A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

Over the last several years, the separation of church and state has become a prominent part of many legal battles. From the White House to the Supreme Court, the government has started to reinterpret a legal concept that dates back to the founding of the country. But where exactly did the notion that the government and religious institutions should be distinct come from? Read on to find out more about the history of the division of church and state in the United States and whether or not that distinction is in danger of eroding.

History of Church and State

The United States was founded in part by people fleeing persecution at the hands of state-sponsored religions. However, even after crossing the Atlantic, many of these same people were still under threat of religious persecution. The crown attempted to make the Church of England the official church of the American colonies. That effort was put to bed as part of the revolution and may have even galvanized efforts to separate religion and the government at the nation’s founding. Individual states also rolled back their own efforts to establish state-sponsored religions. Part of the impetus behind this effort was the writings of many thinkers from the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation, which had important effects on the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution.

Although the notion that there should be a division between church and state has been around for more than 200 years, it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The first recorded mention of the concept comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Association in Connecticut. The idea gained traction and was first used by the Supreme Court in a decision in 1879. By 1947 it had essentially become a central part of constitutional law when it was cited as such in the Supreme Court decision in Everson v. Board of Education.

Precedents and Court Cases

While the specific phrase, “the separation of church and state,” is not in the Constitution, the distinction is implicit in several aspects of the document. First would be Article VI, which requires that all government officials swear loyalty to the Constitution and prohibits religious tests for public officials. Second is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing any state-sponsored church. Lastly, is the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making laws against any religion. These provisions were later extended to the states following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

These constitutional provisions and others have been used in a number of prominent Supreme Court cases, aside from the two previously mentioned. In 1948, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause was invoked when the court ruled that religious instruction in public schools is unconstitutional. In 1952, in Burstyn v. Wilson, the court ruled that a state government cannot censor a movie simply because it offended people’s religious beliefs.

In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. In 1968, a state statute banning the teaching of evolution was deemed unconstitutional. Three years later, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court created a test to determine if a government action violated the precedent of the separation of church and state. The test has three parts and can be used to evaluate a law’s constitutionality:

First, the statute must have a secular purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

In Allegheny County v. ACLU, the court determined in 1989 that nativity scenes in public buildings violated the Establishment Clause. In the case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye., Inc. v. Hialeah, the court ruled in 1993 the city’s ban on animal sacrifice as part of religious exercise was unconstitutional. There are many other cases as well, but these notable examples show that the Court has actively defined a level of separation between the church and state over the years.

Recent Cases

In several recent cases, however, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to less separation between the church and state. One example comes from 2014 when the court ruled that Hobby Lobby, a privately-owned company, could refuse to provide health insurance that covers birth control to its employees on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs. The ruling created an exception to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all employer-provided health insurance plans must cover contraception.

In another ruling from June, in the case Trinity Lutheran Church vs. Comer, the court weighed in on an issue that could have a major impact on the divide between church and state. This case centered around whether a private, religious school could use public funds for a secular project–namely rubberizing its playgrounds. While the state had initially ruled against the school because it was a religious organization, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in its favor because it viewed the state’s denial to grant the school funding as discriminatory.

This ruling, in particular, is important for two reasons. First, it seemed to suggest that Blaine Amendments are unconstitutional. The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the Constitution from 1875, which prohibited funds raised through taxes from going to religiously affiliated institutions. Although the effort failed, 35 states currently have their own laws that prevent public funds from going to religious groups.

The second major potential consequence of the Trinity Lutheran case concerns the extent to which this ruling will apply to funding for other activities conducted by religious organizations. Four of the justices attempted to head off this potential problem by clarifying in a footnote that the decision only applied to playgrounds. However, since only four of the nine justices signed off on the footnote, it is technically not the opinion of the court. The ambiguity there will likely result in future legal challenges, as religious groups will seek to identify new areas where they are eligible for public funding.

The video below discusses the facts of the Trinity Lutheran case in further detail:

The Trump Administration’s View

When it comes to the separation of church and state, like many other issues, the president has so far taken a seemingly idiosyncratic approach that may contrast with some of his campaign promises. In May, he signed an executive order that weakened the Johnson Amendment–part of a law that prevented religious organizations from getting directly involved in politics. That order was actually less controversial than what many expected based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric, although it remains to be seen whether he will take more aggressive action in the future.

Less moderate is the viewpoint of President Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. DeVos has been an avid proponent of religious charter schools and even helped finance the campaigns of politicians who supported them. One of the fears following the Trinity Lutheran decision was that it opened a path to funnel tax dollars to religious charter schools, whose curricula would still not be overseen by the government.

Conclusion

The notion of the separation of church and state has existed in the United States for hundreds of years, and in Western Civilization long before that. Although the term is not explicitly used in the Constitution, the division has been established by the courts through their interpretation of it, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over the years this specific clause, as well as a few others, has been used repeatedly to strengthen the divide between church and state.

However, the interpretation of the separation seems to have shifted in recent years, as the perception of an anti-religious bias has grown among many on the right, which the Supreme Court has reflected in its opinions. The clearest evidence comes from the recent Trinity Lutheran Church case, which not only allowed a religious school access to public funds but the opened door for future efforts to direct public money to religious organizations.

This opening presents an unclear path forward. While it is unlikely anyone will try to overtly knock down the proverbial wall between church and state, there are indications some holes might be drilled. While the extent of the recent shift is hard to determine, it does seem likely to continue.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Separation of Church and State Over? appeared first on Law Street.

Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple sexual assault allegations by Australian authorities. Pell is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be implicated in the child abuse scandal that has tarnished the church’s reputation throughout the past few decades.

Pell is accused of “historical sexual assault offenses.” These include at least two men who have come forward and described Pell inappropriately touching them at a swimming pool in the 1970s. Pell denied these allegations after an interview aired on Australian television in 2016 and he has denounced this “relentless character assassination,” according to the Washington Post.

Pope Francis did not release a statement on the issue, but the Vatican said that it feels “great regret” over the situation and that the Pope has appreciated what Pell did during his three years in Rome, according to the Washington Post.

Pell is set to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18. The magistrate will decide next week whether not to release the details of the investigation, according to BBC.

While he has repeatedly said he will fully cooperate with the investigation, Pell has also strongly denied the accusations. The Pope has granted him a leave of absence to fight the charges, according to BBC. Pell said that he would make the trip back to Australia if his doctor permits it. Last year doctors would not permit him to fly back to Australia last year so he answered questions from detectives via videochat.

“I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court,” Pell said. “I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me.”

Pell, an adviser to the Pope and Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, is a native of Ballarat, Australia, and was the Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney before becoming a cardinal in 2004. Named the head of the Vatican’s finances in 2014, Pell is considered the third most powerful person in the church.

In the past decade Pell has played a prominent role on Vatican commissions created to combat sexual assault within the Roman Catholic community. In 2013 he was named one of eight cardinals charged with investigating ways to reform the church, according to CNN. However, he has also been criticized for his lack of impact on the investigations and supposed connections with known child-abusing priests.

Because of his powerful position within the Vatican and the Australian Catholic community, it is possible that these allegations will be the biggest obstacle the church faces when it comes to combatting child abuse. Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who served on a papal commission investigating the abuse, told the Washington Post:

[These charges] will probably rock the Vatican like nothing else has ever done…The fact that one of the pope’s right-hand men, the secretary for the economy, has in a sense been arrested and will be charged with such serious offenses, that surely has got to have some kind of effect on the Vatican and the hierarchy.

So, the coming months will be telling for how the Pope and the Catholic Church respond to the accusations against Pell and the recurring issues with abuse within the church. While they’ve dealt with past scandals within the Vatican and in other branches, such a high profile conviction brings with it new challenges in addition to worldwide attention. Pope Francis has made it one of his goals to cleanse the church of child abuse and this will likely set him back.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal George Pell Charged with Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backtracked on an agreement he made last year to create an egalitarian space at the Western Wall. He said he would seek what he feels is a better compromise between liberal progressive Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu decided to scrap the bill despite previously calling the solution a “fair and creative solution,” according to the Washington Post.

The Western Wall, or the “Kotel” in Hebrew, is one of the holiest sites in the world, and the holiest site for the Jewish people. It marks the only remaining ruins of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE, according to the biblical account. A second temple was built a few decades later, and was ransacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

For years, Jews and tourists from across the globe have traveled to the last remaining wall of the second temple in order to pray and stuff personal notes into the wall’s cracks. But one issue that has stemmed from this tradition is the wall’s gender divided prayer space. Men are allotted about 75 percent of the space, while women are granted a much smaller section.

Israel’s reform and conservative movements, together with Women of the Wall, an Israeli feminist organization, filed an official petition in September to reconfigure the prayer space. This action angered the ultra-Orthodox and decreased the chances for compromise, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said.

Senior minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been appointed to seek an alternative solution. Netanyahu plans to meet with senior officials of the bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and CEO Howard Kohr made an emergency visit to Jerusalem on Wednesday in order to meet with Israel’s leader, according to Haaretz.

AIPAC released a one-sentence statement expressing its faith in Israel’s democracy as “the best hope for a productive outcome,” according to Haaretz. Netanyahu opted not to meet with American reform and conservative Jewish leaders despite them being in Jerusalem for the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors summit, according to Times of Israel.

While the ultra-Orthodox community was delighted by Netanyahu’s backtracking, the decision was met with outrage from many Jews in Israel and around the world. In recent years, Women of the Wall has emerged to campaign for changes. The progressive group has advocated for a more egalitarian space at the Western Wall where husbands, wives, and children can pray together instead of being separated by a barrier. Anat Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, wrote:

This is a bad day for women in Israel. The Women of the Wall will continue to worship at the women’s section of the Western Wall with the Torah scroll, prayer shawls and phylacteries until equality for women arrives at the wall as well.

The reason the barrier is there in the first place is to appease ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to the separation of the sexes. At Orthodox synagogues there are “mechitza’s” which separate the men and women during prayer.

Women are not permitted to read aloud from the Torah, wear prayer shawls (talit) or sing at the Western Wall. Women of the Wall also considers it a priority to change those restrictions.

Even some within the Israeli government spoke out against Netanyahu’s decision. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the prime minister’s choice “causes terrible harm to Jewish unity and to the alliance between the State of Israel and Diaspora Jewry,” according to the Washington Post.

Yaakov Katz, the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote a column saying, “Sunday will go down in history as a shameful day for the State of Israel, another nail in the coffin of Israel’s failing relationship with Diaspora Jewry.” Clearly, many Jews in Israel and those living outside the country have had strong negative reactions to Netanyahu’s decision.

Multiple Jewish groups have announced that they will reconsider their relationship with Israel. The board of directors for the non-profit Jewish Agency canceled a dinner that was planned with Netanyahu, according to San Francisco Gate. Additionally, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he felt betrayed. Since Jacobs sees no point in meeting with Netanyahu at this point, the Union would instead prepare for future debates, according to Times of Israel.

Newly minted ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke about the controversy while at an event in Jerusalem. Friedman said he understood the frustration, but called for unity and understanding between the two sides, according to Haaretz.

Netanyahu’s decision on the Western Wall represents a huge divide between ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews and non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world. Many American Jews have become frustrated with Netanyahu and the Israeli government in recent years, so this abandonment will only fuel those flames.

Now, the two sides must sit back down and find a compromise. It remains to be seen when a new deal will be reached, but the path there will surely be contentious.

“These negotiations were reached by listening to each other, mutual understanding… The [prime minister] initiated the negotiations and promised us and inspired us and now in one quick swoop without any warning stopped it all,” Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Stalls Plans for an Equal Space at the Western Wall appeared first on Law Street.

An Arkansas man has been arrested for allegedly driving his car into a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol early Wednesday morning. Interestingly, this is the second time that Michael Tate Reed, 32, has been arrested for driving into a religious monument. The last time was in 2014, when he ran over another Ten Commandments display at the Oklahoma State Capitol. That time he said Satan made him do it and he reportedly threatened to kill President Obama.

But Reed seems to be non-partisan–he also recently threatened President Trump on social media. He had also planned for the event by creating a GoFundMe page, with which he hoped to raise enough money to replace his car. Around 5 a.m. on Wednesday, Reed drove his car straight into the statue, while shouting, “Oh my goodness, Freedom!” He also streamed the incident on Facebook Live.

Before the crash, he said in the Facebook video that he was back at it with “white plans,” but it’s unclear what he meant by that. He also said that he is a Christian but added, “one thing I do not support is the violation of our constitutional right to have the freedom that’s guaranteed to us, that guarantees us the separation of church and state, because no one religion should the government represent.” Finally, he asked people who support his cause to use the hashtag #Checkmate on social media.

NEW: Man accused of knocking over 10 Commandments statue at AR Capitol did the same thing in OK, 3 years ago:https://t.co/3F8dJsNdur #arpx pic.twitter.com/YtdpH2j292

— Emma Pettit (@EmmaJanePettit) June 28, 2017

The monument crumbled and Reed was taken to the hospital and then to jail. The stone statue had only been up for a day, but Republican State Senator Jason Rapert was confident a new monument would be up soon. He sponsored a law that took effect in 2015, which allowed private citizens to fund the religious monument and put it outside the Capitol. Opponents of that bill said that escaping a government-established religion was one of the things the colonists fled when they first set foot in America.

The crash sparked both criticism and support on social media. Some hailed him as a hero and patriot for standing up for the constitution, while others said the opposite. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee did not exactly support what happened.

Some idiot in my home state broke all 10 commandments at the same time. He wasn’t Moses and it wasn’t Mt. Sinai. https://t.co/r8hXrJ32JZ

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 28, 2017

But others definitely did.

some idiot legislator thought it was okay to place a religious statue in a place where governing occurs, despite separation of church and st https://t.co/1CmKRwVTZg

— John Hornor (@johnhornor) June 28, 2017

Reed was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder back in 2015. Later that year, he sent a letter to the Tulsa World describing why he had destroyed the monument at the state’s Capitol. He wrote that he got his inspiration from Dracula movies, that he thought he was the incarnation of a British occult leader called Aleister Crowley, and that a killer virus in the shape of Michael Jackson’s spirit had infected meat. He said that at the time of the 2014 crash he was also trying to get in touch with Satan’s high priestess, Gwyneth Paltrow.

After the earlier incident, many Republican lawmakers tried to paint what happened as politically motivated or an act of violence or terrorism, but Reed’s family insisted it was his illness. He was released from a mental health facility after doctors found a combination of medicines that seemed to work for him. It’s not clear what prompted Wednesday’s crash, but hopefully, he will get proper care.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Arrested for Driving His Car Into Ten Commandments Display at Arkansas Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, a video clip of a 12-year-old girl coming out as gay in front of her Mormon church in Utah went viral. Her parents were supportive of her, but her story was interrupted when the microphone was shut off. The church leader then asked the girl, Savannah, to sit down.

After that, a lot of people took Savannah’s side, commending her for her courage and criticizing the church for silencing a child who spoke of something that is so important to her. Last month, she was interviewed in an episode of the Mormon gay podcast “I like to look for rainbows.” Her situation highlights a problem that many people face–how to balance being LGBT with their faith.

But Savannah’s story hasn’t quieted down. Last week, Mormon blogger Scott Gordon criticized Savannah and her parents for giving the speech during the weekly testimony meeting. He wrote that the media is wrongly trying to paint the church leader who interrupted her as the bad guy. Gordon wrote:

This isn’t about whether a girl is struggling with her sexuality, or about how a Church leader handled it. This is a clear case of hijacking a meeting, promoting false teachings, and exploiting a child’s inexperience to create a media event.

Savannah’s mother, Heather Kester, said that those words hurt. But she hopes that in the long run, her daughter’s speech could help bring about some positive change in the church. Savannah said she wanted to support other LGBT Mormons. “There’s been a lot of homicides or deaths, and a lot of them have been kicked out from their house because they have not been accepted by their parents, and that’s really hard,” she said.

The Mormon Church differentiates between “having homosexual feelings,” and acting on those feelings. According to a column on the website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church.” However, as soon as they act on those feelings, they commit a sin.

Last fall, the Mormon Church added a web page to its official website, in support of people that are Mormon and identify as LGBT. But the site still carries the same message; that being gay is wrong. It states that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and that “will not change,” and warns that sexual desire can be fluid, so that young people shouldn’t rush to conclusions about their sexuality.

Many gay Mormons say this approach is not good enough. As recently as 2015, the church adopted a new policy that said same-sex couples who are married are to be seen as apostates. They could be forced to undergo disciplinary hearings and could be kicked out of the church. Children of a same-sex couple could not join the Mormon church until after they turn 18, and only after moving out from their parent’s home and publicly disavowing same-sex marriage.

This little girl is so brave. I think we can all learn something from her. Great job Savannah. ️‍https://t.co/qlaWuYQtsf

— Ally ️‍ (@ALeeStevens) June 18, 2017

“No part of me is a mistake. I do not choose to be this way, and it is not a fad,” Savannah said in her speech. This is a very brave thing to say when you are 12 years old. And she doesn’t seem to regret it, it even though the leader of the church cut her short by switching off the microphone.

“I think they did that because they didn’t want my message,” Savannah said on Wednesday. “I don’t want to be mean to them if this isn’t true, but I felt like they were scared of me and what I was saying.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mormon Church Cut Off Microphone When Young Girl Came Out as Gay appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

In a crackdown on religious freedom, the Chinese authorities have banned Islamic baby names and other religious symbols in the mainly Muslim region of the country, Xinjiang. About half of China’s 23 million Muslims live in this region, which is one of the most militarized in the country due to violent conflicts that authorities blame on religious extremists. Xinjiang is home to a Muslim minority group called the Uighurs.

Now Chinese officials have said that “religious” names like Islam, Quran, Saddam, and Mecca are prohibited, as such names could “exaggerate religious fervor.” Children that are given these names will not be eligible for household registration, which is what gives citizens access to social services, healthcare, and education in China.

The new rules follow other restrictions issued last month by the Xinjiang authorities that ban men from wearing an “abnormal beard.” Specific cities in Xinjiang already had bans in place prohibiting women from wearing face veils in public spaces like airports or train stations, but now the ban will apply to the whole region.

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, called the actions by the Xinjiang authorities “blatant violations of domestic and international protections on the rights to freedom of belief and expression.” She said that officials are punished by the state if they are too lenient on these “crimes” or other actions deemed inappropriate. One official was reprimanded for complaining about the new rules to his wife through a messaging app. Another one was fired from her job for having her wedding ceremony at home and not at a location approved by the government.

China bans Islamic baby names in Muslim majority Xinjiang province https://t.co/cWsITdTHeL pic.twitter.com/13i04R9yll

— Aüd (@CodeAud) April 25, 2017

There have been a number of violent incidents in Xinjiang in recent years that have been blamed on Muslim extremists. In 2013, 35 people, including 16 Uighurs, were killed in a confrontation between rioters and police. State media claims a group of religious extremists attacked police officers after one of their group members was arrested. Police killed 11 of them and labeled the act a terrorist attack.

That incident made many worry that the violence of 2009 would be repeated, when protests led to the deaths of at least 197 people. Many killed were Han Chinese, the main ethnic group in China. And in 2015, more than 50 people died in a knife attack at a coalmine in northwestern Xinjiang. State media claimed that one of the suspects said he had been carrying out a jihad.

But human rights experts say that the Chinese government’s harsh crackdown on Muslims will only deepen the Uighurs’ resentment. A spokesman for an exiled group of Uighurs, Dilxat Raxit, said that the violence was sparked by the Chinese government’s indiscriminate detentions of Uighurs. Others say that the government strongly exaggerates the level of organization behind protests and violence. “If the government is serious about bringing stability and harmony to the region as it claims, it should roll back–not double down on–repressive policies,” said Richardson.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Islamic Baby Names, Beards, and Veils in the Xinjiang Region appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, which marks the beginning of Lent, the season of fasting and prayer in the Christian faith. To symbolize this, some Christians have ashes in the shape of a cross drawn on their foreheads. But this year, after a turbulent election season and uncertainty about what the future will look like for many minority groups, a faith-based organization in New York City that supports the LGBTQ community will mix its ashes with purple glitter.

“For me, glitter and ashes is the hope I feel in the resurrection of Christ,” said Reverend Marian Edmonds-Allen, who is executive director of the group Parity. The team behind the event, which goes under the name “Glitter+Ash Wednesday,” encourages churches across the country to do the same, as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people have historically been unwelcome in churches.

Glitter ashes in solidarity with queer community in Hamp on Ash Wednesday. I got some. pic.twitter.com/V7Bn6unQFR

— Monte_Belmonte (@MonteBelmonte) March 1, 2017

But this modern take on a Christian tradition had some people seeing red. Jacob Lupfer, a columnist for Religion News Service in Maryland, doesn’t think this will lead to anything good. “Christianity is already divided, and now it’s along pro- and anti-gay lines,” he said. “It’s liturgically inappropriate to tamper with such an ancient and solemn rite.”

A Chicago Reverend, Donald Senior, agreed: “If you start changing its meaning, some are going to feel this is a political statement,” he said of the religious act, and added that it is a ritual that should be handled with a lot of respect.

Last week, the Trump Administration revoked guidelines from the Obama Administration allowing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The decision caused protests across the country, including at the legendary gay bar Stonewall Inn in New York.

Encouraging to see such a large turnout concerned for the safety of trans youth. Must continue to show up & resist to protect #transrights. pic.twitter.com/FEI6jdvsvZ

— Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) February 24, 2017

“Right now there are people in this country that feel threatened that their very presence should not be in public spaces,” said April Gutierrez, a pastor in Chicago who will also participate in the Glitter+Ash Wednesday.

But, there are many Christians who are progressive and want to show people from the LGBTQ community that they are accepted and loved. The author of “Queer Virtue”, Reverend Elizabeth M. Edman, said that the glitter is not meant to be disrespectful. For LGBTQ people, glitter often symbolizes the process of coming out and can be a very serious thing. To those that believe the glitter only means frivolity or party, she said, “It matters to understand that queer people understand very much the life-and-death aspect of Ash Wednesday. Some people hear glitter and think it’s frivolous. For queer people, glitter is serious business.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Christian Groups Show Solidarity With the LGBTQ Community Using Glitter appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Called Historically Black Schools “Pioneers” of “School Choice”

Betsy DeVos hasn’t had an easy start to her new position as education secretary. Now she’s in hot water again for some off-base comments about historically black colleges and universities. She called the schools “pioneers” of “school choice” and wrote that their founders had identified that the school system wasn’t working and created their own solution. This peculiar statement was met with outrage on social media, where people wondered whether she was aware that HBCUs weren’t created by choice, but because black students literally were not allowed in white schools.

Betsy DeVos said HBCUs were about school choice. As if white/colored water fountains were about beverage options. pic.twitter.com/I3tNlER43n

— Resist Dystopia (@AynAyahSteenkur) February 28, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin likes Donald Trump, but doesn’t believe he made it all the way to the White House on his own. On the holiday edition of the Breitbart News Daily radio show she claimed that God was responsible for Trump’s win. In the show, she said she saw the role “divine providence” played on the campaign trail. She said people have been desperate for a change after the country’s deterioration and that his victory was due to people praying to God that the rest of the citizens would wake up. Palin claimed she had seen it “first-hand.” And she also said this:

I saw more and more people’s eyes open, and I think so much of that was based on the church in general, those people of faith who were praying to God that people would wake up. Remember, our Founders dedicated this land, this new country that would be America, this idea of America, dedicated it to God. If I were President, I’d re-dedicate us to God.

Palin has described herself as a “Bible-believing Christian,” saying that God has an important role to play in American elections. But the last time she said that God would do the right thing for America by helping John McCain beat Barack Obama in 2008, her predictions were wrong and Obama became the first black president in U.S. history. Many people had something to say about her views on religion and the 2016 election:

Dear Sarah Palin,

God heard what you said and wants you to know he responded thusly: “Leave me out of this.”

— Ricky Pine ⚡️❄️ (@redrainricky) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin says God made Trump win, confusing God with slaveowners who demanded an electoral college during the constitutional convention.

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) November 30, 2016

Palin also said: “We found our revolutionary Donald Trump, he’s our messenger. Donald Trump heard the voice of the people and allowed the people to expose what needed exposing.”

To make Palin’s year even better, it was reported on Wednesday that she is being considered for a cabinet role as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. According to a Palin aide she has been telling Trump transition officials that she feels she could be of use in a “productive and positive way.” She has focused on the VA for a while; her eldest son is an Iraq War veteran and earlier this week her son-in-law posted a video to Facebook promoting her work with veterans. Though Palin has not yet been to the Trump Tower to meet with the President-elect, she was one of his first endorsements.

There were mixed reactions on social media to that news as well.

Sarah Palin is “super duper excited” that she might be in charge of the dept for animal doctors. @monicajibanez @georgeswright

— AnnAMae (@SweetasPHI) November 30, 2016

Sarah Palin as VA Secretary seems completely insane until you remember that Donald Trump was just elected President.

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) November 30, 2016

I’m probably more qualified to be VA Secretary than Sarah Palin just by having ‘VA’ in my Twitter name

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) November 30, 2016

Palin has also been talked about for the position of Energy Secretary, which could be pretty catastrophic considering she posted a Facebook status showing off her view on energy, saying “Drill, baby, drill!” She also wrote: ”The inherent link between energy and security, and energy and prosperity, is real and recognized by every American except sketchy politicians and deceived faux environmentalists.” So, if you thought we left Palin behind in 2008, don’t worry, she’s back and busy in 2016.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

A female student admitted to the Citadel Military College in South Carolina will not be allowed to wear a hijab with her uniform. The young woman’s request was filed in the beginning of April. The school’s president, Lt Gen John Rosa, issued a statement on the school website on Tuesday, saying, “uniformity is the cornerstone” of the school, and that “The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.” While he denied the request to wear religious headgear, he stressed the fact that the school offers other ways of practicing faith and expressed his hope that the girl will still attend the school this coming fall.

To many people, it came as a surprise that the school actually took the time to consider a deviation from its custom of strict uniformity and anonymity–for some it was a provocation, for others a positive sign of progress. The Citadel is one of the oldest military schools in the United States and has never made an exception from its standard uniform in its 175-year history. However, the school does have other ways to see to students differing religious needs, such as places of worship and special food for those with religious dietary restrictions.

A Facebook post from a current student, Nick Pinelli, initially drew attention to the issue. He argued that if a person practicing one religion is granted different treatment it would undermine the point of the school and be the opposite of equality. In the post, Pinelli wrote, “Equality means the same set of rules for everyone. Not different rules for different people.” He has reportedly been punished with 33 hours of marching since first speaking out.

The girl’s family is considering legal actions. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wearing the hijab is a religious obligation for Muslims. And as a gender professor points out to NPR, this can also be seen as a feminist issue, with the fact that she is a woman potentially making her fight even harder.

The Citadel educates students in leadership skills, which does not necessarily have to lead to a military career. Out of the roughly 2,300 students, only about 170 are women. They didn’t start admitting women until 1996 so that number–as well as religious diversity–may increase in the coming years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citadel Military College Denies Student’s Request to Wear Hijab with Uniform appeared first on Law Street.

Throw out your colanders and get rid of all of your spaghetti, a Nebraska judge ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.

Stephen Cavanaugh, a Nebraska inmate, sued Nebraska prison officials seeking $5 million in 2014, arguing that his religion should be treated like every other religion. He claims that he was mocked and harassed over his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He also claims that prison staff would not provide accommodations for his religion, as they do with others, by refusing to allow him to meet for worship services, to wear religious clothing and pendants, and to receive communion.

Pastafarianism is the belief that the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who made it much like it is today. Members of the church say that heaven “has a Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.” They also dress like pirates. Communion is taken by eating “a large portion of spaghetti and meatballs.”

“Fremont Solstice Parade 2008: Flying Spaghetti Monster” courtesy of Mark Atwood via Flickr

In his ruling, released on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Gerrard wrote, “FSMism” is a “parody intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education,” rather than a religion explicitly outlined by federal law.

Cavanaugh is currently serving a four to eight-year sentence in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for assault and weapons charges.

This is not the first time that members of the FSM church have retaliated for not being treated like practitioners of a legitimate religion. There have been multiple cases of followers fighting for the right to wear the symbolic colander on their heads in driver’s license photos and to have the church’s flag on government property.

At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not Pastafarianism should be considered a legitimate religion. Some lawmakers have argued that it isn’t, like in the case of Cavanaugh, but some scholars are hard-pressed to deny it that right.

“There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in,” evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in Wired. “If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

In the age of religious freedom, the dismissal of religion by members of other religions seems contradictory. If the basis of religion is proof, then it is not quite certain how any religion can meet the criteria.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts was denied the right to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her license photo. Headgear is not approved, unless for specific religious circumstances in Massachusetts, so Miller appealed. She was ultimately allowed to wear her strainer.

Pastafarian, Lindsay Miller allowed to wear strainer on her head in driver’s license photo, citing religious freedom! pic.twitter.com/y6MwWSTv3t

— John Zelaski (@jzelaski) November 18, 2015

“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, said in a statement released by the American Humanist Association.

Ultimately, the state of Nebraska felt, “The essence of this action… is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created ‘a mountain, trees, and a midget.'”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Religious Impasta? appeared first on Law Street.

Charming to some. Smug to others. Abrasive to most. But even with such mixed feelings and emotional reactions invoked at the mention of his name, Donald Trump is leading the Republican polls. Most recently, Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States–which he further explained did not apply to U.S. citizens who were Muslim and would only last until the incompetent politicians on the hill can get themselves together. What that means is unclear, but it is evident from his interview with CNN’s Don Lemon that Trump, along with much of America, is not pleased with the lack of progress, law-making, and reform taking place in Washington, D.C.

Yes Mr. Trump, give yourself a pat on the back for creating a dialogue on an issue that is quite important and one that most Americans are less than educated about. However, you get points off for spreading extra bigotry. The American public needs to be wary of what Trump’s proposal actually means and the kind of law-making it reflects before we nod in agreement like the political pawns we are expected to be.

Apart from the blatant unconstitutional basis for this proposal, such a ban as the one proposed by Trump is problematic for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to ban a group of people from entering the United States on the basis of religion would be next to impossible in practice. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, equaling about 23 percent of the world’s population. These are 1.6 billion people coming from the Asian-Pacific region, the Middle East, Europe, Northern Africa as well as other African nations, just to name a few. These are people that do not share many physical characteristics and are not identifiable by a singular trait as they encompass anybody and everybody.

So how exactly would one prove he or she is not Muslim? Would people carry around affidavits sworn by their pastors? Would wearing a cross save you from categorical discrimination on the basis of religion? And what about the atheists of the world who practice no religion at all? How would they convince those around them that they are not Muslim? Additionally, do we really think ISIS members or other radical extremists would volunteer information about their practices to U.S. Customs Officers? These questions might sound absurd, but they are real and only highlight the ridiculousness of Trump’s proposal.

Secondly, there are a large number of Muslim businessmen and women, doctors, scientists, and academics that frequently travel to the United States and greatly contribute to the technological, educational, medical, economic, and scientific growth and advancement of the U.S.–areas of practice and study that have been decreasing in domestic educational interest for years. To ban them from entry into a country that they have been actively and positively contributing to would not only serve to offend them and turn them off from future engagements and endeavors, but it would be just plain stupid. Punishing Muslim innovators and educators due to the actions of a few–people whose behaviors they condemn and find absolutely reprehensible–is a waste of invaluable resources on an unfounded basis.

Thirdly, Trump’s ban is reminiscent of much darker times in history–i.e. when Jews were forced to wear badges identifying their faith under Adolf Hitler’s leadership and when Japanese-Americans were placed into internment camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would assume that many lessons had been learned following the colossal tragedies that resulted out of such blatant and unfounded discrimination, but yet, with Trump’s rhetoric, it appears we have not. This Nazi-esque type of discrimination and exclusion based on religious beliefs has been condemned by parties on all sides and was even dubbed “un-American” by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Finally, Trump seeks to confuse the issue at hand and puts the U.S. into an action-based response that is anticipated, wanted, and planned by extremist groups such as ISIS. The point of terrorism is to create terror, to stir up emotions of fear and irrational reactions used to isolate, alienate, and leave people vulnerable, open to great influence–exactly what the likes of ISIS would welcome, large groups of Muslim people feeling abandoned, isolated, and unwelcomed by the very societies they have set out to enrich, contribute positively to, and raise families in as model citizens. ISIS wants to build a “complete society” with men and women alike and they will recruit. Those vulnerable and rejected by Western societies are likely targets.

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous two-fold. Not only does it seek to alienate and isolate Muslims from Western societies, leaving the doors open for ISIS recruitment, but it also works to confuse Islam with terrorism, dangerously perpetuating the idea that the two are interchangeable when they are absolutely not. Trump is promoting a display of Islamophobia that would be considered disgusting for anyone, much less a possible Republican Presidential candidate.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dangerous Rhetoric of Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As long as I have been writing about these weird legal cases, I have written on a shockingly low number of weird Alabama stories. And let’s face it: surely Alabama has some weird things going on in its legal system.

Has the fact that I lived in Alabama for 16 years made me biased? Am I hiding all the juicy gossip to downplay this great state’s craziness? Or have I really just not been able to find any good ones because I get too distracted by the oddities going on in Florida (and also in my current state of New Jersey where my bias has certainly not been showing)?

Whatever the reason I have been ignoring good ole Bama in the past, I am over it this week. Because I’m about to tell you all a story about the Alabama fashion police. You know. Since Alabama is so well known for its fashion forwardness and all that.

For those individuals out there who believe God only gets involved in big picture items, you will want to read this: it turns out you are obviously very wrong. Because God recently decided to give us all a fashion lesson of a very basic nature.

A civil council member in Dadeville, Alabama (where I am not from, thank goodness, since my fashion sense is pretty nonexistent) is trying to create a dress code that would ban, among other things, baggy pants.

I’m well and fine with that, personally, because I hate the look myself. However, why did Councilman Frank Goodman suddenly decide this should be his life mission? Because God, who I’m assuming got the idea after watching this year’s New York Fashion Week, told him to.

Okay. I admit, Goodman does not actually claim God spoke those words to him, but he does say that he has been thinking on this for a while. And more importantly, he has been praying about it.

What was the result of said prayer? Goodman–whose name seems very fitting in this story–determined that “God would not go around with pants down.”

Thank you for the info, Goodman. Because I have been wondering if that would be God’s fashion sense for quite some time now.

What is more, when Goodman asked God to show him if the councilman should do anything about the baggy pant epidemic, God gave him a pretty clear answer.

“He would show me this saggy pant,” Goodman told The Daily Beast, “—it’s one of the things He did not do. It is not in His orders to do that to gain eternal life.”

So there you have it, folks, right out of the mouth of some random Councilman in Alabama: wearing baggy pants is not one of the things you need to do to gain eternal life. Which is probably a big disappointment to the people who wear baggy pants, since I am sure that gaining eternal life was the sole purpose in the low-riding pants.

Now, there is some history in towns banning or trying to ban saggy pants. In that sense, this is not a unique story. However, as to my knowledge, this is the first time that the ban is being attempted on God’s direct orders.

I’m not exactly sure how saggy is too baggy, but if this dress code is passed, people of Dadeville, you just might want to invest in a good belt or two. After all, you don’t want to get a ticket from the fashion police–especially when those fashion police are being sent directly on God’s commands!

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post God Doesn’t Like Saggy Pants, According to an Alabama Councilman appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Recent surveys have shown that a disproportionate number of Americans believe there is a problem in our country with fairness of the judicial system. Of course, there are various was that this comes to light, but one of the most prolific is judicial bias. From juvenile courts all the way up, it has been a problem for years.

But what indicates judicial bias, what can judges actually do if they feel themselves being biased, and what can citizens do about the issue?  Looking back historically, you can see areas where the problem may have existed, which is a good indication of where it will pop up again.

So the question remains, does judicial bias exist, or is it something that we are making up, and if it exists, what can we do?

Judicial Bias

In his book “Mediating Dangerously – The Frontiers of Conflict Resolution,” Kenneth Cloke wrote about the idea of judicial bias:

[T]here is no such thing as genuine neutrality when it comes to conflict. Everyone has had conflict experiences that have shifted his or her perceptions, attitudes, and expectations, and it is precisely these experiences that give us the ability to empathize with the experiences of others. Nor are there any genuine neutrals in courts, including judges, CEO’s, managers, and human resources representatives, all of whom have biases and points of view, including the bias of wanting to protect the organization from being disrupted by conflict. Judges have the most intractable bias of all: the bias of believing they are without bias.

With a few life-changing court hearings coming up in the Supreme Court and around the world, there have been many think pieces and questions posed by the media. One of those questions is whether or not the personal beliefs of Supreme Court justices will come into play. The right to a fair and speedy trial is promised to us in the Constitution, after all, so that should certainly extend to the top.

Judicial bias occurs when a judge has a bias when making a ruling in a hearing in which he or she has a specific feeling or attitude toward a party that will hinder them from acting fairly. In this case, the judge is actually hindering the right to a fair trial. Typically, a judge will recuse him or herself if a bias occurs.

Can we prove judicial bias?

The problem is that we often cannot prove that judicial bias exists. Now, many legislatures and jurisdictions have allowed parties to seek disqualifications if it appears that there was judicial bias. One example is Title 28 U.S.C. § 455, which has provisions for when a federal judge is biased against a party, as well as when a reasonable, disinterested party would think he has a bias. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is an easy thing to do. There are many cases where a judge might be biased, but that doesn’t mean that the “reasonable” person would think so.

There is another problem to consider as well: the duty to sit doctrine. Many judges, especially those who are “old school,” tend to follow this. They are basically obligated to stay on a case that they have been assigned to handle unless they are forced to step away.

Sensitive Subjects

In many careers we are instructed to go with our feelings and think with our hearts in order to reach the best possible choices. However, that isn’t something that people would tell judges to do. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, however.

New research has shown that judges, especially Supreme Court justices, will actively pick out the cases with which they identify. In their report, Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California and two colleagues examined nearly 5,000 decisions in 516 Supreme Court free-speech cases that spanned the decades between 1953 to 2010 to determine whether there was any bias. When the Economist looked at the paper, they explained the political bias in a funny way:

For example, if the speaker seeking first amendment solace is a pro-lifer rankled by restrictions on protests near abortion clinics, his rights are very likely to be recognised by Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, but not by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal (see Hill v Colorado). And if the speaker is a high-school kid holding up a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on a school trip, you can expect Justice Thomas to harumph while Justice Ginsburg rises to defend the student’s free-speech rights (see Morse v Frederick). Right-wing justices tend to uphold conservative speakers’ rights and rule against liberal litigants; liberal justices smile on their ideological friends and frown at their foes, too.

While it is funny to think about it in those terms, it has many people thinking about some of the other places that judges could have bias and if it has ever happened before. Many of these include cases where the jury is included in the bias.

Religion

Many of the cases that judges and juries hear go back to morality and our personal beliefs. Many of us are exposed to religion from an early age, and it would be foolish to think that judges would be able to separate, at least completely, their deeply ingrained beliefs from the law. Certainly, there might even be a place for it. In an article from the Journal of Law and Religion, a quote from a former judge puts it into perspective:

It’s funny. . .I think it [religion] has influenced me. I think it’s given me a set of values. . .you know, every once in a while a reading from the New or Old Testament kind of strikes you and you just wouldn’t hear it–or I wouldn’t–or read it if it weren’t for that. It causes you to pause a little bit and do a little self-examination. I think that’s healthy. So I think that does influence my perspective.

There have been several cases in the last few years in which lawyers claimed religious bias against their clients. In Tennessee, a judge found himself in hot water after forcing a man to change his baby’s name from Messiah to Martin after he determined that “The word ‘messiah’ is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ.” The child’s parents were there to settle a few different issues, including the baby’s last name.

While not in court, a Texas judge, Carter Tinsley Schildknecht, was issued a public admonition because  of some comments she made, including “describing District Attorney Munk as a ‘New York Jew’ and by criticizing a prosecutor’s beard because it made him look like a ‘Muslim’.”

Gender

One of the biggest sources of bias may be gender. In many of the cases where gender bias was found, it results in decisions that are based upon preconceived notions of sexual roles rather than on fair and impartial appraisals of individual situations. However, many people don’t see this bias because they are operating on those same preconceived notions.

In fact, New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Alan B. Handler wrote “[N]ot everyone has a nose for discrimination, especially in its most subtle forms. We are coming to realize that people are products of cultural conditioning which frequently obscures recognition of social wrongs…Discrimination frequently goes uncorrected because it is undetected.”

So what can we do?

Unfortunately, the idea that we can take away bias is misguided, as it is almost always going to be there. Just like in any other profession, bad judges do exist, but as they are in a power position, it can be hard to find a lawyer willing to expose that. The National Center for State Courts suggests that one of the biggest things we can do is reduce the wear and tear on judges by shortening their hours, provide more feedback on their performances, and encourage the courts to stay vigilant.

Even more so, we need to provide bias training to judges, and maybe even encourage them to do some research into the facts if a case involves someone’s religion, for instance. Diversity training has gotten a bit of a bad name, but it really does serve a purpose, and the courtroom may be the next place that needs it.

Conclusion

Bias is a part of life, unfortunately. Truly, we can never really let go of our bias, but judges have a responsibility to acknowledge it and try to make a fair judgement despite it. Juries have a similar responsibility, especially when they are still in the selection process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Government Publishing Office: 28 U.S.C. 455 – Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge

Justia: Castellano v. Linden Board of Education

Additional

Douglas Ginsburg: Originalism and Economic Analysis: Two Case Studies of Consistency and Coherence in Supreme Court Decision Making

Journal of Law and Religion: Beneath the Robe: The Role of Personal Values in Judicial Ethics

Kenneth Cloke: Mediating Dangerously – The Frontiers of Conflict Resolution

Economist: Playing Favorites

Religion Clause: Texas Judge Disciplined For Religious-Cultural Bias

Reuters: Tennessee Judge Cited For Ordering Baby’s Name Changed From Messiah

University of Southern California: Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate? In-Group Bias, Opportunism, and the First Amendment

Women Law: Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts

American Bar Association: Overcoming Judicial Bias

American Psychology Association: Can Jurors’ Religious Biases Affect Verdicts in Criminal Trials?

NCSC: Strategies to Reduce the Influence of Implicit Bias

William S. Boyd School of Law: Chief William ‘s Ghost: The Problematic Persistence of the Duty to Sit Doctrine

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judicial Bias: What’s Morality Got to do With It? appeared first on Law Street.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been at the center of media attention since the group began taking over and controlling large portions of land in Iraq last summer, but amid this coverage, several important misconceptions about the organization and its goals have emerged.

The Atlantic recently published an article titled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which discusses the group’s underlying ideology and the misconceptions about it in the western world. Writer Graeme Wood carefully researched the organization by studying nearly every available source of information about it. Central to Wood’s article is the idea that the Islamic State adheres to established Islamic texts and principles and is not simply a group of crazy people twisting religion to support their blood lust.

While the claim that the Islamic State is Islamic may not be surprising–most radical extremist groups tie their goals to religion one way or another–Wood takes ISIS’ connection to Islam a step further. He says,

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This argument is important to understanding ISIS–religion clearly plays a vital role in its actions and recruiting strategy–but this quote and the implicit argument throughout his article has dangerous implications for the religion of Islam. While Wood does not make the outright claim that Islam is a violent religion, many readers have interpreted it that way. As a result, some variation of this logic arises: ISIS is the purest manifestation of Islam, and peaceful Muslims are somehow less faithful to their religion.

That argument, however, is a dramatic mischaracterization of the Islamic State and is a serious insult to the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

I am not an expert on Islam, and determining the proper way to interpret the Quran and its foundational texts should be left to Islamic clerics and individual Muslims. Historically, there have been many different interpretations of Islam, and while ISIS’ ideology represents one interpretation that does not mean it is right or even valid. Not only do clerics believe ISIS misinterprets many of Islam’s sacred texts, they also note that the group’s “literal” interpretation is very exclusive. The passages that the Islamic State chooses to justify its actions are very specific, and the group ignores those that may conflict with its actions.

Nearly all of the world’s Muslims reject the Islamic State and its abhorrent actions that are reportedly done in the name of Islam. In addition to aggressively denouncing the cruel actions of ISIS and the misinterpretation of Islamic texts that supposedly justify them, most Muslims object to ISIS’ refusal to acknowledge the peaceful and compassionate teachings that clerics commonly accept.

Wood’s article ignited a debate over ISIS and its beliefs, so much so that its reception prompted him to write a short follow up summarizing the responses he received. Many respondents acknowledged the importance of ideology to ISIS, but argued that other factors–like group identity and the current circumstances in Iraq–are equally important to understanding ISIS. Some went even further, challenging Wood’s assertion of “the Islamic State’s medieval nature.” John Terry, writing for Slate, argued that the Islamic State selectively remembers the medieval times to fit its modern goals.

ISIS’ ideology is a variant of Salafist-Jihadism, which calls for a return to the “pure” practice of Islam that was established during the early days of the religion using outward violence. The first issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine includes a section titled “The World Has Divided Into Two Camps.” ISIS believes that it is the true manifestation of Islam and that all others are in a state of disbelief, which makes them enemies. One aspect of ISIS that makes it unique in the context of radical Islam is its use of takfir, or the practice of excommunicating another Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of its violence is directed toward Muslims and has led its recent rift with al Qaeda.

The nature of the organization and the stated commitment to its apocalyptic goal presents unique challenges for the United States and the coalition against it. The Clarion Project summarizes this issue in a recent article,

“The fundamental problem of Islamists seeking to trigger these end-of-times events will remain. The Islamic State could be crushed, but others with similar beliefs will arise. This entire mindset of fulfilling prophecy through war needs to be challenged by peace-seeking Muslims.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is ISIS Actually Islamic? appeared first on Law Street.

Lawyers. You can’t count on them for anything. It is why I decided to go into legal editing out of law school instead of actually doing a despicable thing like practicing. I mean, lawyers have to have good malpractice insurance because at some point, they are going to be sued for something stupid or dishonest that they did–not because the client is an idiot. No. It will definitely be the attorney’s fault.

Courtesy of Giphy.

What type of dumb or shady thing would a lawyer do anyway? I am sure we can all come up with some lackluster examples, but I have one that beats all of yours. What if a woman were to go to the office of a divorce lawyer and ask for help with her divorce? And what if, on hearing this request, that lawyer went ahead and helped her without giving her the proper disclosure that getting a divorce could lead to being divorced? Clearly that attorney would just be trying to get that paycheck without any regard for the client, right?

I am sure you–if you are a lawyer or are preparing to be one–would never make this mistake. I mean, you probably have warning signs in your office to alert incoming clients to this little-known side effect of divorce. I am sure you are all good guys looking to help your clients, not trick them; however, at least one lawyer has done this hateful crime. And it all happened in the UK.

Jane Mulcahy is a good Catholic who would never do something horrible like get a divorce. So when she entered the office of what would soon be her archenemies and asked for help with her divorce, she did not, and could not, know that soon the worst thing imaginable would happen: she would be divorced.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now, as Ms. Mulcahy was not herself familiar with the field of law, it could not be expected that she came into the law firm with the knowledge that we, members of the legal world, have on this subject. I still remember, after all, the week in law school that we spent talking about the meaning of divorce and how, at the end of the proceedings, it would somehow end up with the termination of a marriage. It was a shocking revelation, indeed, and one that not a lot of outsiders were privy. So, of course, with this being such a legal secret, it is very plausible that this poor, abused woman had no idea what a divorce was when she asked for one.

Because of the murky definition of divorce, and knowledge of Mulcahy’s strong religious beliefs, it was the duty of her solicitors to inform her that if she were to get a divorce, her marriage would, in fact, be terminated. Also, they should have advised her instead to get a judicial separation–which is basically just all the benefits of a divorce without the sin of a failed marriage. In other words, it was perfect for Mulcahy, and yet her lawyers did not let her know about it. (It is my humble opinion that divorces probably make the lawyers more money, and so they deceitfully hid the meaning of divorce from their client to make a few more bucks from themselves. They should be ashamed.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

When Mulcahy learned of the trickery that had been done to her, she did not take it lying down. Instead, she sued. See, dirty lawyers? This is what happens when you play fast and loose with the lives of your clients: you get sued and lose lots of money … wait. What? A judge dismissed the claim? Man. Clearly, we are dealing with a crooked judicial team as well. Will justice ever be served to the poor, downtrodden Mulcahys of the world? Probably not. They all have pretty bad karma from committing the sin of divorce. Payback is a bitch, after all.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Because Her Divorce Ended in Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new Texas state representative named Molly White. She’s a Republican, represents District 55 in Central Texas, and is a huge bigot.

Why is she a huge bigot? Well, this is a Facebook post from her page a few days ago on Muslim Capitol Day in Texas.

Freshman Rep. Molly White welcomes you to Texas. But not *you.* https://t.co/BHtVRiuKbVpic.twitter.com/CblzqTaRq5

— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) January 29, 2015

There are so, so many things wrong with that post. First of all, White is a representative of the U.S. government. Here in the United States, we have something called “Freedom of Religion.” Obviously White isn’t trying to make a law that prohibits the free practice of religion or anything overtly illegal, but I think we can all agree that this pretty fundamentally stands against the expressed values of the nation she purports to represent. Freedom of Religion is just that. Not “Freedom of Religion only if I like your religion.” Or “Freedom of Religion if you do what I say.” Or “Freedom of Religion only if you prove it.”

White apparently has never imagined how demeaning it would be to prove her “loyalty” to the United States just because she’s in the minority. This myth, conspiracy theory, and thought of pure lunacy that Islam is synonymous with terrorism needs to end. Right Now. As does this habit of asking Muslims to denounce the actions of terrorist groups. It’s demeaning on so many levels, beginning with the fact that it takes almost one quarter of the world’s population and boils every single, diverse, individual member of a major religion down to no more than their religious beliefs. And not only that, it assumes that a quarter of the world’s population supports horrible violent actions in the name of said religion. That’s just insane. That would be like asking all Christians to condemn Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings), or Wade Michael Page (the man responsible for the Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting), or Jared Lee Loughner (the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, as well as others).

White’s post also makes an odd, seemingly random mention of the Israeli flag. Seriously? Does she think that Israeli flags are what, kryptonite to Muslims? Is that some weird superstition I’ve never heard of? Does she think that it’s like vampires with garlic? Seriously, Ms. White, what the hell does that even mean?

I don’t even think that White is a bad person. She’s behaving the way that she truly believes is right. She genuinely thinks these horrible things, borne out of misinformation and fear. In some ways that’s worse–I truly don’t think she believes what she did was wrong.

What sparked this disgusting display of bigotry? According to the Texas Tribune:

Texas Muslim Capitol Day, which began in 2003, is organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and brings members of Muslim communities in Houston, Dallas and other areas of the state to the Capitol to learn about the political process and meet state lawmakers.

Sounds nefarious, truly. So nefarious that White wasn’t the only one who flexed her offensive muscles that day. The day was met with protests, shouts of “go home,” and harassment.

Anti-Islam protesters at Texas Muslim Capitol Day screaming “go home!” and “Mohammad is dead!” #txlegepic.twitter.com/SqF27tK1O1

— Lauren McGaughy (@lmcgaughy) January 29, 2015

There are so many more things that I could say about this. So many times that I could lament the rampant bigotry, Islamophobia, prejudice, and miseducation in this country. So many times I could be sad, so many times I could be angry, so many times I could get into this argument. But I’m going to go one step further. As a white American woman who was raised a Christian, I’m going to go ahead ad renounce State Rep. Molly White and all who think like her, and pledge my allegiance to America and our laws. After all, she and I share some thoughts, so unless I renounce her, everyone will assume that I support her disgusting behavior, right?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything’s Bigger in Texas: Even Islamophobia appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court saw an unusual and unexpected moment of chaos yesterday when protesters interrupted Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ announcement of opinions. There were only seven of them but they made quite a ruckus. Right as Roberts began speaking, one yelled, “We are the 99 percent.” Others yelled demands such as “one person, one vote.” Eventually, they were escorted out of the chamber. The group taking credit for the protest is 99Rise and they were arguing against the 2010 Citizens United decision that ushered in a whole new era in the way that politics and money interact. Today was the fifth anniversary of that historic decision.

The seven people escorted out of the chamber have also been charged with violating a law by making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” among other charges. An eighth individual was also slapped with conspiracy-related charges but it’s unclear how he or she was involved.

99Rise has now dubbed them the “Supreme Court 7.” They appear to be a grassroots-type organization that seeks to take the influence of big money and corporations out of politics. Their website outlines the group’s main goals as the following:

We thus seek a Constitutional Amendment and supplemental federal legislation that would guarantee the principle of political equality, as well as ensure that neither private wealth nor corporate privilege could be used to exercise undue influence over elections and policymaking. To this end, we are committed to deploying the most powerful tool of social and political change: strategic nonviolent resistance.

Despite the splash that the protesters made in the media with their actions, not everyone was that impressed. According to ScotusBlog, Roberts muttered “Oh, please” while all the chaos was going on.

After the protesters were taken out of the chamber, the justices continued with business as usual. One of the more closely followed cases of this term–Holt v. Hobbs–was decided. SCOTUS unanimously decided that Gregory Holt, a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, should be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Regardless of what happened in the Holt v. Hobbs case, however, the protesters ended up being a bigger news story. It’s rare that people interrupt government procedure like they did today, particularly in somewhere as stoic as the Supreme Court.

From an actual goal-oriented perspective, 99Rise’s choice to interrupt the Supreme Court doesn’t make that much sense. While it obviously handed down the Citizens United decision, it has no ability to enact the type of reform, like an amendment, that 99Rise ostensibly is looking for. That being said, from a public relations standpoint, it made total sense. A relatively unknown group got the chance to brand itself, put its message out there, and create martyrs out of its seven members who were arrested.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Interrupt SCOTUS Over Campaign Finance appeared first on Law Street.

Sharia law can be confusing to many people outside of the Muslim community, mostly because of a combination of what we hear on the news, stereotypes, and what we are told by those practicing the Islamic faith. Find out more about what Sharia law is, as well as its parent religion Islam and its history.

What is Islam?

Islam is a monotheistic religion that was founded by the prophet Muhammad. The focus of Islam is the worship of God, or Allah in Arabic. Islam literally means “surrender” or “submission” and its practitioners are called Muslims, a term that means “one who submits.” The short video below gives a more in-depth understanding of the basics of it.

Islam came into being when Mohammad received a vision from Allah in 622 AD. It was first practiced in Mecca, where it was crushed, but it gained a foothold in the nearby town of Medina. Since then Islam has spread to all corners of the world with roughly 1,500,000,000 believers. Islam has different sects and branches. While the practices described in this piece are traditional, like any religion, every practicing Muslim has a different relationship with Islam.

How is Islam alike and different from Christianity and Judaism?

The biggest similarity between the three is that they are all monotheistic religions–each believes in one God. Islam broke off from the Judeo-Christian tradition and interprets events differently than Judaism and Christianity. For example, like Christianity, Islam believes in Abraham as its father, but differs from Christianity in its interpretation of which son of Abraham’s was the one for whom Allah would make a nation.

What are key points of Islam?

Islam has five key points, or pillars. According to the Cheadle Mosque:

Shahadah, profession of faith, is the first pillar of Islam. Muslims bear witness to the oneness of God by reciting the creed “There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim’s complete acceptance of and total commitment to Islam.

Salah, prayer, is the second pillar. The Islamic faith is based on the belief that individuals have a direct relationship with God. The world’s Muslims turn individually and collectively to Makkah, Islam’s holiest city, to offer five daily prayers at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset and evening. In addition, Friday congregational service is also required. Although salah can he performed alone, it is meritorious to perform it with another or with a group. It is permissible to pray at home, at work, or even outdoors; however it is recommended that Muslims perform salah in a mosque.”

Zakat, almsgiving, is the third pillar. Social responsibility is considered part of one’s service to God; the obligatory act of zakat enshrines this duty. Zakat prescribes payment of fixed proportions of a Muslim’s possessions for the welfare of the entire community and in particular for its neediest members. It is equal to 2.5 percent of an individual’s total net worth, excluding obligations and family expenses.

Sawm, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, is the fourth pillar of Islam. Ordained in the Holy Qur’an, the fast is an act of deep personal worship in which Muslims seek a richer perception of God. Fasting is also an exercise in self-control whereby one’s sensitivity is heightened to the sufferings of the poor.Ramadan, the month during which the Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, begins with the sighting of the new moon, after which abstention from eating, drinking and other sensual pleasures is obligatory from dawn to sunset. Ramadan is also a joyful month. Muslims break their fast at sunset with a special meal, iftar, perform additional nocturnal worship, tarawih, after evening prayer; and throng the streets in moods that are festive and communal. The end of Ramadan is observed by three days of celebration called Eid Al-Fitr, the feast of the breaking of the fast. Customarily, it is a time for family reunion and the favored holiday for children who receive new clothing and gifts.

 Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah, is the fifth pillar and the most significant manifestation of Islamic faith and unity in the world. For those Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey to Makkah, the Hajj is a once in a lifetime duty that is the peak of their religious life. The Hajj is a remarkable spiritual gathering of over two million Muslims from all over the world to the holy city. In performing theHajj, a pilgrim follows the order of ritual that the Prophet Muhammad performed during his last pilgrimage.

What is Sharia Law?

Sharia law is a comprehensive set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, as well as daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings for all practicing Muslims. Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries making it the go-to for any and all questions that many Muslims have on any subject with regard to their daily and spiritual lives.

The Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. Image courtesy of Mattia Belleti via Flickr

What provides the basis for Sharia Law?

There are three sources from which Sharia laws take form. They are the Qur’an, which is the Muslim holy book, the Hadith, which is the sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad, and the fatwas, which are the rulings of Islamic scholars.

The Qur’an, pictured above, is the word of Allah, in the way that the Bible is the word of God in Christianity. The Qur’an differs from the Bible in many ways. One of the main differences is that unlike the Bible, which is translated in many different languages, the Qur’an is not. This is because in Islam non-Arabic versions of the Qur’an are considered to be interpretations of the Qur’an and unless the original Arabic verses are embedded on the page alongside the translation, it cannot technically be called a Qur’an.

The Hadith is a series of four books that talk about the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as well as his conduct. The Hadith covers, quite literally, everything that Muhammad did or said, including details on what to do for public matters such as drinking water, eating, and sleeping, to more private matters such as bathroom habits and sex.

A Fatwa is an “Islamic legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law also called a Mufti, pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence, also called fiqh, is unclear.” A Fatwa is not binding as is the verdict of a secular court, such as the United States Supreme Court, even though it is considered to be applicable to all members of the Muslim Faith; it all comes to down to the individual to decide if he or she wants to respect the ruling or not. An example of a Fatwa is one that was passed in 1983 forbidding vasectomies, tubectomies, and all forms of abortion.

The list below shows the qualifications that Mufti must have to be able to give a Fatwa:

Know the verses of Qur’ān pertaining to the ruling at hand;

Know the reason behind the verses of Qur’ān related to the ruling – when each was revealed and why;

Distinguish the supportive and oppositional verses of the Qur’ān;

Know all the hadith pertaining to the ruling and the soundness of their chain of transmission;

Be familiar with the legal precedents of the issue before him, including the arguments or consensus reached by earlier scholars; and

Be well-versed in the syntax, grammar, pronunciation, idioms, special linguistic uses, customs and culture prevalent at the time of the Prophet (s) and succeeding two generations.

Anyone who issues a Fatwa that is not qualified according to the standards set above has broken the commands as set out by Muhammad’s successor Umar and is subject to punishment. To some Muslims, these unqualified groups would also include any radical extremist groups.

Where is Sharia Law mostly to be found?

Thirty-five countries currently incorporate Sharia into their civil, common, or customary law; however, they enact the laws very differently. For example, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco all use Sharia as a primary source of law and do not allow for the stoning or mutilation of people for crimes. On the flip-side, more hard-line Islamic states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Somalia do allow for them, but they are rarely used or enforced.

What are examples of Sharia Law?

The main examples that the Western World hears about are called Hadd offenses, which are unlawful sexual intercourse including sex outside of marriage and adultery, false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, drinking certain types of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. These five crimes can be punished in one of the following five ways: flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. These forms of punishment may also be turned into public spectacles. The reason for this is to serve as a deterrent for others who may be thinking about committing the same crime. There are other ways to break Sharia Law with different punishments or policies attached.

How is Sharia Law applied in secular nations?

That is a debatable question that has been raging for the last decade. Here is how Sharia Law has been used in a few different secular nations.

Britain

According to the BBC:

In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices – a touchstone issue for both communities.

Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.

America 

Sharia law has entered into some state court decisions, usually to do with personal disputes. An example of this is a case that happened in the state of New Jersey where a woman filed for divorce on the basis that her husband had left her. The husband cited Pakistani law, which follows Sharia, claiming that New Jersey had no right to interfere. The trial court agreed with the wife and ordered the husband to pay spousal maintenance; however, the Appellate Court overturned the ruling based on the fact that the couple’s Islamic pre-marital agreement did not provide for spousal maintenance and did not allow the wife to take an interest in the husband’s property.

Conclusion

Sharia Law is a collection of laws that dictate order to Islamic societies. Many Muslims who wish to be true to the commands of Allah attempt to follow these laws as best as they can. Although there’s a lot of misinformation out there, Sharia Law’s applications depend on the circumstances, nation, and individual.

Resources

Primary

Saudi Embassy: Five Pillars 

Islamic Supreme Court of America: What is a Fatwa? 

Additional

Slate: How to Read the Quran

BBC: Q&A Sharia Law Explained

Patheos Library: Islam 

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Islam – Hadd Offenses, False Accusation Of Unlawful Intercourse (kadhf ), Drinking Of Wine (shurb), Theft (sariqa)

Council on Foreign Relations: Islam: Governing Under Sharia

PBS: Five Pillars

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law Enforcement Islam

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to BBC. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sharia Law: History and Modern Application appeared first on Law Street.

Update: Europe responds to Fox News’ Fictional Facts

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up.

This is a clip from “Justice with Judge Jeanine” (A+ alliteration skills, Fox) with Jeanine Pirro, a former New York District Attorney and former Republican nominee for New York Attorney General.

The man in the clip is Steve Emerson and he’s a “terrorism expert.” By that he means he’s an author, writer, and pundit who’s been slammed in the past for his fear-mongering and ability to spread misinformation. He’s well known for repeatedly crying wolf by blaming acts of terror on Islamic extremists, most notably after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He said that that attack had a “Middle East trait” of being “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

So this piece is apparently on “no-go zones.” Fox News and other conservative publications have begun using the moniker to describe fictional places where apparently Muslims have taken over and created their own societies within other countries. According to Fox News these areas are “off-limits to non-Muslims.” Also “many of these areas are governed by Islamic Sharia law, and the state is unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire, and ambulance services.”

This alleged breakdown of civil society has apparently gone unnoticed by anyone except Fox News contributors. In fact, I was startled to learn from the clip above that Birmingham, UK, also known as the second largest city in the UK, has apparently been turned into one of these “no-go zones.” According to Emerson it’s “totally Muslim.”

This has come as a complete surprise to everyone, including the city of Birmingham. After all, its own website quotes its religious demographics as follows:

46.1% of Birmingham residents said they were Christian, 21.8% Muslim and 19.3% had no religion.

Exactly what Emerson thinks happened to that almost 80 percent of the population that identifies as something other than Muslim is unclear–did they convert? Have they been run out of town? How has no one noticed? In addition, Emerson basically accuses the French government at the very least, and the British and Swedish governments at large of a) not caring about these supposed “no-go zones” and b) not telling anyone about them.

Pretty much everyone has now called Emerson a complete imbecile, because that’s what happens to you when you make shit up on TV and try to pass it off as fact. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Emerson is “clearly an idiot.”

It’s also important to recognize that Jeanine Pirro sits idly by practicing her shocked-Muslims-are-out-to-get-us face that I am pretty sure they much teach a class on at Fox News. It’s clear that she doesn’t know enough–or care-to try to ask any real follow-up questions on Emerson’s points, many of which could have been debunked by a simple google search.

As soon as the clip made its way to the internet, the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts started trending. It’s a lot of fun to scroll through, but here are some of my favorites:

All students at @unibirmingham have to wear black burqas to receive their degrees. #foxnewsfacts #Birmingham pic.twitter.com/4GdEODHpfq

— Matthew Ward (@HistoryNeedsYou) January 12, 2015

The Queen is now being forced to wear a hijab by ‘Moslems’ due to the sharia law enforcement in the UK #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/PygydYLBGE

— immortal (@omfgitszoya_) January 12, 2015

 

The Flintstones is a documentary that directly refutes evolution. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/5Hu1pF8rCD — Kathryn Brusco (@KathrynBruscoBk) January 12, 2015

King Joffrey was a noble and just peacemaker. #FoxNewsFacts

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 12, 2015

Emerson, has, of course, had to release an apology for his claims about Birmingham. Here’s his apology in full:

You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.

So there you have it, Emerson admitted that he was “totally in error.” But something about this apology doesn’t actually sit that well with me. First of all, his apology only appears to address the facts he made up about Birmingham, not the fact that he makes claims that these “no-go zones” exist all over Europe. That’s misinformation too, even though it’s less visibly egregious, it’s just as dangerous in its own way. The way that Emerson’s apology comes across is that he just got it wrong about Birmingham, not overall.

This kind of fear-mongering is disgusting. Emerson came on that show for one reason only: to sensationalize an inaccurate theory and scare people into listening to him. It’s what Fox News, and in the spirit of fairness, any openly partisan “news” source does on a regular basis. After all, remember the Ebola coverage from earlier this year?

Honestly, Emerson will probably be back on Fox spewing his made-up facts before we know it. Or they’ll find someone else to do the exact same thing, because this is what the network does on a regular basis without seeing consequences. In the exact same show, Pirro claimed that President Obama is going to limit our First Amendment Rights. From Pirro’s earlier “Opening Statement“:

I’m surprised the president hasn’t signed a new executive order that simply says, ‘Don’t offend Muslims.’ And make no mistake. As sure as I’m talking to you, there will be efforts to limit our First Amendment, our free speech, to comply with Sharia blasphemy laws, which call for death to those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

I’m an incredibly strong supporter of the First Amendment. Jeanine Pirro and Steven Emerson should be able to say whatever noxious shit they want. But the fact that they get to do so on TV is terrifying.

Europe responds to Fox News’ fictional facts: After Fox News started to receive a lot of flack for its fictional story about “no-go zones” in parts of Europe, Europe is responding. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, is planning to sue Fox News over the story. She told Christine Amanpour: “When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed.” Hopefully this will provide a wake up call for Fox News–as much as it makes its money off of sensationalizing fear for the American people, not everyone will play as nice when it comes to made up facts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now appeared first on Law Street.

Texas. Home to the Bush family, the South by Southwest music festival, big trucks, Tex Mex, and some of the dumbest laws in the South. Knowing the conservative tendencies typical of the large southern state, it should hardly be surprising that homosexual behavior there was once a misdemeanor offense. The Supreme Court overturned this law in 2003, however.

Also reflecting the state’s conservative nature is the law banning the promotion of dildos or owning more than six of them. Technically, the law bans obscene devices, which it defined as “a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”

Reflecting a previous post on dumb laws in Nevada, urinating on the streets is illegal in El Paso. Really gotta pee there? Best to sneak into McDonald’s and pretend to be a paying customer.

Not in the El Paso streets, Tom Hanks!

It is also prohibited to appear in public places wearing lewd dress. Specifically, the “lewd dress law” states that, among other things, “no person shall exhibit or expose himself naked, or disguised, or in any indecent or offensive manner to any person.”

Looking to sell your eye or other organs in Texas? Sorry, you’ll have to take your body-part sales aspirations elsewhere, as doing so is illegal there.

Agnostics or Atheists looking to hold public office in Texas may have trouble since you are legally required to acknowledge the existence of a higher being before taking office. Though, I guess they could lie and say they believe in a higher power.

In Austin, wire cutters cannot be carried in one’s pockets. This law seems perfectly reasonable to me, however; imagine how many accidents have been and will be prevented by such a measure, especially for men.

Speaking of conservative laws, New Mexico has many of them on the books, especially concerning nudity. There, nudity is legal under two conditions: first, male genitals must be covered, and second, women must have their nipples covered.

I’m not sure exactly the criteria used to determine whether or not one is an idiot, but in New Mexico, they are prevented from voting. Perhaps it is some sort of I.Q. test. Maybe they should just take it one step further and say that only geniuses may vote. In fact, not only idiots but also “insane persons and persons convicted of a felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights” are prevented from voting.

Deming, New Mexico must have had some strange issues in the past because it saw the need to specifically ban spitting on the steps of an opera house. Or, the community just really, truly values the operatic arts and doesn’t want a building relating to them defiled by nasty saliva. In the same city, they made a law prohibiting hunting in Mountain View Cemetery. I don’t even WANT to know what happened to provoke that one.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Texas and New Mexico appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Scientology has long had an odd relationship with American celebrities. Some famous adherents include Kirstie Alley, Elisabeth Moss, Greta Van Sustern, John Travolta, and Tom Cruise. The Church of Scientology is also well known for using its substantial coffers to defend itself through litigation. It is within this context that HBO recently announced that it would be creating a documentary about the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers. The company, probably wisely, is lawyering up before the release.

The book on which the documentary is based is called “Going Clear” and is written by Lawrence Wright. It focuses on the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and the current leader, a man named David Miscavige, with particular emphasis on Scientology’s relationship to Hollywood and American celebrities–specifically John Travolta and Tom Cruise, as they are arguably two of the most famous celebrities in the religion.

The book makes some broad accusations, including abuse allegations against the church. The Church of Scientology, of course, flatly denies those claims. When the book was released, spokeswoman Karin Pouw released a statement said that:

The stories of alleged physical abuse are lies concocted by a small group of self-corroborating confessed liars. The hard evidence clearly shows that no such conduct ever occurred and that in fact there is evidence that shows it did NOT occur.

HBO claims that it has probably 160 different lawyers looking into the film–it needs to make sure that it is airtight before airing, because the company doesn’t particularly want to owe the Church of Scientology any money.

Media companies and media personalities have in the past tussled with the Church of Scientology, and not just in the courtroom. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, did a controversial episode entitled “Trapped in the Closet” in 2005 that made fun of the religion. The episode also makes fun of Cruise and Travolta (particularly rumors about their respective sexual orientations) and calls the religion a cult, which is pretty tame as far as South Park episodes go.

The Scientologists reacted very, very poorly. The religious sect started basically stalking and surveilling Stone and Parker, attempting to find something incriminating. Marty Rathburn, who used to be involved with the Church of Scientology, explained the kinds of things they would do to Stone and Parker, saying:

Phone records. Bank records. Personal letters that expose some kind of vulnerability. They’ll read stuff into the kind of alcohol you’re drinking and how much. Prescriptions. They’ll figure out your diet. They can find out a lot about you through your trash.

Back to “Going Clear” and its corresponding documentary. The Church of Scientology has already managed to mess with it a bit. The book was never released in the United Kingdom because the publishers were afraid that it would lead to a lawsuit. However, HBO truly has every intention of moving forward with the movie plan–160 lawyers and all.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HBO Battles Scientology Over New Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

In Ferguson, Missouri, protests over police aggression continue two-and-a-half months after unarmed teenager Michael  Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. On Monday, October 13, Dr. Cornel West and other spiritual leaders were arrested. This came as no surprise to West; earlier during the protests he claimed “I came here to go to jail.” While this feels like a 1960s documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr., that spirit is exactly what is needed now. We should all take a page from West’s book and really see the police militarization and violence for what it is: a civil rights issue. Addressing it with a religious community the way leaders did a half century ago could help.

As a PBS special notes, West “is a highly regarded scholar of religion, philosophy, and African-American studies” and “an an intellectual provocateur outside of the academic world.” His combination of academia and activism, of scholarship and celebrity, profoundly impacts the different causes he joins or criticizes. As a renowned Black figure in America, West’s disappointment in President Obama has been especially jarring. Slate reported this summer that West said that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.” Such harsh criticism reveals the complex matrix of Obama’s approval in the Black community. That the criticism is newsworthy reveals the significance of West’s opinion in America.

The Guardian reports that the recent rally in Ferguson was meant to harken back to the Civil Rights movement, and West’s intent to be arrested solidifies that. Leaders of the Black Freedom movement frequently organized to fill the jails of segregationist towns and cities across the South. Faith played an important role. Religious networks enabled civil rights leaders to encourage and mobilize people in the fight against oppression. But in Ferguson it seems like fewer people are looking for religious guidance from faith authorities. According to the Guardian, St. Louis rapper and activist Tef Poe “took the microphone and noted that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim preachers on the stage were not the people on the street trying to protect people from the police.” The article suggests that the nonviolence espoused in the 50s and 60s may not carry as much weight as it used to.

I have already written on how an emphasis on community is significant for civil rights. It may be a loss, then, if Ferguson protesters reject any religion’s power to engage and empower a community. This isn’t to say that secularism should be removed from protest, but secular people should not dismiss religion’s ability to organize. How can religion, grounded in old beliefs and traditions, aid a progressive movement toward greater justice? West, part theologian and part activist, has an approach that helps bridge the gap that many may see between religion and social justice.

His conception of democracy includes “the prophetic commitment to justice, which is at the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, means we must fight the reasons for unjustified suffering and social misery,” as a biography on West notes. Bringing religiosity into the activist fold is important for the pressing civil rights problems of our time. As the Guardian article notes, many see this as a generational problem in which elders are being held back from action. Speaking as a young person who is largely not religious, young people who are seeking change need to respect the authority of American religiosity; we should note where democratic principles of social justice meet those of religion.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on it’s that our education system is in dismal shape. A big chunk of that comes from the fact that our public schools have not, in some places, been able to provide students who come from low-income families with the resources that they so desperately need to be successful. One proposed way to fix this for at least some students is to institute a system of school vouchers. The idea of such programs has been heavily debated and discussed for decades. Read on to learn about school voucher programs and both sides of the debate.

What are school vouchers?

Vouchers parents to send their children schools outside of those assigned to them by location. These schools are often described as more innovative charter schools than are found in the traditional public system or private schools. Use of school vouchers varies throughout the United States, with some programs run at the state level, and others at the city level. Some notable long-lasting programs include those launched in Milwaukee in 1990, and Cleveland in 1995.

What is the argument in favor of school vouchers?

Providing families with more choices about how to raise their children is a staple of the American way and the voucher system would give control to parents to select the school that is best for their child. Vouchers would also allow children in low-income areas to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and go to a higher quality school so that they can get a better education. Additionally, private school vouchers would create direct competition between private schools and public schools and the competition will force all institutions to better themselves in an effort to attract students.

What is the argument against school vouchers?

For all the potential benefits that could come if state and local governments provided school vouchers, the policy also has notable flaws.  Opponents argue first and foremost that private school vouchers compromise the integrity of the entire public school system. The government operates public schools, yet it also incentivizes families to avoid them.  The conflicts of interest in this scenario makes it seem ineffective. Any public funding that goes to school vouchers is money that could have been spent improving the public school system, which cannot improve without support and investments from the government. Opponents also argue that many private schools are religiously affiliated and school vouchers provided by the government is essentially taxpayer funding of religious institutions.

How do school vouchers hold up in court?

The constitutionality of school vouchers has been heard in several court cases. Cleveland launched its program in 1995 in response to the city’s dismal public schools; however, because Cleveland’s program allowed students to use the vouchers to attend private schools with religious affiliations, the program was almost immediately the subject of lawsuits. Eventually, the question made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2002 case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the plaintiffs argued that the case violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which provides for the separation of religion and state. The court ruled that the vouchers could remain, because even though the religious schools were receiving government funding, the purpose of the vouchers was compelling and there were non-religious options possible. In addition, the program didn’t go to the religiously-based schools, but rather the parents and students who needed the aid, and the program didn’t proselytize or advocate for the religiously-run schools.

Case Study: Milwaukee Public Schools

Vouchers have been an option for students since the early 1990s, but whether or not the implementation has been effective is still up for debate. Thousands of students in Milwaukee take advantage of the voucher program, and like in Cleveland, many do end up in religiously-run institutions. The main question is whether or not it has worked.

The consensus seems to be: sort of. Evidence from the 2012-2013 school year shows that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are not outscoring their public school peers as a whole on state tests. That sounds disheartening, and would seem to indicate that vouchers have been a failure, but there’s some evidence to suggest that the picture requires more digging than that. The voucher students have, in fact, scored better than their low-income public school peers. Also, test scores in the Milwaukee voucher program have on the rise, perhaps indicating that the program is on the right track.

Conclusion

The voucher system is a creative solution to a debilitating problem in the American education system — particularly in some of our low-income public schools. The argument for vouchers includes the ability for parents and students to inject more choice into their education — hopefully creating more competitive school systems. In practice, however, it hasn’t necessarily worked out to that way. They’re also expensive, and could lead to public schools receiving less funding in the name of creating stronger charter schools. While some students may receive a better education, students as a whole population are left in a worse position. What’s indubitable is that we’re really not sure about the ultimate effects of vouchers yet as there’s no nationwide system to study.

Resources

Primary

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: School Choice Programs

Cornell University Law School: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Additional

World Bank: How Do School Vouchers Help Improve Education Systems?

PBS: The Case For Vouchers

NJ.com: Christie Tours Pro-Vouchers, Anti-Union Message in Philadelphia

Washington Post: Are School Vouchers Losing Steam?

Carnegie Mellon University: Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies

Education Next: The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment

WRAL.com: Voucher Bill Provides Public Money For Private School

Anti-Defamation League: School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice For Public Education

Americans United For Separation of Church and State: 10 Reasons Why Private School Vouchers Should Be Rejected

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Vouchers: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

The past couple of weeks saw observance of the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which are the new year and day of repentance, respectively. As the year 5775 begins, some Jews are also noting that this is a shmita year.

The ancient Jewish agricultural cycle followed a rotation of seven years. On the seventh, reminiscent of the Creation story, a rest is mandated. This is called shmita, or “release.” The primary purpose was to let the land regenerate after six years of intensive farming. Allowing the nutrients to return to the soil would provide for more productive harvests in the future. This tradition is indicative of an early awareness of the importance of environmental conservation, long before systematic use of fertilizers or any modern concepts of sustainability.

The ancient trading empire of Phoenicia, in what is today Lebanon, was noted for its purple dye. This was a major export product and source of revenue and wealth in the Phoenician economy. Numbers:15 in the Old Testament states

“38. Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue. 39. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord…”

Like Phoenician purple, this blue dye was drawn at the time from an uncommon mollusk. When tied into economic forces and trading opportunities, the mollusk became endangered and prices for the dye skyrocketed. Eventually, pressure eased in conjunction with more steadfast observance of shmita. Herein lies an early example of biodiversity conservation. The Biblical commandment is acknowledged in modernity by the colors and patterns of the Jewish prayer shawl, called a talit.

A talit and kippah, courtesy of James MacDonald via Flickr

There were social obligations associated with shmita as well. Since farmers did not actively grow crops at this time, any fruits or edible plants that grew on their own were deemed communal. This suggests a more cooperative economic and social system. Furthermore, outstanding debts were often forgiven and many indentured servants were released from their obligations.

Rabbi Ari Enkin suggests that the Talmud, another holy Jewish text, declares that the purpose of shmita is to remember that the land does not belong to people, but to God. This is further enforced, he argues, by the fact that God provides for people even when they do not work the land. In addition, some interpretations suggest that shmita enables hardworking farmers to take a break from their burdens and refocus their energies. Often this came in the form of more religious worship and, when in conjunction with the realization that the surrounding world belongs to God, reinforces faith in Him.

Extensive farmlands in the Golan Heights, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Especially considering that this very ancient practice referred to farming, and specifically in Israel, what modern, global applications and lessons besides direct environmental ones can we glean from it? Yom Kippur is the day of repentance; Jews seek forgiveness from God and from other people for the sins they have committed over the last year. This enables for a fresh start, or a clean slate as is commonly articulated. An important component of this custom is, as an individual, to be willing to grant forgiveness to those who seek it from you. This is as vital to a modern cooperative social system as was the ancient forgiveness of debts and release of servants. Incessant burdens, bitter memories, and grudges damage the individual just as incessant agriculture damages the soil and land. Shmita is an emotional “release” as well, vital for one’s health. It is important to step back, take a break, and start over fresh after a little while.

Though the esoteric Talmudic interpretation that the land belongs to God might not be as universally appealing in 2014, the general principle that the environment is a force that operates largely on its own terms is an important lesson. Perhaps a more suitable wording would be that the environment belongs to the Earth. Just as the ancient Jews recognized that they were part of a larger system that included things beyond their control, we too exist in such a dynamic. In addition, the Hebrews of old recognized that their actions could have consequences of an environmental nature, which in turn would affect their well being and livelihoods because they were deeply intertwined with their surrounding ecologies. This remains true today, and in our technological and globalized society the severity of the consequences of our actions are more alarming than ever. Finally, the very manners in which we think, identify, and behave are inspired in part by our very environments and their roles in our lives.

The environment is not an abstract set of ideas from which we are detached. It contributes substantially to who we are; acting in its benefit is mutually beneficial. May the new year bring release and a clean slate, and kindle hopes for our futures.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Alexander Smolianitski via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shmita: The Jewish Calendar Year of Environmental Conservation appeared first on Law Street.

A recent report by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows how the recession changed Americans’ charitable habits. “The wealthiest Americans — those who earned $200,000 or more — reduced the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012. Meanwhile, Americans who earned less than $100,000 chipped in 4.5 percent more of their income during the same time period.” The Washington Post took the report a bit further; in an op-ed Philip Bump notes that “Of the states that gave the most to charity in 2012, the top 17 all voted for Mitt Romney that year. The bottom seven states in giving all voted for Obama.” He points to a political split in charity, but also suggests that there is a tendency for religious people to give more. Bump refers back to another Chronicle report claiming that “The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind.”

The wealth and religiosity of people appear to heavily influence the size of their charitable giving. On the other hand, it seems like the correlation of “red states” and increased charitable donations is just that — a correlation. Because these states suffered more of the brunt of the recession, their increases in poverty were often higher than the national average. While there is a notable relationship between a state’s conservatism and its poverty level, this does not mean a state’s tendency to vote Republican is the direct cause of charitable giving increases. At the same time, the more conservative states are also more religious. This nexus of low-income and high-religiosity may be the most direct cause of increasing charitable donations. As lower-income people of faith experienced the turmoil of the recession, they were compelled to donate.

When examining religion as a social institution, this isn’t too surprising. When one social institution falters — the economic system, for example — people will often rely more heavily on another institution — say, religion. Thankfully, a lot of American religious institutions encourage charity. It seems like many Americans who were badly affected by the financial crisis deepened their religious commitments and, despite having less to give, gave more. While religion has individualistic significance, its community focus is illustrated nicely, here.

There are a number of reasons why religion encourages charity, but what is it about religion that delivers such results? What makes religion such a compelling force? Christianity’s appeals to community-mindedness certainly compelled U.S. Army veteran Jordan Matson to join Kurdish forces in fighting the Islamic State. USA Today reports that Matson left Wisconsin to get to the battleground where ISIS is gaining territory: “I couldn’t just sit and watch Christians being slaughtered anymore.” At 28 years old, Matson voluntarily flew to Syria to combat militant Islamic extremists. While religion is compelling ISIS to commit sick acts of terror, religion compelled Matson to stop it.

Faith asks people to suspend skepticism. For better or for worse, in this way faith makes it much easier to compel people to act. Proof isn’t required incite action, and fact isn’t necessary to mobilize the masses. When charity-based components of religion are brought into the fold by something like an economic crisis, the more devout may feel more compelled than others to give. This is, of course, only one component of the many religious matrices out there.

Philanthropic tendencies in America are, in part, driven by religiosity. We can’t afford to ignore this; policy should be developed that encourages philanthropy and religiously influenced charity. This power was touched on by President George Bush Sr. in one of America’s weirder inaugural addresses: “We can find meaning and reward by serving some purpose higher than ourselves — a shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light.” He asked Americans to volunteer and donate — an undoubtedly good appeal. But what we must create now is an agenda that harnesses the motivation behind the “thousand points of light” and capitalizes on the compelling nature of religion. Especially now that the rich are giving less and the poor are giving more, America could benefit from compelling our wealthiest to lend a helping hand more often.

—

 Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [James Cohen via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Religion Inspires Philanthropy, Especially Among Low-Income Observers appeared first on Law Street.

This is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you: Justice Antonin Scalia might have a point.

I know, I know. His “orthodoxy” and “originalism” are nothing but facades that make a joke out of Constitutional interpretation. His recalcitrance has a deteriorating effect on America. His arrogance knows no limits. But one of his thoughts contains a basic interpretation of the Constitution that is extremely important. A recent Denver Post article quotes Scalia saying, “’There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum…That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant.’”

I’ve already written about why it’s okay — and good — to include religion in the public discourse. So I will simply sum up my argument here: religion is still an integral part of American life, religion is still an integral American social institution, and religion still informs the morals of American public officials. Instead of dismissing that out of fear of a too-close relationship between church and state, let’s have it out in the open for our discussions. Now this one is hard for me to swallow, but it behooves me to agree with a basic component of Scalia’s belief. The separation of church and state, vital as it is, does not necessitate the eradication of religiosity from American life, public or private.

Despite feeling empty inside for supporting something that Justice Scalia said, I’ll press on. The topic is of utmost importance right now as more Americans are unhappy about perceived lack of religiosity, according to Pew Research. As 72 percent of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in the country, “a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics,” Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project claims. Scalia and I are on to something: religious presence in American public life is not only Constitutionally acceptable, but desired by an increasing number of people in the country.

What does this mean for political alignments in America? On one hand Pew notes that more “of the general public sees the Republican Party as friendly toward religion (47%) than sees the Democratic Party that way (29%).” On the other hand, there are “some signs of discontent within the GOP among its supporters, including evangelicals.” While Christians still dominate the American religious atmosphere, their political spread is complicated. Black Protestants overwhelmingly support the Democratic party as opposed to their White Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Catholic demographic is split between Republican Whites and Democratic Hispanics.

These spreads indicate how differentiated all religious Americans — even Christian Americans — are politically. Therefore, the growing number of Americans looking to see more religiosity in the U.S. political sphere is comprised of a variety of political interests. Neither liberals nor conservatives, then, should be too optimistic or pessimistic because of these demographics. Only those who oppose Scalia’s conception of church and state should be concerned. While religion may be less prevalent in public life right now, those who oppose religion in public life also have waning clout.

Scalia’s statement is consistent with the growing public sentiment, but how should the Supreme Court interpret this opinion? Of course, according to Scalia, the Supreme Court should completely ignore the current public dynamic and focus only on the “original” meaning of the Constitution. And in Scalia’s eyes, the “original” meaning of the First Amendment “explicitly favors religion” over non-religion, as he mentions in a recent Court opinion. Will the Supreme Court, and Scalia, look to the recent sentiments of the public to validate a preference of the religious over the non-religious? Or will some members of the Court defend agnostic and atheistic rights when applicable? With the Court slated to hear a few cases on religion in the near future, these questions should be mainstream.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justice Scalia Gets It Right: There is a Political Demand for Religion appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s some gross and weird racism to start off your Wednesday: a gun range in Arkansas has declared that it is a “Muslim-Free Business.” Jan Morgan runs the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, and is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment (although apparently not the rest of our Bill of Rights). She also subscribes to a particularly paranoid form of logic.

According to Morgan, the decision to ban Muslims from her business was based on an encounter in which:

Two Muslims walked in to my range last week with Allah Akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little English, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns. Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.

First of all, what in the world is an “Allah Akbar” ring tone? Allah Akbar is a phrase that means, essentially, “God is the Greatest.” It’s used in prayer or in times of distress. The name of the Libyan national anthem is similar — “Allahu Akbar” — but I highly doubt that’s what this woman was referring to. Was it just the phrase “Allah Akbar” over and over again?

On a more serious note, Morgan very well may have been concerned by the behavior of these two men. My guess is that the encounter she’s describing has been a little over exaggerated, but let’s pretend that it’s not. She and her customers may well have been concerned, and if they broke a reasonable rule that she’d created at her business — for example, having a valid ID — she had every right to refuse them service. Gun range owners do have the discretion to turn away people who seem, for example, drunk, or mentally ill. But that’s an individual decision based on the customer in question, not a blanket one.

Where the huge disconnect comes in, is that this apparently prompted her to ban anyone who is Muslim from her gun range, which makes about as much sense as banning all men because those two she encountered happened to be male. Or banning all young white men, because they are the most common to partake in mass shootings.

Morgan goes on to justify her paranoia and splendid racism with a list of nine reasons. Some are your garden variety xenophobia, but there are some standout examples of logical fallacies as well. Here’s a fun one:

In the 14 hundred year history, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

I enjoy how she starts this statement off with how not all Muslims are terrorists, but concludes that that doesn’t really matter. And she’s right, you can’t tell someone’s religion just by looking at them, so I’m assuming this leaves Morgan a couple choices: either ask her customers’ religion before they enter her business, or profile anyone who fits her definition of what someone who is Muslim looks like. Either is offensive, degrading, and inappropriate.

Also included in Morgan’s manifesto are random comments about Sharia Law coming to the United States, which no one can really prove, and lots about the violence of the “Koran.”

Morgan will have a suit brought against her by the ACLU. The executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, Rita Sklar, explained, “It’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It’s a violation of the right to religious liberty.”

Morgan, though, seems to have some support. If you want to really depress yourself, check out the comments on any article about this issue, or the Twitter mentions. That bothers me more than one crazy wingnut banning Muslims from her business, because it reminds me that so much of the country thinks this way.

Finally, Ms. Morgan claims she is a supporter of the Second  Amendment, but I think she needs a reminder of what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.

And let’s put all arguments about the Second Amendment aside for a minute here, because although I have conflicted feelings about what it actually means, there’s one thing in there that’s crystal clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There are no caveats in there. This is in an Amendment to our Constitution, a document that tells us that all men are created equal. Not all Christians are created equal, or all white people are created equal, or all Americans. Everyone. While Morgan does own a private business, her love of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that it’s right to ignore the rest of the document. The Bill of Rights isn’t multiple choice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [John Biehler via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Woman Bans “Muslims” From Her Gun Range appeared first on Law Street.

A group of Catholic nuns is denouncing the influence of big money in U.S. politics by conducting a 36-city tour across the country. The group, NETWORK, led by Sister Simone Campbell, kicked off its Nuns on a Bus campaign called “We the People, We the Voters” campaign. The group is advocating social justice through voter registration and expansion. The group has been the subject of criticism from other parts of the Catholic church, though, as part of an expanding internal conflict between Vatican authority and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Nuns on the Bus began their campaigning in 2012 when they condemned income inequality in battle ground states. In 2013 they addressed immigration reform. It isn’t hard to see why some more conservative church authorities would reprimand Sister Campbell and her group. A report from the Religion News Service (RNS) describes an attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the LCWR: “(Müller) said the sisters were focusing too much on social justice issues, such as caring for the poor and advocating for immigrants, and were too active in promoting healthcare reform.” In 2012, the LCWR was censured in a “doctrinal assessment” for exactly these actions. The Vatican isn’t alone in its criticism, though. The website CatholicCulture.org came out with a scathing article by its founder, Dr. Jeff Mirus, in August. “For decades, the LCWR has been vitiated by feminism, the New Age, Wicca, Modernism and just plain secularism,” Mirus writes.

By staying largely silent, Pope Francis has yet to be fully mired in the controversy. But a column in The Guardian expresses great disappointment in the Pope: “The really disheartening thing about the pope’s unwillingness to end the nuns’ censure – indeed, about his unwillingness to openly support them – is that his stated values are no different than the ones the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is being punished for carrying out,” writer Sadhbh Walshe noted. Cardinal Müller’s reproach of the LCWR is seemingly unregulated by Francis, who has long championed a greater church focus on social justice issues.

How is social justice work compatible with Catholic teachings, and what exactly is meant by “social justice”? For Sister Campbell, NETWORK, and the LCWR, social justice includes advocating for accessible health care, immigration reform and reduced corporate influence in elections. For Cardinal Müller and the Vatican, social justice advocacy is restricted to redressing abortion access.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the complex dynamics of religious authority and the dangers of generalizing when talking about religion. Two opposing interpretations of Catholic teachings on social justice are currently at war, and we wait on Pope Francis to make a statement. While it would be immature to demand that he take one side or another, it would be equally disappointing if he did not use his clout to make a meaningful statement on the matter. This case does more than just illustrate some different Catholic interpretations; it begs the question, why shouldn’t Pope Francis come out in support of the LCWR and activist nuns like Sister Campbell?

Francis also has the opportunity reject the exclusion of feminism from sanctioned church activity. Moreover, he has the opportunity to illustrate how feminism can support sanctioned church activity. Compatibility is the question here. How is feminism compatible with current Vatican doctrine and authority? The extent to which they are compatible can be suggested and advocated for, if not expressly dictated by, Pope Francis. If feminism has truly “vitiated” organizations like NETWORK and the LCWR, then it is also responsible for anti-torture campaigns, environmental activism, and advocacy of nuclear weapons restructuring.

From such an outsider’s perspective, it will never be my place to insist on this or that church doctrine. But Pope Francis, should he make a statement, as he has the opportunity to shape the relationship between feminism and the church.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [TexasImpact via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Pope Francis Can Shape Relationship Between Feminism and the Church appeared first on Law Street.

Conflict between religion and science is nothing new; starting in the seventeenth century, Enlightenment philosophers began to criticize religious traditions in favor of strict reasoning and the scientific method. More recently, a study led by Princeton economist Roland Bénabou argues that highly religious states lack scientific innovation. Controlling for factors such as per capita GDP, education, and foreign direct investment reveals the persistent obstacles to innovation that religion imposes. Measuring by the number of patents filed, countries — and even American states — show “a strong negative relationship” between religion and scientific innovation.

This study is vital to understanding the nature of religion in society and public life. Unfortunately, the scope and rigor of the research give credence to the claim that religion can be an impediment to progress. Considering that religion will not, and should not, go away any time soon, how do we reconcile its tendency to block scientific innovation with its importance in civilization? Full disclosure, I can’t say that I know the answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, this study may evoke concern about religion’s place in politics  But if we ignore religion in our politics and shove it to the margins of public discourse, the religious issues that we encounter won’t suddenly disappear. Instead, they will remain pervasive without an open forum for solutions and compromises. This study should, if nothing else, inspire us to bring religion into public discourse so that our leaders can foster open scientific inquiry. The study even cites the beginning of Islam’s spread and the “initial willingness of Muslim leaders to engage with logic and rational sciences.” Although opposition to such innovation was soon after opposed, progress was made “in chemistry and in medicine, and the use of the experimental method became widespread.”

Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation.

– Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project

Further, we should remember that patents in modern technology are not the only measure of societal progress. Research in sociology suggests that religion actually played a key role in the development of communities. New York University professor Jonathan Haidt examines some of the most important sociological development theories in his book, The Righteous Mind. He discusses how, evolutionarily, humans “have a few group-related adaptations” along with those that natural selection gave us on the level of the individual. Religion helps progress “gene-culture coevolution,” forging stronger groups and communities through cultural and genetic evolution. As Haidt writes, “religious practices have been binding our ancestors into groups for tens of thousands of years.”

Undoubtedly, scientific innovations and technological advancements are key to growth; be it economic development or further cultural tolerance, science and reason can be powerful forces for development. That being said, the ancient communities that evolved into today’s great nations are indebted to religion’s role in bolstering their abilities to cooperate. So, while religiosity can be an obstacle for technological innovation, it has historically been a force for creating strong moral communities and binding groups together.

Choosing one way to measure how a state or society advances can help us track progress, but it is dangerous to ignore other metrics for understanding human development. We should keep in mind the positive effects of religion, and not declare it unfit for political discussion. Our rational discourse and scientific creativity would suffer from doing so.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and is looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Role of Religion in Scientific Innovation appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

With all of the recent issues in the media, Satanism has become a unique topic of discussion. Rarely spoken of, it tends to be a controversial taboo, and a typically condemned ideology. Despite all of the negative debate, it is interesting to analyze the legality behind such a forbidden topic, and see how the controversies surrounding recent incidences are handled by the courts.

Part of what the United States was built on was the freedom to freely practice the religion of one’s choice. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is no amendment which excludes or singles out a particular religion as not applying to the constitution. According to John Farina, a professor of Religion and Law at George Mason University, “The state is incompetent to make judgments about what is a good religion and what isn’t.” Legality of religion is not about morality or ethics, it is about breaking the law. So where does Satanism fall within this spectrum. Here is an in depth look at the legality of Satanism.

What is Satanism?

According to Contemporary Religious Satanism, “Satanism of today is atheistic[…] Satanic ideology states that one should pursue one’s own satisfaction.” There is discrepancy between how scholars define the religion and how the organization defines it themselves, but Satanism can loosely be defined as more of a philosophy than a religion that focuses on “empowerment, self-realization, actualization, [and] assertion or development […] a general opposition to all traditional and modern institutions of authority.”  Satanists do not embrace evilness per se, yet they embrace rebellion and prefer not to adhere to the conformity of traditional religion. Many Satanists feel that that have been wronged by society, and choose to resort to this alternative lifestyle.

Case Study: The Black Mass at Harvard University

At Harvard University, there was a planned Satanic ceremony, called Black Mass to occur in May 2014. The mass would mock the classic Catholic mass, with the students intent of “exercising their First Amendment rights.” The Cultural Studies Club wanted to explore and demonstrate a new realm of religious expression. According to CNN, a cultural studies club student at Harvard said,  “Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes…but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices.” Some students felt that this was a very innovative and enlightening idea; others were extremely upset and wanted to put an immediate end to what they felt was an an attack.

The Harvard Extension School said in a statement that it encouraged students to assemble freely. However, “we do not agree with the student group’s decision to stage an event that is so deeply disturbing and offensive to many in the Harvard community and beyond.” As a university, a private institution, Harvard does not owe this group of students the right to hold a religious ceremony. The Constitution does not require nor regulate an educational establishment; and a private institution has the right to oversee and set precedent for the students’ public activity on the account of preserving a safe environment, that is conducive to learning. The fact that the Black Mass caused such an extreme backlash from a large portion of the student body and staff gave Harvard more than enough reason to put a halt on the ceremony before it started.

To see an interview with one of the participants of the Black Mass click here:

Case Study: Oklahoma Satanist Group Attempts to Erect a Statue in Celebration of Satanism

In Oklahoma, a Satanist group is currently battling to have their statue erected in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol. The statue is being built in a studio in New York City, and is almost in its final form. The statue is a seven-foot tall demon-like man with a goat’s head; the figure has long horns, a beard, and wears a partial smirk. Two children statue look up admiringly at the demon-like man.  The group argues that they should be able to place their statue on the grounds because the Ten Commandments are displayed there. If a religious symbol is already placed on public grounds, how can the state block the Satanist group from displaying their statue? According to CNS News, Lucien Greaves, a representative for the Satanic Temple argued, “We would have never suggested that a Satanic monument should be represented on Capitol grounds if it weren’t for the fact that the 10 Commandments were already there. The idea of a solitary monument, related to any one religion, standing on Capitol grounds is offensive. “

According to ABC 15, “In December, state lawmakers told CNN that the satanists’ message wouldn’t fly in their Bible Belt state, where nearly two-thirds of the population are Christian.” In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the courts ruled in an establishment clause that a federal nor a state government “can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Justice Black also ruled that there can be no official church of the state established. Religion is an independent facility, and should be treated accordingly. Oklahoma’s legislators are contradicting the basic principle which is established in the case; by erecting a statue symbolizing one religion’s values, yet denying another the right to display their symbols publicly. Farina says, “The court has to balance that religious freedom right against the compelling interest of the state.” In this case, it is clear where to majority lies, yet seems to contradict the separation between church and state clause. In fact, neither the ten commandments nor the demon statue should be displayed on public grounds. Religion should remain a private entity, and be confined to a religious establishment.

This First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, banning any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” was made applicable to the states by due process and the Fourteenth Amendment. In terms of religion, the only way that the government can intervene and regulate is when there is illegal activity or criminal action resulting from the religious practices.

An example of this scenario was Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (2005). In this case, which was brought to the Supreme Court, O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (“UDV”), a Brazilian religious group in the United States, claimed that they needed to import a hallucinate tea which included the drug DMT for a part of their religious ritual. According to Farina, UDV won the case and was able to continue to import the tea on account of traditional religious purposes tied to the consumption of this mind-altering tea.

Case Study: Van Orden v. Perry

Another case that supports the preferential treatment of certain religions is the Van Orden v. Perry case in 2005. In this case former lawyer, Van Orden, sued Texas for the display of the Ten Commandments on state capitol grounds. He claimed that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, in which the government is banned from making an official religion or favoring one over the other. In this case, the state won on the grounds that “the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning.” The fact that the monument included historical context that applies to national history, outweighed its secular purpose. According to Legal Information Institute, this where an inherent is a contradiction lies, “One face looks to the past in acknowledgment of our Nation’s heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and state.” Yet, one has to argue what is history truly . Although, we have a very mainstreamed view on what is taught in the educational system, what one may deem important is subjective to that person’s background and upbringing. Anything that is suggested for a secular purpose can easily offend anyone with opposing personal view.

Tax Exemption

According to Farina, there really is no such thing as a legal religion. The only thing that would make a religion “valid” would be their status with the IRS and whether or not they receive exemption from paying taxes. In the 2001 case, ESA v. Rylander,  the Ethical Society of Austin applied to the courts to get tax exemption for being a religious organization; they were initially granted the benefit by the courts, yet the decision was revoked when the courts decided that in order for it to legally be considered a religious organization the religion must worship a “supreme being.” In 2010 Oklahoma granted the Satanist church tax-exemption. According to Pro Con, “A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution.” This statement may cause Satanist establishments issues when applying for tax exemption in their state. On the other hand, according to TCI College Law Review, “there is no adequate definition of a protected religion or religious tax exempt activity […] religious institutions are not obligated to perform services to the community in return for the tax exemption.” Also, tax exemptions are not required by the First Amendment, therefore the state courts are left to handle the decision, which leads to inconsistency in the state’s legislation.

 Private vs. Public Interests

What it really boils down to is religion is truly a private entity. As the constitution supports the idea that people should be able to worship freely, it does not support the public involvement in the matter. Religion is personal; no religious organization should have the freedom to express their beliefs in an aggressive manner. Legally, Satanists should have the right to practice their religion (as long as they do not break any laws). The issue for most people seems to be more about morality, when we bring up a religion that has such a negative connotation.

Resources

Primary 

Charters of Freedom: Bill of Rights

Harvard: Statement on ‘Black Mass’

Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

US Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit: Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

SCOTUS: Van Orden v. Perry

Additional

USA Today: Satanic ‘Black Mass’ at Harvard canceled

Boston Globe: Amid Outcry, Black Mass at Harvard is Called Off

Fox News: Satanic Group Says Oklahoma Must Give the Devil His Due

Cornell Law: Establishment Clause

Boston Globe: Satan Statue Should be Welcome in Oklahoma

New York Daily News: Devil-Worship Group Unveils Satanic Statue Design for Oklahoma State Capitol

ABC 15: Satanists Unveil Design for Oklahoma Statehouse Statue

Time: ‘Black Mass’ on Harvard Campus Canceled

CNN: Update: Harvard’s Satanic ‘Black Mass’ Cancelled

ProCon: Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?

Jesper Aagaard Peterson: Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Giving the Devil His Due: the Legality of Satanism appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Loves, how many of you watched the Oscars on Sunday night?

I did, after a fair amount of effort finagling a live-stream feed onto my TV. Thanks for the complication, Time Warner!

Anyway, if you stayed up to watch the end — or if you’ve been on the internet in the last 48 hours — you’ll know that Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor. Moment of silence for Leonardo DiCaprio, who’s having nightmares right now.

This what Leonardo DiCaprio’s nightmares look like #Oscars pic.twitter.com/yhkAkgDxSP

— Joel Pavelski (@joelcifer) March 3, 2014

Anyway, conservatives are freaking out about McConaughey’s Oscar acceptance speech. In it, the first thank you he threw out into the void was to God, making him one of only four actors to mention the Almighty in an Oscar acceptance speech over the last 12 years.

“First off,” said McConaughey, “I want to thank God, because that’s who I look up to. He has graced my life with opportunities that I know are not of my hand or of any other human hand. He has shown me that it’s a scientific fact that gratitude reciprocates … When you’ve got God, you’ve got a friend, and that friend is you.”

D’aw. Conservatives are drooling over this show of Christian religiosity. Please note, no one gave half a shit about the other three God-thankers in recent Oscar history — because none of them were white, Texas boys with a charming Southern drawl.

Anyway! Here’s what the conserva-turds have to say about Matthew’s Godly mention.

Rick Perry tweeted out Monday morning:

Texas boy counting his blessings. http://t.co/O6fbEN4QrF

— Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry) March 3, 2014

Tea Party darling Michelle Malkin proclaimed via Twitter:

Silence a Hollywood liberal: Give thanks to God. http://t.co/FYOMiCoQFg

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 3, 2014

And of course, not to be left out, Fox News chimed in with an unusually straight-news style headline: “Matthew McConaughey one of few to thank God in Oscar acceptance speech.”

Folks, the conservative Right’s excitement over McConaughey’s God speech is interesting for a few reasons.

First of all — holy racism, Batman. I mentioned that there were three other Oscar winners who thanked God in their acceptance speeches in recent years. Those actors are Denzel Washington, Jennifer Hudson, and Forrest Whitaker. They’re all Black. And no conservative pundits cared even a little, tiny bit, when they mentioned God on Oscar night.

Some would argue that’s because African-Americans are statistically more likely to be devout Christians. When stereotypes abound about church-going, Gospel-singing Black folk, who’s really surprised when Black actors start talking about God? Clearly, no one.

But I’d say that’s not the real reason conservatives are so much more excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Godliness than Jennifer Hudson’s. What’s actually going on here?

Conservatives see Matthew McConaughey as one of them. And they’re all kinds of pumped that someone on their team is a visible member of the Hollywood glitterati.

After all, McConaughey’s wearing the uniform. He’s white, straight, cis-gendered, and charmingly Southern. He’d fit right in if he headed back to the Bible Belt—he’s even related to a Confederate soldier. He’s a perfect poster boy.

But it goes deeper than that. The most important aspect of McConaughey’s conservative appeal is his narcissism.

After he finished thanking God, Matthew launched into a weird diatribe about how he’s his own hero. It was kind of bizarre, and if you try really hard, you can squeeze some inspirational juice out of it along the lines of, “You’re your own toughest competition, be the best you can be!”

Except you’d have to try really, really hard. The clearest takeaway here is that Matthew McConaughey is really obsessed with himself. And he kind of always has been. Remember when he got married, and all he could talk about was how lucky his wife was to have him as her Prince Charming? Barf.

Conservatives are notorious for their narcissism. That’s exactly the trait that allows them to vilify poor people, single mothers, women, and abortion providers. It’s how they came up with that term, “personal responsibility,” and used it to dismantle the social safety net. It’s the reasoning behind their destructive opposition to basic human needs, like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and nutritious food.

Conservatives are conservative because their politics lack empathy. They’re unable to put themselves into someone else’s shoes. It’s easy to fight for a ban on abortion when you’ve never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s even easier to claim that universal healthcare is communism when you’ve never been denied access to medical care because of your inability to cough up the cash.

It’s fairly common for conservatives to switch teams when they’re faced with shitty situations. Take this guy for example, who worked on the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. He went from a Republican staffer to an Obamacare activist — after he was diagnosed with cancer and denied health insurance.

Republicans often can’t see the harm their policies cause until they’re in the middle of their own self-inflicted crosshairs. Even then, if they switch teams, it’s primarily for self-preservation. Right-wing politics is all about narcissistic self-interest. I do not like this, their policies scream like a toddler throwing a tantrum. And it’s imperative that I get what I want.

This pretty much sums up Right-wing politics.

So, it makes sense for people like Michelle Malkin and Rick Perry to be excited about Matthew McConaughey’s Oscar speech. God talk aside, it was about as narcissistic as you can get. And that resonates with conservatives.

So, while your Internet is blowing up about the Godliness of McConaughey, please remember that his speech wasn’t reflective of Christian values like peace and charity. It’s no coincidence that conservatives are excited about it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matthew McConaughey Is Narcissistic at the Oscars, Becomes Conservative Hero appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

The Learning Channel, or TLC, has made a name for itself in recent years for creating shows that showcase a variety of family arrangements. From the infamous “Jon & Kate plus Eight” to “Little People, Big World,” TLC stars are probably used to seeing themselves in headlines. But one of TLC’s shows, “Sister Wives,” is making headlines this week for a different reason–they were on the winning side of a lawsuit against Utah’s polygamy laws that was ruled on Friday.

“Sister Wives” stars consists of Kody Brown, his four wives, and their 17 children. They are Fundamentalist Mormons and members of a church called Apostolic United Brethren, a specific sect within the greater Latter Day Saints church. Most Mormons don’t practice polygamy now, but some do, and AUB is one of them. According to Principle Voices, a polygamy lobby and advocacy group, there are about 38,000 Mormons in the United States who practice, or at least believe in the practice of, polygamy.

“Sister Wives” began airing in 2010 and the fourth season started last summer. Brown is legally speaking only married to his first wife–Meri. The other three, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn are all married to Brown in a spiritual and religious, but not legal, sense. Since the show began, a bigamy investigation was opened by the state. The Browns have since fled from their home in Utah, to Las Vegas, NV. They were scared of persecution due to their polygamist family arrangement.

Until last Friday, Utah had some of the strictest anti-bigamy and anti-polygamy laws in the country. It was illegal to even claim you were married to multiple people, or to live with multiple partners. Most other states have made it so that it is illegal to obtain multiple marriage licenses, or try to obtain a marriage license to someone who is already married.

Under the former Utah definition, the living arrangement of the Browns would have been illegal. In Utah, it would have been classified as up to a third-degree felony, warranting a fine of up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison. State attorneys have used the law to prosecute polygamous families successfully in the past.

The Browns brought the lawsuit against Utah about two years ago, claiming that their constitutional right to privacy was being violated by the Utah law, as well as their right of religious freedom. US District Court Judge Clark Waddoups agreed with the Browns in a 91-page ruling he released on Friday. The ruling struck down only the cohabitation portion of the Utah polygamy law, and rendered it similar to polygamy laws in most other states. Now, it is only illegal to attempt to legally marry someone, or attempt to seek a marriage license if you are already married. In his decision, Judge Waddoups pointed out that the law is “too broad because it bars consenting adults from living together and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships”.

This is seen as a huge win for both fundamentalist Mormons, as well as privacy-rights advocates. Given the national debate about marriage rights, whether this will move in a wave of changes could be interesting. But my prediction is that it will not, and that Judge Waddoups’ ruling was just a move to catch up an antiquated law in a conservative state to the rest of the United States.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Kyle Pearce via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Sister Wives” Win Big Case appeared first on Law Street.