Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

Prop 8 Ruling Good for Religious Freedom

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

In yesterday’s landmark decision, Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s District Court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.  Unsurprisingly, there have been strong reactions from the religious community both in favor of and opposing the decision.  State of Belief host and Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy welcomed the decision as a positive step for California, the nation as a whole, and religious freedom.  In his statement, Rev. Gaddy said:

“We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America’s diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

The separation between institutions of religion and government in America was not an accident, it was by design—for the good of both religion AND government.  Our First Amendment makes it constitutionally wrong to deny an individual certain rights because of a religion’s theology concerning what is moral, ethical, or correct.  Divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, but it is still the right of an American citizen to dissolve a marriage legally in the eyes of the state.   Judge Walker’s decision takes same-gender marriage out of the religious sphere and into the legal one; his judgment is grounded in law put in place to serve the best interests of this country.  His decision articulates that one couple’s same-gender marriage does not pose harm or threat to another person’s existence or religious beliefs, thus does not warrant its banning.

As I write this,  Rev. Gaddy is continuing our work on same-gender marriage as he is preparing to speak at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the importance of shifting the conversation on LGBT equality from a place of “problem” to “solution,” from a scriptural argument to a religious freedom agreement.

For other reactions to Judge Walker’s decision, click here.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Chaplain Should Have Given Inclusive Prayer

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Last week, North Carolina pastor Ron Baity demanded an apology from his state’s legislators after they dismissed him from his chaplain duties when he prayed in Jesus’ name. Baity was scheduled to deliver the opening prayer for the North Carolina House for the entire week of May 31st, but when he invoked Jesus’ name in the first of these prayers “he was relieved from his duties for the rest of the week.” Baity is now requesting that the North Carolina House issue an apology and invite him back.

This issue shows the complicated nature of legislative prayer. On the one hand, Baity argued that the legislature prevented him from freely exercising his religion, while on the other hand, the legislators argued that allowing him to pray in Jesus’ name would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and would have made some members of the House uncomfortable. The House had a right to request a nonsectarian prayer, but for Baity, there may be no acceptable and proper way to pray, according to his faith, except in Jesus’ name.

While Reverend Baity certainly has the right to pray in Jesus’ name, I believe that the House made the right decision in dismissing Baity from his chaplain duties. Baity has a right to pray as he chooses when serving as a private citizen. As a chaplain for the House, however, Baity was serving as a “government mouthpiece,” and he therefore had an obligation to provide an inclusive, nonsectarian prayer.

Baity also asserted that he “was made to feel like a second-class North Carolinian” because he could not pray in the manner of his choosing. However, Baity was not being treated differently from any other chaplain in a similar situation – government chaplains of all faiths abide by these same restrictions in order to ensure that every American’s religious freedom is protected. In being asked to deliver a nonsectarian prayer Baity was being treated as a first-class citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities that belong to a citizen of a pluralist and democratic nation

Tags:
Posted in First Amendment | 1 Comment »

Praying for the Gulf of Mexico

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Louisiana’s legislatures recently proposed making Sunday June 20th a statewide day of prayer to ask for God’s help in stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. My take is that while this may have been a well-intentioned measure, it is at best unnecessary and at worst unconstitutional.

The resolution does not endorse a specific religion, and calls upon people of all religions to engage in “unified, intercessory prayer.” However, establishing a day of prayer ties the government to the private spiritual lives of its citizens. Government’s influence on religion, like religion’s influence on government, weakens both institutions, instead of strengthening them. I don’t think one would be going out on a limb by suggesting that people across the gulf coast region have been seeking comfort and relief through prayer since the start of this tragedy – and they have done so without needing the government to tell them when to do it.

Tags:
Posted in First Amendment | No Comments »

Citizens worry that separation of religion and government is for show

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

When I read the headline “Religious leaders worry that Obama’s faith council is for show” in The Washington Post this morning, I imagined the story might have something to do with how concerned people are that the faith council may not be able to convince Josh DuBois to rein in the activities of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships, an office with both a title and an agenda tweaked only slightly from the disastrous Bush Administration office of similar name.

Upon reading the full text, however, I discovered that the article’s focus was, instead, on those who think the faith-based partnership isn’t doing enough to entwine our domestic agenda and our country’s religious organizations.

Apparently, “critics” are concerned about the fact that the council hasn’t been allowed to weigh in on issues like religious hiring and abortion. They’d really like the council to be able to tackle those, because they want religious organizations that receive federal funding to be able to turn away job applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs, and because they want to influence the president’s reproductive health agenda with their religious views on abortion.

That’s all well and good, but the article all but skipped over the other half of the “critics,” whose concern stems from a very different point of view.

Faith plays a very important role in our country and is a large part of the diversity that makes us so unique, but it often plays a disproportionate role in public debate. People of faith have every right to speak out on the issues that are important to them, but a line is crossed when we put religious concerns about political issues before all else.

It may be impolitic to say so, but my concern with the role of faith in the Obama Administration is not whether or not faith leaders are being listened to. It’s the fact that the faith-based office is still operating under the rules of the Bush Administration, which are deeply flawed and of questionable constitutionality. We all need to keep in mind that, since the government accepts taxes from and represents every person in the country, whatever their beliefs, it is not free to create policies or pass laws that favor any one, or several, belief system or systems. That would be the establishment of religion, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which, guess what?, exists to protect religion as much as it does the government.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment, faith based initiative, public policy issues | 4 Comments »

Government-endorsed religion: 9, Equality: 0

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the sect of Summum can’t force Pleasant Grove City, Utah to add a religious monument of their own to a public park that already has one of the Ten Commandments in it.

The difference, according to the justices, is that the Ten Commandments have a connection to the history of the community. Such a blatant subordination of individual rights to the religious heritage of the majority is itself disconcerting, as is the notion that the government can adopt any religious monument as its own.

Justice Alito justified that sentiment by claiming that when government accepts such a gift, it is no longer individual expression, but rather government speech. The logic behind Alito’s argument is troubling on constitutional grounds: If Pleasant Grove City is claiming the Ten Commandments statue as its own speech, how is it not violating the Establishment Clause?

Although the case was argued on the grounds of free speech, not the separation of church and state, today’s ruling has clear (and dangerous) implications for the latter. It could also have a marked impact on Salazar v. Buono, a case out of California that will determine whether or not a large cross honoring fallen soldiers can remain on public lands, while a Buddhist shrine was not allowed to be built nearby.

Stay tuned, America.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Public Schools + Religion = Success Story

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Religion is not only at the crux of electoral and international politics, its influence has also been on the rise in the past few decades. Naturally, the most religiously diverse nation in the history of humanity ensures that its students learn about this omnipresent force, right?

Wrong.

California’s Modesto school district is the only one in the country to require students to take a world religions course. Students are allowed to opt out of the 9th grade class, but in the eight years it has been offered, few have. Those that oppose the class on grounds of ‘constitutionality’ are failing to make an important distinction: there is a big difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. Though it requires exceptional preparation and tact, the latter is both legal and imperative.

Numerous media reports have tracked the success of this course, with multiple studies noting that students gained “respect for religious liberty as well as for basic First Amendment rights.” Sounds good to me.

I find it more than a little ridiculous that a graduate of the K-12 American school system will have taken roughly 26 semesters of mathematics (with many courses in obscure disciplines like trigonometry) but not a single course on the world’s religions. As Americans, we come into contact with someone of a different faith on a fairly regular basis. Trigonometry, on the other hand…well, let’s just say I haven’t given sine or cosine a thought since my junior year of high school. After all, very few of us spend our days computing the relationship between the sides and angles of a triangle.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily News, First Amendment, In the Field | 3 Comments »

Private faith? What a concept!

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Way to go, Kathleen Parker! Today’s column, “Giving Up on God,” may be a little over-the-top even for Ms. Parker, but it made me laugh and nod my head in agreement, so I’m more than happy to pass it on.

“Simply put,” she says, “Armband religion is killing the Republican Party…. Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.”

Exactly. I mean, does anyone who isn’t an evangelical Christian at ease with publicizing their faith really feel comfortable with evangelical Christian members or supporters of the GOP publicizing their faith at every opportunity? (And I’m sure the people who answered “No” to that include some evangelical Christians who prefer to keep their faith private.)

The Republican Party’s traditional base includes a large number of conservative Christians, which in the last thirty years has come to include the often reactionary organizations of the Religious Right, most of whom believe they should have significant influence on the party’s platform and candidates. (Case(s) in point: Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.)

Having large blocs of people with similar beliefs who vote together isn’t a bad thing – in fact, it’s one of the main ideas behind the democratic process. But having large blocs of people who think their common belief should be imposed by the government on everyone who doesn’t already agree with them is certainly not democracy, and is in fact the very antithesis of what the founders intended.

So, actually, is giving up on God. One of the many exciting things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that you’re actually commanded – by the First Amendment to the Constitution – to believe whatever you want. So don’t give up on God – or do – your choice. More to the point, don’t give up your beliefs whether they include one God, six gods or no gods at all.  Keep faith in the Constitution alive by continuing to adhere to your own personal faith – whatever it may be.

So let’s keep religion out of politics and the government out of houses of worship and see if we all can’t get along with just a little less tension than we’ve seen throughout this (very long and finally over!) election season.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in First Amendment | 7 Comments »

What would Lilith do?

Friday, September 12th, 2008

Last night, as I was watching ABC’s Charlie Gibson interview Gov. Sarah Palin and restraining myself from throwing anything too heavy at my T.V., I wondered just how dumb, exactly, the McCain campaign thinks the American people are.

Are we supposed to be fooled by Sarah Palin’s smile and average soccer (excuse me,  hockey) mom voice into believing that a McCain-Palin administration would actually respect the Constitution, despite the fact that one of the major reasons she was named his running mate was the fact that her positions on key issues make her a darling of the Religious Right, a group whose support McCain desperately needs to win?

(Just to be clear, the Obama campaign isn’t completely off the hook on this one, either – that “Committed Christian” flier made my blood boil, too.)

Should we ignore that she never actually answered Gibson’s question about whether or not she’s experienced enough for the job, or will feel comfortable as a player on the national stage?

Are we really supposed to not be outraged that in defending a political statement she made – in a church – in which she strongly suggested, intentionally or not, that she believes the war in Iraq is a holy war? And then not throw up our hands in complete disgust when she defended herself by comparing her not-so-eloquent, off-the-cuff words to Abraham Lincoln’s, one of the most thoughtful, meticulous orators in American history?

Regardless of what she intended with her comment about the troops (or the one about the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Alaska being God’s will), she made a political statement in a house of worship, to a group of graduating ministry students. Highly unethical behavior, at best, for an elected official who is supposed to not only keep religion and government separate in her own politics, but defend that separation for every citizen she represents.

Add in the fact that she apparently thinks her work in government is immaterial without religion, and I’m all but pulling my hair out at the thought of Palin remaining an elected official of any kind, let alone tackling the vice presidency. Take her statement that “I can do my job…but really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God,” for example. Poor grammar aside, the implication that a state’s population “being right with God” is essential to its political institutions functioning properly is blasphemy against the Constitution. That’s not something I want anyone thinking while working in any part of the White House. (Too late, I know. But let’s try for a little 20/20 hindsight here, and not make that mistake again.)

While I’m here, I may as well cover all the bases in the ballgame of the Sarah Palin media circus: no, I am not sexist. I do not disdain my fellow women or think having a family means a woman should stay home. I think being a successful working mother is something to be proud of, and I hope I can do it myself in the future. And just for the record: I’m a liberal, as well as a woman, and I can hit eight out of ten clay birds with a .410. Nine out of ten with a .20 or a .28. Sarah Palin is not the only woman who knows her way around a gun, and the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on target shooting. I can only wish they’d stop talking about it as though it has anything to do with being a politician. Kind of like being Christian, or believing in a Judeo-Christian God.

From a feminist who loves her country and her religious freedom: Please, let’s show every candidate for public office that America is neither dumb nor asleep, and that we won’t accept any compromises to our First Amendment just so they can get the backing of the Religious Right.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Elections, First Amendment | 1 Comment »

The Dreaded 666

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Howard Friedman, who writes the excellent blog Religion Clause, brings us this bizarre story. A divorced dad has refused to pay his child support through his state’s Central Child Support Receipting Unit. He would rather pay the money directly to his wife because this processing unit violates his First Amendment rights.

What does child support have to do with religious freedom? Well, each state’s Central Child Support Receipting Unit is established under a federal statute codified at 42 USC Sec. 666. That’s right – he believes his payment would be processed by a “Satanic entity.”

He brought a case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals which rejected his claim. As Professor Friedman writes:

He argued that he would pay directly to his former wife, or to the court, but that because the central state agency was set up under a federal statute codified at 42 USC Sec. 666, payment through that entity would involve him in transmitting funds to a “Satanic entity” in violation of his religious beliefs.

…

The court, however, held that the state’s statute is uniformly applicable and facially neutral as to religion. Therefore it is valid so long as it reasonably promotes a legitimate public purpose. The court found that standard to be satisfied.

The decision was unanimous. In fact, I am surprised that it was even heard by an appellate court. Religious beliefs should be treated with respect, but as a legal argument, this case is pretty frivolous. Even a little funny.

Tags: , ,
Posted in The Lighter Side | No Comments »

Listen Now