Religion and the Law

photo by Morguefile

Recently the supreme court decided on the issue of same sex marriage. After years of the allowing the states to decide, the supreme court made it the law. Period. Issue over, right? Not so fast. In Kentucky, Rowan county clerk Kim Davis was found in contempt of court for refusing to administer marriage licenses to gay couples. Honestly, I would like to see her incur a fine first, but on second thought, she was in contempt of court.

My original purpose of this article, was to examine the notion of a "Traditional Marriage". However, a similar incident came up. Charee Stanley, a muslim flight attendant for ExpressJet Airlines, recently refused to serve alcohol on grounds of her religious beliefs. Just then, i saw the larger issue of what freedom of religion truly means.

The very first amendment in the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice one's religion. Though, many evangelical Christians feel that they under attack. For sometime now, evangelical Christians have been voicing concern about the U.S. slipping away from its Christian heritage. Many of these voices in the present republican party. Religion and faith has been an increasingly popular issue with conservative voters since the late 90's.

Religion isn't only addressed in the first amendment. Article Six of the Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Article Six also says that no religious test shall ever be a prerequisite for any government office. Before any amendment is mentioned, the framers are already separating the law from religion, and establishing federal law over any other law. Evangelical Christians assert that their rights under the Free Exercise Clause, of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment are continuously violated.

Some opponents have criticized Kim Davis' personal marriage record. Fair or not, it's certainly worth a mention. If one has two divorces, yet defends God's definition of marriage, there's at least a small element of contradiction. Kim Davis has cited the religious accommodations made for muslim detainees as a double standard. The two cases are not the same. Whatever accommodations that muslim detainees receive are simply to allow them to practice their religion. Davis' decision(or any decision by a public official for that matter), affects the citizens of Rowan county. When she failed to issue marriage licenses, she subjected residents to her practice of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't only apply to Kim Davis. Freedom of religion also gives citizens the right not to have her practice of religion imposed on them. That may have not been her intent, but as a public official, that is the result.

The thing that is missed in all of this is that the first amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it also expressly rejects support for any religion. Americans not only have the right to practice their religion, we should also be free from having another religion imposed on us. As a state official, refusing a right of other citizens because of her beliefs, imposes the rules her religion on others. She can't violate their first amendment rights in order to preserve hers. Especially not as a government official. Which brings us to her second violation. As a government official, she is expressly bound to follow the Constitution. Her rights aren't violated, since she can resign from the Rowan county clerk's office. The fact that she would lose a good job is for her to reckon with her faith, not for the citizens she serves to bear.

Kim Davis and Charee Stanley were both wrong. Of course, being a public servant, the issue with Kim Davis is easier to frame. She is an elected official, and the law is the law. Residents of Rowan county either can't, or shouldn't have to find another clerk's office. She was elected to serve Rowan county in accordance to the laws of the United States and Kentucky, and has the responsibility to do so. In the case of Charee Stanley, she is not a government official, but serves the public still. As a patron of any business, we all have a right to equal treatment. If she can make arrangements with coworkers to serve alcohol for her, fine, but her duties are her responsibility. We all just want service without a hassle. If Davis and Stanley want to hold true to their faith, they can both get jobs at Chick-fil-A. I'm sure they're hiring.

Forget Racism. The Confederate flag represents treason.

photo by Morguefile

The Confederate flag has made a lot of controversy lately. Actually, it was controversy for years. Some say that it supports racism, some say it's a symbol of heritage. I am against the flag at any government or public facility. My position is that regardless of which side you stand on the racism debate, I don't see how we can't agree on the issue of treason on this.

The Confederate flag, whether racist or not, has a long history of being tied to racism. Of course, the Klu Klux Klan have proudly displayed it throughout it's history. A symbol of pride in southern heritage it may be. I'm not arguing either side of that. I'm sure that for many people it is just that. I think that's beside the point. The rebel battle flag honors an armed REBELLION against the United States. If a person wants to display the flag on their lawn, as clothing, or as representative of their group, they should be able to do so proudly. I can't think of any logic to displaying, the battle flag of all things, the symbol of an illegal secession.

There is some debate as to the legality of the secession. Did the southern states have a right to secede? Of course they did. But did they have the right in the way they did it? Between the United States Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, no legal right to secede is addressed. Of course, the counter argument is hard to ignore. It's unlikely that the south (or any state) would get a legal secession. In the years up to the civil war, northern states had much more voting power in congress, and would have been able to vote down secession even with a united south. This may be why no significant attempt to legally secede was made. Then again, that was the cause of the war in the first place. The south feared that slavery (oops, tied to racism again) would eventually be voted away, and they'd be powerless to stop it. Despite, or maybe because no clear guidelines exist, the fairest path to session should be similar to admission, an act of Congress. You get out the same way you came in.

Being an entertainment professional I'm constantly encountering the debate on our influence on the public. Violence in music, television, movies and video games. We all know the discussion. We've all had it at some point. No I don't believe that any song, film or image can drive someone to do bad things, without the presence of some underlying issue. However images do matter. We are all conscious of how we present ourselves when we go out into the world. To work, to party. Some of us even have to look a certain way just to go to the laundromat. When our own ethnic, age, gender, or whatever group is presented in a way that we don't agree with, we voice our opinion. Much like defenders of the rebel flag, or advocates against it.

When the rebel flag was hoisted to during civil rights movement, the point was to symbolize defiance to the movement. It's image, intentional or otherwise, indicates a government acceptance of what it's history, and what it means to anyone familiar with it. If an individual embraces racism, the vision of the flag in front of a government building can unconsciously say, this state stands with you. But I got off track. My argument was that it represents treason. The racism part is so tied to the rebel flag, it's hard to separate it.

For many years my attitude was the same as most Americans, pretty ambivalent towards the flying of the Confederate flag on government grounds. "If the south wants to fly it's flag, whatever". Like a lot of people, my attitude has changed as a result of it's history, along with recent events. Many defenders of the rebel flag take issue with this as tying of racism to the flag. this anger is misplaced. The problem with this that the civil war, the KKK, and most anyone rallying in defense of racism has spent decades burning that link into our psyche. They are at fault for the perception of the flag. But who wants to go head-to-head with them. Some may even end up criticizing family members. Oooh!

I think the Confederate flag should go. If you want to wear it on clothing, fly it in front of your home or on the back of your car (as I've seen quite a bit lately), you should have every right. Regardless of your position of racism or not, it is the flag of an illegal armed rebellion against the illegal United States. And I can't think of any reason for that to fly over anything but private property.