Religious liberty

  • March 20, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Leslie Griffin, Larry & Joanne Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics at the University of Houston Law Center


    Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church condemned the separation of church and state and taught that only Catholics had the right to public worship and religious liberty. In a series of nuanced essays written from 1940-1965, the New York Jesuit Catholic priest John Courtney Murray developed a historical argument that the prohibition on separation was not a timeless, universal norm, but was best understood as a response to the anticlerical liberalism of modern Europe. Hence, Murray concluded, American Catholics could favor the separation of church and state even though Rome (mistakenly) opposed it. Senator John F. Kennedy consulted Murray as he prepared his famous 1960 campaign address to Houston Baptist ministers pledging his commitment to the separation of church and state. The speech set the stage for Kennedy’s election as the first Catholic president of the United States.

    The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church approved the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), at the last session of the Council in December 1965. DH changed prior Catholic teaching by affirming that religious liberty is the right of every human person, not a right of Catholics only. Murray was the lead drafter of the declaration.

    Murray told reporter Robert Blair Kaiser in 1965 that the “resolution of the religious liberty issue had ‘transferential implications’ for those trying to work out the birth control question.” The “birth control question” asked if the church should revise its prohibition on artificial contraception. After extensive debate and reports from a papal commission, the church did not do so. Pope Paul VI instead reaffirmed the immorality of contraception in his 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV).

    HV is the intellectual source of the Catholic Church’s current battle with the Obama administration over the provision of contraceptive insurance to its Catholic and non-Catholic employees. The church teaches that contraception is morally wrong as a matter of natural law for all men and women, Catholic and non-Catholic, married and non-married, without regard to whether they choose to believe or accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    No one doubts that the bishops are sincere in their commitment to the anti-contraception moral principle. They are mistaken, however, to believe that the religious freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution entitles them to enforce their moral beliefs on others through force of law. Murray and Kennedy had a better sense of what the Constitution protects.

  • January 28, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Rajdeep Singh, Director of Law and Policy for the Sikh Coalition.

    Consider the following scenario and ask yourself whether it is fair:

    You live in California, work hard, pay taxes, and decide to pursue a public service career. You have a military background and apply for a job as a state corrections officer. Despite your qualifications, a state agency tells you that you must abandon your religion because of a demonstrably false assumption that you cannot comply with a purported safety requirement, which (as it turns out) is selectively enforced. An administrative body hears your case at a trial and determines that you suffered workplace discrimination, but the agency that refused to hire you flouts the ruling. As a last resort, you file suit in state court, and the office of the California Attorney General uses your taxpayer dollars to oppose you.

    This is what happened to Mr. Trilochan Singh Oberoi, a Sikh American. Regrettably, more than a century after migrating to California, Sikhs in the most populous state in the nation still face regressive barriers to equal employment opportunity and the specter of being given the runaround by their own state government.

    On November 10, 2008, after a two-day trial, the California State Personnel Board (SPB) determined that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) discriminated against Mr. Oberoi, who was denied a job as a corrections officer because of his beard, based on his religious beliefs, which in part require him to keep his beard uncut.

  • September 8, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Saeed Khan, a former president of the Muslim Association of North Central Florida. Mr. Khan is a Gainesville, Fla., resident of more than thirty years where Pastor Terry Jones has drawn widespread attention for a planned burning of Qurans.
    The Dove World Outreach Center was established in 1986 in suburban Gainesville, Fla., where its current pastor, Mr. Terry Jones, assumed his role in 1996. America was attacked by a fringe group of terrorists on September 11, 2001. Almost eight years later, Pastor Jones decided that "Islam is of the devil" and this year he wants to burn the Quran, the Muslim's holy book, on the anniversary of 9/11.

    What has happened during these years that convinced Pastor Jones to take these actions? Why did he not come out earlier against Islam?

    As he told The New York Times, Pastor Jones has not read the Quran and he is not familiar with any aspect of Islam. Who is speaking in Jones's ear and using him to push their agenda? When it was first conceived in 2009, the building of the community center on 51 Park in New York City was not strongly opposed. In fact, all local authorities supported it. Even Fox News contributor Laura Ingram was for it. "I like what you are doing," she told Daisy Khan, proponent of the center. All of a sudden the dialogue has changed; now the center is being referred to as a mosque, to be built on the hallowed grounds of the World Trade Center. No matter that it is not a mosque and the site is not the World Trade Center but rather an empty blighted building two blocks away. Again I ask, what happened?

    I maintain that these events are the result of old fashioned politics. In the absence of an alternative plan to improve the economy and win the wars, opponents of President Obama want to create an issue. Because his faith was already in question, his opponents want to make an issue about his purported faith. This tactic appears to be working. According to the Pew Research Center's national survey conducted this month, 18 percent of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim, a 7 percent increase since 2009. Now that they have maligned and criticized the faith, the next step is to instigate problems. Former House speaker Mr. Gingrich, commenting on Park 51, compared Islam to Nazism. "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center." Mr. Gingrich even planned to join Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders in New York on the anniversary of 9/11, an affront to the memory of Muslims who lost their lives in the World Trade Center on that terrible day.

  • August 25, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Donna Lieberman, Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union, and Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU.

    Cross-posted at ACLU's Blog of Rights

    "Of course you have the right to build a mosque, but it is insensitive to build it there."

    This is the newest version of the call from critics of the proposed Islamic center in downtown New York City. The sentiment may at first blush seem sensitive: it recognizes the trauma of 9/11, the sacred nature of Ground Zero and the constitutional right to religious freedom. But the sentiment that the Islamic center can be built - just elsewhere - inevitably reflects a prejudice and intolerance that is in fact inconsistent with religious freedom.

    To conclude that building the Islamic center near Ground Zero is insensitive, one must, consciously or not, believe that the Muslims of downtown New York City who will come to the center to pray are - by virtue of their faith - all tainted by the terrorists who committed an atrocious act in the name of Islam. How else to explain the alleged "insensitivity"?

    Political leaders like Mayor Bloomberg in New York should be praised for standing up for religious freedom in the face of political pressure. But the voices of prejudice still fill the airwaves, and outright hostility toward mosques continues to flare up around the country in locations having no relation to any acts of terrorism.

  • August 24, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Sahar Aziz. Ms. Aziz is the author of Sticks and Stones, Words That Hurt: Entrenched Stereotypes Eight Years After 9/11 published in the New York City Law Review. She is a Legal Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and serves as counsel to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

    The political backlash and opportunism surrounding President Obama's defense of Muslims' First Amendment rights jeopardizes religious freedom for all Americans.

    On August 13, 2010, the White House sponsored the annual Iftar, a tradition started by President Clinton in 1996, commemorating the month of Ramadan. Diplomats, members of Congress, and community leaders from diverse backgrounds celebrated America's venerable support for religious diversity and freedom.

    At the dinner President Obama accurately summarized the Founders' intent to preserve religious freedom in America, for native-born and immigrant alike. He commendably stated, "As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan."

    Republicans were quick to criticize President Obama for "endorsing" of what has misleadingly come to be known as the "Ground Zero Mosque." Facing a tough reelection, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke with Obama, joining those who call for the mosque to be built somewhere else. Leading critics claim that they aren't opposed to building the community center and mosque per se, but rather its location. But their claim is belied by growing protests against mosques in cities across the country, not to mention escalating religious bigotry on the internet and a scheduled Koran burning on September 11. Statements from major figures like Newt Gingrich comparing supporters of the community center to Nazis make it clear that, in fact, all Muslims are being falsely tarred with the brush of extremism.