7.29.2007
Religion and Law
The excellent blog "Religion Clause", which focuses on legal developments concerning religion, has posted two stories today that should be of special interest to modern Pagans (and other minority faiths). The first concerns the release of transcripts from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom about the precarious status of minority religions in post-Saddam Iraq.
"This year the Commission added Iraq to its Watch List of countries requiring close monitoring because of the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by their governments. We made the decision because of the alarming and deteriorating religious freedom conditions for all Iraqis ... influencing our decision to place Iraq on our Watch List are the grave conditions affecting minority religious groups in Iraq, including the ChaldoAssyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Sabean Mandaeans. These groups appear to suffer a degree of attacks and other human rights abuses disproportionate to their numbers. As a result, thousands of members of Iraqi religious minorities have fled the country, seeking refuge in neighboring states and among growing Diaspora communities in the West."
Of the three groups pointed out in this hearing, two have ties to gnostic or pre-Christian beliefs and practice. The Sabean Mandaeans are a dualistic gnostic sect that considers John the Baptist to be their primary prophet, while the Yazidi are adherents to a pre-Islamic faith who revere "The Peacock Angel" Melek Taus. Both are facing extreme persecution, kidnappings, rapes, murders, and the very real possibility of elimination from Iraq.
"More than 80% of the Mandaean community has been displaced from Iraq to Syria and Jordan. The Mandaean community has dwindled to less than five (5) thousands today."
Several recommendations were given by those giving testimony, but it remains to be seen if the already over-stressed military presence in Iraq will be able to make any substantive changes in conditions. Perhaps America can relax its immigration policy for persecuted groups within Iraq, taking in those who have no place to go.
The second story concerns the passing of a bill through both houses that enacts several recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Included in that bill is something known as the "John Doe Amendment" which protects people tipping off the authorities to potential terror suspects from litigation if their suspicions turn out to be unfounded.
"Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under federal, state and local law for such report."
What are "objective" and "reasonable" suspicions? According to the case that inspired this amendment it includes dressing like a Muslim, praying publicly, and requesting seat-belt extensions. One can only imagine how this new legal immunity will be used by those not truly acting in "good faith", or by those who see terrorists in anyone not dressing or acting like them. If you have been wearing ritual garb at the airport in the past, you might want to think twice about doing it in the future.
Labels: Iraq, John Doe Amendment, law, persecutions, Religion Clause, Sabean Mandaeans, terrorism, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Yazidi
Comments:
As far as the John Doe Amendment--yes, it *could* be abused, but I doubt it will be. The JDA keeps people from being subject to civil suits. If someone shouts "fire" in the crowded theater (or "terrorist" on a crowded airplane as the case may be), they can still be subject to federal and local prosecution if it is found that they were making false and unfounded accusations.
In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable. The imams were not just praying publicly, but rather loudly in the terminal and in the plane. They requested seat-belt extensions when they did not need them. They were heard commenting negatively on America and praising Osama bin Laden. They refused to sit in their assigned seats and, instead, sat in the front, back, and exit aisles (which is apparently where the 9/11 terrorists sat). The suspects were also flying one-way tickets across the country. It wasn't just that other passengers reported these individuals as acting suspiciously, but flight attendants reported the strange behavior as well.
Sorry, but if somebody is acting that suspiciously, I would like to not be sued later on even if I am wrong...and I'd like for others to report what they see without hesitation because they're afraid of being sued.
It is ridiculous that the other passengers are being sued by the "flying imams." They were performing their civic duty in reporting activities they thought suspicious.
Just my opinion...
"In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable."
Actually it isn't clear, there have been conflicting accounts of what actually went on. Some of the "facts" about the Imams being reported by the conservative blogs hasn't been confirmed by the airlines or authorities. The real truth is that we don't know the "real truth" of what exactly went on.
What strikes me as funny is that this amendment doesn't "help stop terrorism", it simply legal protects profiling behavior. Does anyone really think that a serious terror attack is going to come from people in full Muslim religious garb begging for attention? The 9/11 attacks were successful because they blended in, not because people were afraid to report suspicious behavior.
Post a Comment
As far as the John Doe Amendment--yes, it *could* be abused, but I doubt it will be. The JDA keeps people from being subject to civil suits. If someone shouts "fire" in the crowded theater (or "terrorist" on a crowded airplane as the case may be), they can still be subject to federal and local prosecution if it is found that they were making false and unfounded accusations.
In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable. The imams were not just praying publicly, but rather loudly in the terminal and in the plane. They requested seat-belt extensions when they did not need them. They were heard commenting negatively on America and praising Osama bin Laden. They refused to sit in their assigned seats and, instead, sat in the front, back, and exit aisles (which is apparently where the 9/11 terrorists sat). The suspects were also flying one-way tickets across the country. It wasn't just that other passengers reported these individuals as acting suspiciously, but flight attendants reported the strange behavior as well.
Sorry, but if somebody is acting that suspiciously, I would like to not be sued later on even if I am wrong...and I'd like for others to report what they see without hesitation because they're afraid of being sued.
It is ridiculous that the other passengers are being sued by the "flying imams." They were performing their civic duty in reporting activities they thought suspicious.
Just my opinion...
"In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable."
Actually it isn't clear, there have been conflicting accounts of what actually went on. Some of the "facts" about the Imams being reported by the conservative blogs hasn't been confirmed by the airlines or authorities. The real truth is that we don't know the "real truth" of what exactly went on.
What strikes me as funny is that this amendment doesn't "help stop terrorism", it simply legal protects profiling behavior. Does anyone really think that a serious terror attack is going to come from people in full Muslim religious garb begging for attention? The 9/11 attacks were successful because they blended in, not because people were afraid to report suspicious behavior.
Links to this post:
