Man Accused of Blasphemy In Pakistan Killed While In Police Custody

In Pakistan today, a 65-year old man who had been accused of blasphemy was shot dead by a teenager. According to Reuters:

Victim Khalil Ahmad was a member of the minority Ahmadi community, a sect who say they are Muslim but whose religion is rejected by the Pakistani state.

Ahmad and three other Ahmadis had asked a shopkeeper in their village in central Pakistan earlier this week to remove inflammatory stickers denouncing their community.... In retaliation, the shopkeeper filed blasphemy charges against the four men on May 12. Ahmad, a father of four, was in police custody when the teenage boy walked in, asked to see him, and shot him dead....

Some mullahs in Pakistan encourage the killing of Ahmadis.

Concerns Over Religious Tolerance In India Raised As BJP's Modi Is Elected Prime Minister

Reuters this morning reports that in India, markets are soaring as Narendra Modi's pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appears to have won a landslide Parliamentary majority. Modi has been Chief Minister of Gujarat state since 2001. Writing at CNN, journalist Sunny Hundal however raises the question of whether Modi as prime minister will threaten India's liberal secular tradition. He writes in part:

Established as a secular and liberal nation in 1950, India will find itself in uncharted territory as it has never before had a hardline Hindu nationalist at the helm.

This raises an important question: what will Modi the prime minister be like? Will he sweep away the corruption scandals blighting the country's reputation and do a better job of rejuvenating India, or will he inflame religious tensions as some fear?

Much of the criticism aimed at Modi has focused on the riots of 2002 when hundreds, possibly thousands, of Muslims were butchered by Hindu mobs, while his government was accused of standing by and watching. But if a Prime Minister Modi carries on like he did as Chief Minister of Gujarat state and as the candidate for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during campaigning, there are plenty of reasons to be worried about the future. The future Modi is a terrifying prospect if he is based on the past Modi.

9th Circuit Temporarily Stays Injunction That Allowed Same-Sex Marriage In Idaho

In Latta v. Otter, (9th Cir., May 15, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of a federal district court's order that struck down Idaho's statutory and constitutional same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.) The temporary stay will be in place while the 9th Circuit decides whether to grant state and local officials' emergency motion (full text) for a longer stay pending appeal. Idaho Statesman reports on the 9th Circuit's order.

Understanding The Procedural Tangle In The Arkansas Same-Sex Marriage Challenge

As lower courts strike down same-sex marriage bans in various states, and state officials scramble to stay the orders and file appeals, the procedural tangles sometimes become difficult to penetrate.  So here is an attempt to clarify where things stand procedurally in one state-- Arkansas.

On May 9, an Arkansas state trial court (the Pulaski County Circuit Court which includes the city of Little Rock) held that the state's constitutional and legislative bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.  (See prior posting.) A number of state and county officials filed an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking an emergency stay of the trial court's order.  In Smith v. Wright, (AR Sup. Ct., May 14, 2014), the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice on the ground that the trial court's order was not a final adjudication of all the claims of the parties and so could not yet be appealed.  However it also held that reading the trial court's order carefully, the trial court had not issued a ruling as to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-208(b), prohibiting circuit and county clerks from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.  So, according to the Supreme Court, that prohibition was still in effect.

The next day, May 15, the Pulaski County Circuit Court responded by issuing three separate orders: (1) it denied a stay of its earlier ruling (full text of order); (2) the Court issued a final order permanently enjoining both the bans on same-sex marriage and the provision prohibiting circuit and county clerks from issuing licenses to same sex couples (full text of order); and (3) the court issued an order making its May 15 ruling that covered the ban on issuing marriage licenses retroactive to May 9 by an order entering the ruling nunc pro tunc. It said that the original omission of a reference to the section on issuance of licenses was an inadvertent clerical error. (Full text of ruling.) Lyle Denniston at Scotus Blog suggests that the nunc pro tunc order serves to protect those clerks who issued licenses between May 9 and 15.

According to AP, the Pulaski County clerk resumed issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples shortly after the trial court's new orders.  Other counties though are awaiting legal advice. And after same-sex marriages resumed in Pulaski County, the Arkansas attorney general's office returned to the state Supreme Court and again asked for a stay of the trial court's order, pending appeal. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Sudanese Woman Sentenced To Flogging and Death For Apostasy and Supposed Adultery

CNN reports that in Khartoum, Sudan this week, a court has sentenced  27-year old Meriam Yehya Ibrahim to death by hanging for apostasy and to 100 lashes for adultery after she refused to recant her Christian faith.  Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6 years old and she was raised by her mother as a Christian. She married, has a 20-month old son and is 8 months pregnant with their second child. However because her father was Muslim, under Sudanese personal status law (based on Sharia) Ibrahim is still considered Muslim, and her marriage to a non-Muslim man is considered void-- hence the adultery charge. Ibrahim is in custody with her 20-month old son.  The verdict can be appealed. Amnesty International has strongly protested the sentence.

Court Says Catholic Health System's Pension Plans Qualify As "Church Plans" Under ERISA

In Overall v. Ascension, (ED MI, May 9, 2014), a Michigan federal district court-held that the pension plans of Ascension Health Alliance are "church plans" under ERISA, even though the plans were not "established by" a church.  Disagreeing with two other recent decisions from other districts (1, 2), the court held that it is sufficient that Ascension Health Alliance is controlled by and associated with the Roman Catholic Church. The court dismissed for lack of standing plaintiff's claim that permitting organizations associated with a church to claim church plan status would violate the Establishment Clause. Fiduciary Matters Blog discusses the decision.

North Carolina Supreme Court Stays Trial Court's Injunction Against School Voucher Program

The North Carolina Supreme Court yesterday issued an order (full text) in Hart v. State of North Carolina, granting a stay of a trial court's temporary injunction that had barred implementation of the state's Opportunity Scholarship program. (See prior posting.) The program, enacted in 2013, gives up to 2400 students from low-income families scholarships of $4200 to attend a private or religious school of the parents' choice. WRAL News reports that the North Carolina Educational Assistance Authority will now likely move ahead with its planned lottery to determine which of the 5500 applicants will receive scholarships for next year.  Two separate lawsuits have been filed against the program, arguing that it unconstitutionally spends taxpayer funds on private schools, including ones that discriminate in admissions. Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina issued a press release welcoming the Supreme Court's action.

Rabbi, 3 Others, Indicted For Diverting Grant Funds To Religious Schools and Camps

The Queens County, New York district attorney's office announced Tuesday that four men, including Rabbi Samuel Hiller, have been indicted on grand larceny charges for diverting over a 7-year period some $12.4 million in state and city funds meant for special needs students ages 3-5 served by Island Children's Development Center.  Approximately $8 million of the funds were diverted by Rabbi Hiller to religious schools and camps, including $3 million to the girl's school at which Rabbi Hiller serves as principal. A civil forfeiture action has also been filed.

New York's Top Court Vacates Some of the Convictions In Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy

In People v. Golb, (NY Ct. App., May 13, 2014), New York's Court of Appeals (its highest appellate court) dismissed some, but not all, of the convictions growing out of a dispute over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As explained by the court:

Norman Golb, defendant's father, is a professor at the University of Chicago, and a scholar on the subject of the Scrolls. There is disagreement among scholars and experts about who wrote the Scrolls. One view, known as the Qumran-Sectarian theory, or Sectarian theory, is that the Scrolls were writings of a Jewish sect, living in or near Qumran. Norman Golb and others disagree.... They believe that the Scrolls were writings of various groups and that the writings were rescued from libraries in Jerusalem and brought to the caves for safekeeping at the time of the siege and sacking of the city by Roman troops in 70 C.E. (the Jerusalem libraries theory).

Defendant Raphael Golb, Professor Norman Golb's son, decided to defend his father's academic views through an Internet campaign attacking the integrity and reputation of academics and scholars who disagreed with his father's theory. According to the court, to accomplish this:

defendant, using pseudonyms and impersonating real academics and scholars, sent emails to museum administrators, academics and reporters. He published anonymous blogs. He concocted an elaborate scheme in which he used a pseudonym to engage one professor in an email exchange, and then impersonated a different scholar to criticize that professor's emails. Defendant impersonated a New York University (NYU) professor and sent emails to NYU students and NYU deans indicating that the professor had plagiarized the work of Professor Golb.

The court affirmed most of the criminal impersonation convictions of defendant,  but vacated the convictions based on the mere creation of false e-mail accounts that were never used. The court vacated defendant's convictions for aggravated harassment, finding that Penal Law § 240.30(1) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court upheld defendant's convictions for forgery, but vacated his convictions for unauthorized use of a computer and identity theft.

Chief Judge Lippman dissented in part, arguing that the entire indictment should be dismissed.  Capital New York reports on the decision.

Court Says ACA Contraceptive Coverage Rules For Religious Non-Profits Do Not Violate RFRA

In Diocese of Cheyenne v. Sebelius, (D WY, My 13, 2014), a Wyoming federal district court denied a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate rules for religious non-profits. Wyoming Catholic schools and charitable groups object to the opt out self-certification form that results in the third-party administrator of their self-insurance plans furnishing contraceptive coverage directly to the non-profits' employees.  The court concluded that this does not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise:

It is not Plaintiffs' self-certification that authorizes or obligates the TPA to ensure the objectionable contraceptive coverage; it is the ACA that does so.... Consequently, Plaintiffs' argument that completing the self-certification form requires them to enable access to objectionable contraceptive products and services is inaccurate and unconvincing....

While Plaintiffs hold very strong religious views that the TPA should not provide (or be forced by federal law to provide) contraceptive coverage, the TPA's provision of such coverage cannot be said to be a substantial burden on Plaintiffs'religious exercise....

Through the ACA's accommodation, Plaintiffs have the right to be exempted from participating in, providing, or paying for the costs associated with the objectionable contraceptive coverage based on their sincere religious beliefs, but they have no right to prevent a third party (who does not hold those same religious objections) from meeting the ACA's requirements.

AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Korean Court Says It Cannot Review Church Disciplinary Actions

Inside Korea reports that last Friday, a Korean appellate court held that civil courts cannot review church disciplinary actions. The Seoul High Court dismissed a suit by a former priest, identified only as Kim, who was suspended in 2005 after allegedly embezzling funds of the Samsungsan Cathedral.  He was defrocked after he filed civil suits against the Cathedral in protest of his suspension. The court said in part:

Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and strictly separates the church and state. The freedom of managing and organizing religious councils must be provided for to the utmost.

Separately Kim is facing criminal charges over misappropriation of $74,000 in Cathedral funds.

More Same-Sex Marriage Developments-- 4th Circuit Oral Arguments; Idaho's Laws Invalidated By District Court

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of arguments) in Bostic v. Schaefer. In the case, a Virginia federal district court held that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage and prohibiting recognition of lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the oral arguments, the Washington Post said: "The sharply opposing viewpoints of two of the jurists suggested that the third, independent-minded Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd, might hold the deciding vote."

Also yesterday, an Idaho federal magistrate judge struck down Idaho's statutory and constitutional provisions barring same-sex couples from marrying in the state or having their marriages performed elsewhere recognized in Idaho.  In Latta v. Otter, (D ID, May 13, 2014), the court concluded that Idaho's marriage laws violate same-sex couples' rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The court issued a permanent injunction, effective May 16. Idaho Statesman reports on the decision and on Idaho Governor Butch Otter's written statement after the decision saying that he will continue to defend the will of the people to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman.  UPDATE: AP reports that on May 14 the magistrate judge refused to stay her order pending appeal, writing that the appeal is unlikely to succeed.

School District Enters Consent Decree With Fellowship of Christian Athletes

Liberty Counsel announced yesterday that the Lake County, Florida, School Board has voted unanimously to enter into a Consent Decree in a suit brought against them last month by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA).  Mount Dora High School allowed secular non-curricular student clubs access to school facilities for announcing their activities, included the club in the school yearbook and allowed club members to wear a colored cord at graduation to signify membership.  FCA sued to obtain the same rights for religious non-curricular student clubs.  The consent decree (full text) in Mount Dora High School Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Lake County School Board, (MD FL), provides:

The District is hereby permanently enjoined from denying to the FCA Club, and any other high school religious non-curricular student club, Club Benefits that the District provides to any other high school non-religious, non-curricular student club, and from enforcing its Policy in a manner that violates the Equal Access Act or the First Amendment, consistent with current, applicable law.

The consent decree still must be approved by the court.

Federal Circuit Denies Trademark Registration For "Stop the Islamisation of America"

In In re Geller, (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Office's refusal to register "Stop The Islamisation of America" as a trademark to be used in connection with understanding and preventing terrorism.  The appeals court agreed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion that the phrase contains matter which may disparage a group of persons. Under 15 USC 1052(a), this is a basis for refusing registration. The court said in part:

The political meaning of Islamisation does not require violence or terrorism, and the Board properly found that associating peaceful political Islamisation with terrorism would be disparaging to a substantial composite of American Muslims.

Appellants in the case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

New International Survey of Anti-Semitic Attitudes Released

The Anti-Defamation League today announced the release of its new worldwide survey of anti-Semitic attitudes, The ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-Semitism. The study surveyed 102 countries and territories in order to determine the level and intensity of anti-Jewish sentiment internationally.  According to the ADL's press release:

The survey found that anti-Semitic attitudes are persistent and pervasive around the world. More than one-in-four adults, 26 percent of those surveyed, are deeply infected with anti-Semitic attitudes.  This figure represents an estimated 1.09 billion people around the world.

The overall ADL Global 100 Index score represents the percentage of respondents who answered “probably true” to six or more of 11 negative stereotypes about Jews. An 11-question index has been used by ADL as a key metric in measuring anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States for the last 50 years.

The detailed results are also available from an elaborate interactive website. Among the survey's other findings were that anti-Semitism is highest in the Middle East & North African (MENA) region. The non-MENA country with the highest level of anti-Semitic attitudes is Greece. The the country in the Middle East with the lowest amount of anti-Semitic feeling is Iran.  Around the world, 35% of those surveyed had never heard of the Holocaust.

Two Appointed As USCIRF Commissioners

In a press release yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced the appointment of Dr. Daniel I. Mark, assistant professor of political science at Villanova University, to the Commission for a two-year term.  In addition, Dr. Robert P. George, currently Chairman of the Commission, was reappointed for an additional two-year term.  Both appointments were made by House Speaker John Boehner.  Dr. Mark replaces outgoing Commissioner Elliott Abrams. Chairman George has a post on Mirror of Justice blog indicating that Dr. Mark was a student of his at Princeton University, and says that Mark's Ph.D. thesis defense "was the most brilliant I have witnessed in twenty-nine years of teaching."

High-Ranking French Rabbi's Religious Court Accused of Extorting Funds To Get Divorce Document For Wife

The Forward yesterday reported on allegations made two months ago in France against the Chief Rabbi of Paris (who is now also serving as the interim Chief Rabbi of France) by a woman who claims that the rabbi-- Michel Gugenheim-- was involved in extorting 90,000 Euros (approximately $123,000 US) from her in exchange for her obtaining a get (Jewish divorce document). According to a deposition filed in March with Paris police by the woman's family, the 28-year old woman's husband demanded 30,000 Euros from her before he would give her a get.  Apparently Gugenheim and two other rabbis serving on his rabbinical court backed the husband's demand, and asked the woman's family to pay it by writing a check for 90,000 Euros as a charitable contribution to the Sinai religious institution.  French tax authorities would reimburse the family for 60,000 Euros of that since it was a charitable contribution. The charity would then transfer 30,000 Euros to the husband and keep the rest. Asked to comment, Gugenheim denied any wrongdoing.

Child Parenting Time Order Did Not Violate Free Exercise Protections or Establishment Clause

In In re Peace v. Peace, (AZ App., May 8, 2014), an Arizona state appellate court rejected a divorced husband's claim that a trial court's order modifying parenting time violated his free exercise rights and the Establishment Clause.  At issue was a provision in the court's order providing that the wife will have the children on Christmas Day in odd-numbered years, and the husband shall have them in even-numbered years.  The husband complained that the court order did not mention the holy days of his Baha'i faith. The court concluded that the trial court's order does not endorse Christianity nor burden husband's religious exercise.

AU Responds To Town of Greece Decision

In a press release today, Americans United announced that it is implementing a coordinated response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Town of Greece that permitted sectarian invocations at city council sessions.  AU's program will oppose attempts to pressure local governments to institute invocations.  It will educate local officials about the parameters of the Supreme Court's decision.  It will offer assistance to individuals from a range of religious and philosophical traditions who want to offer inclusive opening messages at local council meetings. Finally it will engage in dialogue and, if necessary, litigation where the Supreme Court's decision is being violated. According to AU:

 The plan, dubbed “Operation Inclusion,” is necessary to ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected and to respond to misleading claims by Religious Right groups....

[Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

State Court Invalidates Arkansas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

In Wright v. State of Arkansas, (AR Cir. Ct., May 9, 2014), an Arkansas state trial court held that Arkansas' state constitutional and legislative bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The suit was brought by 12 same-sex couples seeking to marry in Arkansas and 8 couples who have married in states allowing same-sex marriage who want their marriages recognized in Arkansas.  In striking down the state ban, the court added:

It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.

According to USA Today, while state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel personally supports same-sex marriage, his office said after the ruling:

in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal. We will request that Judge Piazza issue a stay of his ruling so as not to create confusion or uncertainty about the law while the Supreme Court considers the matter.

  [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]