The Pew Forum’s annual report on religious freedom is out, and for the first time in its four-year history, it reports a rising tide of religious restrictions in the United States. This increase has moved the U.S., again for the first time, from Pew’s “low” to “moderate” category of restrictions.
Note especially that these are restrictions imposed specifically by government bodies, and that the report is on the state of affairs two years ago, well before recent, prominent religious restrictions (like the administration’s extraordinary argument in Hosanna Tabor and promulgation of the HHS mandate) hit the headlines:
Individuals were prevented from wearing certain religious attire or symbols, including beards, in some judicial settings or in prisons, penitentiaries or other correctional facilities. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that it was pursuing a lawsuit in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various California officials on behalf of a Sikh prison inmate who, in March 2010, had been ordered to trim his facial hair in violation of his religious beliefs. [ . . . ]
In May 2010, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Boulder County Commissioners had discriminated against the Rocky Mountain Christian Church by denying it permits to expand its school and worship facilities even though the commissioners had issued permits to a nearby secular school for a similar expansion. . . . The Justice Department — in a report marking the 10th anniversary of the passage of RLUIPA — noted that 31 of its 51 land-use investigations from 2000-2010 involved Christian groups; most of the remaining 20 investigations involved religious minorities, including Muslims (seven investigations), Jews (six), Buddhists (three) and Hindus (one).
They also cite the Sharia-law fears (which I wrote against in an article for National Review):
From mid-2009 to mid-2010, at least one state sought to restrict the application of Islamic or sharia law. In the spring of 2010, Oklahoma legislators proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would have banned state courts from considering sharia law or international law in their decisions. (The constitutional change was later approved in a statewide vote, but a federal appeals court struck down the amendment in January 2012, saying it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)
A particularly embarrassing episode concerns a prisoner who wasn’t accommodated in making a religious conversion:
And, for the first time, one of the primary sources used in this study reported that some level of government in the U.S. had imposed limits on conversion. A report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief mentions an incident at the Southport Correctional Facility, an ultra-maximum security prison near Elmira, N.Y., in which a prisoner was denied the right to change his religious designation to Muslim. The inmate complained that he could not participate in Ramadan observances without an official change to his religious designation in the New York Department of Correctional Services’ records.
It should be noted that none of these examples implicate the Obama administration, and one (sharia law) implicates the conservative movement. That said, things will not look good for the president in Pew’s forthcoming reports. Catholic objections to paying for contraceptives are no less significant than, say, a Sikh’s objection to shaving his beard. In issuing the HHS mandate requiring religious entities to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives, the current administration has decided to ride at the crest of this new wave of religious restrictions.
Many commentators say complaints on new religious restrictions are exaggerated, but this latest report from Pew suggests that the danger is real and rising.
September 20th, 2012 | 11:22 am
If you’re in prison, you’re in prison. You’re not there to have a good time, you’re there to be denied freedom, and people certainly should not be “accommodated” in any way. In England, it was reported that prisoners were converting to Islam, for all the privileges that Muslim prisoners receive: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9298578/Prisoners-under-pressure-to-convert-to-Muslim-gang.html
Sharia law is a legitimate fear. A judge in New Jersey held that a Muslim husband had the right to rape his wife, because Islamic culture does not recognize marital rape as actual rape. In Germany, a judge denied a protective order request from a battered wife to a Muslim, even quoting the part of the Koran that says that men have the right to beat their wives.
September 20th, 2012 | 11:40 am
I may have mentioned this before, but a contributor on Mirror of Justice suggested to me that a good way of monitoring day-to-day developments of this kind was by reading Religion Clause Blog, which has (to quote the site itself) “objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.” I think many here will find the site as fascinating as I do. I am amazed at the number of cases involving prisoners and wonder if the uptick in the number of restrictions on religious freedom might be due in part to more prisoners than ever before asserting religious rights—kosher food, halal food, special clothing and grooming accommodations, times and spaces for religious practices, and so on.
September 20th, 2012 | 11:49 am
If you’re in prison, you’re in prison. You’re not there to have a good time, you’re there to be denied freedom, and people certainly should not be “accommodated” in any way.
Should Catholic not be allowed to attend Mass on Sundays? Should Orthodox Jews be denied kosher food? Should practicing Muslims be denied halal food? I don’t see why a person should be denied freedom of religion because he or she is incarcerated. I think the standard should probably be “reasonably accommodation.” Suppose an atheist wants to convert to Catholicism. She he or she be denied baptism? There may be practical limits, but certainly people in prison do not lose their constitutional rights.
I wonder if this is an issue where liberals would tend to be more in favor of religious rights than conservatives.
September 20th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Quite rich to see one of our atheist commenters fall for the anti-sharia movement’s lies.
September 20th, 2012 | 2:56 pm
David: Should Orthodox Jews be denied kosher food?
One of the marks of prison is that one is deprived of freedom. One does not get to choose what one eats, where one goes, and who one’s roommate is. I won’t get restaurant food, nor can another man demand caviar. That’s what a prison is, unfreedom.
David: I don’t see why a person should be denied freedom of religion because he or she is incarcerated.
I oppose not freedom, but making demands based on their religion. For all I care, they can stay up all night and pray to their god(s). I draw the line when they make demands on others. I cannot demand that I be served Chinese food, why should they get privileges?
Matthew: Quite rich to see one of our atheist commenters fall for the anti-sharia movement’s lies.
Here are the links.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/justifying-marital-violence-a-german-judge-cites-koran-in-divorce-case-a-473017.html
http://www.volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/
September 20th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
A judge in New Jersey held that a Muslim husband had the right to rape his wife, because Islamic culture does not recognize marital rape as actual rape.
Maximilian,
And the judge was overruled on appeal.
In Germany, a judge denied a protective order request from a battered wife to a Muslim, even quoting the part of the Koran that says that men have the right to beat their wives.
And the judge was immediately removed from the case.
It is very misleading to cite cases like these (with no documentation or links) and not acknowledge the outcomes. It is phony evidence for your case.
September 20th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
I oppose not freedom, but making demands based on their religion.
Maximilian,
What country are you from? Here in the United States a person does not lose all constitutional freedoms when he or she is incarcerated.
September 20th, 2012 | 8:41 pm
David: And the judge was overruled on appeal.
And is it not an outrage that such a ruling was made to begin with? Sharia law is not as far off as some claim. Here you had an actual judge (who is still judge and has not been removed) approving of rape, because Sharia law allowed it. You know how difficult it is for victims of rape to even come forward. And to be told by a “judge” that rape is perfectly fine because of Sharia law, would be a devastating blow. Appeal, yes, but I think many victims of rape would have been too devastated to appeal (this was a civil, not criminal case), as many are too devastated to report the crime to begin with. This man sits on the bench still, and will be there to victimize another person.
And if you have one such judge, why not more? Why not two out of the three who would hear the appeal? Obviously, there is some sort of confusion among cultural relativists on the bench, about whether American law supersedes Sharia law. It is entirely proper and reasonable to clear up this confusion, and to remove whatever excuse they may have, and to protect future victims from such a hammerblow.
David: And the judge was immediately removed from the case.
I thought she was removed from the bench entirely. It’s a long time ago, and my memory is not perfect.
David: It is very misleading to cite cases like these (with no documentation or links) and not acknowledge the outcomes. It is phony evidence for your case.
Not really, no. The point was not that Sharia law is already being applied, but that there are judges who are willing to apply Sharia law, dealing hammerblows to the victims of disgusting crimes – and who continue to be judge, to victimize another person in this manner. I believe that Sharia law is already illegal, but it is not obvious enough for the New Jersey judge. Hence, it needs to be made clear that this is unacceptable.
September 21st, 2012 | 5:50 am
Maximillian
One of the difficulties with Shari’ah is that it is not a purely religious code, but it has been incorporated into the civil law of numerous countries.
Now, the courts of all nations have had to develop a system of Private International Law [Le conflit des droits] to address cases with a foreign element. A very important class of these cases has involved questions of civil status: questions of marriage, divorce, paternity, legitimacy, legitimation, adoption and the closely-related question of inheritance, nationality and residence rights. In the interests of international comity and in order to give effect to existing rights, courts have traditionally applied the personal law of the parties to these cases.
Now, suppose citizens of one country, in which Shari’ah is part of the law of the land, say Algeria or Pakistan, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in a country, like France, where marriage is strictly monogamous. The courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the ladies living under his protection in a polygamous marriage is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife described in their Code Civil to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them. This remains true, even if the marriage is merely potentially polygamous.
Of course, every country has the right to enforce its criminal law against those within the jurisdiction, but the other questions I listed above remain and are currently vexing the courts of Europe. No doubt, American courts will have to address the issue, too.
September 21st, 2012 | 9:53 am
David: What country are you from? Here in the United States a person does not lose all constitutional freedoms when he or she is incarcerated.
You can even have “gender reassignment surgery” at the state’s expense. But an is does not make an ought, as your namesake Hume pointed out. Norway’s mass murderer Breivik lives in what is a de facto five star hotel, that does not make it right. British prisons confer upon Muslims so many privileges, that people convert to Islam to be similarly privileged. That does not make it right.
Even so, you undermine your own argument. You concede that prisoners lose some “constitutional rights”. These are then not constitutional rights when you are in prison, because if they were, you could not be stripped of them. And if they are stripped of constitutional rights, which you admit, it is not immediately clear why they should be able to demand of others what food these others have to serve them, which is not a constitutional right outside of prison, or inside.
This is a demand for privilege. I have to eat whatever food is served to me, I cannot demand that I be served Chinese food, or whatever I want, but if someone is religious, that person is for some reason authorized to make demands regarding what foods he should be served, which would never be met if made by a non-believer. A Muslim can demand not be served pork, but I cannot demand to be served pork. Funny how the excessive demands relabeled as “religious freedom” are nothing less than pure discrimination against non-believers. I do not demand privileges of any sort for myself, but I will also not countenance discrimination against myself.
September 24th, 2012 | 1:13 pm
My great grandfather fought the Know Nothing Party to ensure our freedom of religion. Now I can’t operate my business because of the HHS abortion,etc. mandate.
September 24th, 2012 | 5:34 pm
Lynn: My great grandfather fought the Know Nothing Party to ensure our freedom of religion. Now I can’t operate my business because of the HHS abortion,etc. mandate.
The HHS mandate has nothing to do with abortion, only with contraception. A recent study has shown that the morning-after-pill does not prevent implantation, as was thought by some.
September 30th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
Your info is incorect Max: Fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life – and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing.
The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman’s body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient.
So, the only real “emergency” in all of this is the woman’s fear of being pregnant.
Two of the most commonly used emergency contraceptive pills are Preven and Plan B. The websites for both of these drugs clearly indicate that each can work to prevent a “fertilized egg” (which is actually a newly formed human being) from implanting in the uterine wall:
How do the PREVEN®® emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy?
PREVEN®® can stop or delay ovulation (the release of an egg), it can stop sperm from fertilizing an egg if it was already released, and it can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.”
Source: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html
How Does Plan B®® Work?
Plan B®® (levonorgestrel) may prevent pregnancy by temporarily stopping the release of an egg from a woman’s ovary, or it may prevent fertilization. It may also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. ”
Source: http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
Proponents of “emergency contraception,” as well as the Preven and Plan B websites, contend that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. They argue that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. However, they intentionally define the term “pregnancy” as implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman’s uterus, as opposed to “pregnancy” beginning at fertilization.
Whether one understands pregnancy as beginning at “implantation” or “fertilization,” the heart of the matter is when human life begins. It is important to keep in mind that scientists have confirmed that at the moment the sperm and the egg join (fertilization), a new human being is created who is completely different from his/her mother.
This is not a subjective opinion, but an objective scientific fact. Accordingly, any artificial action that works to destroy a fertilized egg (human embryo) is abortifacient in nature
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O’Rahilly, the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally)
O’Rahilly defines fertilization as:
“the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo. (emphasis added)
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes – the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species.
Quoting Moore:
Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote. (emphasis added)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and directs his/her own growth and development (in fact this growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother).
Finally, this new human being – the single-cell human zygote – is biologically an individual, a living organism – an individual member of the human species.
Quoting Larsen:
the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother’s tissues.”
Quoting Carlson:
… [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species. (emphasis added)
scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is NOT a “potential” or a “possible” human being.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact