Louisiana House Defeats Anti-Discrimination Bill

By a vote of 39 in favor, and 55 against, the Louisiana House of Representatives on Tuesday defeated HB 853. The bill would have prohibited harassment or discrimination in employment or the provision of services by any state agency on the basis of religion, as well as on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation, or disabilities. The Associated Press reports that the bill would have put into permanent law a ban that is now in place through Executive Order KBB 2004-54 that expires at the end of current governor Kathleen Blanco's term of office. A similar bill, SB 347, had also been introduced in the Senate, but had not reached a final vote. The House defeat is attributable to the provisions in the bill that would protect gays and lesbians from discriminatory treatment.

Four Charged With Using Religious Schools To Steal State Voucher Funds

In Bartow, Florida yesterday, four defendants went on trial accused of using two private religious schools to siphon off funds from Florida's school voucher program for their personal use. The Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger reports that the four are charged with using the Faith Christian Academy in Bartow and Cathedral of Faith Christian Academy in Lakeland as conduits for some $200,000 from the voucher program and the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.

Vatican Speaks Out On Religious Freedom And Proselytization

In a conference report, and in two papal speeches this week, the Vatican focused on issues of religious freedom and proselytization. In Lariano, Italy, an inter-religious consultation (WCC news release) organized by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches issued a report on Conversion: Assessing the Reality. Here are some of the report's conclusions:

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.

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.

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.

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"

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and sent to the full Senate a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Washington Post reports on the bitter 10-8 party-line committee vote favoring S.J.Res. 1. Reaction to the vote fell along expected lines. Americans United for Separation of Church and State said "that the Senate is trying to wed church and state in unholy matrimony." On the other hand, the Family Research Council applauded the Committee's action.

Memorial Day 2006-- Is It A Religious Holiday?

Memorial Day, celebrated this year on May 29, was first officially proclaimed in 1868 by Gen. John Logan, commander of the Grand Army of the Republic. (Background.) His General Order No. 11 was framed largely in secular terms, providing that the day is "for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit."

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

James "Flaming Eagle" Mooney, and has wife Linda, have been in a long battle with authorities over the use of peyote. They are leaders of the Oklevueha Earth Walks Native American Church of Utah. In February, federal charges against them were dropped under an agreement that they would refrain from possessing, buying, using or distributing peyote "until they become members of a federally recognized tribe or there is a definitive clarification of the law regarding the use of peyote by court ruling or legislative action." Now the Washington Post reports that the Mooneys have filed a federal law suit seeking damages from local, state and federal governments, claiming that past enforcement actions aimed at their peyote use violated their First Amendment rights.

Court Refuses To Order Amendment In Baptismal Certificate

In Matter of Wilson v. Kilkenny, (NY Sup Ct, Kings Co., May 15, 2006), a New York state trial court refused an unmarried father's request that the court order the Roman Catholic Church to issue his child an amended baptismal certificate. As part of a suit to force a change in the child's name, the father sought to have the baptismal certificate reflect that he is the child's father. The court held that the First Amendment precludes it from interfering in what amounts to a religious dispute between the parents, finding that it is solely for Church authorities to decide whether the baptismal certificate should be amended.

Illinois Governor Signs Bill To Bar Funeral Protests

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act" to prevent a Topeka church group from conducting anti-gay protests at soldiers' funerals. Public Act 094-0772 prohibits loud demonstrations at funerals, and prohibits visual images that contain fighting words or actual or veiled threats within 200 feet of a funeral. It also prohibits blocking anyone's entry to or exit from to a funeral. The prohibitions apply for 30 minutes before and after the funeral ceremony. Other states have passed similar laws.

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

Ghashiyah v. Frank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29083 (ED Wis., May 11, 2006) is a broad-ranging civil rights suit filed by 8 prisoners, pro se, against 85 Wisconsin officials and employees alleging a wide variety of constitutional claims growing out of alleged mistreatment while in prison. This decision is the initial screening of the complaints as required by 28 USC Sec. 1915A for prisoner claims. A group of claims alleging violations of RLUIPA and the Free Exercise clause were permitted to move forward. They included claims by one plaintiff that his prison forms were diverted because officials refused to recognize his religious name; and that he was prevented from participating in Ramadan. Various plaintiffs contend that they are prohibited from possessing religious materials other than the Bible, Quran, or equivalent major text while in segregation, and are denied access to other religious materials. And plaintiffs allege that Jewish and Muslim inmates were involuntarily injected with a pork by-product.

Florida Synagogue Can Move Ahead With Discrimination Claims

Today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports on last week's Florida federal district court decision in Hollywood Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 2006 WL 1320044 (S.D.Fla., 2006, May 10, 2006). The Hollywood Community Synagogue Chabad Lubavitch, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, has has sued the city of Hollywood alleging various violations of the synagogue's religious freedoms after the Hollywood City Commission reversed the grant of a Special Exception to zoning restrictions that had been granted by the city's Development Review Board. The Commission said that the synagogue was "too controversial". (See prior posting.)

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

BBC News reports that in Ankara, Turkey today, a gunman attacked the judges of the Council of State, the country's the top administrative court, in what may have been a religiously motivated shooting. One judge died after 6 hours of surgery, and four others are wounded. One of the wounded judges, Judge Mustafa Birden, whose injuries are not life-threatening, achieved notoriety earlier this year when he ruled that a school teacher should not be promoted because she wore her Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside of school, even though she removed it, as required by law, while teaching. (See prior posting.) He has received death threats since then, and an Islamist newspaper has printed photos of him and his fellow judges. The gunman, who was carrying papers indicating that he is a lawyer, reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he fired at the judges.

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

Yesterday, in State of Utah v. Holm (UT Sup. Ct., May 16, 2006), Utah's Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the state's bigamy statute which provides that "[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person." Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101. The majority held that the state's statute bars polygamous marriages that are solemnized through religious ceremonies even when no state marriage license has been sought.

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

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the union representing deputy sheriffs filed suit yesterday alleging that their religious rights were violated when the sheriff allowed a speaker from the Fellowship of Christian Centurions to appear at the department's mandatory roll call. The speaker invited deputies to attend an seminar to learn how Christ had affected people's lives and how employees could then affect others' lives through Christ. Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the civil rights suit was filed after a Milwaukee County Circuit Judge denied the union's request earlier Tuesday for a temporary restraining order.

Kentucky ACLU Seeks To Stop Planned Graduation Prayer

The ACLU of Kentucky filed suit yesterday in federal district court on behalf of a Russell County High School senior who objects to plans for a clergyman to offer a prayer at his school's graduation this Friday. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that the suit asks for a preliminary injunction, arguing that U.S. Supreme Court precedent bar clergy-led prayer at commencement ceremonies.

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

Reuters reports that Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court decided on Monday to suspend the implementation of an earlier lower court ruling that allowed Bahais to have their religion recognized on official documents. (See prior postings 1, 2.) The suspension apparently was imposed to prevent the new ruling from taking effect while the case is on appeal.

Government Censors Take Aim At Da Vinci Code Movie

All around the Middle East and Asia, Christian groups are pressing to have government censorship boards ban the showing of the Da Vinci Code, or at least to cut out some of its scenes or limit it audience to adults. The movie is scheduled for worldwide release at the end of this week. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Sunday that in Egypt, the likelihood of a ban is so great that distributors have decided not to schedule a showing. Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are the only Middle Eastern countries now scheduled to show the film.

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

Plans for the building of a memorial to 9-11 victims at New York's World Trade Center site are about to bog down in a church-state dispute. After the World Trade Center collapsed, two girders in the shape of a cross were left standing. They became a center of reverence for rescue workers, and religious services were held near the beams. They still remain standing at Ground Zero because clergy groups objected to their removal for storage. On Friday, according to the Associated Press, WTC Memorial Foundation President and CEO Gretchen Dykstra agreed to find some way to permanently display the girders in the memorial that is being built. In a letter to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Dykstra said: "We agree wholeheartedly that this important and essential artifact belongs at the WTC site and affirm that its respectful placement, possibly with the memorial museum, will be a considered part of our content planning process." She went on: "The artifact will be treated with utmost respect, but again as a public institution, we will not explicitly offer religious services in association with the artifact."

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

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decision in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (May 15, 2006) denied plaintiffs' standing to challenge state tax benefits offered by Ohio to attract industry to the state. One of plaintiffs' arguments was that taxpayers should have standing to make a dormant commerce clause challenge, just as they have standing to challenge government expenditures under the Establishment Clause. Here is what the Court said about that claim:

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.

LA Times Suggests Solution For Historic Mission

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times suggests some solutions to the problem of paying for repairs of the historic Mission San Miguel Arcangel. The Roman Catholic Church that owns the Mission says it does not have the $15 million needed for its repair. California has refused to provide state funds for the repairs because of limitations in the state constitution on funding of religious institutions. Attempts to get federal funding have not materialized. State Sen. Abel Maldonado has proposed a state constitutional amendment to qualify any religious building on the state or national registers of historic places for government funding, but the LA Times thinks that this goes too far. Instead, it suggests that San Miguel be deeded to the state, and then leased back to the Church at nominal cost for its religious services.

ACLU Files FOIA Request On Monitoring of Mosques

Yesterday, the ACLU of Southern California announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act request on behalf of several Muslim-American groups and mosques in southern California in order to obtain information on reported government monitoring of religious institutions. Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council said: "We are people of faith and our mosques are peaceful and tolerant places of worship. But people are being scared away from worship because of reports that mosques and those who pray at them are being monitored. People are afraid that practicing their religion or even visiting a mosque will make them a suspect of the government." Today's Los Angeles Times, covering the story, points out that in January, the FBI acknowledged that its agents have monitored mosques, Muslim-owned businesses and homes throughout the country for radiation levels.