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.          
  

Religion vs. Medicine: Cancer Treatment for Amish Child

On August 27, 2013, an Ohio appellate court ruled that a county judge must reconsider a decision made that would not allow Akron Children’s Hospital to appoint an attorney/registered nurse as a medical guardian over Sarah Hershberger.  The child in question is a 10-year-old Amish girl suffering from leukemia.  The Hershbergers, like many Amish families, shun most modern conveniences to live more simple, religion-oriented lives.

When Sarah became very sick after treatments, she asked her parents to stop the chemotherapy and they agreed after much prayer.  Andy Hershberger, Sarah’s father, stated that the family believes “to a certain extent, [they] can use modern medicine, but at some times [they] have to stop it and do something else.”  After hearing of the family’s decision to stop treatment and turn to natural remedies and God’s will, the Akron Children’s Hospital stated that Sarah’s cancer was very treatable and pointed out that they had already seen a reduction in her tumors after some chemotherapy. Doctors at the hospital also stated that Sarah would have an 85% chance of survival with treatment, and predicted that she would die if she did not continue.

The original decision handed down by a county judge in Medina, Ohio stated that Sarah’s parents had the right to make decisions for her because of her status as a minor and because they were not deemed to be unfit parents. The appeals court ruling, in contrast, agreed with the hospital, and said “the judge failed to consider whether appointing a guardian would be in the girl’s best interest” and that parents did not have to be unsuitable for a guardian to be appointed. The case was then sent back to the county court for reconsideration.

Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Americans are guaranteed the free exercise of religion, though exceptions to this rule can be made when religious practices conflict with other laws and rulings in place.  Certain parental rights have also traditionally been guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The issue at stake in this case is whether religious freedoms and parental rights over minors can be trumped by the need for medical care.

The case of the Hershberger family is a little different from other cases of this nature and enters into more of a gray area because Sarah’s parents did not refuse outright to get Sarah treatment.  The family sought chemotherapy, saw that it was hurting Sarah, and decided to stop, in part because of their religious beliefs.  Although the family has turned to natural remedies and God’s will after stopping chemotherapy, they have not ruled out returning to the hospital if Sarah’s condition worsens, complicating this case even more.  The appellate court’s decision not to affirm the ruling in favor of the parents, and the injunction they issued that ordered Sarah’s treatments to resume immediately, make room for more cases that limit both the freedom to make decisions based on religion and parental rights over children, especially because of the gray areas present this case.

I think it often feels easy to suspend people’s religious rights when a child’s life is at stake and easy to say that parents are entitled to their religious beliefs until their children are put in danger.  For people outside the faith, I also think it can be difficult to understand such ingrained beliefs and someone’s willingness to endanger a child’s life, especially since most Americans will never have to choose between deep religious views and life-saving medical treatment.

Recognizing such tendencies to restrict religious freedoms, I do still agree with the Ohio appellate court that the county court should reconsider its decision not to appoint an attorney/registered nurse to be a limited guardian for  Sarah Hershberger.  In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1944 ruling in Prince v. Massachusetts, Justice Rutledge, writing for the majority, stated that parents “may be free to become martyrs themselves.  But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”  This precedent has held in subsequent cases.

Refusing medical treatment for yourself is one thing, but using your religious beliefs to make an important life decision for another person who has not had the time or experience to develop and determine their own religious beliefs is not right.  The Supreme Court did rule in favor of Amish parents in Wisconsin v. Yoder when they decided that Amish children could not be required to stay in school past eighth grade because it conflicted with their religious beliefs and simple way of life.  Although I believe parental rights should be viewed strongly, I do not think parents have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on religious grounds.  I also agree with the majority decision in Prince that the right to exercise religion freely does not include “the liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”  I think Sarah Hershberger and her family should consult the medical guardian and at least finish out the recommended two rounds of chemotherapy.  In this case, the preservation of the child’s life is paramount.

What do you think? Is this a special case?  Do you agree with the county court or the appellate court?

What's In a Name?: Baby "Messiah" Sparks Controversy in Tennessee

In this recent Tennessee case, child support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew of the 4^th Judicial District ruled that a baby boy’s name could not be Messiah, and ordered the baby’s name to be changed to Martin.

What started as a petition to change the child’s last name (a common appeal in family court) turned into much more significant case, raising important questions about religious freedom. The judge is quoted explaining her decision based on the argument that “it could put him at odds with a lot of people and at this point he has had no choice in what his name is…the word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that person is Jesus Christ.” This is a fairly weak reason that stands little chance of being upheld if the child’s family chooses to appeal the decision, and the ACLU has already offered to appeal the ruling on behalf of the baby’s mother. The New York Times author of the article, Mark Oppenheimer argued that the magistrate might have had more standing had she appealed to the potential infringement on others’ religious liberty ie: those who did not want to call this child the Messiah, but instead Ballew invoked her own religious beliefs in the ruling. According to the article, the baby’s mother, Jalessa Martin, claims she never intended to name her son Messiah because it means God, and that she didn’t think a judge could make her change her child’s name because of the judge’s religious beliefs. Ms. Martin was in all likelihood correct—the ACLU-Tennessee executive director sees this case as an “unnecessary breach of a parents’ right to name their child what they please…while a judge has a right to her religious beliefs, she cannot impose her faith on those who appear in the courtroom.”

The case of baby Messiah/Martin is likely to be overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. It’s true that states can put various restrictions on naming rights, including length and punctuation, but restrictions based on an appeal to religion are clearly problematic. Tennessee law states that the court must find that the requested name change does not harm anyone else, so the question becomes, in what way is the name Messiah harming anyone? The legality of names has recently developed into a controversial topic across the country, and in order to understand the Tennessee case it might be useful to examine some other naming cases.
              

Last year, a New York judge ruled against a family petitioning to change their surname to ChristIsKing. The judge denied the family’s request on the ground that “allowing certain names could infringe on the religious liberties of others…[such as] a court employee forced to call out a name with a religious message.” In New Jersey, a judge took custody of four children whose parents named them after prominent Nazi figures, with names like Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, and Honszlynn Hinler Campbell. The Campbell’s first made headlines when a bakery refused to write “Happy Birthday Adolf Hilter” on a cake. These cases about names raise important questions about the rights of parents to name their child, the impact of names on other’s religious freedom, and ultimately, staking an interest in the well-being of minors whose contentious names could possibly have lasting influence as they grow up and enter school, the workforce, etc.

Yet, despite the cases in which judges have been opposed to religiously charged names, according to the article, the name Messiah was given to 762 baby boys in 2012—and the Tennessee decision would plausibly affect all of those children as well. And one might wonder about the name Jesus, a name popular among Americans of Hispanic decent. The New York Times article is also quick to point out that “Hebrew-derived names are particularly popular among Latinos who have become Pentecostal Protestants,” and names like Adonai and Elohim have been increasingly given to babies in recent years.

            The Tennessee magistrate overstepped her bounds both legally and religiously. Jaleesa Martin brought the case to the court in order to change the child’s last name, and she left with an order to change the child’s first name. It is unlikely that Ballew’s decision will be upheld on these grounds alone—the court cannot raise issues on its own, if it has not been brought before them.

            There are also serious religious liberty issues at stake. There are valid competing claims of religious freedom—for Ballew, her concern (akin to the ruling against the “ChristIsKing” family) is for the public, and any person forced to call this person Messiah. And for the baby’s family, the issue is seen as their right to name the boy what they please, arguing it had no underlying religious connotation, and they should deserve the same freedom as the parents of 3,758 baby Jesus’s born in 2012.

            The judge’s opinion that Messiah, as a title, has only been earned by one person (Christ) is extremely troubling. That is clearly a statement rooted in Ballew’s religious beliefs, and does not reflect the intent of the family. The Tennessee case of baby Messiah/Martin is dealing with a more mainstream name, rather than a name with more overtly proselytizing intent, like ChristIsKing. Nevertheless, the lines aren’t clear where one person’s freedom to name their child Messiah stops being harmless and starts infringing upon someone else’s Christian beliefs. If naming the child Messiah, shows a “lack of respect for Christian people” as Norman Smith, chairman of the legislative body for Cocke County, Tennessee, told ABCNews, then what is to say that names like Jesus, or even Mary, are not offensive, too? Further, if the judge had said it would be unfair to make a teacher call a child Messiah (which is likely to happen when he enters school) would that be okay constitutionally? If the decision is upheld it will set a precedent that says the rights of a hypothetical person (any Christian who also believes Messiah is a title earned only by Christ) are more important than a parent’s right to name her child. But, what makes it worse, is that Ballew explicitly placed her own religious convictions at the forefront of the decision, a move that I think diminishes any legitimate argument she may have had.   

Questioning the Constitutionality of Certain Legislative Prayer

In upcoming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide a significant case concerning issues regarding church and state. The case is called Greece vs. Galloway and it consists of two individuals challenging Greece, a suburb in upstate New York, for opening its city council meetings with prayers from local clergy members. The two individuals are claiming that the opening prayers are an infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. “Government should be inclusive,” started 51-year-old Susan Galloway, a woman challenging the town of Greece, “there are people who don’t believe, and they’re a part of this country too.” The 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Greece’s practice was unconstitutional on the grounds that the prayers had been overwhelmingly Christian. However, the Supreme Court will take on this case to possibly overturn that ruling.

The town of Greece began their tradition of inviting clergy to speak in the year 1999. Up until 2007, all of the speakers reciting prayers were Christian. The speaker’s message tended to use explicitly Christian language, with frequent references to Jesus Christ. After many citizens were unhappy with the lack of religious diversity, the town of Greece decided to open up their prayers. Wiccans, Jews, and the leaders of the Bah’ai faith delivered prayers over the next two years, but then in 2009 all the speakers were solely from the Christian clergy once again. The plaintiffs were angry that the town arranged to have these prayers, chose the speakers, and required everyone to sit through the prayers to hear the rest of the legislative session.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf says the prayer at the 2009 Utah Legislature's first session

President Obama and the First Lady Pray

This case is significant because the law regarding legislative prayer has been ambiguous up to this point, however the Supreme Court decided to hear the case hoping to create clarity over the issue. In addition, although Greece vs. Galloway pertains to legislative prayer this case could be the basis for a larger conversation, possibly changing the approach to the Establishment Clause. An extremely noteworthy part of this case would be that the Obama Administration has actually made an official announcement supporting the town of Greece. This fact astonishes many considering most appeal courts and judges do not stand with Greece. The solicitor general of the Obama Justice Department, Donald B. Verrilli, declared that Greece’s chosen practice is constitutional, regardless of the number of Christian references. In addition to that declaration, the Obama administration filed its own brief on the defendant’s behalf agreeing with the plaintiff that prayers cannot be overwhelmingly Christian without unconstitutionally affiliating the government with Christianity.

This case raises the debate whether it is constitutional to have prayer with legislative duties, and if it matters what type of prayer is being practiced. If this case is decided in favor of Greece, the Establishment Clause will therefore embrace the idea of legislative prayer even if it is seen to “favor” one religion specifically. If the court decides in favor of Galloway, the Establishment Clause will still respect legislative prayer, but mandate it to be neutral. That is where it begins to be a slippery slope. What determines prayers as neutral? Who gets to say the prayers? What can they say? The court will have to define a harsh line on what is neutral—a task that may be impossible.

I would agree with the town of Greece, in saying that this specific legislative prayer is constitutional, regardless of any favoring or leaning. In 1983 the Supreme Court decided on a similar case called Marsh vs. Chambers. In this case there was a First Amendment challenge to a permanent minister opening legislative sessions with prayer in Nebraska. Up to this point, the court had interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit the government from favoring a religion, or establishing one, for decades; therefore the plaintiffs seemed to have rational reasoning behind their case. However, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Nebraska, upholding the practice of legislative prayer. The court did, however, make an important exemption stating that there must be religious neutrality in the legislative prayer. Part of the opinion stated that these prayers couldn’t be “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” So although Marsh vs. Chambers created a limit on legislative prayer, the court never made a clear distinction on where the line should be drawn.

Therefore, I believe that the plaintiff will have a difficult time making their case, considering the precedent for this case and historical respect our country has for legislative prayer. The question becomes, where is the line drawn? If our government claims neutrality, what about in the Pledge of Allegiance where we all recite “under god?” That phrase including “god” doesn’t seem neutral, especially when some consider themselves to be extremely patriotic and atheist. Therefore I think this case raises another important issue: the courts still aren’t sure whether they can truly endorse religion in general, or whether they must remain strictly neutral—a task that has been proved to be challenging on multiple accounts. 

Religious Rights Versus Gay Rights

It is becoming clear that LGBT rights are conflicting with religious rights and are causing problems throughout the United States.  The political liberalism that this nation was founded on encourages religious neutrality, not secularism, and tolerance in our government.  In the case of the Klein family, it is evident that this liberalism is intolerant of religious diversity. 

In order to run a business, people must apply for and obtain a permit or license from the state.  This obligates the business people to follow laws, even nondiscrimination laws.  On Monday, September 2, 2013, Aaron and Melissa Klein of Gresham, Oregon closed their family-owned bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa.  After refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, the Christian owners are claiming to have been forced to close by violent LGBT threats and protests.  Despite the fact that gay marriage is illegal in Oregon, the lesbian couple has filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, as it is against Oregon state law to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  LGBT groups began protesting and boycotting wedding businesses in the area, as well as sending death threats the the Klein family.  In addition, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries has decided to investigate the Kleins for discrimination.  The Kleins stand by their decision to not “...help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin” and believe that their actions are a warning to Christians in the United States.  While the investigation continues, Christian business owners throughout the country are dealing with similar dilemmas.   

The question here is, do “gay rights trump religious rights”?  Christians in other states who are facing similar situations are charged with, and often convicted for, discrimination based on sexual orientation. While gay and Christian disagreements used to be dealt with civilly, the situation in Oregon has escalated to a violent and illegal level.  Regardless of the fact that the state was on their side and that the Kleins were not convicted of any crime, gay activists employed tactics that were vigilante at best and criminal at worst.  LGBT groups began by telling their story to local newspapers and television news stations.  They furthered their cause by protesting and boycotting wedding venders such as florists and planners, but focused primarily on those who worked with the Klein’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa.  LGBT threats caused wedding businesses to end contact with the bakery.  The goal of the LGBT activists was to shut down this Christian-run, anti-homosexual business.  LGBT activists completely lost their argument when they resorted to sending the Klein family death threats through phone calls and emails.  Death threats were even addressed to the Kleins’ five children, wishing that they would fall ill.  The harassment has forced the Kleins to move their business to their own home.  The violent, uncivil, uncalled for, and illegal acts by the LGBT groups took away from their initial discrimination argument.  Should LGBT activists be permitted to perform criminal acts when discriminated against?  Absolutely not!  Supporters of the LGBT groups argue that Christians, despite their religious beliefs, do not have the right to discriminate; however, I argue that any organization, in this case it is LGBT activists, does not have the right to resort to barbaric and criminal actions.  While it is not Christian to discriminate or to support gay marriage, violence is also not following God’s law either.

When opening a business, in order to obtain a license or permit, one must know and understand state laws.  In my opinion, the Kleins broke the law and should face appropriate penalties; however, this does not give LGBT activists the right to behave as they did.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  While discrimination is illegal and against God’s law, harassment and violent threats is a much more severe crime that requires a greater punishment, in the eyes of man and of God.  I believe that the Kleins should accept the fact that both discrimination and gay marriage are against God’s law.  They also need to realize that they are not participating in the gay marriage, which means that they are not sinning.  They are simply baking a cake.  Discriminating is sinning.  The Kleins should also be forced by the government to bake a wedding cake for any couple, because they have agreed to follow laws before they opened their business.  Christianity does not encourage its followers violate contracts.  The liberal political theory that our government has adopted encourages toleration and neutrality.  LGBT activists work for their cause to be accepted.  In analyzing the case of the Kleins, it is proven that “[t]hose who preach tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant and the least diverse of all” (Starnes 30).