Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Louisiana House Defeats Anti-Discrimination Bill
Four Charged With Using Religious Schools To Steal State Voucher Funds
Vatican Speaks Out On Religious Freedom And Proselytization
Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.Meanwhile, in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI spoke twice this week on the importance of religious freedom in countries with non-Christian majorities. (Reuters report.) On Monday, speaking to the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, he urged Muslim countries to grant Christian minorities the same rights as Muslims have in Western nations. (Zenit report.) He said that Christians in Muslim nations should be able to speak openly about their religion.
We affirm that while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.
Freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.
On Thursday, the Pope told India's new ambassador to the Vatican that the efforts by Hindu nationalists in some Indian states to ban conversions were unconstitutional and "contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers." (Full text of statement.) His objections, and others, seem to have had an effect. BBC News and Daily India report today that the governor of the Indian state of Rajasthan, citing religious freedom concerns, has refused to sign a bill passed by the state assembly that would have prohibited religious conversions impelled by fraud, force or allurement. (See prior posting.)
Senate Committee Passes "Marriage Protection Amendment"
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Memorial Day 2006-- Is It A Religious Holiday?
As with other aspects of our civic culture, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the struggle against "godless Communism" in the 1950's led the U.S. Congress to stress the role of religion in national ceremonies. That more recent aspect of Memorial Day is reflected in the 2006 Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day Proclamation that President Bush issued at the White House on Tuesday. It provides in part:
Those who lost their lives in the defense of freedom helped protect our citizens and lay the foundation of peace for people everywhere. On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation pays tribute to their personal courage, love of country, and dedication to duty.
In respect for their devotion to America, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 158), has requested the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 29, 2006, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day.
Native American Couple Seek Damages For Wrongful Peyote Enforcement
Court Refuses To Order Amendment In Baptismal Certificate
Illinois Governor Signs Bill To Bar Funeral Protests
Shirley Phelps-Roper, attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church said that despite the law, pickets would be at the Illinois funeral of Afghanistan veteran Christopher Donaldson on Friday. Defiantly, she said, "The law is impotent. You've done nothing to change that God is killing your children and sending them home from battle. Keep your big, fat snout out of our religion."
Prisoner Free Exercise Claims Move Ahead
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Florida Synagogue Can Move Ahead With Discrimination Claims
The court held that the synagogue had sufficiently shown a practice of harassment and selective enforcement against the Synagogue through checking daily for code violations and ticketing only cars parked on the synagogue's side of the street. The court dismissed the synagogue's claim under the federal RLUIPA and Florida's RFRA that a substantial burden was placed on its religious exercise by the city's denial of a Special Exception under its zoning laws, but permitted the synagogue to proceed with its discrimination claim under RLUIPA, as well as its equal protection, due process and promissory estoppel claims. It also permitted it to move ahead on its claim that City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations fail to provide objective criteria to measure zoning decisions made by the Commission.
Turkish High Court Judges Shot In Religiously Motivated Attack
UPDATE: On Thursday, more than 15,000 Turks, including students and judges dressed in their robes, marched in Ankara to support secularism and to condemn the shooting of Council of State judges. (AP report.)
Utah Supreme Court Upholds Polygamy Ban
The court rejected defendant's claim that outlawing polygamous marriage violates his free exercise rights under Art. I, Sec. 4 of Utah's constitution. In so holding, the majority focused on the explicit ban on polygamy placed in Utah's constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1) as a condition of statehood, as required by the 1894 federal Utah Enabling Act. The majority also rejected the contention that criminalizing religiously motivated plural marriage violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Finally the court rejected the defendant's claim that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas protects polygamous relationships as a fundamental liberty interest.
The case involved the conviction of FLDS member Rodney Holm, who had been a police officer in Hilldale, Utah. Charges were filed after he married a 16-year old third wife (the sister of his first wife), and fathered her two children.
An interesting dissent by Chief Justice Durham takes the position that Utah's polygamy ban only applies to licensed marriages, and not to a mere religious union where there has been no attempt to obtain state recognition of marital status or the legal benefits of marriage. She also held that imposing criminal penalties on Holm’s religiously motivated entry into a religious union violates the state constitution's provisions protecting religious freedom. Finally she argued that if Holm's polygamous relationship had been with an adult instead of a minor, it would be protected under the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas holding.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the case in two news articles. 1, 2 .
Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Claim Religious Rights Violation
Kentucky ACLU Seeks To Stop Planned Graduation Prayer
UPDATE: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order in the case. (Louisville Courier-Journal).
Egyptian Court Suspends Pro-Bahai Ruling Pending Appeal
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Government Censors Take Aim At Da Vinci Code Movie
In India (CNN-IBN report) the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has said that the film will not be cleared until it is screened by the Catholic Churches Association of India. In Thailand, according to the Bangkok Post, the censorship committee of the Police Registration Division has agreed to cut out the last ten minutes of the movie. Christian groups say that portion of the film distorts the Bible by claiming that heirs of Jesus are alive today. Malaysia is permitting the movie to be shown. The Philippines gave the film an "adults only" certificate, which prohibits those under 18 from seeing the movie in theaters. (Reuters report.) In Korea, Seoul's Central District Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by the Christian Council of Korea seeking to prevent the film's screening. (Korea Times report.) [Thanks to Geoff Rapp for the lead to some of this information.]
WTC Memorial Encounters Church-State Issue
This decision does not set well with American Atheists. A press release e-mailed widely by AA yesterday reaffirms its long-standing opposition to including the cross as part of the memorial. The group's Communications Director, Dave Silverman, said that including the cross ignores the diverse background of the 9-11 victims. "It wasn't just certain types of Christians who died that day," he said. "Jews, Muslims, Atheists and others were victims of the terrorists. A memorial should be inclusive and remind us what we share in common as a nation, and not promote religious differences."
Supreme Court Discusses Taxpayer Standing
Quite apart from whether the franchise tax credit is analogous to an exercise of congressional power under Art. I, § 8, plaintiffs' reliance on Flast is misguided: Whatever rights plaintiffs have under the Commerce Clause, they are fundamentally unlike the right not to "'contribute three pence . . . for the support of any one [religious] establishment.'" Indeed, plaintiffs compare the Establishment Clause to the Commerce Clause at such a high level of generality that almost any constitutional constraint on government power would "specifically limit" a State's taxing and spending power for Flast purposes.... [S]uch a broad application of Flast's exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing would be quite at odds with its narrow application in our precedent and Flast's own promise that it would not transform federal courts into forums for taxpayers'"generalized grievances."...
The Flast Court discerned in the history of the Establishment Clause "the specific evils feared by [its drafters] that the taxing and spending power would be used to favor one religion over another or to support religion in general." ... The Court therefore understood the "injury" alleged in Establishment Clause challenges to federal spending to be the very "extraction and spending" of "tax money" in aid of religion alleged by a plaintiff.... And an injunction against the spending would of course redress that injury, regardless of whether lawmakers would dispose of the savings in a way that would benefit the taxpayer-plaintiffs personally.