Current Religious Disputes in America

 





The states cannot write a law respecting an establishment of religion, but they must allow citizens to exercise their religion. Religious people find their identity in their believes, and overlooking their believes is no less than stepping over their rights. The video above is about Obama birth control mandate, "a regulation that expands women's access to birth-control methods, including drugs that induce abortion" ("The Obama birth-control mandate" 1). Even though, the birth control mandate gives women the right to their body, it also goes against millions of Americans believes. This mandate is not giving many religious citizens, mainly Catholics, their Constitutional rights. Like John Bruning said, America was founded by people who crossed the ocean to be able to worship freely.

 

I love how America takes human rights very seriously. The U.S. Constitution is the United States rock and foundation, it is a document that I believe holds America together. The founders of these countries had everyone's rights into consideration, including religious people. It might have been because they themselves were religious, and migrated in order to freely worship. Yet, I am beyond glad that I can freely tell people my religious believes, pray in privacy and in public. I really hope that other foreign countries will begin to comprehend the value that comes allowing people to have their own religion. It is everyone's right to have a religion, and depriving a human being of such freedom is nothing but discrimination. It is time for this generational and international injustice to come to an end.

 

    

 

Works Cited

The Monitor's Editorial, Board. "The Obama birth-control mandate." Christian Science Monitor 09 Feb. 2012: N.PAG. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 June 2013.



America Taking a Stand

I am glad America understands the value of freedom. It is everyone's God given right to express themselves and share a part of their identity with the world; Whether it is by preaching the Gospel, wearing certain clothes, or quietly praying. Often times, I think we Americans take our religious freedom for granted. It is hard to believe, but in other countries people literally get thrown in jail for practicing a religion. I was completely shocked when my daughter told me about a Chinese lady that was able to attend a church conference, only after lying to her country. If the Chinese lady said, "I am going to Arizona to attend a church conference," China would have not allowed her to come. My daughter also said the young lady was telling everyone how lucky they were to be able to worship freely. As a Christian woman I often take for granted the right I have in the United States. I am so blessed to be able to freely worship, and I really want other countries to realize the beauty of freedom. I want to discuss two religious cases that are currently occurring in Iran. The United States of America got involved in both cases and tried to take control of the situations. However, how can America change a country's mindset? Is it even possible? What can America really do and what is it currently doing?



Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was kept in prison for being a Christian in 2009. He was determined to not renounce his believes and was therefore sentenced to execution. His wife, was also arrested and threatened, but she also refused to deny her religious believes. When the United States took a stand and chose to help Youcef, things began to change. Pastor Youcef "was released on September 8 after a six-hour hearing...which worked to garner American support for the minister's release" ("Released: Pastor In Iran, Teen In Pakistan" 19). Sadly, "after Pastor Youcef was released his attorney, Dadkhah, was sentenced nine years in prison for defending Youcef. However, the case worsened when Pastor Youcef was re-arrested on 2012" (Clark 1).

Pastor Saeed Abedini is currently in Iran prison for sharing his faith. Saeed is a "U.S. citizen being persecuted and beaten in Iran for his faith" ("State Department, White House Spoke Out for Pastor Youcef, Why Not US Pastor Saeed?" 1). I was very surprised when I watched the video above. I cannot believe the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and his Press Secretary have failed to call for this American citizen’s release. This man is in critical condition and his life his on the line. I am in no way trying to segregate or sound racist; but why isn't the White House taking the same stand they did for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani? What changed? It might be because Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is back in jail or that America cannot get involved in foreign countries. Yet, "the Department of State's primary objective in the conduct of foreign relations is to promote is to promote the long-range security and well-being of the United States." ("Department Of State" 388). This means the White House should constitutionally take a stand for Pastor Saeed and other abused religious rights around the world.
 

Works Cited  

Clark, Matthew. "Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Re-Arrested, Imprisoned in Iran ." ACLJ. , 26 Dec 2012. Web. 17 Jun 2013. <http://aclj.org/iran/pastor-youcef-nadarkhani-arrested-imprisoned-iran>.

Clark, Matthew. "State Department, White House Spoke Out for Pastor Youcef, Why Not US Pastor Saeed?" ACLJ. ,  20 Jan 2013. Web. 17 <Jun 2013. http://aclj.org/iran/state-department-white-house-spoke-out-pastor-youcef-why-not-american-pastor-saeed>.

"Department Of State." United States Government Manual (1996): 388. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 17 June 2013.

"Released: Pastor In Iran, Teen In Pakistan." Christian Century 129.20 (2012): 19. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 June 2013.

Religion and Boundaries

 

When are religious people crossing the boundaries? As much as I agree with freedom of speech, expression, and religion; I find the photos above quite disrespectful and offensive. The Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, have been holding up sings with phrases that are hard to ignore. The Kansas church have even attended funerals of U.S. military members with sign stating "thank God for dead soldiers" and "God blew up the troops." Isn't that a little harsh and inconsiderate? How can they say such terrible things to soldiers that gave up their lives for their freedom and protection? No matter how hurtful and disrespectful the signs are, "the U.S. Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, said it is Westboro Baptist Church right to promote a broad-based message on public matters such as wars" (Cohen 1). I completely agree with the 1st Amendment for every human being has a right to be themselves. However, when is the limit? From the Westboro Baptist Church case I am starting to think never.

Yenitza Colichon is a Pennsylvania women who insisted her 7-year-old daughter watch the killing of a chicken and eat its heart" (Zylstra 15). What Yenitza was forcing her daughter to do was disgusting and insane. I cannot imagine how terrified the young girl must have felt. I also do not think it is sanitary for anyone to eat a raw chicken's heart. However, since Yenitza Colichon claimed "she was practicing her religion named Palo Mayombe, the defense attorney argued for her religious freedom" (Zylstra 15). It is astonishing how the 1st Amendment was able to defend such a savage and inhumane act. Since Yenitza believed she was simply protecting her daughter with her rituals, was she technically "doing the right thing?" Doug Lay-cock, law professor at the University of Virginia said, "it is very dangerous for the state to be saying, 'Your religion is bad for you.' Judges [shouldn't] get involved unless there is a clear and compelling evidence of danger or physical harm to the child" (Zylstra 15-16).  

 

There are many other religious cases that seem to cross the boundaries. I completely support religious freedom, but there are few times it seems unjust. I am very glad America values religious freedom, because it is everyone's right to express their ways. However, when religious believes and practices begin to harm and hurt other individuals, I do not think it is acceptable. 

Works Cited

Cohen , Tom. "CNN Politics." . Turner Broadcasting System, 02 Aug 2012. Web. 15 Jun 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/politics/military-funerals-protests/index.html?iref=storysearch.  

 

Zylstra, Sarah Eekhoff. "Parental Frights." Christianity Today 55.9 (2011): 15. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 16 June 2013.

Religious Freedom around the World

America is the land of the free. I have listened to the national anthem at least a thousand times, and I have always noticed how the crowd cheers and claps the moment the word "free" is sung. There is something special about freedom, and every country should fight for freedom. I am not saying a country should be completely free, for there are limitations all around the world, including the USA. Thanks to the "Social Contract, influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, there are times people must give up some of their rights for the benefit of society" (Carrin 917). For example, whenever the traffic lights turn red, the drivers approaching the lights must come to a complete stop, or else a catastrophe would take place. Nonetheless, a country full of regulation and no human rights is prison. 

In comparison to other countries America does value religious freedom. America is the land of the free because it fights for people to be able to worship, pray, and express themselves whenever they please. Unfortunately, there are countries that do not offer such religious freedom. "In China, Burma, Pakistan, Egypt, and Sudan people face intense persecution and can go to prison for having a certain religion" (Cardall 33). It is everyone's right to be able to express themselves and feel free. The countries that do not offer religious freedom are prohibiting human beings to be themselves. It is time for "nations to understand how this fundamental human right works" (Cardall 33).

According to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, it is illegal to deprive individuals their religious rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the world's nations, affirms in the article 18 that everyone "has the right to freedom, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or believe in order either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance'' (Drinan 20). The International Religious Freedom Act clearly demands that there be religious freedom all around the world. Then why are countries like China, Sudan, and Pakistan still abusing religious freedom rights?

Works Cited

Cardall, Duane. "Religious Freedom an Overlooked Topic." Masthead 54.4 (2002): 33.

Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Jul. 2013.

Carrin, Guy J. "Rousseau's "Social Contract": Contracting Ahead Of Its Time?." Bulletin Of The World Health Organization 84.11 (2006): 917-918. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 June 2013.

 

Drinan, Robert F. "Survey Documents Religious Freedom Abuses." National Catholic Reporter

         35.43 (1999): 20. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 June 2013.

Religious Rights in the United States of America

"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."

First Amendment of the United State Constitution

Even though, the 1^st Amendment contains only sixteen words, it carries a deep message. In sixty five words the First Amendment protects the American law and religious rights. The Establishment Clause states that America’s government cannot be controlled by any particular religion. While the Free Exercise Claw forbids America from prohibiting the practice of religion. Therefore which claw has priority? Since they both clash against each other; how can the Government detect which claw to follow.

In comparison to other countries America values and cares about all types of religions. Yet, the first Amendment also considers the betterment of the entire country. There are many cases that are constantly debated in America because of the “religion vs. law” amendment. For example, homosexuality and abortion are two extremely debated topics in America. Who should America support?

Similarly, religious rights in schools are confusing. When should there be a limit? Should children be allowed to pray? Although, there are times students are prohibited of practicing their religions, they still have some religious rights. For instance, students have the rights to pray before eating their meals and with other willing students; as long as it does not disrupt the school education mission and activities. When I think of other children around the world, Americans do tend to have more religious liberty. Which means there is a sensible balance between Religion and the government.

My question is when is the limit? When are religious people and non-religious people crossing the boundaries? When referring to the younger generation it is a little harder to come into conclusion, due to the in loco parentis doctrine. Schools basically become children’s parents the moment they step into the school property. In loco parentis deprive children of some of their rights, the moment they are in school. Does this mean their religious rights as well?

When are religious and non-religious people going too far? Is keeping a person alive against their will too far? Carol Fiore believed that was uncomfortable. How can America balance the powerful sixteen words written in the 1^st Amendment?  

Sources:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/prayer.asp

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+loco+parentis