"The Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania

            

 

            

      ABC News reports that State House in Pennsylvania passed a provision that declares 2012 “The Year of the Bible.” The resolution passed on the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously in January. The ABC article reports that “some members later said they did not realize its content and regretted their votes.” The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), based in Madison, WI, filed a lawsuit stating that this violates the Establishment Clause. This organization “includes Atheists and Agnostics” and is typically associated with such a viewpoint. The FFRF is requesting a federal judge to order the Pennsylvania to stop distributing the flyers and to “rule that the state government isn’t Judeo-Christian.”

            The republican senator primarily associated with the bill, Rick Saccone, is not phased by the lawsuit, calling it meritless. The article quotes Saccone, stating “God has always been a part of our government. To deny that is to deny history. And that's all the resolution is — a recognition of a book that has been so important in our nation's history."

            Establishment Clause cases have often been tricky. Frequently they involve a question of government allowance of religion, such as public display of religion cases. In such cases (such as Marsh v. Chambers, Lunch v. Donnelley, and Allegheny v. ACLU) the question becomes whether or not private citizens can display religion on government property. This case is different. It involves private citizens suing over governmental displays of religion.

            It seems clear that this is a governmental endorsement of Christianity. A state legislature cannot officially declare a “year of the Bible” without an implied preference for a particular religious viewpoint. The Bible is directly associated with Christianity. Additionally, although a particular entanglement of church and state is bound to exist, government legislation endorsing a particular viewpoint is unnecessary and dangerous. The FFRF is certainly warranted in their request for the government to stop distributing the flyers. It may be argued that the resolution does not require citizens to follow a particular viewpoint and therefore is not dangerous. However, it still associates a state government with a particular religious viewpoint, which is discriminating and has the potential for dangerous implications.

            The FFRF’s second request, for the federal judge to rule that this is not a Judeo-Christian nation, seems more obscure. Is this the role of the federal judge? Even though these pamphlets breach church-state separate very suspiciously, there has not been any official declaration of Christianity as a state religion. This seems to be a desire for affirmation and solidification from the FFRF more than a legal junction. I am not sure that this part of the request is warranted or necessary. However, I imagine that the intention of the FFRF is to prevent instances like this happening again. An official declaration may help provide certainty.

            In the end, this case begs the question of the nature of governmental endorsement of religion. Endorsement can still be a reality even when it is not declaring an official state religion. The nature of this endorsement is one of promoting a particular religious viewpoint. The FFRF has legitimate concerns that warrant a lawsuit against the resolution.            

Imprecatory Prayers: Protected or Profane

In a Washington Post article published on the 6^th, David Gibson describes the recent judiciary ruling by District Court Judge Martin Hoffman regarding “imprecatory” or “curse” prayers. The case in question was brought by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), with the goal of removing what Weinstein described as undue religious influence in the armed forces. The lawsuit was directed at a former Navy chaplain named Klingenschmitt, who posted on his website, urging followers to prey for the MRFF’s downfall. Judge Hoffman ended up ruling in favor of the defendant in this case, arguing that there was no evidence that recent acts of vandalism of Weinstein’s property were connected to the prayer in question. Weinstein responded “We are disappointed in the ruling because we believe the judge made a mistake in not understanding that imprecatory prayers are code words for trolling for assassins for the Weinstein family, I don’t think the judge understood that these are not regular prayers.” Imprecatory prayers are nothing new in the public forum of America, and have garnered a lot of attention since President Obama was elected.

                That said, this case does raise important questions which were left unaddressed in the ruling. Chief among these questions is the protection such prayers have under the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech and religion.

As much as it chafes me, I have to agree with Judge Hoffmans ruling. The protection afforded such religious rhetoric ties the states hands until a clear connection between the prayer in question and any criminal acts can be established. That said, I believe that the ruling could have gone in favor of Weinstein if Klingenschmitt were still an acting Navy chaplain. If that were the case, Weinstein could argue an establishment clause violation. The difference between the two situations arises out of the fact that as an active chaplain, Klingenschmitt would be representing the Government and the conversation would no longer be in an open forum. One counter argument to this position would be the precedent of “civic deism,” even though that concept has only been used to justify such things as opening prayers before congressional meetings and the presence of the 10 commandments in Courthouses. I would counter such an argument by raising the question of the intended role of the Chaplain within the structure of the armed forces, and whether such prayers fell within the scope of his positions duties, especially if that prayer was directed at another member of the armed services.

Defense Of Marriage Act Challenged By Binational Same-Sex Couples

         In Washington, DC there has been an up rise in the number of marriage lawsuits that are challenging DOMA. DOMA which stands for the Defense of Marriage Act says that only a man and a woman joined together as husband and wife by law are able to receive marital rights such as obtaining a green card for a foreign born spouse. In this article the couples that are challenging DOMA are bi-national same-sex couples. Couples that have at least one partner that was not born in America and happens to be gay or lesbian have been rejected on their application for a green card.  In this article the advocacy organization of Immigration Equality has teamed up with these couples to address the discrimination placed on same-sex couples for marital rights. The Immigration Equality organization has recognized that these bi-national same sex couples have no legal options to turn to. The government has denied the request to change DOMA and rejected residency applications. This is what they believe illustrated the unconstitutionality of this law.

          I agree with the Immigrant Equality and the bi-national same-sex couples that this law is unconstitutional. With gay marriages being accepted there really is no use for DOMA in regards to discrimination policies and constitutional laws. There is no use for DOMA because it implements discriminatory actions by rejecting a couple just because they do not consist of a man and a woman. By rejecting bi-national same-sex couples while allowing all marital rights to monogamous couples is showing this discrimination and that the law is being unfair.

       Santiago Ortiz one of the American partners of a foreigner stated that "We're being denied our rights, because we are a family." Although his statement comes from his own interpretation of the situation it brings me to my main point. Which is how religion fits into all this? I believe that religion is the root of this problem. The government from early history has been influenced by religious backgrounds and their teachings. Through this influence they have come to construct a system that enables the Christian ideas that influence them and are enforcing it in public. By giving out such rules the government has set up what they want their country to represent. In this case the government does not want the country to represent a nation that not only allow gay marriages but are open to equality in their acceptance.

           The role that religion plays in this case relies on the implications of a liable marriage which the government (Christian influenced) recognizes. The implications that DOMA puts on marriage is an example of this. This Act in accordance with government recognition of a real marriage and the perks that come along with it resembles the same notions from the book The Mormon Question which discussed Christian ideas on the topic of marriage. The government officials in this book acknowledge their own definition of marriage which was framed by Christian beliefs as being monogamous and between one man and one woman. I believe that the DOMA law is a modern way of restricting newly accepted marriages such as gay and lesbian ones.

         This case acknowledges DOMA’s disregard for same-sex couples as an issue regarded as unconstitutional and liable to be challenged. On the other hand I recognize this article as displaying a matter of which discrimination is produced from the latter of early American history intertwined and influenced by religion. Religion was the starting block for defining marriage and law made it official. Religion has influence DOMA and the law is holding firm in keeping it.

Another article: present case related to DOMA

Dispute over Ten Commandments Bill in Tennessee

In Tennessee, there has been a dispute regarding a new piece of legislation headed by Representative Matthew Hill. The bill authorized local governments to display the Ten Commandments with other historical documents within the local courthouses. The bill is not supported by everyone. Some believe that it is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property. It is feared that this bill would violate the Establishment Clause.
    In Rutherford County, Tennessee some officials put the Ten Commandments on display and were instructed to take it down after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the county. Hill’s new bill would allow courthouses to display the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States and state constitutions, which are integral to the development of American law and symbolize American freedom and the nation’s history.
    The likelihood of the bill being signed is overwhelming. The Tennessee House approved the bill 93-0 and the Senate voted 30-0. Matthew Hill brought the bill forward after reading about groups like the American Civil Liberties Union suing governments over the issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property.
    The context in which these items are on display is extremely important. If the Ten Commandments were the only thing on display, there might be a constitutionality problem according to the Supreme Court’s historical jurisprudence. If the Ten Commandments are displayed equally with other historical documents, then the display may pass constitutional muster. Tennessee is not the only state that is trying to get this type of legislation passed. Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia have tried to pass similar legislation. This year in Georgia, the House approved a similar bill 161-0, the state Senate approved the legislation 41-9 on March 30th, 2012.
    I think that this bill will have no problem with being signed and I think it is completely constitutional. This situation reminds me of the Supreme Court case of Van Orden v Perry. Van Orden challenged the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol building because he believed that the display violated the Establishment Clause. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court held that the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause because the monument was in a park surrounded by other historic monuments. The decided that the display was a part of national tradition and it was commemorating historical documents that celebrate the United States. The Supreme Court stated, “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause”.
    I agree with the Supreme Court, I see nothing wrong with putting the Ten Commandments up in courthouses, if it’s primary purpose is to commemorate the history of the United States. If it was standing by itself, or if it had an overbearing religious tone then I believe  it is unconstitutional. This is very similar to the Lynch v Donnelly case. In Lynch, the Supreme Court held that a nativity scene placed on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it was surrounded by other non-religious symbols of the holiday season.  The Supreme Court has consistently held the displays that include religious material are not automatically unconstitutional.  As long as the intent of the display is not meant to promote religion, but for some other legitimate purpose, it may be constitutional.

Is Religious Freedom for Individuals or Organizations?

Who could possibly want to fight against more religious freedom?  That is a question that Colorado and Florida are bringing to the public this coming elections season.  The questions are not the same, but considering the timing it is likely that they are both responses to the debate over contraceptives that we have spent so much time discussing over the last few weeks. 

In Florida the proposed amendment will repeal the law that forbids the government from providing financing to religious organizations.  The opposition worries that this will open the door to more voucher programs sending students to parochial schools instead of public schools.  In Colorado the proposal is vaguer.  It simply seems to restate principals from the constitution.  The proposed extra text can be found here.  It mostly changes things I believe by adding religious organization to the clause which is part of what is being debated when it comes to the issue of religious freedom.  Do organizations have rights, or is it simply a matter of individuals.  The issue that this is likely responding to makes it even more complicated since the individuals that make up the organization seem to have a difference of opinion from the organization itself.

Was the wording of our constitution meant to protect religious organizations or just individuals in their personal belief?  It is a question that is fraught with a lot of baggage.  The religion that many Americans follow is one that is centered on individual choice and interpretation, but that is not the way with all religions.  By favoring a legal system that favors the individual over the organizations that they may belong to are we in fact favoring a certain type of religion? 

I agree that the rights of the individual are what this country is built on and not the rights of organizations, but I do not think that that means that the organizations have to be completely stripped of rights.  I think that the Catholic Church has the right to disagree with birth control and I think that parishioners have the right to leave the church if they disagree with it.  I also think that if they are an employer then they should follow the same laws as other employers and receive the same benefits.  By this token I actually do not see a problem with the proposal in Florida.  I think allowing religious organizations the same rights to government money that nonreligious organizations receive is completely constitutional.  I agree with the opposition that it could lead to more voucher programs providing money to parochial schools, but that was already held up as constitutional in Zelman v. Simmons.  The one in Colorado is a little more troubling, but not enough that I disagree on just the surface.  I think it leaves too little space for the government to decide that the rights of the individuals or the benefit of the people around the organization trumps their rights.  Like so many things with the interaction between religion and law it is difficult to see just what the effects of either of these initiatives will be if they make it to law.  

Religious Biases, a Highly Contested Debate

Vanderbilt University, in Nashville Tennessee, is currently facing an issue related to non-discrimination policies on campus and their affects on religious groups. According to the school’s non-discrimination policy; any student can be a member or run for office of any student run group.
The Catholic group on campus, Vanderbilt Catholic, begs to differ. Their current president claims that anyone running for an officer position should share the same beliefs as the group. However, this slowly sinks into quicksand with the university’s anti-discrimination policy. Vanderbilt is not the only university facing the same issues.
Vanderbilt is using the defense of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In this 2010 Supreme Court case, the courts “required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.” Vanderbilt is obviously not the first university to tackle this problem. Colleges in North Carolina, California and New York also have experienced identical or similar concerns.
Ayesha Khan, Legal Director, American United for Separation of Church and State, weighs in on this contested debate and more specifically the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case.
Professionally, I want to work in diversity public relations. I do not understand why discrimination, especially faith-based discrimination is still relevant. Why can we not look past insignificant details and realize the bigger picture of interconnectedness? This is not just a “Catholic issue”; this applies to all religious groups, regardless of faith or doctrine. Someone’s religious background should not be a determinate in their abilities to perform certain tasks, or any tasks for that matter.

I think that Vanderbilt is doing the ‘right’ thing in this situation. Not only is the university upholding their non-discrimination policy, but they are also trying to prevent further occurrences of this. Cases like Christian Legal Society v. Martinez prove to be beneficial for the support of the university and general support of anti-biases. I agree with Vanderbilt. I think someone’s religious background or lack of religious background is not sufficient support in denying them the right to participate in activities, or to run for a position within the organization.

I am involved with several organizations on campus and I cannot imagine the backlash that would come from someone being denied to participate due to their involvement in a particular religious group.
As I mentioned before, this is not just a Catholic issue. This problem is broad reaching and has larger implications for religious groups, not just Catholic, and not just college affiliated. We need to steer away from religious persecution of minorities. To be completely honest, I’m sick of this being something we discuss. We need to make more strides toward a hyper-inclusive American culture.

Preston L.

School District Told to Replace Web Filter Blocking Pro-Gay Sites

Christiana Torere
April 2, 2012


According to a t NY time’s article, students using the computers at Camdenton High School in central Missouri have internet access to the web sites for Exodus International, as well as People Can Change, antigay organizations that counsel men and women on how to become heterosexual. Students are upset with the fact that they are able to access discrimination websites against gays but have been denied access to the Web sites of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, or the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
The students at Camdenton High School have been able to read Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy. But they have been blocked from reading Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that held that laws criminalizing sodomy were unconstitutional.
The decisions to block websites protecting gay rights are not left up to the school superintendent, board members, or the district Web master, instead the district's Web filter determine which sites would be open to students and which would be blocked. Since the passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act in 2000, public schools have been required to use Internet filters that protect students from pornography and obscenity. However, the actual person who created the filter that blocks these pro-gay websites remains unknown. The identity of the person is protected behind URLBlacklist, a company that sells filter software to schools.
Pat Scales of the American Library Association said "These filters are a new version of book-banning or pulling books off the shelf, the difference is this is much more subtle and harder to identify."
Anthony Rothert, a Civil Liberties lawyer based in St. Louis said, “Over the last year, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials from hundreds of school districts around the country to make changes in their Internet screening systems to eliminate bias” All agreed to the procedure except for Camdenton High School, which the A.C.L.U. sued last summer.
The lawsuit happens to be the first of its kind. It does not claim that the rural district of 4,200 students purchased the software with the intent of discriminating. Rather, it says, once there were complaints about the filter last year, school officials refused to replace it. An investigator for the A.C.L.U. has been able to figure out how the filter works, but not who developed it.
Camdenton High School has arranged for students wishing to access any pro-gay websites that is blocked by the URLBlacklist filter can file an appeal to the district's Web master.
In a hearing in federal court in October, Thomas Mickes, the lawyer for the Camdenton school district told the judge, "Just because the A.C.L.U. or some other liberal group says, 'Hey, you know, I don't like what you're doing, you've got to change that,' and if we don't change it, then somehow we're showing discrimination, that's not the law. That would be crazy."
After reading this article, I thought about the court cases we read in class over the past weeks, and if the intent was not to promote discrimination then there isn’t a case, but by them allowing websites to be accessed that were against gay rights puts them at risk for discrimination, which is why I believe there is proper cause for a case. The intent was to save students from being gay not just to shelter them from pornography. This is similar to how schools would find a way to go around the laws in the cases we discussed last week. If the intent was to only practice the Internet Protection Act in 2000 as stated, then why was antigay organizations websites provided?

Tennessee mom faces jail for baptizing her children without her husband's consent

A Tennessee mothers, Lauren Jerrell, will be tried with contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her children without the consent of her ex-husband. The charges that are being brought up against her is that she violated a court order. In Tennessee the parenting plan, which the court said was violated by Jerrell, requires that both parents have to agree on religious upbringing of the child. Since Jerrell baptized the children without the fathers consent and knowledge she would be violating the parenting plan.
This case that is going to be seen by the Tennessee Supreme Court can be seen as either the court interfering with religious disputes between parents or the right of the parent to influence their child with their personal religion. One of the mother's attorney stated that since their was no personal harm to the children that the parenting plan is unconstitutional. That as a divorced parent Jerrell has the right to influence her children with her personal religion, which includes the baptism of her children. The father disagreed with this because he believed that the children were to young to be baptized.
This could either be seen as the court interfering with the religious freedom of parents to influence their children or that it was a simple violating of a court order. Since the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and since the parenting plan gives the court the authority to decide for the parent if they can't come to a mutual agreement is the problem in this case. Since the court order has to do with religious disputes between parents it can be seen as an interference of government in personal religion.
The Court of Appeals Judge Alan E. Highers said that this case with Jeller has nothing to do with religion but if their was a failure on the part of the mother to follow court orders they had to prosecute her for that and that only. It can be argued that this can be seen as a religion case where the courts would be major entanglement of religion and government. Through the First Amendment there should be neutrality in cases that involve religion and that through the establishment clause the court should remain neutral in all cases that pertain to religion.
How can a court rule on and issue that is a private matter that involves religious decision-making which the court should stay away from. The courts should remain neutral while the court here decided that since the mother chose to baptize the children against the fathers wishes she was in contempt of the court order. The parenting plan has complex wording that the law requires the court to become entangled with parental religious decision-making.

A Fresh Take on Universal Health Care: A Jewish Moral Perspective

The Supreme Court concluded their hearings this week on President Obama’s universal health care reform, and the country now awaits the court’s final decisions expected sometime after June.   The court is considering complex jurisprudential questions that the health care plan presents:   The constitutionality of the individual mandate and whether Congress can penalize those who do not buy health insurance.   Further more complicated questions stem from this that reach beyond individual responsibility of the insured to include responsibility of the insurers and of the states.

Mr. Obama’s goal of universal health coverage has its share of legal, political, and public oppositions.      This opinion piece presents a refreshing alternative perspective to these debates.   The author reframes the constitutionality argument using guiding principles from Judaism, calling it a Jewish moral imperative.   The leading question this article presents is whether American society views itself as an ‘American community.’  The author asks, if America is a community then we are faced with two fundamental questions:  Do we believe there is some minimal level of care for physical well-being that every member of that community is entitled?  How do we go about deciding how much that basic level ought to be?   This approach does not offer a solution to the health care reform; rather it is a reframing of the issues using ethical principles that are well established in Judaism.  

The “moral mandate” principle set forth in this article is in sharp contrast to the “individual mandate.”   The concept of a moral mandate relies on the Talmud, a collection of Jewish law and principles, which states that a community must provide, among other things, basic health care and a doctor.   She adds that simply “reducing fees to care of the poor is not sufficient, the community must provide a fund.”   This principle is based on the concept of ‘community’ in the Jewish tradition which stems from the fundamental understanding of the Jewish community, which requires as many as ten people to meet obligations of Jewish religious life.  This understanding is based on the “assumptions of the interdependence of the human family.”

The health care principle in Jewish tradition is not limited to a theory of ethical behavior but has also been put into practice.   The Rabbinical Assembly, an international community of 1600 Conservative rabbis, passed resolutions on health care in 2002 and 2008 and in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  Affordable health care is not a new concept.   The author of this piece points to the fact that her father-in-law served in the public sector as Commissioner of Health of New York City in 1974 and was the first director of the Medicaid program in New York City fifty years ago.   With his experience in public health, he recognized the “unavoidable need for a system of coverage that would provide health care to all.”   

If we change our perspective from ‘individual’ to that of ‘community,’ it shifts the responsibility to the community, however large you envision a community, and we might then begin to possibly address the “sweeping moral and demographic problem.”   The author stresses there is a moral obligation and a practical urgency in providing health care for all.  But, first, Americans have to “face difficult decisions required to realistically face this problem.”    

We have to recognize that America is a highly individualistic society, based on the theory that individuals can make the best personal choices and that society has no right to interfere in the person’s decision making.   Individualism is in contrast to a collective community.  A negative political view of ‘community’ is often referred to as ‘socialism.’   Accusations of promoting ‘socialism’ have been hurled at the Obama administration and is used to discredit the administration’s vision.  Providing basic health care to the poor, uninsured and every individual according to Mr. Obama‘s vision is consistent with the ethical principles the Talmud calls for.   

Is the concept of a moral mandate limited to Jewish moral principles?   Is it possible to use this principle as a starting point to address why health care should be provided to all?  It may not possible to remove all legal and political implications of health care reform in our society, but it is possible to redirect the conversation currently framed with individual rights to that of a moral mandate and call for the responsibility of the American “community” to provide basic public health care to every individual as a moral responsibility of the nation.

Mezuzah v. Condo Association

In Stratford, Connecticut a woman is being fined $50 every day she keeps her mezuzah on her doorpost. Barbara Cadranel, the owner of the mezuzah, relayed her sadness and described being bullied by her neighbors who actually pulled down her mezuzah repeatedly before asking her to remove it. Her neighbors and the condo association claim that they are not reacting to the religious nature of the mezuzah but claim that Cadranel did not write the association to ask for permission to place the mezuzah on her door and that furthermore no one in the building is allowed to place anything on door frames or outside windows, considered a common area.

However, Cadranel claims that she was never told that she needed written permission from the condo association and the whole situation reeks of anti-Semitism. The video shows Easter decorations in force throughout the building, including in common areas, but the condo association claims these items are alright because they are not on doorposts. When a former member of the board was interviewed she could provide no reason why Cadranel should take down her mezuzah other than “to keep the place neat” and says she believes everyone, meaning all the non-Jews, will put them up simply because Cadranel was allowed to keep her mezuzah. While one neighbor stated she thought there may be some fire code violation no one from the condo association has offered up a legitimate reason as to why items are not allowed on door frames. This conflict is heating up because of the fine imposed every day Cadranel leaves the mezuzah up.

The role of religious symbols in the public sphere has been a heated debate. However, the mezuzah’s place on the threshold of the Jewish home leaves it in an ambiguous place. Cadranel’s lawyer stated, “A mezuza is not a decorative choice for Jews, or a choice of any kind.” The mezuzah has a very specific location and position that is identical in every Jewish home. While the condo association’s ban on items in doorframes seems neutral, albeit arbitrary, there is only one group of people with a constitutional right to put items in door frames affected by this ban, and this case one single person.

Judging from her neighbors’ reactions there may have not ever been any Jewish families in this condo to challenge this ban making residents assume the mezuzah is a decoration and confused why Cadranel is fighting them. Now that the legal battle is heating up I’m curious why they do not lift the ban especially since they have offered no legitimate reason for the ban in the first place. There seems to be no clear cut answer when put through the Lemon test, but the lack of a legitimate reason for such a ban calls into question its creation and defense these past few weeks.

Atheist Rally: Precursor to Religious Equality Movement?

 In a recent article from USAToday, Cathy Grossman reports on a large atheist rally held just outside the Washington Monument on Saturday, March 24 of this year. The rally, which included around 20,000 atheists, featured several speakers, such as Richard Dawkins and David Silverman, who urged atheists to start taking a stand against the oppression of their religious peers. Dawkins even went so far as to encourage his fellow atheists to “ridicule and show contempt” for religious teachings and traditions. Others, like Hemant Mehta, took a more political approach by urging atheists to be more involved with or run for positions in public office. But why was this rally even necessary? What has made these atheists so angry?

                My guess: religious favoritism in government. Though the American Government has recently moved toward maintaining a position of neutrality in the religious realm, certain practices show a distinct lack of equality among the religious and non-believers. For one, religious groups receive special benefits, in the form of tax exemptions and the recent contraceptive exemptions, simply because they claim a violation of their religious beliefs. Also, Christians are particularly favored in phrases like “In God We Trust,” which is stamped on all national currency, or “One Nation, Under God,” a line from the Pledge of Allegiance which most school children recite each and every day. These practices have been upheld by the court under the premise of “ceremonial deism,” but when your personal beliefs reject the existence of any deity, such policies seem less than neutral.

                Is government neutrality even possible, though? In the Supreme Court decision of Lee v. Weisman (1992), a case about prayer at public school graduations, the court struck down the practice as unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Their reasoning, however, left room for cases like Jones v. Clear Creek (1992) which held that student-led prayer at graduation ceremonies is permissible as long as there is no interference on the part of government officials. Such decisions lead to questions about the possibility of true neutrality in government. By ruling that student-led prayer is acceptable, the court has created the opportunity for religious students to undermine the rights of their non-religious peers by forcing them to participate (or at least observe) a prayer which runs counter to their personal beliefs. If the court was to ban prayer altogether, however, Christians would claim infringement on their free exercise rights, and the battle for supremacy would continue.

                So what is the next step for those atheists who seek to destroy this governmental favoritism for religion? This rally seems like the first step in what could be a very successful religious equality movement. Though the court has not been a particularly favorable venue for atheists in the past, solid reasoning and good public relations could lead to equal rights for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs.

The mezuzah debate

Recently, a condo association in Connecticut ordered Barbara Cadranel to take down her mezuzah from her doorpost arguing that it violated the condo by-laws.  A mezuzah is “a prayer scroll in a small clear plastic case” that is attached to a doorpost of a Jewish home in accordance with Jewish law.  According to the condo’s by-laws, decorations are allowed on doors—which are considered the condo owner’s property—but not on doorposts—which are considered common area.  The condo association told Cadranel that she must take down the mezuzah or be charged $50 a day that it remains up.  In this article, it does not state the reason it is against the by-laws to have the mezuzah on the doorpost.  However, the article is framed in a way to make it appear that the reason the mezuzah is not allowed is because it is a religious symbol.  It states “video from inside the complex showed several common areas adorned with Easter eggs and other Easter decorations.”  The only comment from the condo association is that only Cadranel’s side of the story is being told, but the condo association would not explain their side.  The Anti-Defamation League has agreed to help Cadranel during this situation.

 

An example of a mezuzah on a doorpost

As I stated previously, it is not clear if the issue at hand is because the mezuzah is a religious symbol, or because there is a rule not allowing anything on doorposts (possibly for fire safety concerns?).  If the issue is because the mezuzah is a Jewish symbol, then no other religious symbols (such as Easter decorations) should be allowed in common areas and Cadranel has a fair complaint against the condo association.  However, if the reasoning for not allowing anything on doorposts is a safety concern, then possibly the law hinders religion because hanging a mezuzah is part of Jewish law.  Should exceptions be made for the mezuzah in this condo complex?  The problem there then arises is when do religious exceptions become preference to religion?

Should this issue end up in court, I do not think I would be able to predict the outcome of the case.  On one hand, the by-law was likely not written with religion in mind and was likely made for safety reasons.  The law is neutral in that nothing is allowed on doorposts.  However, as far as I know, only the Jewish faith requires their members to put a symbol on their doorpost.  As such, even if the rule was written neutrally, the only people that will be concerned about the law are members of the Jewish faith.  The law unintentionally infringes on their practice.  As well, the doorpost is considered a common area and it appears that the issue is that residents are not allowed to hang decorative items in the common area.  If this is the case, then charging Cadranel the $50 a day and not the other residents that placed Easter decorations in the common area is privileging one religion over another.  Charging Cadranel and not the others hinders Cadranel’s free exercise of her religion.  Ultimately, I believe Cadranel should be able to hang the mezuzah on her doorpost and an exception should be made in the by-laws because hanging the mezuzah is not a choice but in accordance to Jewish law.  Otherwise Candranel could easily make the case for the condo association preventing her from practicing her religion.