Courts Decide More Prisoner Religion Cases As Media Look At Prison Religion Issues

In People v. Farrell (NY S.Ct., App. Div., April 6, 2006), a New York appellate court held that at his criminal trial, the court did not violate Dennis Farrell's right to free exercise of religion by denying his request for an adjournment on a Friday afternoon so he could return to Rikers Island before sundown to observe the Jewish Sabbath. The court had a compelling interest in completing his trial without a weekend adjournment. At any rate, when Farrell made his request for adjournment, it was already too late to get him back to Rikers Island before the Sabbath began.

In Raines v. Siegelman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15542 (MD Ala., March 1, 2006), an Alabama federal Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of a prisoner's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed, finding that the prisoner's refusal to participate in a religious-based substance abuse program was not the cause of his being denied a reduction in custody or favorable consideration for parole. The court also found that an alternative substance abuse program was available for the prisoner at least for part of his time in prison.

In Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15053 (SD Ohio, March 31, 2006), an Ohio federal Magistrate Judge denied summary judgment to prison officials, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a prisoner held asserted religious beliefs, even when those beliefs were not part of the Asatru faith to which he claimed to belong. The court also held that as to another plaintiff, there remained a genuine issue as to whether he was required to participate in a religiously-based substance abuse program.

In Caldwell v. Ewing, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17047 (CD Ill., March 24, 2006), an Illinois federal district court rejected a prisoner's claim that her free exercise rights were infringed when prison officials confiscated pre-paid, self addressed envelopes furnished by a church for the prisoner to return her work on Bible lessons. The prison had declared the envelopes to be contraband because they were being used by inmates as money.

Meanwhile, newspapers today focus on religious concerns of inmates. The Wilmington, North Carolina, Star News today chronicles the numerous religious services offered in the New Hanover County jail. And the San Antonio, Texas, Express-News covers the efforts growing out of pending litigation, to obtain kosher food for Jewish prison inmates in Texas. Bill Pierce, director of chaplaincy for Texas Department of Criminal Justice, says that some prisoners make insincere religious claims in order to obtain special treatment.

Santeria Sacrifices Pose Problems In Florida

Rafael Martinez, a professor of anthropology at Barry University, has created a course for law enforcement officials in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to educate them about ritualistic religions, originating in West Africa and brought to the Americas by enslaved blacks who combined them with elements of Christianity. These religions include Santeria of Cuba, Congo's Palo Mayombe and Haitian Vodou. Knight-Ritter News, in a story from Kendall, Florida, outlines the problems created particularly by animal sacrifices placed by practitioners of Santeria near CSX railroad lines. Animals, as well as cloth-wrapped coins, are left there as sacrifices to Ogun, the god of war and iron. The mystical powers attributed to the iron in the spikes and rails are an important part of Santero symbolism.

Canadian University Charged With Favoring Jewish Students

David Noble, a Jewish professor at York University in Toronto, has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission charging that the university discriminates against non-Jewish students because it cancels classes for the Jewish holidays, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This week’s Forward, reporting on the controversy, says that 10% of York's 50,000 students are Jewish. York is the only university in Canada to cancel classes on any religious holiday other than statutory holidays such as Christmas. However, at York, students of other faiths can be excused from class on their holidays if they speak with their professors in advance. Prof. Noble claims that York’s policy violates the York University Act of 1965, which forbids the school from imposing religious observances on any of its members. Noble is already involved in another claim against the University in which he is seeking $8 million in damages. In that suit, now being arbitrated, Noble claims the University wrongfully accused him of "bigotry and racism" after he distributed a flier attacking the "pro-Israel lobby" at the York University Foundation, the university's fund-raising arm. [Thanks to Dick Schectman for the lead.]

New Center That Receives Faith-Based Funding Highlighted

In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum last night spoke at the opening of the El Shaddai Ministries' Bethlehem Christian Training Center that has received more than $300,000 in federal aid through President Bush's Faith and Community Based Initiative. The Allentown, Pennsylvania Morning Call reported Friday on the programs offered by the Center that are funded by federal dollars. One helps former prisoners find jobs; another teaches budgeting and financial literacy to people planning to buy their own homes; and a third provides marriage counseling. Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, complained that Faith Based funds are being used to further political goals where there are tight electoral races. Rev. Marilyn Hartman, executive pastor of El Shaddai, is married to the Rev. Gerry Hartman who was one of the plaintiffs in a 2002 lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the extension of Allentown's anti-discrimination laws to protect gays, lesbians and transsexuals.

California Water Engineer Charges Religious Discrimination

In Napa, California, the Napa Valley Register yesterday reported on a federal lawsuit filed by Turan Ramadan, a public works engineer in the city's water department. Ramadan claims that Napa officials have harassed him and discriminated against him because of his Turkish ethnicity and Muslim religion. The harassment intensified after an Oct. 15, 2003, incident in which his supervisor ordered potentially injurious amounts of chemicals to be added to the city's drinking water. Napa City Attorney Michael Barrett says that Ramadan's charges are without merit.

Second Circuit Voids Noise Ordinance As Applied To Preacher

On Thursday, in Deegan v. City of Ithaca, (2d Cir., April 6, 2006), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld free speech and due process claims raised by Kevin Deegan, a Christian preacher, who challenged Ithaca, New York's application of its noise ordinance to prevent him from preaching in a raised voice in the downtown Ithaca Commons. The city interprets its noise ordinance to cover any noise, including speech, that can be heard 25 feet away. Finding that Ithaca Commons is a public forum, the court held that the city, by setting sound levels as low as it does, violated the First Amendment because it has not narrowly tailored its regulation to serve its interest in maintaining a reasonable level of sound. The court also concluded that Deegan did not have fair notice of the city's 25-foot rule in enforcement of its regulation, but denied his claim of selective enforcement.

Louisiana Considers Ingenious Solution To School Board Prayer

In Louisiana’s House of Representatives on Thursday, the House and Governmental Affairs Committee approved House Bill 182, a response to a federal judge’s decision last year that prohibited the Tangipahoa Parish School Board from opening its meetings with prayer. 2theadvocate.com reported yesterday that, in a rather ingenious approach, the bill would permit public bodies, such as school boards, go into executive sessions at the beginning of their otherwise public meetings to say prayers. Representatives’ comments on the proposal covered the waterfront. Rep. Juan LaFonta, the bill’s sponsor, said he would be upset if someone used a closed prayer session to lobby board members. Rather succinctly, Rep. Billy Montgomery said, "We do a lot of worse things than pray." [Thanks to Christianity Today for the lead.]

Mass. High Court Gives Prisoners Broad State Free Exercise Protection

In two decisions handed down on Thursday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the tests it would apply under the state constitution to claims by prisoners that their rights to the free exercise of religion have been infringed. The Court also found that the standard required by the Massachusetts Constitution was at least as protective as those imposed by the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Both cases involved claims by Muslim inmates.

In Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., April 7, 2006), the court held :

that the Massachusetts Constitution is more protective of the religious freedoms of prisoners than the United States Constitution, and that the proper standard of review to be applied to the infringement of such freedoms is consequently more demanding. In determining the constitutionality of department regulations and policies that burden the free exercise of religion by those in its custody, we will look to whether those regulations and policies advance compelling State interests, and, if so, are "tailored narrowly in pursuit of those interests."…. [The Massachusetts Constitution], art. 46, sec. 4, affirms that inmates of publicly controlled penal institutions are not to be deprived of the "opportunity of religious exercises therein of [their] own faith."

Applying this standard the court upheld Rasheed’s claims regarding denial of religious meals, but rejected the remainder of his claims. The Boston Globe today reported on the case, emphasizing the Court’s finding that the state had not justified its practice of providing Muslim inmates inappropriate food for the celebration of two holidays, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

In Ahmad v. Department of Corrections (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., April 7, 2006), the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the dismissal of claims brought by a Muslim prisoner who argued that restrictions on his possession of various religious items, and giving him vegetarian meals rather than ones containing halal meat, unlawfully prevented him from practicing his Islamic faith. Applying the standard it had just announced in Rasheed, the court rejected Ahmad’s claims. It also said that if the prison regulations and policies challenged by Ahmad are permissible under the Massachusetts Constitution, they will meet the requirements of RLUIPA.

Malaysia Considering Required Disclosure of Planned Conversion To Islam

In Malaysia, The Star yesterday reported that the Prime Minister's office is considering proposing legislation to require non-Muslims who plan to convert to Islam to inform their families. Since conversion subjects the individual to the jurisdiction of Sharia courts rather than civil courts in the country, there is a need to settle issues of maintenance, custody and division of assets, as well as deciding the religion in which children will be raised, before converting. This will also resolve problems over custody of the convert's body when he dies. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz said that conversion to Islam should not be used to escape civil law responsibilities.

U.S. Will Not Seek Seat On New U.N. Human Rights Council

Yesterday’s New York Times reported that the United States will not be a candidate for one of the 47 seats on the new United Nations Human Rights Council. The HRC was approved last month by the General Assembly, with the United States being almost alone in opposing it because of insufficient safeguards against countries with human rights violations becoming members. (See prior posting.) John R. Bolton, the United States envoy, said that U.S. leverage would be greater by not running. Others, however, speculated that the U.S. feared it could not obtain the 96 votes in the U.N. General Assembly needed to be elected in light of revelations of abuses of detainees in Iraq and of clandestine prisons abroad. Felice Gaer, director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights criticized the U.S. decision not to seek a place on the Commission, saying "All key decision about serious reform issues, from the curtailment of inappropriate bodies to whether and how countries are scrutinized, will be made in the first year."

Israel's High Court Dramatically Limits Jurisdiction Of Rabbinic Tribunals

In a surprising decision yesterday, a panel of Israel's High Court of Justice significantly limited the jurisdiction of the country's Rabbinic Courts, taking away their power to act as arbitrators on matters not otherwise within their statutory jurisdiction. Haaretz today reports on the decision. The High Court held that Religious Tribunals, which are part of Israel's official judicial system, cannot obtain jurisdiction in financial or other disputes not involving personal status merely by parties agreeing to submit a matter to them. The issue was decided in a case brought by Sima Amir, a Jerusalem divorcee, who was trying to get her former husband to comply with their divorce agreement that he would make mortgage payments on Sima's Jerusalem apartment. The divorce agreement contained a provision that the parties would submit any future disputes to the Rabbinic Court. The High Court decision will not only affect future cases, but may nullify many past arbitration rulings.

New Zealand Police Want Ban On Drivers Wearing Burqa

In New Zealand, a police union has called for a total ban on women driving while wearing a burqa. CNS News reported yesterday that the proposal came after officials instituted a new policy of only permitting female officers to check the identity of women drivers who are covered by a burqa. The Police Association said its proposal was motivated by safety concerns and concern that criminals could use a burqa to conceal their identity. This is not the first time New Zealand authorities have struggled with the issue of Muslim dress. Last year a court required Muslim women testifying in a fraud case to remove their veils-- screened from public view-- so the court could assess their demeanor during their testimony.

Egyptian Court Vindicates Rights of Bahais

In Egypt, according to Reuters, a landmark ruling this week by the Administrative Court has recognized the right of Bahais to have their religion acknowledged on official documents. In 1983, a similar ruling was issued. However in 2004, the Interior Ministry's Civil Status Department reinstated an earlier policy of forcing Bahais to identify as Muslim or Christian. This week's suit was filed by a married couple whose official documentation had been confiscated because it listed their religion as Bahai.

Claims Against NSF In Berkeley Evolution Website Suit Dismissed

After dismissing for lack of standing a suit against the University of California, Berkeley, claiming that its website "Understanding Evolution" promoted religion (see prior posting), a San Francisco federal district court has, in a second opinion, similarly dismissed claims against the other defendant in the case, the National Science Foundation. The NSF dismissal is Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16251 (ND Cal., March 20, 2006).

Austrian Imams' Conference Begins Today

Islam Online reported earlier this week that the Austrian government is sponsoring a conference beginning today that will bring together 150 Muslim leaders, imams and female preachers from 40 European countries. Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel and Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik will attend the opening session. British and German Muslim parliamentarians have been also invited to the conference. A similar conference a year ago focused on ending stereotyping and demonizing of Muslims. The Associated Press yesterday reported on this year's conference, saying that the key issue will now be how to create a distinct identity for European Muslims. A similar emphasis is found in a Radio Free Europe interview with Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, the chairman of Britain's Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, published yesterday.

Boy Scout Jamboree Case Argued In 7th Circuit

The Chicago Tribune reports on arguments yesterday in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Winkler v. Rumsfeld, a case brought by the ACLU challenging government funding of the Boy Scouts annual jamboree. (See prior posting.) The trial court had held that the funding violates the First Amendment because the funding favors religion. The Boy Scouts oath require members to affirm a "duty to God". The government argued yesterday that: "Any group can approach the military ... and request similar aid to what the Boy Scouts are getting. The plaintiffs haven't shown, on the record, that anybody has ever requested it and been denied." Background on the case is reported by the AP and the Washington Post. The ACLU's brief in the appeal and recordings of yesterday's oral arguments are available online.

UPDATE: Here is a link to all the briefs in the case. [Thanks to How Appealing.]

New Mexico Court Refuses Jurisdiction Over Rabbi's Suit

In Celnik v. Congregation B'nai Israel, a New Mexico Court of Appeals in an opinion originally released Feb. 6 and issued in corrected form April 4, 2006, applied the church autonomy doctrine to dismiss a suit by a long-tenured rabbi against his synagogue after his employment was terminated. Describing the case as raising an issue of first impression in New Mexico, the court held that the church autonomy doctrine protects religious institutions from governmental interference. Rabbi Celnik claimed that defendants had disseminated one-sided information about him to sway the congregation to compel him to resign. He claimed his dismissal was actually motivated by his Parkinson's disease, his age, his wife's medical condition and his complaints about the congregation's failure to compensate him in accordance with his contract.

Missouri House Passes Proposed Constitutional Amendment On School Prayer

Today the Missouri House of Representatives passed and sent on to the Senate HJR 39, that would ask the voters to amend the Missouri Constitution's bill of rights to protect school prayer. If passed by the Senate, the proposed amendment will then go to a vote of the people. The new Art. I, Sec. 5 would read [new language in italics]:

That all men and women have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his or her religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his or her person or estate; that to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of personal convictions, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, but a citizen's right to pray or to express his or her religious beliefs shall not be infringed; that the state shall not compose prayers nor coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive nor in violation of other policies, rules, or standards, and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; and, to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The vote in the House was 134 yes, 17 no, and 3 present. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported yesterday that proponents of the constitutional amendment say it will prevent litigation and will make clear to students what their rights are. Opponents say it is unnecessary and could create confusion. Democrats failed in an attempt to add a provision that would set a popular vote on the proposed amendment in August. They believe that placing the amendment on the November ballot might draw more Republicans to the polls than otherwise.

Jewish Leaders Debate Abramoff Sentencing Letters

The Washington Jewish Week yesterday carried a long article discussing the ambivalence in the Jewish community about the fact that six rabbis and the president of the Greater Washington Jewish Federation were among the 260 people writing letters to Florida federal district Judge Paul Huck urging leniency in sentencing of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Many of the letters were quoted in a memorandum in aid of sentencing filed with the court by Abramoff's lawyers. Their memo pointed out that Abramoff "often gave more than 80 percent of his income to charitable and community projects and to individuals outside his family." Another article on the topic is in this week's Forward. Abramoff received the minimum sentence permissible under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, --five years and 10 months-- after prosecutors told the judge that Abramoff was cooperating in their ongoing investigation and had expressed remorse for his actions. (Washington Post).

DC Voucher Plan Is Succeeding With Parents and Students

Today's New York Times carries a front-page article reporting that the federal school voucher program in the District of Columbia is attracting more participation and is winning the support of minority parents. More than half the students in the program attend religious schools, mostly Roman Catholic.