Religion or cult: What's the difference?

Mormon missionaries in front of DC temple are often referred to as members of a cult

Recently in a discussion about an article comparing Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and those of Quakers, a reader from France observed both as being "cults."  But what is a cult or a defined religion and are their national beliefs and historical precedents that make the definition difficult?

 Westboro Baptist Church protection in the United States raised the question about whether it is a religion worthy of being protected under the Constitution or a cult.  At the same time people who are members of a minority religion, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers or Mormons, are oftened referred to as belonging to a cult by someone somewhere.  How people view religion and what the law says it is can be very different.

The Supreme Court held in Snyder vs Phelps that the view of religion was not the major factor in the protection for free speech as much as the need for the public to have a forum for protest and offered a summation of its decision that declared Phelps, the controversial minister and head of the Westboro Baptist Church, had a right to protest at funerals because of the Constitutional protection of free speech granted to the public as opposed to viewing its stature as a religious organization.

Mitt Romney, a Mormon who ran in the Presidential primaries, found himself having to defend his Mormon faith. He had to reassure people he is a Christian and not just a member of a cult. That's because many folks in mainstream churches continue to define those outside the mainstream Christian groups as simply cults.

During the early years of most religions, new groups have been referred to as cults. When Jesus was born and called himself King of the Jews, he and his followers were dismissed as heretics. It brought about the crucifixion every bit as much as new Christian groups are dismissed for being different.

The Washington Post enumerates this criteria from the Internal Revenue Service

a distinct legal existence,
 a recognized creed and form of worship,
 a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
 an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
 a literature of its own,
established places of worship, regular congregations, regular religious services, Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, school for the preparation of its ministers.

This official description of what constitutes a religion is a not accepted by those who believe it is too restrictive in that it seems to favor large, formal organizations. There are religious groups that fall outside this criteria, such as the Unitarians, Quakers, Unity and Jehovah's Witnesses. They may meet in community centers or in private homes. Furthermore, their groups might be comparably smaller than the mainstream religious organizations.

Lawyers differ on the definition of religion, just as private people do. That means debate about what groups should be protected and which ones fall outside the protection of the First Amendment. For example, Westboro Baptist Church, whose members protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers, may have aberrant beliefs according to many, but their right to protest as a religious group has been upheld by the courts prior to the Supreme Court decision. Westboro Baptist Church might be outside the mainstream Baptist practices but the lower courts have protected their practices as within the definition of religion, although the Supreme Court emphasized the right to public protest as opposed to using the definition of a religion in order to make a decision.

Still many folks differ on the definition of religion remaining core criteria for
discussion. Media groups support reinforcement of the right of free speech protection as do many other groups that are not of a religious orientation..

Over time the definition of what constitutes religion is something that occurs gradually, as a group becomes more and more known and accepted by the culture. This is how Mormons have started to enter the mainstream, as two Governors, father and son, named Romney, have both been the highest officials of the State of Michigan. Their religion has had that popular microscope used to assess their beliefs.

Experts tell us people differ in what they define as religion according to their personal religious bias. That criteria means what constitutes religion is likely to continue to be part of the national debate, especially during elections, as it has been in modern times.  Furthermore the mainstream Catholic doctrine in Europe continues to reflect the major division between Protestant and Catholic beliefs in ways that have made the Lutherans and Anglicans cling to a partial relationship with Catholicism that would separate them from other Protestants. It is an effort to give these groups a greater level of authenticity as a religion so as not to be lumped with Protestants they consider not mainstream.

As the controversy continues in the United States, with the "in group" referring to any other religious group as a cult, just as the Catholic Church history may also reflect the ongoing stance of the entire Protestant community as in question.

Here's what you might not know about the Miranda warning

Judge's tools - Law

Marsha Hunt----Often people listen to a television crime show, hear certain terms and believe they understand what they mean.  One of those examples is the Miranda warning.  But to clarify and to expand on those television briefs, is an attorneys explanation of this very important statement if you ever happen to be caught in a situation where you or someone you love might need to have the information.

The Miranda warning is frequently mentioned in the media, however even in daily life across America police must offer this statement to protect people who face potential criminal charges.  It came about regarding a case,  Miranda v. Arizona (1966),  when the Supreme Court made the decision that suspects who were detained for questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
There are certain basic rights the Miranda Warning is designed to protect.  It doesn't help someone avoid an arrest.  Instead it is warning police must give suspects before they begin an interrogation.  The purpose is to make sure suspects understand their rights and can assert them during the course of that interrogation.

Here are some of the important facts offered by the Shapiro law firm relative to the Miranda warning:

- A suspect can be arrested even if the Miranda warning is not read as long as he or she is not questioned by police in the process.
- If police wish to question a suspect after an arrest, the Miranda warning must be read at that time.
- If a suspect indicates that he or she does not wish to answer police questions at that time, all questioning must be ceased immediately.
- A suspect must still give biographical data, such as name and address, to law enforcement officers even if invoking the Miranda decision.

The suspect is also allowed to change his or her mind while being questioned, even if a previous consent has been given to the police interrogation.  In other words, if the suspect wants the interrogation to stop in the middle of giving some answers, that must be honored.

In 2013 the Supreme Court clarified the use of the Miranda warning, explaining a suspect cannot just stay quiet but actually state he or she wants to use the Fifth Amendment and state they don't want to answer the questions.

Prison inmates have the right to same-sex marriage, California declares

[caption id="attachment_17533" align="alignleft" width="300"] Prison inmates[/caption]

Editor---"Inmates have the same legal right to marry as those who are not inmates," said Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the state corrections department.

This announcement observes California inmates are eligible to marry non-incarcerated partners of the same sex, according to aCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation memo which outlines the conditions. On the other hand, there are limitations as well. A memo addresses those limitations follow the US Supreme Court's having declared  Proposition 8 unconstitutional, which prohibited gay marriage.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, presented a memo outlining the law and the legal right to marry a person of the same sex. But in California there had been a serious effort to undercut the right for couples both inside and outside of prison to marry.

The memo cites the law and specifies that inmates are entitled to the same privileges but inmates are not entitled to marry while inside prison another inmate of the same sex.

Same sex marriage has been a controversial subject in the normal population. How will it fair in prisons where men without women sometimes resort to sex with each other, even though outside of prison they have heterosexual lives? What might be the reasons in presenting limitations as observed in the memo? Likely one of those reasons may have something to do with certain prison tenure that can influence sexual choice.

The United States Supreme Court has determined prisoners to have a constitutional right to marry, however the law also states prison officials can impose discretion and can even deny an inmate the right to marry. 

The truth about changing the world: Yes you can

[caption id="attachment_19588" align="alignleft" width="208"] Clarence Gideon[/caption]

Carol Forsloff----Remember when you were picketing something, wrote a letter of complaint, dared to act in your defense or that of someone else, often for altruistic purpose and someone said, “You can’t change the world.”  Turns out you can.

There have been so many instances of one person making a difference and actually making big changes in a positive direction, that it would require volumes of written material to describe it all.

That’s the good news and the good reason to continue to bring harmony or help wherever you can, because the act of a single man can move those proverbial mountains.  Let’s examine a few of these examples, some of which you might not be familiar, and others you will know and understand once again that one man, or woman, can make a difference.

Clarence Earl Gideon was an obscure man who was living out his years in a Florida prison cell.  He had no one to help him, no money for an attorney, and no way out to defend himself against the charges made against him.  That was 50 years ago.    So he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court took up the case of  Clarence Gideon, this solitary man whose letter cut through red tape at the outset by its very contents.  The Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional for a man like Gideon to be tried in court and not have proper representation, so made the decision that for those who are indigent counsel would be provided by the state.  Giden had been accused and convicted of a felony in Panama City, Florida.   The local judge refused to give him a new trial, but after the Supreme Court’s decision, Gideon had another chance to face the charges and was acquitted of all of them.  Gideon’s act made a difference for him and for others who now can have a lawyer even if they can’t afford one.  His case was Gideon vs Wainright.

Claudette Colvin was just fifteen years old when she refused to give up her seat on a bus and move to the back, as the South’s Jim Crow laws required.  This was nine months before Rosa Parks did the same thing.  Colvin had already set a precedent, sounded the call to resistance that initiated groups of people standing up for themselves in the civil rights movement.  When she was 15, she refused to move to the back of the bus and give up her seat to a white person — nine months before Rosa Parks, who wasn't just a frail-looking African American elder but an officer of the NAAP.  Colvin had learned in her schoolroom that very day the history of Harriet Tubman, who had risked her life in order to help slaves escape to freedom.  And as she said 54 years later to NPR, "All I remember is that I was not going to walk off the bus voluntarily.”

But Colvin got no fanfare.  She challenged the laws in court, after she had been arrested for defying the laws of Alabama.  She was one of four women plaintiffs in the case of  Browder v. Gayle,  when the court made its decision to overturn segregations laws in Montgomery and Alabama.  She had made a difference, as the years that followed showed more and more people standing up for their freedom in all parts of the South, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act that followed years later, that turned around many of the unjust practices against an entire race of people.   Rosa Parks  is often remembered for initiating the boycotts and resistance, but this came after a young girl set a precedent for change.

Can you make a difference in some remarkable way with a pen and paper, a willingness to stand up against injustice somewhere, or an act of kindness in some part of the world?  History has many examples that you can indeed change the world, and that admonition to walk in their shoes seems to work.

Sexual harassment: How far have we come?

[caption id="attachment_10195" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Herman Cain"][/caption]

19 years ago sexual harassment discussions were uncommon, as women had long since learned that a certain amount of the behavior came with the job.  It was the Clarence Thomas vs Anita Hill affair that launched the movement to change the atmosphere of the workplace so both men and women could define acceptable parameters of interaction on the job, but was that sufficient for employment justice and for a safe presentation of grievances when someone steps outside those parameters?

Clarence Thomas was under consideration for appointment as a judge on the Supreme Court those 19 years ago when he faced his accuser, Anita Hill, during Congressional hearings.  Hill claimed in great detail how Thomas had made sexual overtures to her over a period of 10 years.  Despite a lengthy and detailed testimony, Hill’s assertions were undercut by the political climate, as her own character was assailed while Thomas received his appointment.  So while sexual harassment became part of the modern conversation about workplace issues and the law became more specific in its definitions, the memory of Anita Hill remained with the women of the time as the ultimate lesson.  In other words, the definition of sexual harassment became a common concept, but establishing the veracity of the victim continued to be difficult.

Herman Cain’s accusers claim sexual harassment,  just as women have in other high profile cases.  But it’s the ordinary woman in the ordinary job that continues to live with the issue, as the new economy has brought old problems into the public again with Herman Cain, a Republican candidate for President of the United States opening the door once again to the discussion about sex and power.  These days, however, as finances dictate women working in great numbers, most still under male supervision, sexual harassment continues while many women fail to report the problem for fear of losing jobs.

How prevalent is the problem of sexual harassment?  Experts tell us that only an estimate can be given because many women fail to report the issue.  The benchmark, however, for litigation was established some years ago.    According to studies by Louise Fitgerald, PhD, it is believed that approximately one-third of women in the United States experience some form of sexual harassment at some time in their working years. Fitzgerald, PhD found 40 to 60 percent of women in the companies she studied experienced some form of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is not just a problem in the United States but in other regions of the world as well.  In Europe, for example, it is estimated from six research studies that women experience sexual harassment at between 45 and 81 percent while those who proced to report it are between 5 and 22 percent.

A private investigator who works with sexual harassment victims explains the nature of sexual harassment as this:  “In simple terms, harassment is any type of verbal or physical contact that is first unwanted and then continues, despite your protests. Although we usually think of it as sexual, harassment can involve any type of derogatory or offensive comments or actions that are either directed at you or are made in your presence and inhibit your work environment or affect your productivity. Basically, harassment consists of language or action that has crossed the boundary from tolerable to offensive.”  He also observes that sexual harassment isn’t just confined to the boss but one’s co-workers as well.  He goes on to discuss that many women fail to report the problem because of their fear they won’t be believed.   It is that reminder from the Thomas-Hill arguments, and Anita Hill’s public humiliation, that continue to worry women that they too will become victims of that same demoralizing response to their claims.

A recent article in Forbes magazine points out the most telling factor involved in sexual harassment claims.  “ On some deep and abiding level we still don’t trust women when it comes to matters of sex, and we still don’t accept sexual harassment as serious unless it is an exacting quid pro quo.”  The author points out that since the accusations of sexual harassment made public regarding Herman Cain, many readers continue to see the issue as frivolous.

So while the number of filings of sexual harassment have increased since the Clarence Thomas hearings years ago, the problem remains today as it was then, a matter of how the culture views the issue and how serious it is for the people involved.

Death penalty inequity on trial in the United States

[caption id="attachment_9438" align="alignleft" width="242" caption="Troy Davis"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Casey Anthony was declared innocent of killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee in Florida, despite a host of incriminating, circumstantial evidence, according to experts, while Troy Davis was executed in Georgia for killing a policeman, as  the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) report released in July concluded that “race, geography, money, and other arbitrary factors continue to make receiving the death penalty as random as being “struck by lightning,” as Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1976.

Although Casey Anthony became a hated public figure, given the descriptions of how two-year-old Caylee’s disappearance was not reported by the mother until more than 30 days had passed and that the condition of the child’s body revealed horrific circumstances related to both the death and disposal of the body. Legal experts and others took turns proclaiming how clear the evidence was in pointing to Casey Anthony’s guilt. Objections to the verdict of innocent came from every part of the culture, when Casey, a young, white mother in Florida, was found innocent of killing her child. Even George Anthony, Casey’s father, told Dr. Phil in an interview after the trial he believes that his daughter was somehow involved in Caylee’s death, perhaps through an accident, but an accident that involved an extensive cover-up.

Troy Davis was executed on Wednesday night, following years of appeals and more than a million signatures on a petition requesting the courts to reconsider the death penalty in his case. Seven eyewitnesses at the trial recanted their testimony years later, while another man actually confessed to killing the policeman for which Davis was sentenced to death. Davis was a black man in Georgia who was found guilty of killing a white policeman.

While there are deviations from the DPIC report with respect to some of the specifics involved in comparing these two cases, eyewitness reports, that were recanted, had been the evidence used for the death penalty to be ordered for Davis. Circumstantial evidence of numerous types along with a lifetime of lies as background, with respect to Casey Anthony’s character, were underlined as insufficient for a guilty verdict, especially in a capital murder case.

The DPIC report states, “Many of those who favored the death penalty in the abstract have come to view its practice very differently. They have reached the conclusion that if society's ultimate punishment cannot be applied fairly, it should not be applied at all. The report then goes on to tell us that most of the nine justices who declared the death penalty did not violate the Constitution agreed the experiment had failed. Justices Blackman, Powell, and Stevens changed their minds and would have agreed with Justices Marshall and Brennan that capital punishment was unconstitutional.

The report goes on to review the inequities in capital punishment cases, especially that those defendants who are African American and kill white victims are more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill members of other races, especially white victims.  Most executions occur in a handful of states, largely in the South. Costs figure greatly in the quality of defense one receives. Finally, the states have different ways of reviewing cases so that in some states virtually all death sentences are upheld by state courts while in others they are overturned.

Troy Davis was executed in Georgia on September 21, 2011, after a state court upheld his execution on a vote of 3 to 2 and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.