Two Senate Resolutions Passed

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate passed two resolutions by unanimous consent:

S. Res. 364 is titled "A Resolution Honoring the Valuable Contributions of Catholic Schools In the United States". UPDATE On Feb. 8, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution. H.Res. 657.

S. Res. 366, among other things, designates Feb. 2-9 as a week of prayer and reflection for the people of Uganda. It expresses concern for the Ugandan victims of Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army, and asks Sudan, Uganda, and the international community to bring justice and humanitarian assistance to Northern Uganda.

First Amendment Challenge To Refusal of School Bussing Not Moot

Pucket v. Rounds, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3925 (D SD, Jan. 17, 2006 ) involves an interesting question of mootness in the context of a First Amendment challenge to provisions of the South Dakota Constitution brought in federal district court in South Dakota. Following receipt of an attorney general's opinion, a South Dakota school district stopped furnishing bussing to parochial school students. Parents filed suit challenging the provisions of the South Dakota constitution on which the attorney general relied (Art. VI, sec. 3, and Art. VIII, sec. 16). Subsequently, the legislature enacted a statute permitting bussing and the school district reinstated parochial school bussing. Plaintiffs claim, however, that it was really the filing of their lawsuit that caused the school district to reinstate bussing. The court held that "assuming, as the court must on summary judgment, that plaintiffs' lawsuit motivated School District, then plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are not moot because the voluntary cessation exception applies. According to this exception, 'the voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot.'"

Second Circuit Upholds NYC Schools' Holiday Display Policy

Yesterday, in Skoros v. Tine, (2nd Cir., Feb. 2, 2006), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the New York City schools’ holiday display policy against constitutional attack. The Department of Education’s policy allows the menorah to be displayed as a symbol of the Jewish holiday of Chanukkah and the star and crescent to be displayed as a symbol of the Islamic holiday of Ramadan, but it permits only secular symbols, and not a creche or nativity scene, to be displayed as a symbol of Christmas. In a lengthy opinion, the majority found that the policy passes the Lemon test. It also rejected a claim that the policy violates plaintiff’s free exercise rights or her parental rights to control the religious education and upbringing of her children. Judge Straub, dissenting, argued that the Establishment Clause was violated because the holiday display policy sends a message of endorsement of Judaism and Islam to students viewing the school displays. [Thanks to Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, for the information]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Loosens Church Land Tax Exemptions

Earlier this week, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on a December 30 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court permitting a property tax exemption for church parking lots when they are reasonably necessary to the existence of the church itself. The full text of the majority and dissenting opinions in Wesley United Methodist Church v. Dauphin County Board of Assessment Appeals is available online. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead].

National Prayer Breakfast More Inclusive This Year

Yesterday, President George W. Bush spoke at the 54th National Prayer Breakfast at the Hilton Washington Hotel. (Full text of remarks.) The keynoter, however, was U2 lead singer Bono, who founded the humanitarian organization DATA which focuses on battling the AIDS pandemic in Africa. Christianity Today reports on the major speakers at the event.

As reported in AP stories (here and here), this year's event was more ecumenical than the Prayer Breakfasts of past years. The breakfast, which usually draws over 3500 attendees, is privately funded and is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, an evangelical Christian group. Presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush have attended, as have members of Congress and world leaders. In past years, the event has had a decidedly Christian tone. This year, however, the Breakfast was co-chaired for the first time by a Jew, Sen. Norm Coleman who, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, offered Hebrew prayers. The Breakfast also featured as a speaker a prominent Muslim, King Abdullah II of Jordan. Nathan J. Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America praised the new inclusiveness of the Breakfast.

More Explanations and Views On the Muhammad Cartoon Battle

Lorenzo Vidino at The Counterterrorism Blog makes a rather startling allegation as to why the reaction to the Jyllands Posten cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has been so extreme:

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian ... put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.... However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified.

Meanwhile in a sidebar to its story today on the controversy, the Associated Press sets out a more conventional explanation, focusing on the prohibition in Islamic law of any kind of depictions of Muhammad.

The Toronto Star carries an interesting story on comments by Ruth Mas, a lecturer in Islamic studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, who argues that the cartoons reflect not blasphemy, but racism. The article also quotes Michael Muhammad Pfaff, of the German Muslim League, who argues that the cartoons are reminiscent of the caricatures of Jews in the Nazi propaganda sheet Der Sturmer.

Finally, SFGate runs excerpts from editorials around the world on the controversy. (See prior related postings on the cartoon controversy 1, 2, 3 .)

Jewish Democrats Criticize Boehner's Record

As Ohio Republican John Boehner yesterday was elected majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives (Reuters coverage), the National Jewish Democratic Council issued a statement saying "Rep. Boehner has for years advocated positions that run counter to the issue agenda of the vast majority of American Jews." The Statement cites ten positions that Boehner has taken, including ones in favor of school prayer, faith-based initiatives, display of the Ten Commandments on public property and teaching of intelligent design. He also voted against confronting proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and various environmental initiatives.

House of Lords To Hear Muslim Student's Appeal

In Britain, the Guardian reports that the House of Lords is scheduled to hear a case Monday on on whether a high school's uniform policy takes precedence over a Muslim girl's right to wear head-to-toe traditional dress. The student, Shabina Begum, says that Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, has denied her the "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs", protected by the Human Rights Act. In March the court of appeal agreed with her. The school, which permits pupils to wear the hijab, a headscarf, and trousers and tunic, said it was proud of its inclusive school uniform policy.

UPDATE: A Press Association report discusses the arguments that were made before the Law Lords.

British Hindus and Sikhs May Sue To Build Funeral Pyre

In Newcastle, England, the Anglo-Asian Friendship Society is considering bringing a test case on behalf of Hindus and Sikhs who would like to build a funeral pyre so that bodies could be cremated in accordance with religious law. Open-air cremations have been banned since 1930, but now, according to yesterday's Hindustan Times, the group is considering a challenge in the High Court in London relying on Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is incorporated into British Law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. The law protects "freedom of thought, conscience and religion".

Muhammad Cartoon Controversy Continues-- Latest Developments

The AP today reports that newspapers in France, Germany, Spain and Italy are reprinting some of the controversial cartoon drawings of the Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish paper in September. The Danish publication (and later Norwegian paper's republication) has sparked worldwide protests from Muslims that have particularly heightened in recent days. (See prior postings 1, 2 .) In France, the managing editor of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc, was fired by the paper's owner after he republished the cartoons.

Also according to the AP story, today Palestinian gunmen jumped on the outer wall of a European Union office in Gaza City and demanded an apology for the drawings. Today's Jerusalem Post reports that a leaflet signed by a Fatah militia and the Islamic Jihad had said the EU office and churches in Gaza could come under attack and urged all French citizens to leave Gaza. On Wednesday night, the Fatah-affiliated Aksa Martyrs' Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine threatened to blow up the Danish and Norwegian consulates in the Palestinian Authority, Israeli Army Radio reported. And, according to Haaretz, these threats have led Norway to close its Palestinian Authority representative office in the West Bank.

Ten Commandments Battles Continue in Legislatures and Courts

State bills authorizing the display of the Ten Commandments on public property have moved forward recently in two states.

In Georgia yesterday, the House of Representatives by a vote of 140-26 approved HB 914. The bill would permit "a uniform, pedagogically sound, distinctive, and appropriate presentation of the story of the role of religion in the constitutional history of America and Georgia" to be "publicly displayed in governmental buildings throughout the State of Georgia". The bill sets out the text of the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact and the King James version of the Ten Commandments which, together with a prescribed statement captioned "context for acknowledging America's Religious Heritage", comprise the document that the Secretary of State is to prepare and distribute to governmental entities. The Associated Press, reporting on the House vote, quoted one Republican Rep. Fran Millar, who said: "If we lump the Bible with the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence, are we demeaning the Bible?"

Meanwhile, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, in the Kentucky House of Representatives on Tuesday, the Committee on State Government approved House Bill 277. It permits state and local governmental agencies and public schools to display "historical artifacts, monuments, symbols and texts, including but not limited to religious materials", if the displays have historical and cultural, rather than religious, purposes. At the last minute, however, the Committee tacked on an amendment that calls for the posting of "In God We Trust" above the dais of the speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Backers fear this provision will threaten the constitutionality of the entire bill.

There have also been developments in the courts. Today's Deseret Morning News reports that Utah federal district Judge Dee Benson had denied preliminary relief to plaintiffs in a case in which a Salt Lake City religious group is seeking permission to place a monument declaring Summum's Seven Aphorisms next to a 10 Commandments monument in a Pleasant Grove, Utah park. A Sunstone taken from the LDS temple at Nauvoo, Ill., and donated by a Pleasant Grove resident is also in the park. The city says that it has a long-standing, though unwritten, policy of only allowing monuments that relate to the city's history or donated by those with long-standing ties to the Pleasant Grove community. (See prior related posting.)

Falun Gong Found Protected Under Ontario Human Rights Code

For the first time, the Ontario (Canada) Human Rights Commission has found that Falun Gong is a "creed" under the Ontario Human Rights Code. This means that Falun Gong practitioners are protected against discrimination of various kinds. The Epoch Times today reports that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the Ottawa Senior Chinese Cultural Association and two of its former executives to pay Ms. Huang Daiming $18,000 in damages after the club revoked her membership over her practice of Falun Gong—apparently under pressure from the local Chinese Embassy. The tribunal also ordered the seniors club to end its ban on Falun Gong members, to prominently post the Human Rights code on the Association premises, and to include anti-discrimination provisions in its policies and constitution. The full text of the Jan. 18 decision is available online.

Further Proceedings In 2 Jail Free-Exercise Cases

Opinions involving further proceedings in two different free-exercise cases involving claims against county jails have recently been released.

Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that in the Western District of Arkansas, federal district Judge Jimm Larry Hendren accepted most of a magistrate's findings, agreeing that denying a Native American prisoner access to a prayer feather was not reasonably related to the goal of security in a county jail. (See prior posting.) However the judge rejected the magistrate's imposition of nominal damages, finding that the defendants had qualified immunity.

In Andreola v. State of Wisconsin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3359 (ED Wis., Jan. 18, 2006), after previously granting summary judgment to defendants on an inmate's other claims, a Wisconsin federal district court now also granted defendants summary judgment on a claim under RLUIPA by an Orthodox Jewish pre-trial detainee who was not given access to kosher food meeting his religious requirements while held in the Rock County Jail. Instead he was served selected items from the jail's regular menu. Strictly kosher food was not easily available in the county where the jail was located. The court found a compelling security interest in not permitting the inmate to prepare his own food, and a compelling interest in preserving county funds and not subsidizing religion in the jail's refusal to serve plaintiff prepackaged kosher meals.

Italian Judge Suspended After Banning Crosses From His Courtroom

ANSA reported yesterday that in Rome, the Italian judiciary's self-governing body, the Supreme Council of Magistrates, removed judge Luigi Tosti from his post and cut off his pay because of his "unjustifiable behavior" in refusing to hold court until the cross posted in his Camerino court room is removed. Last year Tosti was convicted of refusing to perform his duties and sentenced to a 7-month suspended sentence. (See previous posting.) Tosti insists that defendants have the constitutional right not to be tried under a religious symbol, and questions the continuing validity of the Fascist-era Rocco Code which is the source of the requirement for the cross to be placed in his courtroom. Italy's Justice Ministry says that the Rocco Code has never been abolished and so remains in force .

Britain's Religious Hatred Bill Passes In Modified Form

In Britain yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered a major defeat as the House of Commons accepted changes proposed by the House of Lords to Britain's pending Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. (See prior posting.) Today's Daily Mail and London Times report on the developments. The amendments limit the bill's prohibitions to threatening words and behavior. Criticism, insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice were explicitly excluded from coverage. Amendments also provide that the law will be violated only by intentional conduct. The first vote in Commons on the bill backed the House of Lords amendments by 288 to 278. Then a major political miscalculation occurred. Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, advised Prime Minister Blair that there was no point in staying for the second decisive vote on the bill, given the wide margin of defeat in the first vote. However when the second vote was taken, the House of Lords amendments won by only one vote (283 to 282), with Mr. Blair absent and not voting. The bill will go for royal assent in its now-amended version.

Tacoma Municipal Court To Change No-Hat Policy

In Tacoma, Washington, municipal court judges are revising a long-standing policy against wearing hats in the courtroom to clearly permit head coverings worn for religious or medical purposes. The Tacoma News Tribune today reports that the move follows complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations after Mujaahidah Sayfullah, a local real estate agent, was asked to leave Judge David Ladenburg's courtroom because she would not remove her hijab. Sayfullah said she has been a juror in Pierce County Superior Court twice in the last year or so, and no one ever mentioned her Muslim head scarf. Judge Ladenburg has apologized, saying he thought that Muslim religious law permitted individuals to remove their headwear.

Navajos' Free Exercise Claim Rejected

In Benally v. Kaye, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39751 (D. AZ, Sept. 8, 2005), decided last September by an Arizona federal district court and recently made available, the court rejected free exercise of religion and RFRA claims by a group of Navajo Indians who were prevented from holding a 3-day Sundance Festival on land belonging to the Hopi Indian Tribe. Plaintiffs claimed that tribal law enforcement officers, the Navajo County Sheriffs Office, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all violated their free exercise of religion rights by restricting their access to the site of the religious celebration. The court, however, held that there was no right to practice one's religion on property belonging to someone else.

Indian Muslims Reject Uniform Civil Code

In India yesterday, the All Muslim Personal Law Board has called for repeal of Article 44 of the Indian Constitution that calls for the promulgation of a uniform civil code in the country to govern marriage, divorce and inheritance. Developments are reported by Calcutta's Telegraph and by WebIndia123. Currently personal laws give Muslims the right to follow Islamic rules on marriage and divorce. A separate statute protects Hindu marriage practices. The Indian Supreme Court has several times urged Parliament to frame a uniform code for all Indians. Now the AIMPLB formally has said implementation of a Uniform Civil Code would not be acceptable in a country with diverse religions and castes. (See prior related posting.)

Legislators Ask NV Pharmacy Board To End Consideration Of Rules

The Las Vegas Sun yesterday reported that the Nevada Board of Pharmacy has dropped an effort to create regulations to allow "conscience refusals" to fill prescriptions, while setting guidelines for them. The proposal would have required a pharmacist to disclose moral or religious beliefs at the time of employment and to have a backup plan for prescriptions to be filled by someone else or at another pharmacy. State legislators, however, asked the board turn the matter over to the legislature, saying the issue was too political for an appointed board. However, the legislature is unlikely to act this year on the matter.

Summary Judgment Denied In Two Prisoner Claims

Two more prisoner free exercise cases have just been handed down.

In Meyer v. Teslik, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3003 (WD Wis., Jan. 26. 2006), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendant, a prison chaplain, in a case alleging denial of a Native American prisoner's right to attend group religious services. The court found that a dispute remained as to whether or not the omission of the inmate's name from the list of those authorized to attend services was intentional.

In Collins v. Alameida, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3258 (ED Cal., Jan. 30, 2006), a California federal district judge refused to grant summary judgment to Avenal State Prison officials in a case challenging prison grooming regulations under RLUIPA. Inmate Collins claimed that his Nazarite religious beliefs prevented him from cutting his hair. The court found that defendants had failed to prove that that the California Department of Corrections grooming standards are the least restrictive means of furthering their interest of maintaining institutional safety and security.