Anderson v. Chesterfield County School District

Anderson v. Chesterfield County School District is a case in which a law suit is filed by the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) on behalf of a “father and a son (both non-believers) who have been ostracized for their objection to repeated official religious events and activities at New Heights Middle School.” In September, all students at New Heights Middle School were compelled to attend and in-school Christian worship rally in which a church minister and a Christian rapper known as “B-SHOC” were to deliver a sermon. These rallies influenced students to pray and “sign a pledge dedicating themselves to Jesus”. These rallies are part of a greater movement in the district in which teachers routinely incorporate prayer in school activities. Many sporting events and concerts begin with a school-sponsored prayer and schools host religious events on campus which the students are urged to attend. Those students who didn’t wish to attend the assembly at New Heights had to serve an in-school detention. Some students who are not Christian are harassed and criticized. The complaint is currently filed by the ACLU for those students who are being punished for not being Christian.

                The actions of the Chesterfield County School District are clearly in violation of the Free-exercise Clause and, more so, the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause was included in the Constitution by Madison to gain support of the Leland and Baptists, who feared the creation of a new national church, in order to get the constitution ratified. The original function of the establishment clause was to allow all religions to freely practice their religion without fearing the establishment of another dominating religion. The Free-Exercise clause states that congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religion, however, as the Reynolds v. US clarifies, it has a right to interfere with practices.  Chesterfield District has clearly established a religion, Christianity, by not only allowing, but compelling students to attend Christian rallies and sermons. They are also openly hosting religious events, allowing students to become religiously active within a place which is state/government sponsored. A school allowing for such proselytizing in a place which is under government sponsorship is the same as the government establishing a religion.  On top of that, the school is also punishing the students which do not wish to attend by giving them an in-school detention. The school is infringing upon the rights of those students who wish to freely exercise other religions or no religion and this violates the free-exercise clause. One can say that the Christians in the school are only freely exercising Christianity and that they can’t be stopped for this reason or we would be infringing upon their rights, but this is not the case. The issue isn’t that Christians are practicing their religion; the issue is that they are practicing in a state-sponsored place. The issue is even more complicated because the state has a right to interfere in practices of any religion, and since sermons, rallies and religious events are all practices and not just beliefs, the state can rightfully dismantle such practices, especially because such practices send the message that the state is establishing a religion. This is clearly a very controversial issue and the wall between the church and state, as shown by Reynolds v. US case, is very important to maintain because this allows the Government to administer practices which may be concealed and disguised under the concept of religious freedom.

                Court cases such as these continuously remind us of the reasons why these clauses were included in the first place and how these clauses have been interpreted in order to define the limits of state control and individual freedom. If the court is to rule in favor of the Andersons then it is clear that the state still wishes to uphold the separation between church and state, as well as the establishment and free-exercise clause. If the Court is to rule in favor of the School District they will mandatorily need to provide evidence as to how these practices aren’t establishing a religion. One may think that another way to defend the District is by showing that the school also hosts sermons and rallies for other religions and religious events. But this still allows for the same problem to emerge because now the argument can be made that the state is upholding many religions or religion in general as opposed to Atheism, Agnosticism, no religion, etc. Religious freedom is mainly defined by these two clauses, therefore, courts must be very careful as to not interpret these clauses in a way in which they become ineffective and useless. Religious freedom is being able to practice a religion, multiple religions, or even no religion without being persecuted or criticized for it. Also, the religion you choose to practice must be one which is not forced upon you, especially not by the state. 

Virginia Passes Legislation Allowing Private Adoption Agencies to Discriminate

            The Associated  press wrote for the Washington Post about legislation in Virginia being passed that allows for private adoption agencies to discriminate in their adoptions.  The bill allows them to discriminate if the placement is against any of their religious or moral beliefs, especially if the placement is with a homosexual couple.  Some representatives and members of the gay community is saying that this bill claiming religious freedom is a smokescreen covering up true intentions of discriminating against the LGBT community.  They say the bill denies LGBTs from forming families.  People against the bill say this will just end up hurting the children waiting for a home, because they are being limited on eligible homes.   Other representatives say there is nothing wrong with the bill, because they are private agencies.  They do say that public, government funded agencies are not allowed to discriminate.  Different agencies wrote letters to their representatives about the bill.  Some were expressing how happy they were while other agencies asked for the bill not to be passed because it makes it harder to place children waiting for homes.  The agencies against the bill said that LGBT are just as capable of providing stable homes.

            The issue that seems to be in the article is whether it is ok to discriminate in adoptions.  The article makes clear it is only allowable for private agencies to discriminate and not for public agencies, especially those funded by the government.  Another issue is if it is ok for any private agency to discriminate if they just claim it is their religious beliefs.

            I personally feel that this legislation is not in violation of any laws.  The law does state that any organization that is public or government funded is not allowed to discriminate.  Churches are allowed to discriminate for example to not hire women, or people of certain sexual orientations on the basis of religious beliefs.  Most private adoption agencies are run by churches and for me it makes sense that they would be allowed to place children based on beliefs.  I do not agree that it is ok to discriminate and limit children on possible loving homes they could go to.  I agree with many against the bill that LGBT are just as capable of providing stable homes.  Many heterosexual couples get divorced or break up, just because they are heterosexual does not mean that makes them more stable.  Despite my beliefs I do agree that, like the case of the Presbyterian church and the distribution of its land we studied in class, churches are allowed to have jurisdiction over certain things that are run by the church or private organization.

Freedom

A man by the name of Hamza Kashgari has been detained by Malaysian authorities. Kashgari is a 23-year old Saudi writer and blogger who publicly expressed his personally views about Prophet Muhammad via Twitter. His tweets caused and uproar and strong reactions from many Saudis. The people who were angered by the tweets responded back with their own hate-filled tweets, Facebook posts, and even resorted to Youtube videos demanding that kashgari be arrested and punished. In Saudi Arabia, this crime is considered apostasy, in which they separate themselves from the renunciation of a religion. This crime can be punishable by death under Saudi law and that is just what many people want for Hamza Kashgari. In the following video, you can see a man, Sheikh Nasser Al Omar and his outpour of emotions over the situation begging the king to execute Kashgari.  

The following are the tweets that have caused the intense reaction. Tweet #1 “On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.” Tweet #2 “On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.” Tweet #3 “On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”

Kashgari later removed these tweets and apologized. Realizing his life was in danger, Kashgari decided to flee to New Zealand. However, he was detained along the way by Malaysian authorities at the request of Saudi authorities. His purpose for fleeing to New Zealand was to seek political asylum.

There has been much controversy over this matter and surprisingly there are many Muslim supporters of his release. Even more shocking, those Muslims who support him are from predominantly Muslim countries. This shows that people are trying to move forward and allow more public expression. I can understand why people would be angered if someone said something against their beliefs but that is something that occurs everyday in the world. The only reason Hamza Kashgari is being punished is because he publicly stated his opinion. In America, you’re given this freedom through the first amendment. I know we can’t assume the same for other countries since they have specific rules against such crimes but is it really fair and have we not come far enough to treat everyone equally across the world? Why does someone not have the same rights as a person who lives in another part of the world? I am a Muslim and I honestly see why the people of the country are upset. However, it is not possible for everyone to think alike and I do not see any extremely rude remarks in his tweets.

President Obama Makes a Compromise with the Church

If you have been keeping up with the news, there has been an uproar regarding President Obama and his new healthcare plan, more specifically the matter of contraceptives. Under President Obama’s healthcare laws, all employers are required to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including a range of birth control, which will come at no cost to the employee. As a result of this decision, as stated in this article, Obama has received much objection from the conservative Republicans and the Catholic bishops. The Catholic bishops feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in violation of their moral opinions and teachings. In spite of urging from the Catholic Church and Conservative Republicans, President Obama has made his decision and opted not to broaden the exemption.
In conjunction with this, on Friday, in hopes of squelching the opposition, Obama has come up with a compromise that allows for an employer who morally objects to contraception to opt out and instead inform its female employees where they can get coverage outside of the employee health plan. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception. “The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.”
Here we have another classic case of an organization trying to have their values/beliefs imposed on people through government injunction. These churches want the government to keep their noses out of their belief systems, but they have no problem accepting the benefits that the government provides, from police protection to street repair to outright public funding of their "secular" works via the Faith Based grants. And what are they asked to do in return for all of these tax-free benefits and funding? Obey the law. The entire relationship between the tax-payers’ dollars and the church institutions needs to be re-evaluated. Why should tax payers be forced to fund an institution that will not follow the law when operating a business that serves the public like a hospital or university? Why shouldn’t a Catholic hospital be required to provide essential health services? Contraception is not merely used for birth control, it’s also used for a great deal of other health purposes, not to mention decreasing unintended pregnancies, which serves to reduce the number of abortions. A hospital is required to serve any person who needs medical care, not just those who agree with a particular religious belief system, i.e. the Catholic Church. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the health care business if they aren't willing to actually provide medical services.
In this way, any right of action based on belief cannot be absolute. Therefore, the right to practice a religion cannot mean that any individual or organization should be allowed to do whatever they want and justify it as their "sincere religious belief". There is nothing automatically sacred about action based on religious beliefs, no matter how sincere. It is clear in the Constitution that religious laws of God are separate from the Laws of Man. And that freedom to worship is on parity with the freedom not to.

Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California

            The article is about a federal appeals court that agreed with a lower court’s ruling on Tuesday about Proposition 8. The lower level court had ruled that even though Proposition 8 has passed by 52% to 48% it is in violation of the constitutional right for same-sex couples. Judge Walker, who ruled in the lower court, said that denying a same sex marriage is in violation of the Equal Protection and the Due Process clauses in the Constitution. The judges that ruled on Tuesday stated that they were not going to rule whether it was a constitutional right for a same-sex couple to marry; instead the ruling was about how Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Mitt Romney stated the decision was an attack on traditional marriage and said that the Supreme Court would eventually to decide on the issue. Chad Griffin of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, made a statement where he explained that same-sex marriage has increased steadily from a decade ago, if it does come to vote again the outcomes may be different.

            This issue is important because Proposition 8 in violation of Due Process and California is in violation of Equal protection. The 14^th amendment is about Due Process; a court cannot rule without everyone being present. The reason why Proposition 8 is in violation on Due Process is because not every same-sex couple in America’s rights were heard. When Proposition 8 was being voting on only the same-sex couples in California’s were allowed to vote. What about all the same-sex couples in other states, Proposition 8 directly affects them as well. This comes to the second issue of California being in violation of Equal Protection. Equal Protection means every state must have equal protection of a citizen’s rights. Since New York legalized gay marriage, if a same-sex couple moves from New York to California their marriage is no longer recognized. Judge Reinhardt ruled on Tuesday, “All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted a marriage license.” Since California does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples any couple moving from New York to California are now seen as being single.

            Same-sex marriage has become a major issue in the past few decades. Religious people claim same-sex marriages are wrong, and that they ruin the sanctity of marriage. For Mitt Romney, who is a presidential candidate, to claim that the decision the judge made was an attack traditional marriage shows that his religion is seeping into political issues. If America is supposed to be a nation with the separation of church and state then Romney should not have made the statement he did. The argument made about gay marriage is always tied into religion, but what about atheist. Should atheist be denied the chance to marry someone of the same sex just because religious people believed same-sex marriages are wrong? 

The Treatment of Religion in Court - Special or Equal?

In a recent article on the Religion Dispatches site, there is proposal regarding whether religion should be treated as “special.” While the article looks to the Hosanna-Tabor decision as well as the Good News Club vs. Milford Central School decision, the basis of the argument is that according the the founding fathers, “religion certainly is special” (Stewart, Supreme Court Rules Religion Special...This Time). Stewart is arguing that Constitution eludes to the fact that religion is special and that it deserves to be treated separately, but Stewart points out that recent court decisions have been ruling that religion is like “everything else.” Through Stewarts examples she is trying to show that when the court rules for religion to be treated equally, that this action is ultimately discriminatory against religion. But in regards to the Hosanna-Tabor decision, while they ruled that religion was special, the religious institution was internally discriminating against employees, but that the government cannot intervene due to the religious group having power over their employees. Stewart believes that in the Constitution it clearly states that religion is special and separate and this is a “truth about the American system.” This calls into question much of what we discussed in the Reynolds court case.

In one of our first class sessions the question was proposed as to whether we should treat religion as something special and separate? Or if religion should be treated equally as everything else, further looking to what religious freedom entails; this being a recurring theme that we come back to each week. As we saw in the Reynolds case, one can believe what they want, but religious actions and practices can and will be regulated. This calls for questions as Stewart states as in some cases the court treats religion as special, but in others religion is treated equally. It seems to be that this battle between separation of church and state will continue to be performed due to the unclear meaning of the First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” But if the exercise of such an action or practice of religion is in difference to the law, then the courts can decide how to rule such a decision? This brings forth the question that we looked to in the Bob Jones University case in which whether the biblical scripture that the institution was basing their policy over was true or not, the court withstood making truth claims, but rather decided whether the University was sincere and genuine in this belief and that they would not receive tax exemption. By treating religion as special or equal, there will be government interference. In essence, either way, religion is being treated as special because it causes such discordance within the judicial system. Recognizing one thing as a religious establishment, but constituting what is lawful actions or practices within a religion. It all comes back to the question of whether religious freedom is deemed by association or individual consciousness? I am perplexed to see what will arise over time regarding the issue and whether the judicial system actually identifies religious freedom by association or individual consciousness. With the continuous battle of such a definition, it seems clear that religion is being treated specially in the sense that the law tip toes around religion like one would around eggshells. 

Is Islamic Law a Threat?

In the article of New York Times, Islamic law in America is being discussed in terms of its possibility in a Judeo-Christian society. This article is written by Eliyahu Stern, and is around of mostly a fear about Islam. He says according to the Tennessee General Assembly, Shariah (Islamic Law) promotes "the destruction of the national existence of the United States." In addition, in the article Stern quotes words of Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential candidate, that "Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it."

Eliyahu Stern thinks of these ideas as "exactly wrong" because such notions are contrast with America's successful history of religious tolerance and American democracy. Also he compares such notions to a thought in 19^th century in Europe, Jewish law is seditious.  However, Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 that "Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence, but in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”

I think these explanations are very important to show American freedom of thinking and anti-Islam movements. But Muslims are a reality of modern time in the world. They have specific beliefs, life style, and inherently rules. American laws either are based on secularism or on Christianity. For both cases, Muslims become excluded from the constitution.

 

Frankly, "As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of Fiqh Council of North America believe that it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens," the fatwa declared." However, I am thinking that if there is not a conflict between Shariah and the Constitution, why do some people like Gingrich consider Shariah as "the destruction of the national existence of the United States", or "a mortal threat", etc?

Maybe the Constitution reflects a Christian identity, thus radical Christians do not want Islamic law or maybe being an American requires being a Christian. We can think about many things which can be the reason. But I have three questions that even if Gingrich is correct on his idea, while there is a religious freedom in the USA, and Islam is a religion, what is the obstacle to establish Islamic law? Second is that if there is not an essential conflict between being faithful Muslims and being loyal American as FCNA claimed, why cannot people choose a different rule for their own lives? Third, is if the establishment of Shariah is a threat for the existence of the American nation or Christian America?  

U.S. Supreme Court Justice fails to "worship" the U.S. Constitution!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice fails to “worship” the U.S. Constitution!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has suggested Egypt look at newer constitutions for tips instead of the U.S. Constitution.  She believes it would be better for Egypt to take ideas from constitutions drafted more recently than one drafted more than two centuries ago.

     

Is Justice Ginsburg sounding an alarm for people to take notice?  Founding father Thomas Jefferson recognized that the Constitution should be changed from time to time - perhaps in every generation.    Although they are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, should we expect justices to "worship" it as if it were sacred -- and remove those justices from the Court if they do not appear to do so?   According to a Stanford law professor, "this is not law, its politics."   And based on the knee-jerk reactions of Justice Ginsburg’s critics, one might even say it’s not law, its religion.

On other occasions Justice Ginsburg has said that, "By disregarding the wording of the Constitution, we are symbolically saying the document is not important to us.”   Her reference here is to the frequently mistaken views citizens have about the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  Many Americans do not seem to understand that government does not explicitly give us “freedom of expression” or “free exercise of religion,” or “due process” or “equal protection under the law”  -- but that those are rights that the government cannot restrict.

By becoming a member of the Super Court, did Justice Ginsburg waive her right to free speech?   The Constitutions’ framers did not  “worship” the document they drafted.  And Americans saw fit to amend the Constitution 27 times in the 225 years of its existence.  Such a document is not sacred and its meaning must be re-examined in light of change, circumstances, technology and evolving mores over time.  If one were asked to design a vehicle for the 21^st century, would one look to a carriage design from the 18^th century?   A Constitution is the by-product of shared culture’s experiences and mores.  As such, one size simply does not fit all.

Responding to the questions asked of her Justice Ginsburg made several statements which helped me form an opinion.  A few of them were:
"You should be aided by all the constitution writings."
"The spirit of liberty must be in the population of the people."
"We the people were an imperfect union - we are still forming a more perfect union, yet there is genius in our Constitution."

I think Justice Ginsburg offered Egypt sound advice.
 

Ethopia vs Media

http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_2964_text

Ethiopia: Journalists and Politician Sentenced on Terrorism Charges

 To link to this article, copy this persistent link:http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402964_text

·         Author: Constance Johnson

·         Topic: Freedom of speech  More on this topic

·         Jurisdiction: Ethiopia

For my Journal Article, I chose a recent International Posting from Ethiopia.  In this article, the author Constance Johnson addressed the issue of free speech in the Nation of Ethiopia as it pertains to journalistic works.   In particular, the major focus revolved around the recent sentencing of several Journalists for charges of incitement of terrorism through their craft.  The sentences ranged from 14 years to Life.  Besides the obvious issue of free speech, other issues were brought up such as the vagueness of Ethiopian Law and the long term implications of the practice of using recent terrorist laws and policies as a tool to restrict and silence legitimate opposition and criticism from the media. 

The issues that were brought up are legitimate issues that need to be addressed on an International Scale so that legitimate law abiding Professionals in the Media are allowed to perform their duties without fear of threat or retaliation.  However, digging deeper in a context of National Sovereignty   and true liberty, it is my position that Ethiopia is justified in its actions of imprisoning what it perceives as a present and imminent threat to its National Security.  Governments have a responsibility.  In most governments, they derive their power and authority (depending on the type of government) from the citizens it represents.  While someone may argue that this is not always the case, I believe that recent events as well as past historical precedence support my position.  One only needs to cite the recent overthrow of the Libyan Government or the continual unrest in Syria as supporting illustrations of my case in point. 

Continuing along the lines of Libya and Syria, these two (2) Nations and their recent National struggles are perfect examples as to why Ethiopia is justified in its actions in view of the Press as a real and imminent threat.  The Arab Spring is perhaps the first widespread uprising or revolution that can accredit modern media as the vehicle of its inception.  If Modern Media did not exist, it is doubtful that regime changes in the various Arab Nations would have occurred in the time and manner in which it did.  This connection between Media and public unrest resulting in the collapse of existing legitimate Governmental entities is cause for alarm. 

It is a known fact that unconventional soft means of attacking an adversary exist.  Media in some respects could be referred to as a propaganda machine with an agenda of regime change or other unscrupulous motives.  Here in the United States, our government employs billions of dollars and personnel to control and limit certain elements both internally and externally from influencing segments of our population.  We view these controls as necessary to ensure public order and decency.  However, our restrictions on the content and delivery of information while different is intended to serve the same deterrent purpose against a legitimate or perceived threat by way of the Media.  Freedom of Speech has its limitations depending on the popular view of the respective Nation.  Incitement for Violence, for example, is prohibited and not protected under the First (1^st) Amendment, especially if harm results from this irresponsible activity.  If God has granted certain unalienable rights to all mankind, irrespective, then it is reasonable to concede that these rights should be protected from internal and external threat.  Governments are established to ensure peace and order and to guard against the devastations of anarchy.   Therefore, it is my position that given the recent developments and historically proven influence and power of the Media, Ethiopia is justified in giving lengthy sentences to Journalists as a preventive deterrent against perceived, legiamate threats.

Document shows NYPD eyed Shiites based on religion

In the article, the issue of investigating a person, group, or organization based solely on religion is brought to the forefront.  The press recently discovered a document pertaining to the NYPD.  Within the document, the NYPD is given permission to target mosques for investigation based on their population of Iranian attendees and their religious sect within Muslim.  The Shiite sect within the Muslim religion is the targeted group within the NYPD’s jurisdiction and even in some areas outside NYPD’s jurisdiction. 
With permission to target the Shiite religious group, the New York Police Department has eavesdropped, infiltrated mosques, and monitored Muslim neighborhoods as plainclothes officers.  The jurisdiction of the document is defined as the NYPD’s jurisdiction; however, the NYPD has spread this investigation far outside its jurisdiction into New Jersey and Connecticut.  The investigations and spying efforts started soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Investigations based on religion are prohibited by city law and under the NYPD’s guidelines, yet the document clearly breaks these laws and guidelines.  Iranian Shiite Muslims are mostly targeted due to their origin and sect of religion.  Iranian Muslims are thought to be the terrorists within the U.S., but Palestinians are targeted as well because terrorists could be of a Palestinian background. 
Yes, the majority of Iran’s population is Shiite, but this sect of the Muslim religion is said to be allies with the United States in the fight against Muslim extremists.  Al-Qaida and other extremist groups are Sunni Muslims who oppress the Shiite Muslims.  Many Shiites sought refuge in the West from the oppressing Sunnis. 
The NYPD and U.S. continue to be concerned with Iran, therefore investigations and spying continue of Iranian Muslims.  The U.S. worries about reactions and efforts that would arise if the U.S. went to war or any other form of open military conflict with Iran.  One mosque president in Philadelphia, Asad Sadiq, claims the NYPD is being unfairly broad.  He states, "If you attack Cuba, are all the Catholics going to attack here? This is called guilt by association… Just because we are the same religion doesn't mean we're going to stand up and harm the United States. It's really absurd."
I agree that the NYPD is accusing a population based on religion due to fear of the what-if situations.  Guilty by association is exactly what is being place on the Shiite group in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.  Just because they are the same religion doesn’t mean they stand for the same things.  Many Shiite Muslims want to escape to religiously free nations to rid themselves of oppression and ridiculing.  The U.S. should be the religiously free nation that the Muslims seeking refuge can go, and not a nation that creates more oppression and guilt. 
The issue that has arisen from these documents is the police departments’ and other law enforcing officials’ jurisdiction and the laws and guidelines they follow based on discrimination.  Targeting a group based on religion is discrimination at the root, while also threatening religious freedom. 

Special Caucus' and The Question of Accommodation

An article in today’s NY Times describes a conflict that arose in Las Vegas over a special Caucus held after sundown on Saturday in order to accommodate a growing population of Orthodox Jews. Caucus goers were required to sign a legal declaration under penalty of perjury that they could not attend the regular caucus because of their “religious beliefs.” Those who refused to sign the declaration were denied access to the caucus.

This incident provides a good example of how the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1^st Amendment are often at odds with each other. While holding the official caucus during the day, thus preventing Orthodox Jews from being able to participate could provide a valid argument for accommodation, it raises the question of what constitutes a valid excuse for missing regular elections, and how should they be accommodated. Does religion get a special pass or is it just one of many groups who should be accommodated? The focus on Orthodox Jews in regards to this special caucus also opens the door to questions of establishment. By primarily accommodating Orthodox Jews, did the Clark County Republican Party (CCRP), which ran the caucus in question, effectively raise Orthodox Judaism above other religions?

In the past the Supreme Court has been hesitant to rule in areas of religion, especially when the Free Exercise Clause is involved.  While free-exercise may be used as a defense, the declaration requirement, which explicitly limits attendance to those with a "religious excuse," places this issue squarely in establishment territory. Even though the CCRP argues that the declaration was meant to include Adventists as well, actions on the ground suggested otherwise. One person, who was refused admittance, claims that he was asked by a poll worker whether he was Jewish. More instances like this would be strong indicators of the CCRP’s true target audience. 

The question of other nonreligious groups, and whether they too are entitled to accommodation, is another interesting facet of this issue. Traditionally, religion has always been placed apart from everything else. The religious requirement of the special caucus calls into question the relationship of Religion in regards to other secular groups. Because this is an election, questions of disenfranchisement are also at stake, and the rights of secular groups are placed alongside those of Religions. As one of the fundamental principles of Democracy, voter’s rights are paramount to a truly representative government. To what extent should the government go to accommodate voters’ with either a “secular excuse” for missing a caucus, or for religious reasons, and are those truly separate types of accommodation?

Creation Stories and Public Schools in Indiana

            In an article from Jan. 26, 2012, ABC news reported that the Indiana Senate passed a bill allowing creationism to be taught in schools. Fox news reported on the same issue, emphasizing that it involves creation stories from many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology.  According to the ABC news report, the chair of the Senate Education Committee believes this bill will “ultimately end up in the courts” and is “a waste of time and resources.”  The bill is awaiting a decision in the Indiana House of Representatives.

            Like other creationism and public school cases, Indiana is attempting to include religious creation stories in science classrooms. However, the legal issue in this case does not necessarily involve promoting one specific religion over another, or even promoting a religious standpoint over a non-religious. The legal issue at stake is that this bill allows creation stories to be included in natural science courses.

            This bill presents a fascinating shift in the creationism in public schools debate. The legal issue here is different than the historical concern of teaching the Genesis creation accounts alongside theories of evolution. An inherent part of this legal debate is a promotion of these creation accounts over those of other religions. Rather, this bill begs the question of the ideological nature of scientific theories. That is, should creation stories be presented alongside scientifically founded theories in public schools?

            Religious creation stories do not have a place in a science classroom. They are not scientifically founded or supported. Although I believe it is positive to expose students to many different creation stories, this curriculum belongs in a Religious Studies course, not in one on natural science. Although it may be argued that evolution is only a theory, it is a scientifically founded and supported theory. Like the theory of gravity, it is central to an understanding of modern scientific thinking.

            Students would benefit greatly from an awareness of the creation stories of the religions of the world. However, creation stories should not legally be able to be taught in science classrooms. They are simply of a different category of thinking, and belong in different environments. Students will ideologically benefit from separating scientific theories from religious and cultural beliefs.

           

Should the 14th Amendment Include Unborn Children

According to TheCaucus, The Politics and Government Blog of the Times many of the Republican presidential candidates are supporting something referred to as the “personhood amendment.”  This is an amendment designed to fight Roe V. Wade by declaring that an embryo is a person from the point of fertilization.  The article offers the name of several candidates that had agreed to sign onto the bill by December 22^nd of 2011 along with several Christian groups that are supporting the candidates in question.

I believe this proposes a multifaceted issue.  On the one hand you have various Christian groups fighting what they view as the murder of unborn children protected by the secularization of society, an argument that is nearly the reverse of what early American’s argued when it came to too much religious freedom.  In contrast to them you have women that do not see it as murder and want the right to regulate their bodies.  Somewhere between the two you have the groups that may see it as murder, but know that it will cost them any ground they have currently to support such an extreme position. 

The issue is not a completely religious issue though.  According to the Times article some of the candidates are “polishing and trumpeting their credentials as Christian conservatives in their efforts to be seen as the leading Not Romney.”  If the author is correct and this is in a large part less about belief and more about pushing themselves forward in the polls it leads me to wonder if they really know the ramifications of what they are trying to get pushed into law. Even in Mississippi the push to bring this amendment from the drafting board to actual law was met with resistance that spelled its defeat.  Before the vote doctors relayed the information that the bill would not only ban abortions, but could also ban some forms of contraception and cause problems with fertilization clinics. 

Has religion became a currency that our would be leaders use to buy their positions of power like the author suggests or do they truly believe that an amendment that drastically reduces women’s access to birth control is needed for the country.  It’s a hard question to answer when politics, religion, and law all blend into each other.  It’s hard to tell if they really do care about the fertilized embryos or if they are just trying to draw attention to how Christian they are in order to differentiate themselves from Romany who is Mormon.  What we can see though is that this is a potential new law with far reaching implications in the religious and health worlds.  

Further information: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge

FBI Intrusion into Muslim Mosques

In this article, members of the Muslim community in Des Moines Iowa were upset earlier this week. They were upset because Arvinder Singh was sent into mosques around the Des Moines area to gather intelligence for the FBI. The FBI wanted Singh to spy in the mosques to see if there were any signs of terrorism.
    Singh stated that he was chosen by the FBI because he appeared to be of Middle Eastern dissent and that they needed his help for the war against terror. Singh jumped at this opportunity because he had been indicted for criminal activity while trying to become a citizen of the United States. Singh claims that the FBI said that if he would spy on the Muslim churches they would grant him citizenship. Singh went around to Muslim mosques pretending to be interested in converting to Islam. He did this for seven years. The FBI supplied him with pictures and names of certain individuals that they wanted to investigate.
    Dr. Hamed Baig, the president of the Islamic Center of Des Moines said, "That was really surprising, very sad that somebody would come or the FBI or Homeland Security would send somebody here to pretend to be Muslim and try to find out what goes on here". He felt that the actions were unnecessary. Anis Rehman, an executive board member of the Islamic Center of Des Moines stated that he feels violated. He feels that the intrusion of someone within the mosque for any other purpose besides prayer or socializing makes him feel embarrassed. Some people within the Iowa Muslim community feels as if their civil rights were violated. Rehman also expressed that their community is small and tight knit and is known around the Des Moines area proving that they are good people. They do not think that the September 11th attack could warrant such an intrusion by the FBI on their small religious community.
    Weysan Dunn, a FBI special agent says that the agency does not confirm or deny that they hired Arvinder Singh and they expressly denied that they gave Singh a deal. The FBI states that they are determined to prove innocence just as much as they are determined to prove guilt and that if they did launch an investigation they are solely interested in finding out the truth.
    I believe that the members of the Islamic community were violated. Although there is no privacy clause expressly written in the Constitution, within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence they have declared that citizens of the United States do have the right to privacy. In my opinion, I do not think that the FBI had enough probable cause to infiltrate multiple mosques within the Des Moines area. Broader implications that can stem from this invasion of privacy is that anytime the FBI or Homeland Security has a hunch that someone is doing something illegal they could send someone to spy on anyone they want, even when these intrusions are not warranted.  I think that the FBI should have found other ways to gather information prior to trampling on people’s rights based only on hunches and speculation. 
    Just because these people are  Muslims doesn't mean that they had something to do with the September 11th attack or are terrorists.  Spying on any American, even Muslim Americans, without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot is not only unconscionable it is, more importantly unconstitutional.  The FBI has every right to gather information to prevent terrorism, they just have to do it legally.  If the Constitution does not protect Muslim Americans from this type of intrusion it may not protect Methodists, Catholics, Jews or any other religious group that may become the target of an FBI investigation.

 

Christian Students Fight Back!!!

Christian students at Vanderbilt University are currently in a fight for their right to choose who lead their organizations.  Since September of 2010, Vanderbilt University has been cracking down on student led organizations after an openly gay student was asked to leave a Christian fraternity.  Though this brought Vanderbilt University into national headlines about discrimination on campus, the same issue is arising in a different sort of way.  Christian students have begun to launch several campaigns targeting Vanderbilt University and its non-discrimination policy involving organizations to not require their leadership to hold certain beliefs.  For the Christian organization, they claim that this policy is problematic in a number of ways.  One student goes as far to say that “Our new so-called non-discrimination policy threatens to destroy the integrity of each of our religious organizations”.  Such a charge is one that carries much weight with it.  Beyond the students, faculty and staff are also getting involved to question the administrations sudden attention to the constitutions of all the religious student organizations.   

The sudden attention, many claim, is a question of religious freedom.  Student groups such as the Vanderbilt College Republicans have published a video calling for the administration to recognize the religious freedom of the student.  In the end the students are calling for a freedom within the higher education system to allow student groups to be just that, a student led group.  

In my opinion this non-discrimination policy of Vanderbilt is a positive change to the campus that encourages all students to participate in any student group that choose to.  The Christian students are worried about their right to elect officers in organizations that faith-based but one fact that remains elusive in their discussion is the fact that all students pay for the organizations budget and meeting space.  A non-discrimination policy is a common practice that many universities ascribe to due to its ability to not limit particular students from participating in their college career.  The realm of education has always been a battleground for religion and law.  Prayer, evolution, creationism, etc. have been some of the issues that have been tackled in education and now there is a question of whether certain groups should have the ability to exclude certain individuals based on their person beliefs.  For the Christian students in question, this is a simple request and one that should not be hard at all for the administration.  On the other hand, the administration is attempting to create a campus that allows every student the opportunity to participate.  In one of the videos in their campaign, a student claims that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  This notion then is linked to the right of a student organization to exclude leadership who do not go in line with the beliefs of the group.  For them the right to choose the leadership is heavily intertwined with the right to religious freedom.  The religious freedom quoted throughout the campaigns by the students is an attempt to link the "founding" of this country to a Christian foundation.  Such a link for the student provides the opportunity for them to be able to practice their religion in the public sphere, and in this case on the grounds of a university.  Beyond the history lessons offered by the students on the founding of this nation, one student states that “With this policy, Vanderbilt is going somewhere where no other university has gone before”.  I would like to say that such a policy is not new and it is not something that should be seen as threatening but one that attempts to embrace the diversity of the campus and allow every student to fully participate on their campus.

Muslims Petition Attorney General For NYPD Probe

This article is about the Muslim American's petition to the Attorney General to resolve the threat that the NYPD has posted on their lives. There is a report that has surfaced that depicts the discriminatory practices of the New York police department towards Muslims in America. Although the department is taking serious measures towards keeping America safe there training and practice of focusing on residential Muslims reflects racially profiling. Their spying on this race of people came from the secret report called “U.S Iran Conflict: The threat to New York” which suggested that they expand their investigation and focus on mosques in New York. As a protector of the New York society the NYPD has a good amount of  reason to keep its eyes open for any suspicious things within that community because of the events of 9/11 but I do not believe they should focus their attention on imposing on the lives of this group.  The approach that the NYPD is taking is very inflicting. It is putting innocent Muslims in the category of terrorist which is unfair. BBC news has posted a video that displays the Muslim respond to this issue. The conference that they held served the purpose of encouraging peace and understanding of the Muslim community as not a threat to New York.

                                                                  

   They have petition for there to be an investigation of the NYPD because they feel that the department is not trustworthy and that their investigation lack credibility. With no response from the office of the police department on this issue, their innocent in this matter of discrimination is to be questioned.

   My opinion on this article has been stated in the first half of this post but I also have a separate opinion on this whole issue. The police departments in general usually form taskforces that pay firm attention to individuals and sometimes groups that they find threatening to society. The whole issue of Muslims wanting the NYPD to be investigated on the accusations of spying within their mosques should not be taken seriously. I say that because terrorist threats in America is an ongoing issue and if the department has token the proper measures to protect the larger population then there is no need to advertise that they are taking these precautions. I think that Muslim should realize that their lives is not in any way private because the government imposes on its citizens in some way and that this supposed discrimination happens to any group or person viewed as a threat. So live with it and continue to prove your belief of being a peaceful group which could eliminate the investigation and profiling.