February 17, 2009
February 16, 2009
February 15, 2009
February 12, 2009
February 11, 2009
February 10, 2009
February 09, 2009
February 07, 2009
January 28, 2009
FREE EXERCISE
Kara Neumann
The link below.
Because today's video refers to several Supreme Court decisions which you may want to investigate further, we are printing the entire text of the piece below.
FREE EXERCISE
This is what the U.S. Constitution says about religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
That’s it. Sixteen words. With so many members of the religious right arguing that America is a Christian nation, it’s interesting that there is no mention anywhere in our founding document of god. Nothing about tax-exempt status. Nothing about whether or not ministers can order their congregations to vote for or against a candidate without his church becoming a political entity and thus no longer protected by this amendment.
You would think that the first part, known as the “Establishment Clause,” is pretty self-explanatory: the state can’t establish an official religion. But even that simple statement has been subject to argument between two opposing interpretations. “Accomodationists” think that because religion plays such a big part in their community, that certain accommodations should be made: a manger scene on the lawn of the city hall at Christmastime, the ten commandments posted in a courtroom, creationism taught as scientific theory in public schools. “Separationists,” on the other hand, side with Thomas Jefferson who wrote that the Establishment Clause built “a wall of separation between church and state.”
The second part, the Free Exercise Clause, is even more problematical. The Supreme Court pretty much avoided clarifying what the limits of “free exercise” were for almost a century. In Reynolds v. The United States in 1879, they ruled that it did not apply to acts that were “violations of social duties or subversive of good order.” In that case they ruled that Federal Law outlawing polygamy, as practiced by the Mormon religion, was constitutional. Apparently they saw polygamy as subversive of good order.
In the 1930s, Jehovah’s Witnesses held that state laws requiring them to pledge allegiance to the flag with a salute—later replaced by the hand over the heart—violated the free exercise clause. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 the court ruled against the church saying that political authority held sway over religious liberty. A peculiar ruling to say the least, given that even an insular reading of the amendment could hardly find such behavior “subversive of good order.” And the court reversed itself three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
What about when children are involved. Recently in Texas, 400 children were taken from their families at a polygamist compound because there were indications—later found to be either false or greatly exaggerated—of abuse and forced marriages of minors. An appeals court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to hold the children and they were returned to their parents. But no higher court has ruled on the legality of removing the children in the first place.
What about sects that believe only God heals, and avoid seeking medical attention for their sick children. Should the parents be held accountable? Kara Neumann of Marathon County, Wisconsin, was eleven when she became ill. But her parents were members of an online church which preaches that only Jesus can heal the sick, and consequently despite obvious indications that the child was severely ill and getting worse, never took her to a hospital. Kara died of untreated juvenile-onset diabetes. The county state’s attorney filed charges against the Neumanns for reckless endangerment. But the Neumanns argued that they should not be brought to trial because such charges were a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and therefore unconstitutional.
The circuit court disagreed and ruled that the case could go forward, saying “The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct.” It seems certain that no matter what the outcome in Marathon County, this issue will not go away any time soon.
Click the link below and read about Kara and her parents. Does the judges ruling weaken or strengthen Jefferson’s wall? Tell us what you think.
curiositytank.com
The link below.
