Animal Rights Demonstrators Lose Establishment Clause Claim

In Deardorff v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78235 (WD KY, Oct. 20, 2006), a Kentucky federal district court rejected the claim of animal rights demonstrators that police violated the Establishment Clause by moving them away from the front of a church where they could be seen by cars entering the church's premises. The demonstrators believed that Kentucky Fried Chicken executives attended the church, and they wanted to reach those executives with their protest.

Archbishop of Cantebury On Regulation of Religious Symbols

Last week, upon his return from a trip to China, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Cantebury, published an of-ed column in the London Times titled A Society That Does Not Allow Crosses or Veils in Public Is a Dangerous One. The column comes after British political leaders have criticized the wearing of the Niqab by Muslim women. (New York Times, Oct. 22.) Reactions to William's column were reviewed in This Is London last Friday.

Vandalism Follows Teachers' Request To End School Board Prayer

Two teachers who requested the Crawford County, Georgia Board of Education to stop opening board meetings and new teacher orientations with prayer found that someone disagreed strongly with their proposal. The Macon (GA) Telegraph reported today the teachers found the tires on their cars slashed. The vandalism took place in the school board parking lot on the night of the October board meeting-- a meeting that, as usual, opened with a prayer. School officials say that prayer will continue, but they will comply with guidelines that call for prayers to be denominationally neutral. Presumably that means that the routine practice of mentioning Jesus by name in opening prayers will be changed.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SmartCILP:

• Constance Frisby Fain & Herbert Fain, Sexual Abuse and the Church, 31 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 209-238 (2006).
  
• Jonathan Klick, Salvation As a Selective Incentive, 26 International Review of Law & Economics 15-32 (2006).
  
• A. G. Roeber, The Law, Religion, and State Making In the Early Modern World: Protestant Revolutions In the Works of Berman, Gorski, and Witte, 31 Law & Social Inquiry 199-227 (2006).
  
• 12th Annual International Law and Religion Symposium: Religion and the World's Legal Tradition. Articles [links to full text] by Rex J. Abdar, Louis-Leon Christians, Cornel W. du Toit, Carolyn Evans & Christopher A. Thomas, (Pakistan) Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Tahir Mahmood, Javier Martinez-Torron and Paul M. Taylor, 2006 Brigham Young University Law Review 619-836.

From SSRN:

• George W. Dent, Jr., Civil Rights for Whom?: Gay Rights versus Religious Freedom, (Sept. 2006).

Recent Books:

• Newt Gingrich, Rediscovering God in America, (Integrity Publishers, Oct. 2006).
  
• Andy Olree, The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration, (University Press of America, Aug. 2006).
  
• Michael L. Weinstein & Davin Seay, With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military, (St. Martin's Press, Oct. 2006).
  
  

Australians React To Muslim Cleric's Offensive Sermon

Support for Australian Prime Minister John Howard's proposal to require a pledge supporting Australian values by immigrants seeking citizenship was strengthened this week after a controversial sermon by an Islamic cleric in Australia. (Khaleej Times (Sunday).) Howard wants immigrants to show support for democracy, the rule of law and the equality of men and women. The controversial sermon (full text) was delivered by Sheikh Taj Aldin Al Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim cleric. His Ramadan remarks, aimed at immodest dress, have been seen as blaming women for rape. He described women who did not wear a head covering as "uncovered meat", and said "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?"

Subsequently Hilali and his spokepersons have both tried to explain the remarks and have apologized for them, as leading Muslim women condemned the remarks. Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, said the comments could be an incitement to crime. (BBC News (Thursday).) In an effort to prevent further fallout, it was announced Friday that Hilali will not preach sermons for the next two to three months. (Baku Today (Friday).)

2 State Courts Assert Jurisdiction In Break-Away Church Land Disputes

In two recent cases, state courts have agreed that they can decide disputes over church property between break-away congregations and parent church bodies.

In Malankara Archdiocese of Syrian Orthodox Church in N. Am. v Thomas, (NY App. Div., Oct. 24, 2006), 3 judges on a New York appellate court held that a dispute over property ownership of church land can be resolved using neutral principles of law. When the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church replaced the Archbishop of the Archdiocese with a new Archbishop, who in turn replaced the vicar of St. Mary's Church, 29 members of St. Mary's signed a document stating that St. Mary's had resolved to be affiliated with the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The court however affirmed the trial court's decision that the property belonged to the Archdiocese. Judge Spolzino dissenting argued that the case should be dismissed because it involves a doctrinal dispute that a civil court cannot adjudicate.

In a dispute in Tulsa, Oklahoma between Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA), an Oklahoma state district court has held that it can decide whether a church building on 10 acres of prime real estate was held in trust for the parent body or belongs to the local church. Friday's Tulsa World reported on the decision involving a claim by the church that the denomination was moving away from its biblical base and was lessening its opposition to gay clergy. While lifting a stay on state proceedings, the judge did order the local church to furnish the Presbytery the church's membership list.

New Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition

George Washington University Law School has announced that it is inaugurating the National GW Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition. Students from ABA accredited law school may participate in the competition that will be held in January 2007.

Cert. Filed In 9th Circuit Anti-Gay T-Shirt Case

The Alliance Defense Fund announced that this week it filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Poway Unified School District. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held last April that a California high school could ban a student from wearing a T-shirt proclaiming: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned", and "Homosexuality Is Shameful". (See prior posting.) The cert petition argues that the decision is in conflict with those in other circuits.

Justice Department Cancels Controversial Religious Prison Program

The New York Times today reports that the Justice Department has cancelled plans for "Life Connections", a single-faith religious pre-release prison rehabilitation program that it proposed last March. (See prior posting.) Critics had argued that the program violated the Establishment Clause by funding indoctrination in the views of a particular religious faith.

Clergy Get Employment Protection In Britain

Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal yesterday handed down a landmark case holding that clergy will be treated as employees of the church for purposes of bringing unfair dismissal cases. Reporting on the case, Personnel Today said that previously ministers were regarded British courts as appointed to a holy office, and not as employees. The decision in New Testament Church of God v. Stewart, (EAT, Oct. 27, 2006), relies on last year's House of Lords decision in Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission, [2006] IRLR 195, in reaching its conclusion. (See prior posting.)

Controversial Mozart Opera Will Be Performed

Playbill Arts reported yesterday that the Deutsche Oper Berlin has announced it will produce Mozart's Idomeneo after all. The production was cancelled last month due to fears of violent reaction to the scene depicting the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad. (See prior posting.) However, Berlin police have now said that there is no "concrete danger" to the opera company if it revives the production.

Suit Against Air Force Academy Dismissed Without Reaching Merits

A New Mexico federal district court yesterday dismissed a suit by several recent Air Force Academy graduates, the father of a currently enrolled cadet, and an Air Force recruiter. The suit, originally filed by Academy alum Mikey Weinstein, claims that the Air Force Academy has a policy of evangelizing and proselytizing cadets, that the the Air Force's Interim Guidelines on Free Exercise of Religion were unconstitutional and that recruiters are both subject to religious proselytization and proselytize recruits. (See prior postings 1, 2 .)

In Weinstein v. United States Air Force, (D NM, Oct. 27, 2006) the court found that some of the plaintiffs lack standing because they have graduated from the Academy. As to others, they "do not allege ... that there is 'a real and immediate threat' that they will have 'personal contact' with the alleged Establishment Clause violations...." The Air Force recruiter's claims were barred on several grounds, including statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the speculative nature of future injuries. Plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the Air Force Guidelines was dismissed because of delay in seeking to add the claim.

Claims against the Secretary of the Air Force were dismissed without prejudice. The court suggested that any future suit raising the same claims probably should be filed in federal court in Colorado, Virginia, or Washington, D.C. instead of New Mexico. The Air Force Times covers the story.

Court Denies Enlisted Doctor Conscientious Objector Status

Earlier this month, a Boston anesthesiologist successfully claimed conscientious objector status and avoided being ordered to active military duty. A Massachusetts court decided she should be discharged, with her agreeing to repay, with interest, the money the government spent on her medical education. Now it turns out that her attorney, within days, also sued on behalf of two other anesthesiologists who are seeking conscientious objector status allegedly developed after their enlistments. Yesterday's Detroit News reports that Detroit federal judge Avern Cohn has sided with the army and rejected the CO application of one of them, Dr. Ryan Hae Kwon, a Christian who was born in South Korea and who moved to Hawaii as a child. Major David M. Wilson, who investigated Kwon's claim for the Army, said Kwon developed sincere beliefs against war over the course of a year after seeing accounts and photos of events in Iraq. The army, however, said that it is short on anesthesiologists.

Amish Couple Challenge USCIS Photo Requirement

Immigration rules of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services require that applicants for permanent residency in the United States file, as part of their paper work, two photos. In Pittsburgh, according to an Associated Press report published today, an Amish couple has filed suit challenging the requirement on religious grounds. Old Order Amish interpret the Biblical commandment against making "graven images" as prohibiting photos. The government, because of increased terrorism concerns, has ended its past practice of waiving the photo requirement for religious objectors. However, the couple's attorney is asking for a waiver so the husband, who is a Canadian citizen, can remain in the U.S. and eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. The couple has filed the lawsuit anonymously because they could be excommunicated from their Amish community for violating its principles of non-resistance if the community learned of the suit.

Danish Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Jyllands Posten For Cartoons

Yesterday in Aarhus, Denmark, the City Court dismissed a defamation suit that had been brought by seven Danish Muslim groups against the Jyllands-Posten for publishing now-infamous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammud last year. Yesterday's London Times says that the Danish court found that while the cartoons may have been offensive to some Muslims, there was no evidence that the paper had intended to insult the Prophet or mock the Islamic religion. When it published the cartoons, the Jyllands-Posten said its purpose was to challenge perceived self-censorship among artists who were afraid to offend Islam.

The court's dismissal of the defamation action immediately generated criticism in the Middle East (International Herald Tribune) and Pakistan (Examiner).

Muslim Taxi Drivers At Minneapolis Airport In Inter-Communal Fight

Last month, the media reported widely on steps being taken at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to provide for Somali Muslim cab drivers to avoid picking up passengers who are carrying alcohol. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune carried a fascinating article suggesting that the matter is even more complex that it first appeared. Apparently neither Somali culture nor religious tradition bans carrying alcohol for people as part of a commercial enterprise. Instead, it appears that the initiative to focus on the taxi issue originated in a fatwa issued in June by the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS). That group however is made up of Arab Muslims, not African Muslims. So this is apparently part of a struggle within the Islamic community in Minnesota in which the MAS is attempting to use the more vulnerable Somali community to rally support for its Middle East agenda.

Religious Remarks To Jewish Audience At Candidate Forum Backfire

In Arizona, attempts by a spokesman for Baptist Congressman J.D. Hayworth to appeal to the religious beliefs of voters has backfired, according to an article in this week's Forward. Jewish religious law generally permits abortion to protect the life or health of the mother. The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJS), supports abortion rights more broadly. Jonathan Tratt, a Jewish spokesman for Hayworth appearing at a candidates' forum sponsored by the Arizona Section of NCJS, defended Hayworth's anti-abortion stance by arguing that the Baptist congressman was “a more observant Jew” than the audience members. This led to a walk-out by many of those present.

Any Problem With Polling Places In Churches?

An article in yesterday's Salem, Virginia Times-Register raises the question of whether locating polling places in churches creates any Establishment Clause issue. It says that in past years, a number of churches objected to being used as voting locations out of concern about government intrusion into religion.

Israeli Government Sued By Individuals Required To Go Abroad For Marriage

Israelis attempting to effect a change in their country's law to permit civil marriages have devised a new tactic. The Association for Rights of Mixed Families (ARMF) has filed suit in Haifa's Magistrate's Court on behalf of two couples who had to travel abroad to marry. Where a Jew is marrying an individual who is not Jewish under halacha (Jewish law), or where the individuals marrying have no religion, there is no way for them to celebrate a wedding in Israel. Today's edition of Haaretz reports that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits are seeking damages for their wedding costs, and for humiliation and discrimination caused by the state's negligence in failing to provide a way for them to marry inside Israel. ARMF plans to file 10 to 15 similar suits, and hopes that they will be consolidated for a single hearing.

Florida Supreme Court Avoids Decision In Wiccan Challenge To Sales Tax Exemption

Yesterday the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion avoiding a definitive decision in a case challenging the state's sales tax exemption for religious publications and various ceremonial objects. A Wiccan group had challenged the constitutionality of the exemption. (See prior posting.) The Florida Supreme Court had agreed to review the appellate court's dismissal of the suit on standing grounds, assuming that it was in conflict with other Florida cases on taxpayer standing. However in Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida v. Zingale, (FL Sup. Ct., Oct. 26, 2006), after oral argument, the Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals' dismissal of the suit did not actually involve taxpayer standing, but instead was based on the conclusion that the Wiccan group had itself benefited from the exemption it was challenging. The Supreme Court was then required to dismiss the appeal since its only basis for review was Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), that permits a discretionary appeal when a court of appeals decision directly conflicts with a decision on the same question of law by another court of appeal or the supreme court. Yesterday's Bradenton (FL) Herald reported on the decision.