a fresh stack of pancakes. But given the long lineage of government officials attending this event, it appears that nothing will be changing in the near future.



Justin M.

Death is a civil matter

Parents found guilty in Oregon City faith-healing trial

As if placing one’s faith in one’s creator was not difficult enough, in Oregon City, Oregon it is apparently illegal. Jeff and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the 2008 death of their sixteen-year old son. Read the article.

I found three interesting, yet disturbing, comments in the online article. First is the warning by Steven Green, director of Willamette University’s Center for Religion and Democracy, that this case sends a signal to the religious community [presumably at large] that their actions will be more scrutinized [by the state than a non-religious community]. A family that chooses a faith path that endorses faith-healing can be held to a higher standard of child care than a more secular one that over-medicalizes their child(ren). These faith-holding parents differ in the court from another parent who sends their child to the doctor, demanding care the child may not need (I am thinking of Ritalin prescriptions or antibiotics for treating the common cold) and that may do more harm than good, because they chose to place their faith with a different authority. I understand the continuous court rulings that beliefs and actions take different legal roads, but I also see a definite pattern of hypocrisy. There are too many examples of questionable parenting (for example) that go unrecognized in the court system even when the result is the death of a child; the parent seems to be saved because they do not profess to a strong sense of faith for their lives.

The second comment that bothered me was that expert testimony of doctors was used by the defense even though the parents did not rely on their medical skill to take care of their child when he was severely sick. As the prosecution attorney offered, this was a “rich irony.” Yet, what other alternative did the defense have? Death, in our society, apparently is a civil matter and not a faith matter. No matter how many faith healers and examples of successful faith healing the defense could have offered as proof that faith healing works, the secular/civil court most likely would not have recognized its relevance. Their son died under their care, not God’s care. It did not help that no one bothered to call 9-1-1 when he died—a repeat in the death of the same parent’s granddaughter three months earlier.

Finally, we are told that in Oregon, parents who offer a religious defense in the death of a child may receive probation instead of a prison sentence. If the state is going to go after parents for their decisions in the death of their child, the state should use the same criterion for all parents. What, after all, does the religious defense do that changes the circumstances? Repeatedly, the courts have ruled that actions fall under a different set of rules. There is no reason, therefore, to slap parents with criminal suit and then offer some a carrot because their actions were based on faith decisions.

I have found that reading comments following articles online incredibly eye opening. The viciousness that people exhibit in their commentary regarding those who rely of faith so strongly is as close-minded as the people they accuse. Is there any difference in the comments following this article and that found against Native-Americans in 1892 when the school superintendent wrote, “their religion is the darkest of superstitions” that inevitably led to a “lack of truthfulness, consistency, and moral consciousness” (Wenger, p. 29)? The conflict between authorities, the state and God, is an old one that surely will not end very soon.

Good Intentions or Good Excuse?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/04/haiti.arrests/index.html

In the wake of the earthquake that struck Haiti, 10 American missionaries were arrested for kidnapping. We’ve heard countless stories of how this earthquake has devastated the capital of Haiti. Songs have been made and stories have been told in an effort to rally support and aid for Haiti. Some have even left their homes in various countries and on various continents in order to physically lend a hand to Haiti. Of the 10 Americans that were arrested some belong to a Baptist church that’s based in Idaho. As I read this article my heart was broken a little by the thought of someone even seeking prosecution against a group that means no harm. I guess the question that resonates over and over in my mind is: “Does a natural disaster like this one trump certain laws and traditions?” If your city lies in ruins and the reality of the life’s temporality is shaken, what exactly is more important? Laws or lives?

Not only does this case involve Americans but it was also suggested that the case be tried on American soil. It disturbs me that there is even a case to be considered for American justice. Many headlines depicted Haiti as relying on faith and God to get them through this horrible disaster. Yet they seek to arrest and convict the saints sent to them for help. In the midst of devastation should man’s need for social order override the needs of those that are suffering? Can Haiti be so hell-bent on legalities that the children and families are forced to suffer further? I propose that in instances like these that measures of “good faith” should trump minor legalities.

So here’s my advice to fellow Americans and others. Remember the instance with the 2 Korean-American journalists trespassing into North Korea? Well let’s just remember that if we aren’t in America we are guests. Behave as such!

Christian Punishment?

Elizabeth Landau’s CNN piece http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/16/spanking.children.parenting/index.htm examines the social implications of using corporal punishment to discipline children, especially those from low income families. Over 2,500 toddlers (12-36 month old) participated in a Duke University study that sought to provide a link between aggression and corporal punishment. The article goes on to note that “spanking is most commonly used among parents who were spanked themselves, who live in the South, and/or who identify themselves as conservative Christians”. The study found that children spanked as one year old's were more aggressive two year old's and tended to perform at lower cognitive levels than their peers. In an apposing view, Robert Larzelere, a professor of human development and family science at Oklahoma State University, finds that spanking children between the ages of 2 and 6 is the best method of discipline.

Southern Conservative Christians are identified as one of the groups most likely to use corporal punishment to discipline their children. This seems to be a generalization that may stem from that particular group’s public declarations of their dedication to use biblical theories to inspire their family, social, and political actions. Spanking children is a legal act in the United State, but abusing children is not. The Duke study infers that there is a link between a child being spanked and later perpetuating physical violence.

I don't believe that parents who choose to spank their children are necessarily motivated by their personal religious leanings. Most parents choose to discipline their children physically because they, themselves were disciplined similarly and consider spanking to be the most effective method. I am from the South, but I am neither conservative, nor particularly religious. Yet, when I begin my family, corporal punishment will be implemented at the appropriate times. Corporal Punishment sounds so harsh, and brings to mind images of a child being tied to a pole and a mother wearing an Army uniform, whipping a child senseless. Spanking should have parameters. Popping hands and bottoms with an open hand is perfectly acceptable to me. Talking to a child as if he were an adult, attempting to reason with someone who has 2 years of reasoning experience, is not acceptable. An exception would be made in a special case where a 2 year old has the reasoning of an adult thinker. I remember being spanked as a child. The few times that this occurred, I had behaved in direct defiance of my parent’s direction and a 12” wooden ruler named “Mr. Brown” promptly found the back of my legs and arms. The memory of the fear and physical pain that Mr. Brown bestowed upon me came to mind any time that mischief presented itself to me. Spanking was not related to the religion of my house, it was about establishing practical actions and respecting authority. I think of the many teens today that were only exposed to time-out and verbal warnings, many of whom treat their parents as their peers and have no concept of authority. They seem to be totally unaware of potentially disastrous effects of their various misdeeds. These kids were not referred to in the Duke study, but they should have been. “Aggressive” teens, with no fear of retribution, are nothing compared to aggressive Conservative Christian toddlers at day care.

The Use of the Ten Commandments in Court

I’d like to bring your attention to two articles regarding the same court case. First, the short article that describes Soloman Dwek being grilled on his adherence to the Ten Commandments. Second, the article that explains why the defense thinks this grilling is relevant.

In class last week, we discussed constitutional vs. common law. Oversimplified, constitutional law refers to that which protects common law (it is written out and agreed upon at a given time). Common law, on the other hand, is constantly developing by the people based primarily on customs.

I think that this these news articles demonstrate the way in which constitutional and common law may play out in the court room. Soloman Dwek became an FBI informant after being caught in the fraudulent bank deal referenced in the second article. He then led to the prosecution of several high-level New Jersey politicians. Now, the defendants want to show that Dwek is of low moral character. In doing so, the defense hopes to call into question the FBI’s choice in people they use to prosecute these politicians.

It seems that this move is a last resort for the defense in this case. They merely want to expose Dwek as “just as bad” (or worse) as the defendants in order to undermine the FBI and its efforts. For our discussion, the interesting part is that the defense chose to use the Ten Commandments as the measurement of Dwek’s moral character.

The use of the Ten Commandments assumes that the audience (most importantly the jury) is sympathetic to the moral code that the Ten Commandments assert. I think that the use of the Ten Commandments in this case represents the invocation of common law in the courts. If this is the case, the most relevant habits of Dwek would be his habit of lying. If Dwek was a habitual liar in the past, how can he be trusted in working for the FBI? The defense wants to call Dwek’s credibility into question further by proving that he even cheated and stole from his own family and Jewish community. I wonder how much weight this probing against Dwek will have when he has handed over filmed encounters with the defendants discussing their corrupt dealings? Will the jury value the defense’s questioning of Dwek’s character enough to oversee the evidence provided by Dwek? I don’t think this is very likely but I guess it is worth a shot for the defense.

It seems that the evidence provided by Dwek should be used to in the case against the defendants and then Dwek can be dealt with on his own. Sure, he probably only cooperated with the FBI for selfish reasons but that does not change the fact that the defendants are corrupt themselves.

Is There a Place for Forgiveness ?: The Polanski Case

Many of us are now probably familiar with the Roman Polanski rape case. In 1977 Polanski was convicted of having “unlawful sex with a minor.” Reading through the transcripts of the victim, 13 year-old Samantha Geimer, one learns that Polanski gave the girl a quaalude and champagne before engaging in sexual intercourse with her. According to her testimony, she repeatedly told him “no” and resisted his sexual advances. After a lengthy trial, which ended with much still up in the air, Polanski fled to Europe. He has been living there for over 30 years (For a nice summary see here)

So what makes this case interesting for those interested in Religion and American Law? In 1997, Geimer publicly “forgave” Polanski. For one interested in the intersection of religion and law, the case raises the important question: Does forgiveness, a nominally Christian concept and virtue, have a place in the American law system? Many people’s immediate reaction is probably to say no. And this most likely reflects a general understanding of how crime is dealt with in the U.S. legal system (This is specifically talked about here). Our law centers, in general, around a retributive form of justice, one in which criminals have to “pay” for their crime with their time, labor, or life. Forgiveness flies in the face of this form of justice. Even if forgiveness occurs, some might claim, it cannot stand in place of punishment

Public reaction to Polanski has been mixed to say the least. Many celebrities have stood up for him. During the 2003 Oscars, for example, he received a standing ovation from the audience when he won for Best Director for his film The Pianist. Some feminist thinkers have reacted strongly as well (Check out the reaction at feministing). Many of the proponents of his arrest claim that he has been able to evade facing his crimes because of his celebrity status. If we do not seek to punish him to the fullest extent of the law then we are, as a society, authorizing his crime. They argue that it begins to look like rape is permissible as long as you can make a good movie. How can we as a society allow this?

In a more sympathetic portrayal of Polanski’s life, the film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired describes Polanski’s struggle for survival after his mother as killed in the holocaust and the Manson family murdered his wife. This story might lead one to think that while Polanski committed a terrible crime, it is reasonable to feel sympathy for him.

To make matters more interesting, Samantha Geimer has fought to have the case dropped since Polanski’s recent rearrest in Switzerland. It appears she has moved on since forgiving Polanski back in 1994 and wants everyone else to as well. Perhaps her forgiveness is not “pure,” in the sense that she has extended a sympathetic embrace to him, but I think most would be hard pressed to find a pure form of forgiveness. In either case, Geimer's attempt to have the charges dropped might make us reconsider whether forgiveness should have a place in the law. If both the victim and the perpetrator are ready to move on, why should the law stand in their way?

The point of this short blog is not to advocate releasing Polanski’s case being dropped, nor to advocate punishing him to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, it is to point to the ambiguity that a victims forgiveness brings into the law, and to have shown how it might not always be clear whether punishment or forgiveness is the best route to take. Further, this case also raises the issue of whether forgiveness permissible in the legal arena. Is it a purely “religious” concept? And what role do nominally Christian or religious concepts play in society more generally?

As this article states, the United States Air Force Academy in El Paso County, Colorado, has recently dedicated space for a sacred pagan circle. The Academy already has dedicated sacred spaces for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier (pictured at right, consecrating an Earth-centered worship site with white sage--photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Don Branum) was the driving force behind this circle’s creation, but he thanks the chaplain’s office for its support and says that there was no intervention or interference against the dedication of a sacred space for his religion. A similar sacred circle was destroyed several times at the Army’s Fort Hood in Texas.

The article hails it as a triumph of religious freedom, and I agree. It quotes the Cadet Wing Chaplain, Lt. Col William Ziegler, who says, “We want this dedication service to be another example of celebrating the freedom we enjoy as well as the freedom we, as Airmen, have pledged to defend.” This is a fine example of the epitome of state-sponsored schools offering religious spaces for all of its students. However, the question then becomes, where is the line drawn?

Some people will attack the sacred circle on the grounds that there is no one God that the Earth-centric religions pray to, even if that argument is potentially irrelevant, especially as there is a Buddhist sacred space at the Academy already. They will make the argument, however, that a “true” religion has a specific deity at its head, instead of a number of deities or a focus on the natural world.

Others might argue that having separate spaces for all of these religions is implicit government support of these specific religions to the exclusion of the others not represented. Others may say that religious spaces have no place on the campus of a government-run and –funded institution, and that if the cadets at the Air Force Academy wish to attend religious services of any type they must seek it in the community. The idea of government-owned, consecrated land could be seen as an establishment of religion.

I agree that the precedent may be mildly worrying, but I also believe that it was the right thing to do. The chaplain’s office will just have to evaluate other cadets’ religious needs as they arise, and find the medium between respecting each religion and the very small populations of certain religious groups. There are religions common in the United States not mentioned as having sacred spaces of their own at the Academy, including Hinduism and the Native American Church. The article does not comment on whether there are any practitioners of either of these religions, but the reader is left to wonder if a Hindu or Native American Church sacred space will follow at the United States Air Force Academy. Again, I do not necessarily see a problem with that; however, it must be considered that at a certain point the areas of campus dedicated to different religions could outnumber the secular areas.

However, Sgt. Longcrier and his peers who follow Earth-centered religions now have a place to call their own, and this is only fair considering that his fellow cadets who happen to be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist are offered the same courtesy.

Bill and Bob Martin: No, They're Not Brothers!

Lawyers in California are defending proposition 8. If you don’t know what proposition 8 is, it is the ban on gay marriage in California. Why would lawyers need to defend it? Because this new-age argument is under-fire once again.

With the rise in gay and lesbian political support, religious leaders fear marriage laws will be changed.

The notoriously liberal state of California is the expected spot for this fight's forefront. With polls being neck and neck, nearly 52 percent of voters voted in favor of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Surprisingly, the plaintiff will not have an easy time convincing the court. Gay and lesbian leaders feel that the rules against gay marriage have oppressed the political power of the gay community. They feel that a basic right to marriage being taken away from them is a crime. To them, marriage is no longer just a union of two people who are in love, it is also, and maybe more importantly, a sign of political clout. My question is, is marriage a basic right? If marriage is a religious ceremony then why does it have so much political clout? Also, being a religious tradition, would the limitations on marriage be held to the moral standards of the religious community?

In the trial, there was much evidence from the defense in which they suggest that gays and lesbians have a lot of political say so. From video tapes to expert witnesses, the defense showed that the gay community has a huge political backing. In proof of their backing, before the ballot, a campaign for the establishment of gay marriage raised $40 million for the cause. Of course, calling it a cause suggests that the prevention of gay marriage is an injustice.

In order to win the case the gay community must show “suspect class” status. In order to do this they must prove two things: 'that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, like race or ethnicity, and that gays and lesbians are unable to protect their interests via the political process.'"One videotape included a pastor suggesting that legalized gay marriage could lead to polygamy and bestiality." many suggest that comments like this show predjudice towards gay couples. The lawyers fighting for proposition 8 disagree saying that these are examples of prejudice separate from the decision by the state to enforce proposition 8. In fact, the lawyers argue that their intention for proposition 8 was never made to oppress a certain people saying, "the marriage ban was not motivated by animus but only about protecting traditional marriage." The defense upholds the position that the law was never religion based. Both sides have something to say, and both sides are not telling the whole truth. The motivation behind proposition 8 seems to be withheld from the public, and the plaintiff fails to deliver an opposition that is solely based on political agenda.

Social Norms Change Religious Labels

Since the founding of the United States on July 2, 1776, marriage has been the legal union between a man and a woman. However, with the ongoing challenges to Proposition 8, the above 224 year old definition of marriage is as close as it has ever been to seeing a legal change. In response to California's ban on same-sex marriage, the opposition is trying to overturn Proposition 8, which was passed by a majority of the state's voters.

On January 21, 2010, Maura Bolan of The Los Angeles Times reported on the current activities of this court case of which focus was on the involvement of religion. At this point the challengers are arguing that religious institutions, such as the Catholic and Mormon churches, engaged in the promotion of the discrimination of gays prior to the bill being voted upon. The argument is that the specifically named religious institutions have presented specific religious memos of religious officials as evidence for the discrimination. With evidence of internal religious communications being introduced, the defense argues that it is only the expression of religious bigotry.

With the First Amendment being that Congress cannot pass any laws for the establishment of religion nor interfere with the exercise of religion, I am personally perplexed with the continuance of this case from the grounds of which the defense is arguing. From the article we see that the opposition is crying for discrimination, from which these institutions influenced the outcome of the ban. With that said, I am having a very difficult time seeing the ban on gay marriage as being an establishment of religion nor do I see the religious rights of gays being taken away. If the Constitution's definition did not specify that marriage was in between one man and one woman, then I would say we have a problem of the freedom to exercise. If the particular case of California's ban on gay marriage hinged upon its legislation being heeded by the above-named religious institutions, perhaps there may be a case of establishment. However, the state of California does not endorse Catholicism or Mormonism. These institutions were not the vote for the legislation, the people were. No matter how influential an entity may be, within legal bounds, the vote comes down to the people and it was the voters of California that passed the ban, not religious institutions.

It seems to me that if same-sex marriage is to be Constitutional, then the definition of marriage itself must be changed. However, with the changing of the definition of marriage, this legislation would perhaps lead to a slippery slope. I could only imagine that many court cases such as those that deal with polygamy, incest or statutory rape would reopen. We could take away the use of marriage altogether, however not only would the above issues again be reexamined, but the challengers of the ban are not asking for such a measure. They want the same privileges under the same conditions that a man and woman currently have through marriage. In the end, I again do not see the case as infringing upon the First Amendment, but rather it is a case of social norms from which the likes of banning polygamy were also established.

Controversy of Abortion in 2010 Health Care Reform

On January 22, 2010 thousands of people marched down Constitutional Avenue, up Capital Hill, and to the Supreme Court building protesting the 37^th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. The annual March for Life event has mobilized to new levels as a result of the recent health care reform bills. Anti-abortion protesters are putting pressure on the government to create a health care bill that will prohibit the use of federal funding for abortions. Abortion was not the only issue that was being protested. Many people who attended the event were also rallying against the use of stem-cell research. Despite the overwhelming attendance of anti-abortionists, Obama gave a statement maintaining his original belief that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. He stated that he will “remain committed to working with people of goodwill to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.”

The controversy of abortion and other medical research is heavily influenced by religious beliefs. The debates are a series of questions about what marks the beginning of life and if terminating a pregnancy is considered to be murder. The act of one pregnant single woman by the name of Roe forced the Supreme Court to answer these questions when she challenged the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws. The highly controversial issue is still prevalent almost four decades later but the decision continues to remain intact. As the health care system is on the brink of reform, a new set of questions arise in relation to the issue. Will the new health care programs take into account abortion or similar matters such as stem-cell researching and cloning? Will the bill challenge a Supreme Court ruling or will it make it stronger? Does abortion break the Sixth Commandment that one “shall not murder”?

The health care reform proposal of 2010 written by President Obama has five specific goals. They include instituting temporary provisions to make health care coverage more affordable for Americans who have lost their jobs, increasing health care coverage for children, computerizing America’s health records in five years, developing and disseminating information on effective medical interventions, and investing in prevention and wellness. Under the category of “developing and disseminating information on effective medical interventions”, President Obama will dedicate $1.1 billion dollars through the Recovery Act of 2009 to medical research with no specific requirements given for what type of research this amount of money will go to. It is likely that this portion of the health care reform bill will go to stem-cell research because President Obama took a special interest in the subject when he issued his Executive Order 13505 on March 9, 2009 which removed the barriers prohibiting the use of human stem cells for scientific research.

The health care reform campaign does in fact contain provisions about the issue of abortion. It would expand abortion through mandates and federal subsidies. However, the House of Representatives removed these mandates and subsidies before they sent the bill back to the Senate. As the debate continues, it is apparent that the end results will in fact affect the 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion in the United States but whether it will strengthen it or weaken it is still unknown.

During the March for Life many religious groups joined in the protest against abortion. The first amendment guarantees a person’s freedom of religion but the government was also founded upon the notion of a separation between church and state. The debate over abortion within governmental proceedings is not a question of religious beliefs but a question of humanity. Is abortion humane?

As technology evolves and advances science, the struggle against legalized abortion becomes more difficult. With the large amount of involvement apparent at the March this past Friday shows that the people are not backing down. What will our lives look like in ten years? In fifteen years? With technology and science rapidly evolving every day, it is impossible to predict the future but matters of the past continue to be prevalent in modern societal issues.