Reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Robert Woodward)
 

       Before reading this article you may find yourself developing negative assumptions towards the Vatican because of the title "Vatican Makes Money Laundering List of U.S. State Department" written by Philip Pullella. Most times reporters create a catchy title in order to capture the reader's attention before actual grasp of the context of such articles. Before assuming let’s look at the text to gather  proper understanding.

         This article presents the issue of possible corruption in religious groups, especially those that hold very important roles in public life. What I am proposing is that the reader identify with the actions that the Vatican church officials take in this case in order to comply with international standards in prevention of this sort of corruption; aside from making blindsided assumptions and resent the Vatican.

       In this article there seems to be less of an issue but more of a presentation of the Vatican’s historical involvement in the affairs of the U.S State Department’s money-laundering list. Apparently the Vatican has found itself on the list in the category of ‘of concern’. Although it may not have been of high risk concern it does put a dent in social perception of the righteousness of religious institutions. What I am referring to is the role that religion plays in society in reference to what is good or bad behavior. According to Was America Founded as a Christian Nation and We Have a Religion, religion is influential on the definition of morality in societal acceptance of groups; the Vatican should hold no exception in displaying moral behavior.

   Generally, the Vatican has tried to cover up its bad blood from their past but it has also set up a new system for open communication of the transactions between the Vatican and the Vatican Bank to eliminate vulnerability to money launderers. The Vatican has made an effort to comply with the international standards against financial crimes.  As a human being and associated with such a successful money producing field it’s easy to assume that there is some dishonesty or possible corruption  within this institution but this report introduces what I find as positive assertion to this issue.

    What is unique about this article is that the reporter presents this issue that includes the Vatican and the legal issues behind being placed on the list of money-laundering of the U.S State Department. I find that the effort the Vatican takes with details surrounding what they did in the past and what they are doing now were greatly expressed in this article. It is unique because most people do use the title to steer their train of thought before reading all the text and this one seems to be tricky in relating its information.

       Religious Exemption in Michigan’s Anti- Bullying Bill

       On November 2^nd  , 2011 a majority Republican controlled senate in Michigan passed an anti-bulling bill.  According to an article in Time magazine online (http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04/why-does-michigans-anti-bullying-bill-protect-religious-tormenters), this bill did not require school districts to report bulling incidents, did not include provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they failed to act. The article states that “Michigan is already one of only three states in the country that have not enacted any form of anti-bullying legislation. For more than a decade, Democrats in the state legislature have fought their Republican colleagues and social conservatives such as Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who referred to anti-bullying measures as “a Trojan horse for the homosexual agenda.” In that time, at least ten Michigan students who were victims of bullying have killed themselves”.

The Democrats in the senate had asked for particular students that were prone to being bulled to be enumerated, such as racial and religious minorities, and gay students, however the Republican voted against this inclusion, in favor for the addition of “special” protections for religiously- motivated bulling, all 11 Democratic senators voted against the legislation, but they were outnumbered and the bill (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0137.pdf) was passed.

Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a “blueprint for bullying”. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”

The Republican argument was that the addition of this “special” protection for religion was done so as to not limit the first Amendment guarantees of religious freedom to express ones religious beliefs.

Ironically the bill is named “Matt’s Safe School Law”, after Matt Epling, a Michigan student that had committed suicide after prolonged bulling at school. After examining this bill, I am left wonder who exactly does it protect. I believe the bill just creates a legal loop hole for allowing students and even the school employees to get away with bulling. The social conservatives have previously unsuccessfully attempted for an inclusion of a provision that would protect religious freedom when congress expanded the definition motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation hate crime. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592)

I believe the main constitutional issues  that should come into play in this situation should be the civil rights of the victims (the children being bullied).  Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age. Therefore should laws infringing on the civil rights of citizens get passed? The civil rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship include the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments, and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality. The civil right of an individual is protected under the Equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."^[

 I do not believe the “free exercise clause” of The First Amendment should be applicable when it causes harm or violates the civil liberties of others, especially children.

The main/ landmark cases from U.S. Supreme Court seem to be:

Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education.

 Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause

Drawing the Line Between Risk and Religion in Daycares in Indiana

Throughout the news we hear constant debates over the role of religion in high schools and middle schools but new developments in Indiana are asking about its role in daycare.  During last month an infant drowned who was attending a religious affiliated daycare that is registered as a non-profit and receives government funding but is not registered with the state as a daycare.  This tragic incident has many questioning why these non-profits are not licensed within the state and can still function as a daycare.  Within this debate there remains a balancing act between the power of government regulations within religious institutions and the right of a religious institution to function without government influence.

     The debate about the non-profits in Indiana stems from the question of why these religious daycares are not seeking the licensing that their secular counterparts are.  Some state that this move is to avoid “most state oversight” and this claim may carry some weight.  One example that has many supporting this claim is the number of regulations that the two types of daycare have to abide by such as; “licensed centers must follow 192 rules; the unlicensed faith-based ministries, 21”.  To further this sides argument the article states that “restricting religious expression isn’t one of them”.  

On the other side many are claiming that they are retaining their right to teach religion in their daycares. Many on this of the debate fear that allowing the government into the school beyond the current regulations could open the door for limiting religious expression.  One man states that “we would not want to see a tragic moment in a church be used for government oversight”.  There becomes a real fear that the government is attempting to enter the church through the door of the daycare.

This issue is important to our discussion because it shows the current debate going on where the role of the government belongs within the practices of the church.  For the government there is a concern for the children in the daycares that are not licensed because the safety regulations are limited.  While there is a concern for the children, there is also the concern at where the line must be drawn on the issue of governmental regulations within the practices of a church.  For me, I have to say that the concern of the children really comes to the forefront of my mind.  One incident has already occurred due to the lack of regulations for safety issues within the nonprofit organizations. I believe that there can be a limit to what kind of regulations that the government enforces and still keep a separation of religion and state concerns.  For the state the concern is the children while for the religious institution it is the freedom for religious expression.  This debate is bringing to light the ever-long struggle to find that fine line between government interference and religious freedom and putting it within the context of the typical daycare.

How Religion Affects the Argument for the Legalization of Marijuana

Pat Robertson of “The 700 Club” fame has recently in an interview stated that he believes marijuana should be legalized.  This on its surface seems like a shocking argument, but then when you listen to what he is saying it begins to make a bit more sense.  One of the first quotes they offer from him is, “I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”  Throughout the article the arguments he makes are based more on secular views than Christian ideology. 

A second article on the statement involved the reporter interviewing various Christian leaders concerning their opinion on whether marijuana should be legalized or not.  Surprisingly the split was not simply based on whether they believed the use of marijuana to be a sin or not.  They quote Reese, S.J., senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, as saying, “There’s a tradition within Catholic theology that the purpose of law is not to outlaw every sin. Prohibition was a classic failure of trying to do that,"

In all honesty what I find interesting about the pair of articles here is that it is the reporters and not the Christians that are interested in talking about religion.  In the New York Times article Pat Robertson’s arguments mostly talk about social justice, comparison to alcohol, and the cost of trying to fight a war that we have already lost.  His two comments on religion are that he believes “in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up” and a statement about problems he had with alcohol before turning to God.  Even his two comments that could be tied to religion are not really core arguments.  The first is a statement that could be looked at as a statement of the proper way of deterring crime and the second as a biographical comment.

The second article goes more into the religious side of the matter.  Unlike the interview with Pat Robertson the second article looks at possible interpretations of the Bible’s stance on the use of marijuana.  A large section of the article is devoted to religious questions that were not even touched in the New York Times article.  They discuss the various ways of interpreting the Bible that could lead to seeing the use of marijuana as a sin or not, and then they discuss the opinions of various leaders about the legalization.  This is where we get the discussion that shows that the split of Christian leaders that do or do not think it should be legal does not neatly follow the same lines as those that think it is or is not a sin.

Overall the two articles combined show a move within some areas of Christian faith to look at laws with their secular effects in mind.  The articles show various Christian leaders that are pushing for social justice and an accounting of how effective a law is not whether the prohibition in the law matches to a Christian sin or not.  I believe this article shows several groups of people that while they do not disregard their religion also do not see it as something that they should enforce upon others. 

Controversy over Atheist Billboard in New York

An advertisement created by a national atheist group was supposed to be displayed on a billboard in an area with a high Jewish and Muslim population. The controversial nature of the advertisement stemmed from the fact that it was written in Hebrew and Arabic stating, "You know it's a myth... and you have a choice." The advertisement was never put on the billboard because the owner of the building was opposed to the advertisement.
    The President of the American Atheists, David Silverman was surprised that the billboard was not being put up. Silverman thought that this was a result of religious bigotry. Silverman, who was raised in the Jewish faith said, "They've been the victims of religious bigotry and now they're the purveyors". The advertisement was moved out of the residential area and place in an area of town that had more visibility. The advertisement ended up getting placed off of a busy highway. Silverman said that it was good that the billboard still went up, but they were specifically targeting this particular Brooklyn neighborhood.
    Silverman argued that they were interested in posting the billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood because they knew that there were people who were undercover atheists that were afraid to speak up for their beliefs. They wanted to assist those who grew up in the orthodox Jewish faith and converted to atheism to speak up about their true beliefs. Silverman said that he received over a dozen emails from Hasidic atheists that had believed they were alone until they heard about the ad campaign.
    I think that the atheists had the right to put their billboard in the Brooklyn neighborhood, despite the fact that there was an abundant amount of Jewish and Muslim people that lived there. Even though it might be crude to most, the atheists have the right to express their opinion. However, I understand that the advertisement had the potential to offend some of the residents. The intent of the American Atheist group was not malicious in nature. Their intent was to empower those who thought that they were alone in their particular situation. I am also taking into consideration that the building is privately owned and the owner of the building has the authority to decide what goes on the building and what does not.  
    The owner of the building either objected to the content of the advertisement itself or how it would affect his business, or a combination of both. By erecting the sign on the side of his building there might be a chance that he would lose business. There is a high probability that the people looking to rent from him are either Muslim or Jewish because of the neighborhood. It could be possible that the owner of the building was either Jewish or Muslim and could have objected to the advertisement based on his own beliefs. While the atheist have the right to free speech, the building owner's private property rights trump the atheists free speech rights. In the final analysis, the American Atheist's right to free speech was never truly violated, they were just prevented from exercising them at that particular location.

Sex Selection & Abortion

Sex Selection & Abortion

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/index.php

Prepared by Krishan S. Nehra, Senior Foreign Law Specialist

Sex Selection & Abortion: India

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/india.php

In this article, the author uses four (4) similar Laws in four (4) different countries to compare and contrast each countries unique perspective on a similar subject, which is “Sex Selection and Abortion”.  Canada, a nation with no legal law prohibiting abortion, uses a sort of moral and ethical standard to prohibit medical practitioners from engaging in practices that allows the parents to terminate a fetus based on its gender.  Whereas a more conservative nation, such as India, uses the law to ban certain forms or types of abortion with a maximum of three (3) year prison term as the ultimate deterrent.

Abortion is a despicable, evil, peculiar practice that should be abolished worldwide.   Using the sex of a child as the motive for indulging oneself in such a simple and utterly disgraceful act only compounds the offense.  No matter the justification, to take a life without legitimate cause is murder.  Abortion is bad not only because it takes the life of an innocent child, it also damages the body of the mother in the process.  Abortion is seen as a mechanism to control population growth; however, there is no need to enforce such tactics, when other more humane methods of controlling human population exist. 

On the issue of a Government allowing for crimes against its citizens to include children through the practice of Abortion is justification for that Nation losing its legitimacy.  Any individual that willingly subjects an innocent to the dismemberment and torture of abortion deserves punishment at the greatest extent allowed under the law.  Government sanctioned abortions in public hospitals, such as is the case in India, given the circumstances of the abortion, is a violation of the taxpayer’s rights and a misuse of government funds. 

Regardless of the government, the power that it inherits is derived from the people.  To murder a defenseless individual despite the rationale such as birth defects, undesirable sex, etc. is a violation of Divine Law.  Even animals recognize and obey the natural law that is inherent in all living creatures.  While it is well documented that various species of mammals engage in infanticide there is usually a legitimate reason that can be explained through scientific rationale and reason for such occurrences.  Humans are viewed as the most evolved and advanced species on earth.  If this is a true statement, then why would we endorse and give legitimacy to such barbaric and heinous practices such as abortion?  To injure oneself and kill ones offspring is counter intuitive and goes against the whole notion of evolution and Divine Order.  The purpose of evolution is to survive from generation to generation by successfully passing on ones genetic code via ones offspring.  Divine Law, clearly prohibits Abortion because it is an affront to God and a sin against one’s own body.   Any Nation that legalizes such barbarism is destined for anarchy.

Religious Revival

The Kansas City Star published an article stating that religion still plays a role in politics. The Star presents both sides of the support and opposition of religion in politics.

Carol Swain, a politics and law professor at Vanderbilt says, “That’s the heart of the Bible Belt. People who are religiously devout feel that they are under attack and that’s driving more people to elevate a candidate’s religious stance in their decisions.” I too, can attest to the heavy influence of religion and politics, especially in the South. However, I do not think personal beliefs should be the sole determinate of political candidacy.

I am originally from Washington, D.C. and grew up surrounded by the political world. Now, living in Atlanta, there’s a different political ‘vibe’ so to speak. In my opinion, religion is much more heavily emphasized in political candidates.

In the book, “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation ?”, the author John Fea argues that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Instead, he asks to look at the historical context of the founding fathers. He also asks to look at larger implications of using religious language in the politic sphere.

I do not think that religion should play such an intricate role in politics. I think it is deceptive to use religion as a platform during political campaigning as well. I am not foolish enough to think that people do not unconsciously or consciously intermix the two. However, people should look more closely at the legitimate political qualifications of the candidate, rather than their personality traits or religious ties.

Religious conservatives, for example, would argue for the involvement of religion into politics. I would counteract this point by using the example of the initial founding of the United States and the support of keeping politics and religion as two separate entities.

Lawrence M. Krauss, from The Huffington Post, also writes his opinion on the matter of religion and politics. Krauss also realizes the impossibility of completely separating the two spheres. He uses the example of potential presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Santorum’s lack of support for abortion and birth control. Including Santorum’s outlandish claims of birth control causing more abortions.

To reiterate, his Catholic views should not have such a heavy influence on his views or over his political persuasion. And moreover, his religion should not be a legitimate excuse to limit women’s reproductive choices. Complete separation of religion and politics is a lofty goal. But religion should not play such a vital piece in deciding a candidate’s credentials.

I wonder who she would select for presidential candidacy?

Preston L.

Breakaway Anglican Churches Ordered To Return Property To Episcopal Church By April 30

A Virginia Judge ordered seven congregations that separated from the Episcopal Church to return all property to the local diocese by April 30; the property included anything from valuable land to sacred chalices. This had been a closely watched case that eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court. According to Judge Bellows ruling back in January of 2007, the Congregations had the right to leave the Diocese of Virginia, but were not entitled to the Episcopal Church property.

The conservative congregations must return an estimated $40 million worth of property, according to The Washington Post, including several large historic churches. They must also return chalices, prayer books, crosses and some of the money they had on hand before they separated from the Episcopal Church. The breakaway congregations were also ordered to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" when referring to their names. Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston stated, "We hope that this will mark the end of this lengthy litigation." Jim Oaks, a spokesman for the breakaway church is extremely furious with the ruling. Oakes speaks on behalf of the churches by stating, that the congregations are "prayerfully considering their legal options." Oakes said they are particularly upset at Judge Bellows' order to turn over donations given to the congregations before they left the Episcopal Church.

The congregation decided to depart from the denomination back in 2006 and 2007, due to the frustration of the Episcopal Church's liberal theology, which includes consecrating gay and lesbian priests as bishops. The congregations are now part of the rival Anglican Church in North America.

Although I can understand the congregation’s decisions to leave the Episcopal Church, I still honestly believe the Judge Bellows ruling was fair game. The congregations had the right to leave, but it is absurd for them to take the property that belongs to the denominations after they have officially separated themselves. The decision for the church to reframe from using the names "Episcopal" and "Episcopalian" is a little much. I compared this situation to marriage, after you have been apart of something or someone for a substantial amount of time, I think you should be entitled to a name. I also believe that asking for money the congregation had on hand is being a little greedy, but for the most part I believe the ruling was fair and the congregations should defiantly return the property back to the Episcopal churches, especially since the property holds high monetary value.

Middle school girl reprimanded for saying ‘I love you’ in native language

When I read the title of this article it automatically caught my attention, although I did not see any significance till I read the article itself. A Catholic school in Shawano, Wisconsin reprimanded a student for telling her friend “I love you” in her native language. Miranda Washinawatok was also not allowed to play on her middle school basketball game because the teacher took offense to her speaking in her native language. Since the incident theschool officials and teacher have sent letters of apology, but Washinawatok’s mother is trying to get the teacher, Julie Gurta, fired because the letter did not read as an apology but instead continue the accusation of the her daughter’s guilt.  In the video, Washinawatok says that the language is part of her culture, and this plays an important role in the fact that the teacher was Polish and would not want for their to be restriction put on her language. There was a clear denial of language in this case and the school and its staff definitely took the wrong actions toward the student. This only goes against the fact that this was a Catholic school, and the past struggles that people of that faith had to experience in the past. One has to realize that Native American tradition is part of this girl’s identity, which includes the language, so the unfair punishment toward the girl should have been avoided.

The history of past discriminations of the Native American has been a major hill that has to be overcome.  Native Americans have been victims to harmful punishment that was both physical and emotional in the past. The United States cannot say that they never have wrong Native Americans in the past, when there is clear evidence that genocide of the culture, tradition, and of the people was in fact happening in the past. One can look at the Catholic missionaries among others that went onto the Native American’s land and set up missionaries to convert the Indians to their religion, until the Indians finally established their own. Although one can argue that the only reason a “religion” based on that of the Protestant and Catholic religions specifications that surround them was established was so that they could continue practicing their traditions and cultures that were being restricted by the federal government. Tisa Wenger wrote in We Have a Religion, that the Native Americans understood the value of naming their practices under the label of “religion” since their freedoms would be guaranteed and that they were defending their tribal identify. This may also apply to this case in which the student may make claim that she has the right of freedom of speech guaranteed to her by the civil discourse of the United States, and that the teacher was and is to be reprimanded herself for breaking a law. One can say that the Native Americans have been placed outside of the scope of the freedoms that are guaranteed to the people of the United States. 

Santorum Gets it Wrong

Rick Santorum recently made a statement that a speech given by John F. Kennedy made him “want to throw up.”  The speech he refers to was given by Kennedy on September 12, 1960, where he expressed his views on church-state separation.    Santorum was sickened by this speech because he believed Kennedy supported keeping people of faith out of the public square.   However, Santorum got it all very wrong.   Kennedy’s brilliant and eloquent speech addressed to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was a turning point in American history, a moment in history where he had to address the topic of being a presidential candidate who was Catholic.     

This article highlights Kennedy’s speech and his definition of church-state separation in the face of opposition, opposition being the “historic Protestant fear that a Catholic could not support separating church from state.”   The speech was addressed to Protestant ministers, which, the article states, were some of the “most skeptical, if not hostile, voices which challenged Kennedy’s candidacy.”   Kennedy referenced the chief topic as the “so-called religious issue.”   At that time, 25 percent of the voters said they would not vote for a Catholic, compared to today’s voters of only 7 percent who oppose the prospect of a Catholic president.   

Kennedy’s views on church-state separation are not what Santorum asserted.   Kennedy never discussed or alluded to keeping people of faith out of the public square.   Rather, Kennedy publically and fully embraced his faith, which “happened to be Catholic,” and declared that he would not “disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”   He promised to “resign the office” if a conflict arose between his conscience or following national interest.   Additionally, he cautioned against officials using religion as an instrument to impose their religion on the nation.

In the speech, Kennedy envisioned “ . . . an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches . . . ”   He further envisioned America’s religious liberty as stated in the First Amendment, where the government does not take sides on religion.  . . .  where the founding fathers “fought for the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom.”  . . . “ . . an America where religious intolerance will someday end. . where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind. . .”

Sadly, Santorum decontextualized the speech by removing it from its historical moment and reinterpreted it to fit with the political discourse of social conservatives of 2012.  More appropriately, he simply misused this speech.    What does Santorum’s response and behavior towards this speech reveal?  Mostly, it reveals that Santorum cannot read critically and understand a speech given in its historical environment or understand its relevance to him as a Catholic presidential candidate fifty years later.  In 1960, Catholics and other religious minorities were trying to assert their religious freedom according to the First Amendment in a Protestant dominant nation.   Kennedy refers to the First Amendment and to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom for constitutional and historical backing. 

It also reveals a disconnect between the struggle for religious freedom and the prevalence of religious intolerance towards certain religious groups in 1960 to present day of a pluralistic society where ‘Christian’ affiliation does not appear to be a force of contention – where Santorum’s Catholicism is not an issue.   The disconnect is evidenced by the political and social conservative discourse that propels [Christian] religion into the political arena, creating a dominant theme and highlighting how one displays zeal towards their faith as a necessary component for presidential candidacy.  

This is precisely what Kennedy cautioned against, for government not to take sides on religion. . for no bloc voting of any kind . . .  Perhaps todays voters are able to see the real issues beyond a candidate’s religion or their religious zealousness and are not merely ‘bloc voting.’  Perhaps today’s voters are more intelligent than the audience to whom Santorum believed he was speaking.  I want to believe that the nation is moving forward to embrace religious liberty of the First Amendment and the freedom to believe or not to believe.   The noisy political discourse today appears to be using religion as an instrument, not to question their religious [Christian] affiliation, but to measure the degree of one’s religious zealousness and how that would translate in the political arena.    Surely rational arguments exist beyond Santorum’s misstep.

For a full reading on Kennedy’s September 12, 1960 speech:    

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

Santorum, Kennedy, and the Separation of Church and State

At the end of February, presidential candidate Rick Santorum relayed his nauseated response to President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech regarding “the absolute separation of church and state.” In this editorial, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sides with Santorum that an “absolute” separation is impossible although he states that Santorum “clearly missed some of the careful nuances of Kennedy’s speech.” While President Ronald Reagan’s name has been batted around recently as well I wonder if Santorum is attempting to highlight tensions between himself and fellow Catholic President Kennedy due to scandal brought to light earlier that month with an extensive interview with Mimi Alford.

After expressing his gastrointestinal distress, Santorum proclaimed “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” This exhibits not only Santorum’s literal, uninformed reading of history but a very narrow view as it appears he can not understand why American citizens of other or no faiths are uncomfortable with this. This completely threatens the separation of church and state which apparently is not as solid and uncontested as believed. Mohler states that it is impossible to have a complete separation of the government and all religious institutions as evidenced by the continuous flow of legal proceedings regarding faith based conflicts. In addition, “Human beings are composite creatures, and there is no way that authentic religious beliefs can be safely isolated from an individual’s total worldview.”

It is in this way that Kennedy diverges from Santorum and Mohler on ideas of church and state. In 1960, then candidate John F. Kennedy was facing a similar problem as Mitt Romney. As a Catholic presidential candidate, Kennedy had to prove to the American public that he would work for and with Americans within the defined secular, American laws and not act as a puppet for the Pope forfeiting American autonomy to Catholic rule. The American people wanted this separation, at least from the Catholic Church. Many of his contemporaries described President Kennedy as able to “compartmentalize his life” in this way, for better or worse, in both the political and personal spheres. I assume, although it is not stated explicitly, that Santorum views this compartmentalization as equally destructive to America as it has been to President Kennedy.

We do need different guidelines to operate in the diverse areas of our world especially the American president, whose decisions have far reaching effects on diverse groups of people. I agree with Mohler that our beliefs, religious or not, are part of who we are and influence our decisions. However, politicians are required to make decisions based on American law not religious doctrine. Kennedy reaffirmed the American ideal of religion as being dependent only on the individual’s conscience and therefore one can not incorporate religion into the government and impose these beliefs, with no legal grounds, on other individuals. Although there is obviously overlap between legal and religious realms in The United States this does not mean we should throw our hands up and stop trying to navigate this grey area and in the process make some Americans vulnerable with the loss of their civil liberties.

Santorum Backs Nullifying Existing Gay Marriages

           A recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle claims that Rick Santorum supports the creation of a constitutional amendment which would not only prohibit same-sex marriages, but also nullify the validity of same-sex marriages that already exist. Such an amendment would affect over 100,000 couples whose marriages have already taken place as well as those who plan to marry in the future. Despite increasing public opposition, Santorum appears confident in his position, stating that, “Just because public opinion says something doesn’t mean it’s right.” True enough, but public opinion does have significant influence in both Congress and the House of representatives, which require a majority vote to pass a new amendment. Santorum is not alone in his sentiments, however. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich also support an amendment which would ban gay marriage, though neither has voiced support for nullifying those that already exist.

Such widespread support among Republican candidates is troubling, but not surprising; American history is plagued with instances of government support for Christian morals and traditions over those of other religions. One such case is that of the Pueblo Indians, whose dance ceremonies were considered “barbaric” and “immoral” in the eyes of the American Government. Though they were eventually permitted to practice their dances by claiming protection under the First Amendment, they endured years of religious persecution and personal sacrifice in the process. The Mormons were another group to experience such persecution at the hands of the Federal Government, though their use of the First Amendment as a means for defending the practice of polygamy was significantly less successful than that of the Pueblos. In the 1879 Reynolds v. United States case the Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom was not a sufficient defense for the practice of polygamy, citing examples of human sacrifice as practices akin to plural marriage. Once again, the government imposed its Christian morals on a group whose practices were considered inferior or immoral. The same is true of Santorum and his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage – he would be using the power of the Federal Government to impose his own religious views on the American people.

This imposition of Christian morals and traditions by the government and its leaders is detestable. You cannot in one moment argue for “freedom and justice for all” and in the next moment impose your beliefs on another. Often we talk about the First Amendment in terms of Americans’ freedom to choose which religion they wish to practice, but what of the freedom from religion? Is Christianity the necessary default for American citizens who do not wish to practice any one religion or can they determine “right” and “wrong” for themselves? Certainly, a person’s private practices should have minimal bearing on other people’s rights (i.e. no human sacrifice or destruction of private property), but there is absolutely no valid reason why Rick Santorum or any other candidate should be permitted to ban gay marriage or nullify existing marriages, the least of which being established Christian morals and traditions.