British Schools Face Problems In Attempt To Serve Halal Lunches

Two local Councils in Britain find themselves in the middle of a dispute in the Islamic community over which bodies are the appropriate certifiers of Halal meat. Schools in the localities have halal meat on their lunch menus, but have recently changed their meat supplier. This Is Lancashire yesterday reported that the Lancashire Council of Mosques has urged parents to have their children select vegetarian options or take their own lunches until the controversy is resolved. The new supplier gets its meat from New Zealand, and the meat is certified by the non-profit Halal Food Authority. Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, says they want the meat certified instead by the Halal Monitoring Committee. Lancashire County Council has replaced meat with an alternative option until the situation is resolved, while Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council is keeping halal meat on the menu, but is meeting with mosque council leaders to resolve any problems.

Judge Refuses To Keep Media Out of Imams' Civil Rights Trial

Omar T. Mohammedi, a New York attorney for the six imams who have filed a civil rights action after they were removed from a US Airways flight at the Minneapolis airport, has lost his bid to reduce media access to the trial proceedings. Mohammedi says that he and his clients have received anonymous death threats after inaccurate media coverage of the lawsuit. The Associated Press yesterday reported that U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery refused Mohammedi's request that members of the media be removed from an electronic distribution list, that they be excluded from attending hearings in the case and that proceedings in the case be held in closed session. The judge also told Mohammedi that future communications in the case should be filed through the court's electronic filing system, instead submitting requests off the record as Mohammedi had done in seeking less media involvement.

New Abuse Charges Against Saudi Arabia's Commission for Prevention of Vice

The Associated Press reported yesterday that new charges of police brutality have been raised against an officer in Saudi Arabia's Commission for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Last week, three officers were charged with involvement in the death of a detained border patrol guard. (See prior posting.) The new charges involve last month's death in detention of Sulaiman al-Huraisi who was taken into custody after a raid on his house because he was suspected of having large amounts of alcohol. Alcohol is illegal in Saudi Arabia. The governor of Riyadh said that several officers who were not part of the official team charged with making the raid nevertheless took part in it. One of those individuals severely beat al-Huraisi.

School Board Debates Religious Released Time Program

Canastota, New York's Board of Education on Tuesday debated the extent to which it should release students who wish to attend religious education classes at the end of the school day. Yesterday's Oneida Dispatch reports that St. Agatha's Church wants the school to bus students to classes at the church for the last hour of the school day. School officials prefer releasing students only after the school day is over. Supporters of the religious education program say that moving the classes to after normal school hours will significantly reduce student attendance at them.

British Judges Reach Out To Muslim Community

A report from Islam Online reprinted by Turkish Weekly discusses efforts by a group of 45 judges in England and Wales to reach out to local religious minorities, especially Muslims, in order to heighten their confidence in the judicial system. Members of the group are known as Ethnic Minority Liaison Judges (EMLJ). They visit mosques and schools and arrange for visits to the courts. Their goal is both to get people to understand the judicial system and to encourage them to apply for jobs in the courts. Earlier this year, EMLJ released its annual report for 2005-06.

Church-State Conflict Over Jesus Picture In Courthouse Continues

A small Slidell, Louisiana courthouse is becoming the latest symbol in church-state conflict. As previously reported, the ACLU has threatened to sue if the picture of Jesus that hangs in the courthouse lobby is not removed. On Tuesday night, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 250 Slidell residents held a "revival-like" demonstration in support of keeping the picture. Some protesters argued that the picture-- a reproduction of a 16th century Russian Orthodox icon-- is artistic expression, not proselytizing. Another, however, said: "Christians are seen as very passive. It's time for Christian people to stand up and say, 'Hey!'"

German Pastor Convicted Under Holocaust Denial Ban For Abortion Comments-- UPDATE: Story Retracted

Life Site News reports that in Erlangen, Bavaria, a city court has convicted Lutheran Pastor Johannes Lerle of violating Germany's Volkverhetzung law that is used to combat Holocaust denial. Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail for comparing abortion in Germany to the murder of innocent Jews in Auschwitz. Commenting on reports of the conviction, the Becket Fund's Angela C. Wu said: "While Volksverhetzung laws exist in Germany because of its unique history, that is no excuse for illegally violating the international human right to freedom of belief, which must include the right to profess those beliefs, even those of a controversial nature."

UPDATE: In an unusual move, Life Site News on Thursday issued the following statement:

The LifeSiteNews.com story published Tuesday on the jailing of Pastor Lerle in Germany has been retracted after LifeSiteNews.com was informed that we were working with false information from trusted news sources. While Pastor Lerle has in the past been jailed for anti-abortion activities his current one year imprisonment stemmed solely from charges of holocaust denial and not from comparing abortion to the Nazi Holocaust as we erroneously reported Tuesday.

[Thanks to Patrick Gallagher for the update lead.]

California Court Upholds Episcopal Church's Right To Property of Dissident Parish

In a 77-page opinion filed on Monday, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that in a dispute over the ownership of church property of a break-away congregation, a general church has the clear right to enforce a governing instrument that provides for a trust against the property of a local member parish. In Episcopal Church Cases, (CA Ct. App., June 25, 2007) the court said that a long line of state and U.S. Supreme Court decisions require using the "principle of government" or "highest church judicatory" approach in resolving church property disputes. The court rejected the "neutral principles"approach to church property disputes that was taken by the lower court (see prior posting), and that has been taken by a number of other California appellate courts.

The court also rejected arguments by St. James Parish that its free speech and free exercise rights were being violated. The court said that the lawsuit: "is a property dispute -- basically over who controls a particular church building in Newport Beach -- and does not arise out of some desire on the part of the general church to litigate the free exercise rights of the local congregation. They are free to disaffiliate just so long as they do not try to take the parish property with them."

Reporting on the decision, yesterday's Orange County Register points out that at issue was the decision of St. James Parish to split off from the Episcopal Church in a dispute over scriptural doctrine and homosexuality. The Court of Appeals emphasized, however, that the reason for the parish's decision to break away was irrelevant to its decision.

UPDATE: In an unpublished opinion filed the same day, the court relied on its analysis relating to St. James Parish to reach the same result as to two other breakaway parishes-- All Saints in Long Beach, and St. David's in North Hollywood. Episcopal Church Cases II, (CA Ct. App., June 25, 2007). [Thanks to Jeffrey Hassler, via Religionlaw listserv for the lead.]

New Jersey Officials Say Sign On Supposed Monestary Violates Zoning Rules

Today's Woodbridge Sentinel reports that Middletown Township, New Jersey officials are in a somewhat strange battle with Archimandrite Ephraem Bertolette, who claims to be a bishop of the Greek Orthodox Church. However the chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey says that Metropolitan Ephraem is not affiliated with it. Ephraem claims that his home is a monastery, and has been fighting for four years to get a tax exemption for it. In a new dispute, township officials have ordered Ephraem to take down a large sign he has recently placed in front of his home declaring to to be a monastery. Officials say that the sign violates zoning rules. Ephraem claims that taking down the sign would violate his religious beliefs, citing among other things, a verse from Proverbs: "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set up."

Turkey's Supreme Court Says Patriarch Should Not Use Title "Ecumenical"

According to Today's Zaman, on Wednesday the 4th Chamber of Turkey's Supreme Court of Appeals approved the acquittal of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I and other officials who were charged with "barring others from worship" after the Patriarch stripped a Bulgarian Orthodox Church priest, Konstantin Kostoff, of his title. The court rejected the priest's claim that his removal violated his freedom of religion. Of more interest inside Turkey, however, was another comment that the Supreme Court of Appeals made in its opinion. The Patriarch is known by the title "Ecumenical Patriarch". The court said, however, that he has no legal right to use the title "Ecumenical"-- which means universal. Reflecting the long-held view of the government of turkey, it said that such title amounts to a special privilege that conflicts with the country's constitutional principle of equality. A Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman disagreed with the court's comments, saying that the title is based on "international treaties, the sacred regulations of Orthodoxy, on history and Church tradition".

Mennonite Farmer Excused From ID Number Mandate In Settlement of Lawsuit

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture officials have quickly settled a lawsuit filed by a Mennonite farmer who had religious objections to the requirement that he obtain a federal identification number in order to continue to ship his ducks to markets in New York. (See prior posting.) A settlement stipulation filed in court on Wednesday in Landis v. Wolff provides that James Landis will not be required to obtain a federal premise identification number in order to participate in the Avian Influenza Monitored Flock Program. Alliance Defense Fund announced the settlement in a press release yesterday.

Employment Discrimination Suits Proliferate Recently

An unusually large number of religious discrimination in employment cases have made the news in the past day or two. The EEOC has filed suit against Vonage Holdings Corp., alleging that it refused to accommodate the religious needs of an Orthodox Jewish employee, Mikhail Rozenberg, when it refused to permit him to miss parts of a six-week training session in order to observe religious holidays, and refused to offer him positions that would not require him to work on Saturdays. (AP) The EEOC has also filed suit against Merrill Lynch & Co. alleging that it failed to promote, and eventually fired analyst Majid Borumand because hew was Muslim and Iranian. (Wall Street Journal).

In suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota, Chris Lind, employed by Prior Lake High School as a hallway and parking lot supervisor claims that his firing violated his religious freedom by firing him for talking with students about their sexual orientation, including the Biblical view of homosexuality. The school board says that Lind was disciplined for failing to separate his role as supervisor from that of friend of students. Lind has threatened to sue. (Minneapolis Star Tribune).

Finally, in Springfield, Missouri, pharmacist Todd Campbell has filed suit against Nitelines USA and Fort Leonard Wood after he was fired from his job as a hospital pharmacist for refusing to provide proof that he had been vaccinated. Campbell argues that he is exempt from vaccination requirements because of his religion, which he says is "Hebrew". (AP)

Germany Excludes Scientologist Tom Cruise's Moviemakers From Military Bases

BBC News this morning reports that German officials have banned the makers of a new movie about Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg's 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler from filming at military sites. The German defense ministry's reason is that the film's star, Tom Cruise, has "publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult". Germany believes that Scientology is a commercial enterprise, not a religion, and that its activities pose a threat to "the free democratic order".

Hindu Chaplain To Deliver Invocation In U.S. Senate

Mangalorean reports that for the first time in history, on July 12, the U.S. Senate will open with a Hindu prayer. Rajan Zed, Director of Public Affairs and Interfaith Relations of Hindu Temple of Northern Nevada, has been invited to give the opening invocation that day.

Poway High School T-Shirt Case Gets More Procedurally Complex

Harper v. Poway School District, a case that can only be described as a procedural morass, became even more complex on Friday as the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion asking a California federal district court to reconsider its previous rejection of a challenge to the hate behavior policy of Poway (CA) High School. (ADF Press Release.) The motion comes in the case of Kelsie Harper, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow her it intervene at the Supreme court level in a similar challenge brought by her brother, Tyler-- a challenge that was dismissed as moot because Tyler had graduated. The motion in Kelsie's case argues that the district court rejected Kelsie Harper's claims in reliance on the 9th Circuit opinion that was vacated as moot by the Supreme Court. At issue in the case is whether the school can prohibit Christian students, who object to homosexuality on Biblical grounds, from wearing T-shirts opposing the gay rights Day of Silence.

Supreme Court Upholds Student Speech Restrictions On Narrow Grounds

The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a case generating five separate written opinions, decided that Juneau, Alaska school officials did not violate a student's free speech rights when they confiscated a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" that the student displayed at the at the Olympic Torch Relay through town. School officials approved and supervised student attendance at the event which took place during school hours In Morse v. Frederick, (S.Ct., June 25, 2007), Chief Justice Roberts opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, held that "schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use".

Justice Thomas' concurring opinion argued that the Tinker case-- the basis for protection of the speech rights of school students-- should be overruled. Justices Alito and Kennedy joined the majority opinion "on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'"

Justice Breyer argued that the Court should not have gotten to the merits, but should have merely held that defendants' had qualified immunity from plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. CNN among others reports on today's decision.

Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. Stevens wrote: "I agree with the Court that the principal should not beheld liable for pulling down Frederick’s banner.... I would hold, however, that the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech 'reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,' ... cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs."

The narrow grounds on which the Court decided the case is unlikely to make it a case which has substantial implications for student religious speech-- a concern that some had expressed as the case was pending.

US Supreme Court Holds Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge White House Faith-Based Initiative Expenditures

This morning in a 5-4 decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (S.Ct., June 25, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court held that taxpayers lack standing to challenge expenditures and activities of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, distinguishing the facts from those in the seminal taxpayer standing case, Flast v. Cohen. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito. Justices Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, urged that Flast be overruled. Justice Souter wrote the dissent. SCOTUS Blog, as usual, had the first report on the decision. Here are more details:

The plurality opinion was written by Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. Here are excerpts from the Court's syllabus of that opinion:

The link between congressional action and constitutional violation that supported taxpayer standing in Flast is missing here. Respondents neither challenge any specific congressional action or appropriation nor ask the Court to invalidate any congressional enactment or legislatively created program as unconstitutional. That is because the expenditures at issue were not made pursuant to any Act of Congress, but under general appropriations to the Executive Branch to fund day-to-day activities. These appropriations did not expressly authorize, direct, or even mention the expenditures in question, which resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action. The Court has never found taxpayer standing under such circumstances....

Respondents argue to no avail that distinguishing between money spent pursuant to congressional mandate and expenditures made in the course of executive discretion is arbitrary because the injury to taxpayers in both situations is the same as that targeted by the Establishment Clause and Flast-- the expenditure for the support of religion of funds exacted from taxpayers. But Flast focused on congressional action, and the invitation to extend its holding to encompass discretionary Executive Branch expenditures must be declined....

Taking the Circuit’s zero-marginal-cost test literally-- i.e., that any marginal cost greater than zero suffices-- taxpayers might well have standing to challenge some (and perhaps many) speeches by Government officials. At a minimum, that approach would create difficult and uncomfortable line-drawing problems.

Justice Kennedy also wrote a separate concurrence in which he said: "It must be remembered that, even where parties have no standing to sue, members of the Legislative and Executive Branches are not excused from making constitutional determinations in the regular course of their duties. Government officials must make a conscious decision to obey the Constitution whether or not their acts can be challenged in a court of law and then must conform their actions to these principled determinations."

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred. Here are excerpts from the syllabus of that concurrence:

A taxpayer’s purely psychological disapproval that his funds are being spent in an allegedly unlawful manner is never sufficiently concrete and particularized to support Article III standing.... Although overruling precedents is a serious undertaking, stare decisis should not prevent the Court from doing so here. Flast was inconsistent with the cases that came before it and undervalued the separation-of-powers function of standing. Its lack of a logical theoretical underpinning has rendered the Court’s taxpayer-standing doctrine so incomprehensible that appellate judges do not know what to make of it. The case has engendered no reliance interests. Few cases less warrant stare decisis effect. It is past time to overturn Flast.

Justice Souter wrote a dissent in which Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer joined. They said, in part:

Here, the controlling, plurality opinion declares that Flast does not apply, but a search of that opinion for a suggestion that these taxpayers have any less stake in the outcome than the taxpayers in Flast will come up empty: the plurality makes no such finding, nor could it. Instead, the controlling opinion closes the door on these taxpayers because the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch, caused their injury. I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent....

Religious Leaders In NY Gay Pride Parade Criticize Mayor

Christian, Jewish and Buddhist religious groups marched near the head of this year's gay pride parade in New York City on Sunday according to the AP. Two clergy who served as grand marshals criticized Mayor Michael Bloomberg's decision to join in the parade's march only after it passed St. Patrick's Cathedral. Today's New York Sun quotes Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum and Rev. Troy Perry who criticized the mayor for not marching the full length of the parade route-- a practice he began in 2002 "in order to avoid some of the disrespectful acts that have taken place" as the parade passed St. Patrick's. Bloomberg walked beside New York's first openly gay City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn. Many other elected officials, including Senator Charles Schumer, also marched in the parade.

Australian Hate Speech Case Settled

In Australia, a long-running case in which Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was invoked against two Christian ministers for their criticism of Muslims has been settled. Today's Daily Telegraph reports that Catch The Fire Ministries leader Danny Nalliah and the Islamic Council of Victoria settled the case that had been remanded to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal by the Court of Appeals. (See prior posting.) After mediation, the parties issued a joint statement of goodwill, recognizing the dignity and worth of all individuals, but upholding the right to "robustly debate" and criticize the religion of others.

Employees of Israel's Conversion Authority Threaten To Strike

Yesterday's Jerusalem Post reports that administrative employees in the government's Conversion Authority are taking steps to authorize a strike over the chaotic working conditions that prevail in the agency. Disputes between two rabbinic factions in the Authority have slowed down the work of the agency which is responsible for performing conversions of Israelis who wish to become Jewish. Some 50 new Ethiopian immigrants who are candidates for conversion staged a protest march on Sunday to call attention to the unresponsiveness and the bureaucratic hurdles they are encountering. (Jerusalem Post.) There are also thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who immigrated to Israel under the Law of Return, but who are not Jewish under halacha (Jewish law). Many of them are also awaiting conversion.