Afghan Judge Threatens Death Sentence For Conversion To Christianity

Today's Melbourne Herald Sun reports that a court in Afghanistan has told a man that he could face the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity. Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said the suspect, Abdur Rahman, who was arrested after members of his family informed police of his conversion, would be charged with abandoning Islam. Sharia law calls for the death sentence for Muslims who abandon their religion. Article 3 of Afghanistan's 2004 Constitution provides that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

UPDATE: The United States on Monday said that it was closely monitoring Rahman's trial, and urged Afghan authorities to deal with the case transparently and according to the rule of law.

Church Member's Suit Dismissed As Ecclesiastical Matter

In Wolter v. Delgatto, (TX App-14, March 16, 2006), a Texas state court of appeals held that under the First Amendment, state courts lacked jurisdiction over a suit by a former church member challenging Heights Presbyterian Church's involvement in a low-income senior housing project. The court held that ultimately the suit was over how and when, under the Presbyterian Book of Order, the church may spend its resources, and that question is ecclesiastical in nature.

Phillips' New Book-- "American Theocracy"

Kevin Phillips new book, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (Viking, 2006) is reviewed in Saturday's New York Times, and is featured again in today's New York Times Book Review section.

Immigration Proposal Threatens Religious Social Services

Today's San Antonio (TX) Express-News carries a long article on the dilemmas that will be faced by religious social service organizations if the immigration reform bill pending in Congress is enacted. A part of House of Representatives' proposed legislation would make it a crime for any individual or group to knowingly assist an undocumented alien. Supporting that provision, Texas Rep. John Culberson says, "If a person is here illegally, then they're violating the law. How can anyone or any group be exempt from obeying the laws of the United States?" However, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic, religious leaders all say that critical social services to the undocumented potentially could be reduced --if not stopped -- if that part of the bill becomes law. A number of members of the Senate are hopeful that the final version of the law will permit legitimate relief work to continue.

UPDATE: Sunday's New York Times adds another dimension to this story in an article titled Rift on Immigration Widens for Conservatives and Cardinals. It focuses on the Catholic Church's opposition to tightening of restrictions on undocumented aliens.

Lutheran School Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Orientation Bias Claim

Defense attorneys have moved to dismiss a widely publicized suit against the California Lutheran High School Association and Cal Lutheran High School in Wildomar, California, according to last Wednesday's North Coast Times. The suit brought by two students and their parents claimed that the school violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act when it expelled the two students who were suspected of having a lesbian relationship. (See prior posting.) Defense attorneys argue that the school merely expelled two students who violated the school's Christian Code of Conduct. They claim that the Unruh Civil Rights Act that covers businesses should not apply to a nonprofit religious school. A provision in Sec. 220 of California's Education Code excludes religious schools from coverage of the anti-discrimination provision that applies explicitly to schools when its requirement would be inconsistent with the school's religious tenets. Defendants also argue that applying the law to the school would violate its associational rights, and that ordering the school to suppress its religious beliefs in admitting students would violate the Establishment Clause.

Suit Claims University's GLBT Program Violates Establishment Clause

Earlier this week, the Alliance Defense Fund announced that it has filed suit in federal court on behalf of two students against the Georgia Institute of Technology. The suit alleges that through a program called "Safe Space", the university promotes beliefs of religions that favor homosexual behavior and denigrates religions that oppose such behavior. The suit alleges that this violates the Establishment Clause. The suit also challenges the school's speech code and activity fee policy. The university claims that Safe Space is designed to dispel negative stereotypes and publicize support resources available to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students. The full text of the complaint in Sklar v. Clough, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is available online.

6th Circuit Upholds Pro-Life License Plates

Yesterday, in ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen (6th Cir., March 17, 2006), the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision rejected a free expression challenge to Tennessee's sale of specialty license plates bearing the inscription "Choose Life". Individuals are not required to purchase this version of the plates. The majority held that the pro-life message was government speech not subject to requirements of viewpoint neutrality. The Louisville Courier-Journal today assessed reaction to the decision. The decision did not deal with the question of whether license plates carrying explicitly religious symbols-- like that proposed recently in Tennessee-- would violate the Establishment Clause.

More On Governor's Bill To Exempt Boston's Catholic Charities

The Blue Mass. Group blog yesterday made available the full text of Gov. Mitt Romney's proposed legislation to exempt Boston's Catholic Charities from the requirement to provide adoption services for gay and lesbian parents. [See prior posting.] It also sets out a close analysis of the language of the proposed law, arguing that it will not in fact accomplish the purpose that the Governor seeks.

Here is one of its arguments. The bill provides that "it shall be lawful for any [religiously sponsored social service agency] to take any action with respect to the provision of adoption or foster placement services which is calculated by such organization to promote its religious principles..." The analysis argues that while placing a child with a gay couple might violate Catholic principles, not placing a child with a gay couple would not "promote its religious principles".

U.N. Committee Censures U.S. Policy Toward Shoshone Indians

Last week (March 10, 2006), the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("CERD") issued an ''Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure'' (full text) strongly criticizing United States policy toward the Western Shoshone Indian tribe. The federal government, which claims that the Shoshone's lands became public lands after the tribe's title was extinguished, interferes with the tribe's using various ancestral lands for religious and cultural activities. The government says that the Shoshone tribe has twice approved a settlement with the government. The action by the U.N. body has been covered in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, Indian Country Today, and Spero News.

Four New Prisoner Cases

Several prisoner free exercise decisions have recently become available:

In Asad v. Bush, (11th Cir., March 14, 2006), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state prisoner's free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of disciplinary action taken against the prisoner after a dispute over whether Muslim services were being held at the proper time. It found that prison authorities offered an acceptable alternative when inmates were permitted to conduct prayers individually at the requested time.

In Wolf v. Sheriff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10009 (D. Ark., Jan. 30, 2006), an Arkansas federal district judge accepted the earlier recommendation of a Magistrate Judge (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40978 (Sept. 8, 2005)), that the religious rights of a Native American prisoners were infringed when the state prison authorities denied them access to a prayer feather. However, disagreeing with the Magistrate, the court found that defendants were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity as to damage claims against them.

In Iron Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9997 (ED Tex., Feb. 13, 2006), a Texas federal district court dismissed several constitutional claims by a Native American prisoner held in a Texas prison who claimed that existing Native American religious programs give preferential treatment to "Christian-oriented" Native American beliefs while disfavoring traditional ceremonial leaders known as shamans. His claims included ones for confiscation and denial of religious items; the lack of a program for shamans; denial of a racial category for "Native Americans"; failure to provide exemptions or accommodations for the dress code and grooming code; failure to allow equal access to services for inmates in segregation; and failure to honor prior agreements which he entered into with prison officials.

In Ragland v. Angelone, (WD Va., March 14, 2006), and a follow-up memorandum opinion issued on the next day, a Virginia federal district court rejected a claim under RLUIPA brought by a Rastafarian prisoner challenging a Virginia prison's grooming rules. The prisoner had refused to cut his hair and beard for religious reasons.

House Hearings on International Human Rights

Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, of the U.S. House International Relations Committee held hearings on "Monitoring Respect for Human Rights Around the World: A Review of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005". (A webcast of the hearings, as well as selected transcripts, is available online- scroll to March 16, 2006.) Among those testifying specifically about issues of religious freedom were Catholic Bishop Thomas Wenski, Nina Shea (Director of Center for Religious Freedom), and Serbian Orthodox Bishop Kyr Teodosije. (See prior related posting.)

In a related matter, the House on Wednesday passed H.Con. Res. 190 expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards. Text of the debate and passage are available online.

Is Polygamy The Next Constitutional Battle?

Today's Town Hall carries an article titled Polygamy Is 'Next Civil Rights Battle,' Activists Say. The article quotes Mark Henkel, founder of the Organization for Christian Polygamy who argues that polygamy is found in the Bible and throughout history. He calls the present concept of marriage "marital Marxism", produced in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church. The argument that bans on polygamy are unconstitutional is based primarily on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas which struck down prohibitions on homosexual sodomy. The focus on decriminalizing polygamy has intensified as HBO this week launched a new series, "Big Love", about a Utah polygamist and his three wives living in a comfortable suburban community. The Salt Lake Tribune has reported about the show and its impact.

Catholic On Alberta School Board Seeks To Retain Position

In Canada, this week's Western Catholic Reporter details an interesting complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission by the Chinook's Edge School Division. Roy Brassard has been chair of Chinook's Edge School Division for the past eight years. Last year, Catholic voters in Didsbury voted to join the Red Deer Catholic School Division, which is inside the boundaries of the Chinook's Edge public school system. Alberta approved the change in June. Under Alberta's School Act, this now disqualifies Brassard from continuing to serve on the board of the public school system. Under the School Act, all Catholics within the Catholic School Division are treated as residents of that district. While they are still permitted to send their children to the public school and to be employed by the public school system, they are disqualified from serving on the public school board of trustees. However, Brassard thinks the law needs changing, arguing that "parents of Catholic students who stay in the Chinook's Edge school system will not have the opportunity to represent their children as trustees." The complaint filed with the Human Rights commission was seen as an act of last resort to try to allow Brassard to retain his position.

Mass. Governor Proposes Exemption For Catholic Charities Adoption Services

Following an announcement last week by the Catholic Charities of Boston that it would no longer offer adoption services, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney formally proposed a bill Wednesday that would exempt Catholic Charities from a state anti-discrimination law that currently requires the organization to provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the Governor's bill, the Boston Globe Wednesday quoted Romney's letter to state legislative leaders: "It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission." [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]

In response, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA) and the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State yesterday issued a release arguing that the proposed exemption for Catholic Charities would be unconstitutional. They said, "The First Amendment's free exercise clause grants us all the right to hold whatever beliefs we choose, and to act in accordance with them in our private affairs. It does not, however, permit any individual or institution to engage in bigotry in the discharge of a public or governmentally regulated function."

Oregon Court Demands More Religious Accommodation In School Basketball Schedule

In Nakashima v. Board of Education (Ore. Ct. App., March 15, 2006), an Oregon state appellate court gave an initial victory to a Seventh Day Adventist school in its suit against the Oregon Board of Education in the Adventist school's attempt to get the dates of the state basketball tournament rescheduled so games would not be held on Friday night or Saturday, the Adventist players' Sabbath. The student basketball players filed suit under Oregon's statute banning religious discrimination in schools. The Oregon School Activities Association said that accommodating the school's request would amount to an "undue hardship" and therefore was not required by law. The Court of Appeals held that accommodation under Oregon's law required more than the federal civil rights law does. Federal law excuses accommodation if it imposes more than a de minimus burden. Under Oregon law, accommodation is required unless it "requires significant difficulty or expense". The School Activities Association was ordered to apply this test to the students' rescheduling request.

Suit Against UC Berkeley Evolution Website Dismissed

The UC Berkeley News reports that last Monday, a San Francisco federal district court dismissed a suit that had been brought by a Santa Rosa couple who claimed that a University of California, Berkeley, website titled "Understanding Evolution" was used to promote religion. (See prior posting.) Without reaching the merits, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The suit also named an administrator at the National Science Foundation, which partially funded the website, as a defendant. The judge has not yet ruled on the NSF's motion to dismiss the suit against it.

UPDATE: The full opinion in the case is now available on LEXIS: Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13688 (ND Cal., March 13, 2006).

U.N. Creates New Human Rights Council

With the United States nearly alone in its opposition, the United Nations General Assembly yesterday approved the creation of a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Yesterday the New York Times reported that by a vote of 170-4 with 3 abstentions, the General Assembly passed the resolution that calls for the election of new Council members on May 9, 2006 and a first meeting of the Council on June 19. Joining the U.S. in voting against the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were Belarus, Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has objected to the resolution because it does not go far enough in guaranteeing that countries notorious for their human rights abuses will be kept off the new Council. The U.S. wanted a requirement that Council members be elected only by a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. (See prior posting.) Nevertheless, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said the U.S. would work cooperatively to strengthen the Council. He said whether the U.S. would be a candidate for membership on the Council is still under discussion.

School Board To Permit Distribution of Gideon Bibles

The Brunswick County, North Carolina school board, ignoring legal advice to the contrary, voted 3-2 last week to formulate a policy that would permit the Gideons to distribute Bibles in both middle schools and high schools. Attorney Joseph Causey, citing the 1998 Fourth Circuit case of Peck v. Upshur County Board of Education, had advised the school board to limit distributions to high schoolers once per year, and to make the opportunity available to all religious groups. The Board, however, said it was responding to a specific request, and would deal with other requests on a case-by-case basis, according to an article in yesterday's State Port (NC) Pilot.

SC Trial Judge Decides Church's Dispute With Diocese

In Charleston, South Carolina Monday, a state Circuit Court (trial level) judge handed down a decision in a dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints Church of Pawley's Island that broke away from the diocese in a dispute over the ordination of gay bishops. The Charleston Post and Courier reports Judge Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. ruled that All Saints Church for now could continue to occupy the 60 acres of land on which its building sits. However, he said, ownership will ultimately have to be decided in probate court. That court will have to interpret a 1745 charitable trust that set aside the land for the Church of England. Judge Cooper ruled, on the other hand, that the Diocese holds rights to the name All Saints Parish Waccamaw, and to the cash and assets still held by the breakaway church. Appeals are expected.

Danish Prosecutor Will Not File Charges Against Jyllands-Posten

Yesterday, according to Jurist, Denmark's Director of Public Prosecutions decided that he will not bring criminal charges against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper for publishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad last September. A complaint had been filed alleging that the paper violated sections 140 and 266 of the Danish Penal Code, but the prosecutor, according to his press release, found no violations. Nevertheless, he pointed out: "Section 140 of the Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and Section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religion among other things. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects." The prosecutor also said that his decision is unappealable. The full text of his 10-page ruling analyzing the relevant legal provisions is also available online. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]