French Shut Down Islamic Summer Camp

In France, police authorities have shut down an Islamic summer camp that was accused of subjecting children to a grueling routine of religious observance. The camp, which was organized by the Turkish-Islam Culture Center in the city of Nancy, failed to obtain required approval from the French Sports Directorate to operate. Yesterday's Turkish Daily News said that the the 96 children at the camp were subjected to excessively rigorous discipline, such as being required to wake up at night to pray. The camp lacked other educational or leisure activities for the children.

ACLU and ADF In Unusual Agreement Before 6th Circuit In Diversity Training Case

Oral arguments were held yesterday before the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County. (ADF Fact Sheet). Initially the ACLU sued Ashland, Kentucky's Boyd High School to vindicate the right of students to form a gay-straight alliance club at the school. As explained in a 2005 ACLU release, the case was settled under an agreement that required the school to treat all student clubs equally and which also required the school to conduct anti-harassment training for all students and staff. Subsequently the Alliance Defense Fund sued the school, claiming that the anti-harassment training violated the rights of students opposed on religious grounds to homosexual conduct. However, in February 2006, a Kentucky federal district court upheld the school's policies. (See prior posting.)

The ACLU intervened in the ADF's lawsuit. In its brief to the 6th Circuit on appeal, the ACLU explained its position as follows: "Intervenors joined this litigation to ensure that the Board complied with its obligations under the Consent Decree by, among other things, conducting mandatory anti-harassment trainings. After careful review of the Board’s 2004-2005 anti-harassment policies, however, Intervenors came to agree with Plaintiffs that the policies were broader than the Constitution permits. Accordingly, Intervenors both joined the Board in moving for summary judgment with respect to the claims seeking a constitutional right to opt out of the anti-harassment trainings, and joined Plaintiffs in moving for summary judgment with respect to the claims involving the anti-harassment policies."

After yesterday's oral arguments, ACLU attorney Sharon McGowan said: "We've always believed that it’s entirely possible for schools to enact policies that keep gay and lesbian students safe while still respecting the First Amendment rights of students who hold anti-gay beliefs." (ACLU Release). Links to all the legal documents in the case are available online.

School Board Now Charges Rent To Scouts After Church Wanted Equal Treatment

A report in today's Elgin (IL) Daily Herald illustrates that there is more than one way for school officials to respond to charges by religious groups that they are being treated unequally. After Larkin High School officials refused to recognize a student-led group, the Cross Roads Church for Teens, as a noncurricular student organization, the Alliance Defense Fund complained. The school quickly agreed to include the group in the year book and the homecoming parade. But then another church group-- an adult group called Crossroads-- complained that outside groups like the Scouts were given rent-free use of the schools, while churches were not. In response, instead of giving church groups more access, Elgin Area School District U-46 decided to reclassify the Scouts as a nonprofit community group. This means that now scout groups will be required to pay rent to use school facilities, instead of using them free of charge as in the past.

5th Circuit, En Banc, Finds No Standing In School Board Prayer Case

By a vote of 8-7, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, sitting en banc, held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Tangipahoa Parish School Board's practice of opening its meetings with a prayer. In Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, (5th Cir., July 25, 2007), the majority, in an opinion by Chief Judge Edith Jones, said that there was no evidence in the record that plaintiffs ever attended a school board meeting where a prayer like those challenged was recited.

In a "special concurrence", Judge Moss was unusually critical of the Supreme Court. He wrote:

The Supreme Court cannot continue to speak out of both sides of its mouth if it intends to provide real guidance to federal courts.... [I]t cannot continue to hold expressly that the injury in fact requirement is no different for Establishment Clause cases, while it implicitly assumes standing in cases where the alleged injury, in a non-Establishment Clause case, would not get the plaintiff into the courthouse. This double standard must be corrected because ... it opens the courts' doors to a group of plaintiffs who have no complaint other than they dislike any government reference to God.

Dissenters, in two separate opinions, argued that the trial court's pre-trial order makes clear that plaintiffs' attendance at board meetings was not a contested issue and that defendants impliedly admitted those facts. 2theadvocate reports on the decision. The splintered 3-judge panel decision in the case was discussed in a previous posting. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Malaysia's High Court Limits Sharia Court Jurisdiction; Urges Legislative Help

Reuters today reports that Malaysia's Federal Court has ruled that Sharia tribunals cannot decide cases involving non-Muslims as one of the parties. The country's high court held that family law and religious disputes between a Muslim and a non-Muslim must be determined by the civil courts since non-Muslims cannot be present to defend themselves in Sharia courts. Meanwhile, the AP reports that Federal Court Judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad, in an opinion released Wednesday, urged the legislature to deal with the jurisdictional issue. In his written opinion (joined by two other judges) he wrote: "These are not matters that the courts can solve, as the courts owe their jurisdiction to statutes."

Monks In Wales Insist Authorities Get Warrant To Take Sacred Bull For Slaughter

Now that a British Court of Appeals has upheld an order to slaughter a sacred bull that is infected with tuberculosis, Welsh authorities have attempted to take the bull from the Skanda Vale temple in Llanpumsaint where Hindu monks have taken it for protection. Health authorities, however, were kept from entering the Skanda Vale grounds by a locked gate, a parked car and supporters of the sacred bull who were chanting and praying. The monks have insisted that authorities obtain a warrant before entering the temple grounds. Veterinary officials and police are now moving to do so, and a spokesman for the monks said that then they will not offer physical resistance. IOL and This Is London (with extensive photos) report on these developments today.

UPDATE: By Thursday evening (London time), Shambo the bull had been taken away for slaughter by lethal injection. Initially police returned with a warrant, but only posted it instead of confronting 100 demonstrators. Thursday evening, though, 20 police cut a chain securing the temple gates, dragged away some of the demonstrators, led the sacred bull to a trailer and took him away. (AP and Inthenews).

OSCE Concerned About Kazakhstan's Dispute With Hare Krishna

In a long article published yesterday, the Washington Post reports that a property dispute between Kazakhstan authorities and members of a Hare Krishna community threatens Kazakhstan's bid to chair the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2009. The government has destroyed 12 homes in the village of Seleksia, claiming that the homes were purchased by Hare Krishna followers from people who did not hold proper title to the land. Kazakh courts have held that the property belongs to the local administration. However the OSCE Advisory Council on Freedom of Religion or Belief, in a statement issued last year, said that the state's action suggests that members of the Hare Krishna community "have been targeted on the basis of their religious affiliation." The disputed land is in an area that is becoming increasingly attractive to Almaty residents seeking country homes.

Justice Department Supports Muslim Group In Its RLUIPA Lawsuit

In Wayne, New Jersey, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief supporting an Albanian Muslim group that is suing under RLUIPA to stop the township from taking for use as open space property on which the group was seeking to build a mosque. The township claims that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not apply to takings by eminent domain. The Justice Department argued, however, that the township's deliberate prolonging of the application process for a permit amounted to the kind of discrimination prohibited by RLUIPA. Reporting on developments in the federal lawsuit, the Passaic County Record yesterday said the 11 acres of land at issue has steep slopes and rock outcroppings that, according to township officials, makes it a prime candidate for preservation instead of development. (See prior related posting.)

Church Leader Raises RFRA Defense To Marijuana Charges

In Los Angeles, the trial of Rev. Craig X Rubin, leader of the 420 Temple, for possessing and distributing marijuana was scheduled to begin with jury selection yesterday. On Monday, at a hearing preceding the trial, Rubin-- representing himself-- argued that his possession of marijuana was protected by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He says the federal law applies because federal agents joined state police in the raid on his congregation last November. Rubin-- who was ordained by the Universal Life Church-- says he believes that marijuana is the "tree of life" mentioned in the Bible, so he incorporates marijuana in his church ceremonies. The Associated Press says that Rubin faces up to seven years in prison if convicted for burning marijuana during services and distributing it to members who are asked to make a donation for marijuana they receive. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: The AP reports that on Tuesday Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel ruled Rubin could not rely on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense because he is facing only state charges.

State Special Prosecutor Will Probe Kosher Slaughterhouse

The animal rights group, PETA, has filed complaints with local and federal officials against a Nebraska kosher slaughterhouse. After receiving PETA's complaint, the Sheridan County (NE) Attorney, citing a conflict of interest within her office, petitioned the state district court to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. Yesterday's Beatrice Daily Sun reports that in response the court appointed Dawes County Attorney Vance Haug. The focus of the investigation is Local Pride LLC, which is owned by the Sholom Rubashkin family. PETA claims that Local Pride permits cows to remain conscious up to two minutes after their throats are cut. Last year, again at the behest of PETA, Rubashkin's Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa was investigated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See prior posting.)

The Federal Humane Slaughter Act (7 USC Sec. 1902) defines as one acceptable method of slaughter: "slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering."

UPDATE: The Beatrice Daily Sun on Wednesday reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture says it inspected the Local Pride plant earlier this month and found no problems. The Orthodox Union-- the primary certifier of kosher slaughterhouses-- also says that it found no problems during recent inspections, and that minor problems in earlier inspections have been remedied.

Mennonites Settle Septic Tank Dispute Without Religiously Banned Litigation

In Maxatawny Township, Pennsylvania, five Mennonite families have entered a preliminary settlement with township officials who claimed the families owed some $300,000 in fines for failing to pump their septic tanks by a June 30, 2006 deadline set by the township. The Mennonites claim they never received notice of the deadline, and felt they were being treated unfairly since their religion precludes them from entering litigation-- which would have been necessary to contest the fines. According to yesterday's Morning Call, under the settlement worked out in private talks, the Mennonites will be fined only $350, but will agree to comply with septic tank deadlines in the future. Township supervisors must still vote on approval of the settlement.

Claims By Religious Opponent of School's Patriotic Exercises Rejected

In Myers v. Loudin County School Board, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53049 (ED VA, July 23, 2007), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a series of claims brought pro se by Edward Myers, a member of the Anabaptist Mennonite faith, who claimed that the school's daily recital of the pledge of allegiance amounted to promotion of a civil religion in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The court rejected Myers' request that the school's "patriotic curriculum" be redrafted. It also rejected Myers' claim that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated when he was denied access to school folders and homerooms to distribute flyers and when his proposed ads for a school yearbook, athletic program and newspaper were rejected. The flyers and ads attacked "civil religion" in the public schools. The court held that an incident in which Myers was prevented from leafleting in front of the school was a First Amendment violation, but that the single incident did not justify the issuance of an injunction.

Egyptian Grand Mufti Says Many Conversions Are Punishable Only By God

AFP yesterday reported that Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa says that converting out of Islam "is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgement. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment." He said that only conversions that undermine the "foundations of society" should be dealt with by the judicial system. Hossam Bahgat, a lawyer for 12 Copts who converted to Islam and now want to convert back to Christianity, says he will cite Gomaa's statement in his presentation of his clients' case to the Supreme Court of Egypt in September. Up to now, the government has generally refused to recognize conversions out of Islam in official documents. Gomaa is the state's chief legal adviser and is technically the deputy minister of justice.

UPDATE: A July 26 post on Volokh Conspiracy reports on a subsequent statement from Gomaa that appears to somewhat back off of his earlier comments.

Russian Presidential Candidates Asked About Religion In Russia

While we are used to American presidential candidates being asked about their religious views (see prior posting), now Russian candidates seem to be expected to respond to similar inquiries. A posting today by the Real Russia Project reports that members of Nashi, a pro-Kremlin youth movement, recently asked two candidates in Russia's 2008 presidential elections their views on the recent revival of religious life in Russia. Both Dmitri Medvedev and Sergey Ivanov said that the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox Church had very positive effects on Russian society. Responding to another question, neither of them thought that building the largest Orthodox Cathedral in the world was a particularly important goal. Ivanov said, "One should not think of cathedrals in the same way as the competition to build the tallest skyscraper. The main thing is that there should be a lot of churches and that they should not be empty."

Democratic Hopefuls Respond To YouTube Queries On Role of Religious Faith

Democratic presidential candidates debating last night on CNN spoke about their religious beliefs in answer to at least two of the questions posed by questioners through YouTube video clips. In the first part of the debate (transcript), Sen. John Edwards was asked about the impact of his religious beliefs on his views about gay marriage:

QUESTION: I'm Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I'm the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina. Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote. So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?...

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States. But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know... my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

.... I've been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage? The honest answer to that is I don't. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

Near the end of the debate, YouTube questioners elicited additional responses on candidates' religious beliefs from Sen. Joseph Biden, John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (transcript):

QUESTION: Hi, I'm Zenne Abraham in Oakland, California. The cathedral behind me is the perfect backdrop for this question. This quarter reads "United States of America." And when I turn it over, you find that it reads "liberty, in God we trust." What do those words mean to you?....

BIDEN: Religion informs my values. My reason dictates outcomes. My religion taught me about abuse of power. That's why I moved to write the Violence Against Women Act. That's why I take the position I take on Darfur. It came about as a consequence of the reasoning that we're able to do it. You know, look, I don't think they're inconsistent. I don't find anything inconsistent about my deep, religious beliefs and my ability to use reason. I think the coin's got it just right. I think I have it in perspective....

QUESTION: ... My name is Stephen Marsh of Thousand Oaks, California, proud citizen of the United States of America that does not believe in God. However, the former President Bush said this statement was an oxymoron. Now, I am worried about the amount of time given to evangelical concerns while secular voters are more or less getting a snubbed.... So my question is this: Am I wrong in fearing a Democratic administration that may be lip service to the extremely religious as much as the current one?....

EDWARDS: As president of the United States, we will embrace and lift up all Americans, whatever their faith beliefs or whether they have no faith beliefs, as Stephen just spoke about. That's what America is.

Now, my faith is enormously important to me personally. It's gotten me through some hard times, as I'm sure that's true of a lot of the candidates who are on this stage. But it is crucial that the American people know that as president it will not be my job -- and I believe it would be wrong -- for me to impose my personal faith beliefs on the American people or to decide any kind of decision, policy decision, that will affect America on the basis of my personal faith beliefs....

OBAMA: I am proud of my Christian faith. And it informs what I do. And I don't think that people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square. But I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state....

By the way, I support it not just for the state but also for the church, because that maintains our religious independence and that's why we have such a thriving religious life. But what I also think is that we are under obligation in public life to translate our religious values into moral terms that all people can share, including those who are not believers. And that is how our democracy's functioning, will continue to function. That's what the founding fathers intended.

India's Supreme Court Says Marriage Registration Applies To All Religions

Today's Hindustan Times reports that the Supreme Court of India on Monday ordered Indian states to require the registration of all marriages, regardless of the religion of the parties. In February 2006, the Supreme Court held that every marriage must be registered in the state in which it takes place. However some states have implemented this mandate by issuing orders under the Hindu Marriage Act. This means that the registration requirement is not binding on non-Hindus. The Court also ordered five states that had not taken any steps to implement its 2006 order to now enact laws requiring registration.

British Appellate Court Upholds Order To Slaughter Sacred Bull

Reversing a lower court, in Britain the Court of Appeals in London upheld an order by local Welsh authorities that a sacred bull infected with bovine tuberculosis be slaughtered. The Independent reports today on the court's opinion that held no exception is required for Shambo the bull, who is sacred to the Hindu monks of the Skanda Vale Community. Lord Justice Pill wrote that the risk posed by the diseased animal outweighed the "very grave and serious interference with ... religious rights" that was involved. An appeal to the House of Lords is expected.

Two Reappointed to US Commission on International Religious Freedom

Two members of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom have been reappointed for two year terms. (USCIRF July 16 press release.) Felice D. Gaer, director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee has been reappointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nina Shea, senior scholar at the Hudson Institute and director of the Institute's Center for Religious Freedom has been reappointed by House Minority Leader John Boehner. [Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the lead.]

Hamas Sets Up New Court System In Gaza

In the Middle East, Hamas authorities in Gaza are setting up a new system to replace the courts that have stopped functioning, but news reports give somewhat differing details. Media Line said yesterday Hamas authorities have decided to set up Islamic courts to replace the former court system. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had ordered the previously appointed judges and prosecutors to stop cooperating with Hamas after it took over Gaza. Abu Obydai, leader of Hamas' Executive Force ( Tanfezya), said that the new courts will apply Sharia law, especially in marriage and divorce matters. The new courts will be supervised by a three-person panel consisting of an Islamic law expert, a military court judge and the chief of the central prison. Ali Khashan, Justice Minister in the Fatah-led Palestinian government on the West Bank, said the decision to set up the new courts was illegal.

Arab News meanwhile has a slightly different version of developments. It says that the three-person panel is being set up on a temporary basis until courts start functioning again. It will hear the hundreds of criminal complaints that would have gone to existing courts, according to Islam Shahwan, spokesman of Hamas’ Executive Force. Another Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said the new legal panel would not impose Sharia law, but would apply it with the consent of both parties, particularly in dealing with inheritance, marriage and divorce.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Robinson v. Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50817 (ND FL, July 13, 2007), a Florida federal Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of an inmate's free exercise claim because he failed to allege that the withholding of his religious books and materials denied him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his religion, despite his previously being advised that such allegations were necessary.

In Quillar v. California Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50894 (ED CA, July 13, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims by an inmate who was disciplined for wearing a beard for religious reasons, in violation of the prison's grooming regulations. While the allegations were found sufficient to state a claim, the magistrate found that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity from plaintiff's damage claims and that plaintiff's claim for an injunction is moot due to his transfer to a different facility. The magistrate also recommended rejection of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.

In Ghashryah v. Frank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51104 (WD WI), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted an inmate to move forward with his claim that his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when prison officials prohibited him from using his religious name in filing grievances.

In DeRosa v. Jones, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51561 (ED OK, July 16, 2007), an Oklahoma federal district court upheld the denial of a kosher diet to a prisoner who was a member of a Messianic Jewish group, finding that the prison's vegetarian diet, as well as non-pork meals, are available to him.

In Johnson v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52186 (MD PA, July 19, 2007), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a prisoner's claim that his placement in administrative custody was in retaliation for his exercise of his religious rights since plaintiff made no showing of a causal connection between the two. Authorities discovered that the prisoner had documents indicating an attempt to undercut the prison's contract Imam. He also had documents indicating he may be trying to poison someone by mixing antifreeze with their salad dressing.

In El-Tabech v. Clarke, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52018 (D NE, July 17, 2007), a Nebraska federal district court upheld claims by a Muslim prisoner that he be given access to a kosher diet, and that the prayer schedule be posted so that guards are aware of it. The court rejected the inmate's claim that he be allowed to shower every day, instead of three days per week, while he is in administrative confinement.