Where is the outrage for religious freedom?

It was announced about a week ago that a Quran was burned at a United States military base.  Reports vary why it was burned.  Some reports say it was a mistake.  Others have said because it had militant notes in it.  While this may be an overused phrase, I have to wonder – where is the outrage about respecting religion?

The Republican presidential candidates where so upset when President Obama made it a requirement that churches and other religious organizations had to provide health care coverage for birth control.  Obama did this, even though, most of the religious organizations objected to the requirement because it was against their religious beliefs.  Romney, Santorum and others (who are those other guys?) charged that Obama was waging war on religion.

In an earlier Responsible Community blog, it was noted that many times in the history of the United States, we have curtailed a religious right to uphold a legitimate need of the community.  The Old Order Amish have to pay social security tax.  The Mormon’s can’t marry more than one wife at a time.  Even Native Americans can’t use peyote in their religious ceremonies and still expect to receive unemployment compensation if they are fired from their job because of its use. 

There was no outrage for any of those situations. 

Now, all these years after 9-11, we should have learned that Muslims don’t believe in destroying their holy book.  (We have learned it but for some reason we just don’t think it important.)  Military leaders at the base decided to burn the Quran despite this knowledge.  The book could have been shipped somewhere for safe keeping.  It could have been turned over to friendly groups.  There are a lot of things that they could have done that didn’t violate Islam. But, they didn’t.

So, where is the outrage for this religious belief? 

The Islamic groups that are violently protesting the burning are wrong.  There is no reason that anyone should be harmed or property lost because at the very least, the United States military made a mistake.  But, there is no reason that the Islamic groups and the presidential hopefuls should not be peacefully voicing their strong opposition to this action. 

If everyone truly believes in the Freedom of Religion, then they should.  All it does is show the hypocrisy of the presidential hopefuls (including Obama). 

-----

The church should provide full health care coverage, not just what they want

The current fight about President Barack Obama requiring religious organizations to provide birth control medication in their health care plan is showing a lot of irrational campaign rhetoric and hypocrisy.

President Obama signed an executive order just a little more than a week ago requiring all companies to provide birth control medication in their health plans.  The reasoning of the president was that it would provide women with the widest range of options.  That is a justifiable reason for the requirement.  But, it ran into opposition from religious organizations, especially from the Catholic Church, and all of the presidential candidates from the Republican Party.  The Catholic Church believes that its adherents should not use birth control medication or have an abortion.  (Many birth control pills can be used as a morning after drug for an abortion.)  Both the church and the presidential hopefuls framed their argument as infringement of the freedom of religion. 

The president has since backed down from the original executive order and apparently thinks he has found a compromise that will satisfy all parties.  But, it doesn’t satisfy anyone.  He should have stood up to the opposition by presenting case law and supporting his own reasoning on the issue. 

Obama was wrong for caving on the issue.

The Responsible Community’s blog last week supported President Obama’s original requirement.  The rights that we did not forfeit to the community and that are guaranteed in the Constitution are individual rights, not collective rights.  It is the individual that must make the decision about using birth control and that her rights are paramount to the institution.  If the institution was able to withhold legitimate products or services from the individual it would deny rights to the individual the Constitution guarantees.  In practice, it would place more power in the hands of the institution (in this case the church, but could be any corporation) and would mean the institution knows better than the individual what is good for them. 

Since the order by the President and the blog supporting it, much has come to light with just a small amount of research.  The case law that the research brought to light supports Obama’s original decision and shows the irrationality of the opposition.  Much of the case law that supports Obama comes from an unlikely source.  Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative Supreme Court Justice, uses many court decisions to support his own opinion on a case that is just a few years old.

In a 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court is asked if a defendant, fired from his job for the use of peyote, can be denied unemployment benefits.  The defendants state that they took the drug for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of the Native American Church, which both of them are members.  Since it was during a religious ceremony and part of a recognized religion, by the state and the federal government, the defendants believe the act should be protected religious action and unemployment benefits provided.  Scalia disagreed. 

The court ruled, with a majority opinion delivered by Scalia, sense the use of the drug was both within the legitimate conduct of the State of Oregon to prohibit and that the law was not directed to any religion, there could be no exemption from the law based on religious practice.  Obama’s requirement that all organizations provide birth control to all employees was not directed at any one religion.  The President was well with the rights of the office to make the requirement.

To support Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia sites past case law in support of his decisions. First, he discusses a Supreme Court decision from 1878, Reynolds v. United States.  A Mormon living in Territory of Utah was charged with bigamy under the Territory of Utah’s law on marriage.  The man argued that since he was a Mormon, he was required to marry more than one wife.  The court ruled that the law was not directed (at least in its text) at any one religion and that the territory had the right under the Constitution to make and enforce such a law.  

The second case Scalia uses to support the court’s decision is United States v. Lee in 1982.  Lee is an Old Order Amish carpenter that hired people to help him with his work.  The Old Order Amish, according to the court case, don’t believe in supporting governmental systems like Social Security.  During the period of time that Lee employed people, he didn’t pay the social security tax of the individuals or the employer’s share.  The IRS finally caught up with him and ordered him to pay the tax.

The Supreme Court ruled, as sited by Scalia in support of his opinion, that:

“While there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.  The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.” 

Three things are spot on in the above.  First, no right is absolute and this includes religion.  If the community has a compelling reason to restrict a right, it may do so.  In the case of Obama’s requirement, it is the community protecting the rights of individuals.

The second issue is equity.  It is inconsistent with the reasoning behind in the Fourteenth amendment to restrict the rights of some while protecting the rights of others. If the rights of the Mormons or the Amish can be restricted by a compelling community interest, then so can the rights of the Catholic Church.

Finally, there are about 1,000 recognized religious organizations in the United States.  If every one of them was allowed to decide what laws they should follow, there would be chaos in the community.  It would also mean that all a corporation of any kind would have to do is declare that they are a religious organization and they would be exempt from a large section of the Unites states code. 

The presidential hopefuls on the right are being hypocritical.  Why aren’t the candidates coming to the support of individuals that are members of the Mormon Church, the Amish or Muslims?   People of those religions have plenty of complaints about the infringement of their religious rights.  If this is a nation of freedoms, including the freedom of religion, then one religion can’t be given greater rights in the community than any other. 

Certainly, not more than an individual woman’s right to choose.

-----

Institutional rights don't trump individual rights

In a speech to supporters in Colorado, presidential candidate Mitt Romney blasted President Barack Obama over his administration’s decision to force religious organizations to provide birth control pills and other related drugs in the health plans they offer. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the use of birth control is moral. Other Christian organizations and churches believe the use of most birth control pills is actually abortion. The religious organizations believe that by offering the drugs in the health plan they are supporting an immoral act.

Romney says that if he was president, he would allow the exemption on religious grounds. In the speech he accused Obama of restricting religious freedom. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he tried to exempt religious institutions from providing the drugs in the health care mandate in the state. But, the legislature overruled his policy.

Romney is making the choice between an institution (that does have deep religious concerns with birth control) and the individual’s right to make those choices. His belief is that groups, in this case the Catholic Church, are equal in status with individuals. Keep in mind, Romney is the same man that said corporations are people too.

A pillar of conservatism is that the individual holds all the power and the responsibly. It is the individual’s choices that determine his responsibility. Apparently, that is true up to the point that the individual is covered under a health plan.

By allowing the Catholic Church to be exempt from offering birth control in their health plan, it limits the individual's choice and personal freedom. Just because the church provide the drugs doesn’t mean they are suggesting anyone should use them. The church can use their freedom of speech to express their concerns about birth control.

If it was allowed, it could create many other divisions, not even just in the birth control issue. Should a church have health insurance policies rewritten that restrict what clinics, hospitals and doctors can receive payments from the health plan because they offer birth control and abortion? This, even though the health of the woman may dictate that she goes to one of them?

President Obama made the right decision on the birth control issues. The individual’s right to make choices must be greater than the group’s ability to control those choices.

-----

How far will we go?

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was sued by 12 nurses who claimed they were forced to assist on abortion procedures. They said that it was against their religion to help doctors and other hospital staff. The university did settle with the nurses before it went to court. But, the precedent is set.

When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.

How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.

But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.

If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.

Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.

It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.

Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.

To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.

-----

To live peacefully together, we some times have to step back

Despite what you believe is right or wrong on a personal level, in a civil society you sometimes need to step back. Two different stories from the news make the case, even if they aren’t alike. One is institutional, the Supreme Court Justice’s responsibility to the community. It is a case involving a defendant’s right to face his accuser. The other is about an individual’s community responsibility. It involves a woman working in a department store that gets fired for her actions.

On the institutional level, Sandy Williams was convicted of rape in Chicago (Williams v Illinois). He was arrested on a separate charge and police had taken a DNA sample from him. Evidence on the rape case was gathered from the victim and was sent to a lab in Maryland. The lab created a profile from the evidence that included DNA. The DNA from Williams and the rape case matched. Based on this evidence, Williams was then picked out of a line by the victim. At the trial, no one from the lab was called to testify about the examination of the evidence, because the prosecutors thought it too expensive to bring someone from the lab. Williams was convicted and given a life sentence.

Williams’ defense lawyers appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court. Their argument is, that since the prosecution didn’t have the person who did the test at the Maryland lab testify, Williams wasn’t given his right to face his accusers. The court sat for oral arguments and the case will be decided in the spring.

It appears that Williams is guilty. The evidence points to him and the woman identified him. The justices on the court are aware of the facts. Yet, they can’t just say, “he is guilty and don’t let this misstep of justice happen again.” They need to step back from the situation and determine if he did receive a fair trial. Not just for him, but as guidance in the future for all the similar cases. (A ruling for the defendant in this case may mean that not only does he go free, but many others like him will also.)

The other situation is about the clash between an individual’s personal beliefs and the society around them.

At a major department store, a transgender woman finds an outfit she would like to try on in the fitting room. When she asked the clerk, Natalie Johnson, to use the fitting rooms, the woman was told that she couldn’t use the women’s fitting room. Johnson said that even though the woman had make-up on and wore women’s clothes, she was not a woman because of her appearance, say she had a beard. Johnson was fired the next day after a long meeting with her superiors.

Johnson is a Christian and followers her faith very closely. She felt that by letting the woman use the women’s fitting rooms she would be violating her faith.

“I had to either comply with Macy’s or comply with God,” Johnson said. She is a 27 year old student at San Antonio College. Johnson is also a member of Tabernacle of Prayer, a nondenominational church.

When Johnson was asked to help the woman use the fitting rooms, she should have stepped back for a moment. It may indeed violate her faith and the evidence that she observed may have been correct. Johnson should have found someone else to help the woman or directed her to another department.

People in civil societies and cultures don’t peacefully co-exist based on narrowly defined social norms. They live peacefully by stepping back and allowing others to make their own choices – as long as those choices, of course, don’t purposely injure someone else. Individuals do this not only so others may live the lives they choose, but also that the individual can live their life. This is true for the institutions that we create to help facilitate the goals of the community but also for each of the individuals that live in the community.

It can sometimes be inconvenient at best and ugly at worst. But, this is at the core of a responsible community. It is the individual and the community sharing the responsibility to help insure that everyone can fulfill their personal and community lives.

-----

No religion in public schools

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal to overturn a ruling by an appeals court to allow religious services in New York City school buildings after hours. The appeal was made by the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical Christian church. The religious group wanted to use a local middle school for its Sunday morning services that included singing of hymns, prayer and preaching from the Bible.

The appeal was made on the grounds that the denial by the New York City Board of Education was “viewpoint discrimination” and the appeals court authorized “censorship of private religious speakers.” The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment. This usually means that a majority of the justices found no merit in the request.

In a community, places represent things. The police station, the fire station and schools are places in the community that have very clear meanings. When you go to any of those places, like the place station, you are expecting to see police conducting their official business. We expect the same experience when we visit the fire station and schools.

Private buildings have the same expectations but are also distinctly different then public buildings. The local hardware store, the auto repair facility and churches are different places than public. The owners and managers of private places have control over the image that they project and can refuse to allow entry to people as long as it isn’t based on certain issues.

Allowing religious activities in a public school building would confuse its purpose of learning. It sends a message that this is the religion you should learn about. If you attended a religious school building you would expect to hear about one particular religion. But, public schools need to be a place where learning can be conducted without the influence of any religion.

The New York City School Board made the right decision to keep religion out of their buildings. This maintains a clear division between public and private purpose. It was good to see that the appeals court and the Supreme Court agreed with their decision.

-----

No religious test for illegal immigrants

In Tuesday night’s debate of the Republican Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich said he would give amnesty to immigrants that are currently living in the United States with some conditions. In part, he said:

"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said.

The part of the answer that says, “…you belong to a local church…” is the most troubling. The United States has offered amnesty to illegal immigrants since the early 1800s. The latest offer from Gingrich to provide amnesty to those living here in good standing is nothing new. I also, don’t believe, like Gingrich, that we should tear apart families and the lives of others by booting them out of the country.

But, by adding the local church part, Gingrich is appling a religious test that clearly shouldn't be a part of the conditions. In the Constitution it states in very clear words that there should be no religious test given to anyone that will hold office or a position of public trust. Why, then, should a religious test to be applied to illegal immigrants that would be allowed to stay in the country for all other reasons? Church of course, means a Christian religion. Why shouldn’t it apply to Jews that join a synagogue, Muslims that join a mosque or, how about atheists that join a humanist temple? The religious affiliation, or lack of, should not be part of the selection criteria for people that would be allowed to stay.

Gingrich is wrong to think that a religious test of any kind should be given. That applies illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty or anyone else that will arrive at our shores.

-----

Rick Perry and his call to prayer

Rick Perry may be the most politically dangerous man in America right now.

The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.

Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.

One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.

Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.

Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.

Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.

Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.

This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.

-----

Herman Cain supports banning mosques

Herman Cain, Republican candidate for president, says that communities don’t have to accept mosques if its citizens don’t want them.  The Washington Post called it “buffoonery.” The definition of buffoonery is behavior that is ridiculous but amusing.  Cain’s statement is certainly ridiculous but it is not amusing.  It feeds the irrational fear of public opinion about Islam. 

During an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Herman Cain said that Islam is not a religion like other religions and Americans have the right to keep it out of their communities if they wish.  Cain said, “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws – Sharia laws.  That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”  So, according to Cain, because the Muslim religion has an established set of laws, communities can ban mosque if they so choose.

Cain continues with, “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion.”

Cain’s words are clearly political double speak.  First, he says that it is a religion.  But, because there is a code of conduct for its believers it should not be treated like a religion.   But, Mr. Cain, isn’t that what religion is… a belief that we need to follow some rules?   

So, using Cain’s logic, any religion that has a code of conduct for its faithful should be banned.  Communities should be able to ban Jewish temples.  Rabbinical law would be considered a set of “laws,” therefore communities could ban temples.  Then, there are the Catholics with their cannon law.  In fact, they have a country that enforces cannon law, the Vatican.  It is presumed that if given the opportunity, the Catholics would love to have the United States run by cannon law, therefore, since the Catholics have a set of laws, communities should be able to ban Catholic churches. 

Cain is baiting all those that believe that Islam attacked us on 9-11 and continues to threaten our national security.  Just because the individuals that attacked us on that fateful day claimed to be good Muslims, doesn’t mean that everyone that follows Islam is the same.  No matter the religion, it is individuals that should be held accountable for their actions.    

It is presumed that Cain is a conservative because he is running as a Republican.  Conservatives strongly believe, as they should, that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, not groups.  Yet, he states on national television that a group of people should be separated from everyone else because of their religious beliefs.

All of this, of course, is not addressing the fundamental issue in Cain’s statement.  No community has the right to ban a religion nor its place of worship.  In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  To suggest that Islam can be narrowly redefined to separate it from other religions is to use a blunt object to disconnect it from protection under the amendment.  If communities can successfully do that, then they can find ways to redefine any religion that the majority disagrees with and ban them as well. 

Will your religion be next?

-----

More guns is not the answer

There is an old and tired logic that says the solution to a problem is more of the same. That logic is often applied by those that are for the unlimited support of the Second Amendment. It is seeing a revival after the shootings in Arizona. Now that we have had a little time to reflect, let’s think about that logic.

Most are aware of the shootings. But to briefly recap, Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot by a lone gunman on January 8, 2011. Representative Giffords was holding a public event at a Safeway Food Stores shopping center in her Arizona district. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, has been charged with the shooting and currently being held by Arizona authorities.

The gun of choice for Loughner was a Glock 19. It has a standard magazine size of 15 rounds and brags about its small size that makes it easy to conceal. Loughner was able to fire all the rounds from one magazine and was getting ready to replace it when the second one fell to the ground. An unarmed man managed to grab that magazine. Another unarmed man hit Loughner on the back of the head with a metal folding chair. He was subdued by many other people who where nearby.

The total time of the event before Loughner was subdued was less than 30 seconds.

The argument that is making the rounds is if a “trained, rationale person” had been at the scene with a gun, the number of people that were injured could have been less. That someone could have responded to the event by firing back at Loughner and preventing him from injuring more people. This is an old and tired argument in support of carry laws in the United States.

The truth is, this happen in arguably one of the most conservative states about personally carrying weapons. In fact, Arizona is making it even easier for people to carry guns in public. They just passed legislation that allows people that carry a gun to ignore policy in public places that asked that people not carry a gun. If the public place doesn’t scan for a weapon, it is not against the law to violate the policy. If more guns would have prevented this tragedy, why didn’t it in Arizona?

If someone had been on site that was carrying a gun, it is doubtful the “trained, rational” person could have been able to shoot back before the end of the first clip. By that time, even if the second clip hadn't fell to the ground, the unarmed people around the area would have been able to take him down.

Also, if many other people had a gun, you can be sure, not everyone would have been well trained and rational. In the confusion of the event, just like the confusion that comes from any crisis, people who are carrying might not have seen the entire event so they wouldn’t know who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. Everyone could have been shooting at anything to try and be a hero.

What makes things more difficult to support the logic, Loughner was not concerned about dyeing. There is every reason to believe that he choose such an event to find a bit of glory, no matter how perverted that thinking was. He anticipated going down in gun fire and still continued with his plans.

Finally, Loughner was able to purchase a gun from a local retailer in Arizona after passing a background test. But, Loughner's application to get into the Army failed because of a drug test. Should people that fail drug tests conducted by the Army be allowed to own a gun? He was kicked out of college until he could prove that he was mentally competent, yet he still was able to purchase a gun. Finally, he had been in trouble with the law before. Again, he was still able to purchase a gun. People who have had no trouble with the law and not a blemish on their record can be on a no fly list, yet Loughner was able to purchase a semi automatic hand gun that advertises how easy it is to conceal because of its small size.

For sure, one understanding of the Second Amendment guarantees our right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that right is absolute. A responsible community can place reasonable restrictions against those that abuse any of the rights in the Constitution. The right to carry a gun has very little time between its abuse and the injury that can be inflicted. Therefore, a responsible community can take a harder line restricting this freedom than with others.

The logic of more guns means less injured isn’t true. There are better ways to address this issue that don’t make the problem worse.

-----

Only United States Laws

Only United States laws that are enacted by legally elected representatives of the people of the country should be followed by all branches of government. No religious, ethnic, cultural or social laws should be enforced. Additionally, all laws that are enacted should also pass the constitutional test to ensure that it is not violating individual rights that are granted explicitly and implicitly by the Constitution.

There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.

Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.

The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.

What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.

Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.

A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.

-----

Members of Westboro Baptist can continue to demonstate

“The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment,” said Margie Phelps, the lawyer defending the minister of the Westboro Church. Members of the church routinely demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who have died in in the service. In a 8 to 1 margin, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church’s right to continue those demonstrations.

In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.

The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.”

Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.

As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.

GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:

• “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.

The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.

The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?

If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.

Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.

-----

Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support

Pastor Fred W. Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong.

Young men that are fighting in foreign wars are not dying because the country allowed “fags” into the military. They are dying because that is what happens in war. Catholics are not “satanic”, its past has a straight line connection to Jesus Christ. (I am Catholic and it is my chosen religion). Divorced parents do not teach their children by their action to “defy [their] creator.” There can be no love for Hitler or breast cancer even though Pastor Phelps and his followers have said so verbally and in writing.

But, Evelyn Beatrice Hall has it right (or Votaire, or Paine or who ever else you may attribute it to). To paraphrase her, I disagree to the point of disgust with what Phelps says, but he does have the right to say it.

Albert Snyder, on the other side of the argument, believes that Phelps should not be able to say what he does because it caused him emotional distress.

He is the father of Lance Cpl. Mathew A. Snyder, 20, who died in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, a funeral mass was held for him at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas protested the funeral with signs that said all the things listed above and more. It was a cruel and obscene way for the congregation to express its political and religious beliefs. Later, an essay was posted on line by Phelps’ daughter continuing the cruel expression of their beliefs, mostly against Lance Cpl. Snyder.

Albert Snyder admits that he didn’t see the protesters at the church or at the grave site where his son was buried. It wasn’t until much later that he was on line and discovered the essay about his son. He then sued the pastor and the church for the distress that they caused. A lower court ruled in Snyder’s favor, but an appeals court reversed. Snyder took the case to the Supreme Court. The court heard the oral arguments this week.

The protestors obeyed all the laws of Maryland. They kept their distance from the church and the grave site as outline by law. (They did this, because there are limits on free speech, as with any right. The grave site was a public sitting and could be argued that they had a right to be on site during the funeral, but stayed off the property. But, please do not take this as being understanding of the protesters.)

Snyder didn’t see the protesters at any time. There was no physical or financial harm done to Snyder. His oral argument in court was focused on the emotional harm that was done by reading the things the church sponsored. After reading much of the material, it is not difficult to understand Snyder’s pain.

As truly whacky and indefensible as Pastor Fred W. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are, they do have the right to express their political and religious beliefs. They didn’t cause any practical damage to Snyder and by obeying the laws of Maryland on protests they didn’t interfere with the safety and order of the community.

To return to Hall’s quote, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.

-----

Let the Mosque be built near Ground Zero

There are few things more important to the American experience than the freedom of religion.


Post New World England fought for hundreds of years about religion. It didn’t seem to matter that opposing sides were just a degree or two different in their religious view point. Suppression by one side or the other lead to violence and carnage. When the power shifted to the other side, they then visited the same on the other.

What kept that unrest from the New World shores was tolerance of each other’s religious point of view. In fact, it was so important that religion became an issue in the newly formed Republic, the authors of the constitution wrote into the document, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Of all the things the authors were vague about in the constitution, the words “no religious test shall ever be required” are as clear as it can get. It is clear the authors want no person in any position of authority in the country to make decisions based on a religious point of view.

Through the years, that belief in freedom of religion has been tested over and over. While we may not argue about some of the outcomes, in the long run, it came out right. We are still here, religion flourishes and people can feel free to worship just as they please, or not, depending on their point of view.

But, as a community of believers and non-believers we are now being tested. Our clear vision about the freedom of religion has be clouded by the violence the nation experienced on 9/11. The near complete collective thinking is that the violence was authorized by Islam. This is because a few powerful personalities have adopted Islam as their justification for all the violence they advocate. Responding to the call, a few hundred, arguable, a few thousand have taken up arms against the West in the name of Islam. But, there are millions of others that have taken no violent action against the West.

Near the now hallowed ground that we call Ground Zero, Muslims would like to build a mosque. It is a simple act of constructing a building were people of a like view point can gather to worship in the manner that is constitutionally protected. It would be right to allow it because it is just place that the Muslim community felt was right. It would be right to allow it because of the Muslims that also died in the attack. But, it would also be right to allow it because of the violence that happen there. That a visitor may find a place of their faith to pray that that it will never happen again, no matter that it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Islam or any other faith.

The building of the mosque near ground zero should be allowed.

-----