More information has come out on the much-publicized raid of the FLDS Compound in Eldorado, Texas. (See prior posting.) The full text of the affidavit of a Texas Ranger that was filed to request a search warrant for the Temple on the FLDS premises has been released. (See prior related posting.) The Affidavit, dated April 6, sought a subsequent search warrant after authorities learned about the Temple while conducting a search of the YFZ Ranch under an initial narrower warrant.
Still unclear is a report in today's International Herald Tribune indicating that federal officials are involved in the search as well. This was revealed when lawyers for FLDS had asked a state court judge to prevent the Temple search, arguing that "Members of the religious denomination occupying the community consider it a desecration of one of their holiest sites for a non-member to enter their temple." State District Court Judge Barbara Walther, however, said that she had no authority to stop a federal search of the property. FLDS lawyer Gerald Goldstein had said in court that he was aware that federal agents were searching the ranch. The Herald Tribune article also gives more details on the actual search of the Temple. FLDS leaders refused to unlock the Temple or provide keys to it because this would be aiding in the desecration of their place of worship. After several less drastic means failed, authorities broke down the Temple's doors.
UPDATE: The AP on Friday published a profile of Gerald Goldstein (bio from law firm website) who is acting as counsel for the FLDS. Goldstein is a respected criminal defense lawyer and a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. For 11 years he served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas Law School and has served on the board of directors of the San Antonio Bar Association, among many other professional accomplishments.
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle on Friday reported that Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran had been receiving information about the YFZ Ranch from an informant for four years. However it was not until a call from a 16-year old last week to a domestic violence hotline that law enforcement authorities felt they had sufficient cause to take action and the possibility of a cooperating witness.
Friday, April 11, 2008
9th Circuit Says Bald Eagle Protection Does Not Violate RFRA
In United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, (9th Cir., April 10, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss criminal charges under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) against two defendants who claimed their prosecution violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court said that in a 2003 decision, United States v. Antoine, "we held that individuals like Defendants who are not members of federally-recognized tribes did not have valid claims that their prosecutions under BGEPA violate RFRA.... Neither removal of bald eagles from the Endangered or Threatened Species List, the Supreme Court's decision in O Centro Espirita, nor the government's eagle recovery methods undermine this holding."
7th Circuit Hears Arguments In Anti-Gay T-Shirt Case
Last Friday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District, (Case No. 08-1050). In the case, an Illinois federal district court held that "school officials may prohibit a public high school student from displaying negative statements about a category of persons, including homosexuals, that are inconsistent with the school's educational goal of promoting tolerance." (See prior posting.) At issue is a Christian high school student's desire to wear a T-shirt to school displaying the slogan "Be Happy, Not Gay". An AP story yesterday reported on the oral arguments. A recording of the full oral argument is available from the 7th circuit's website.
Taking Church by Eminent Domain Does Not Violate Florida's RFRA
In Christian Romany Church Ministries v. Broward County, (FL Ct. App., April 9, 2008), a Florida state appellate court held that Broward County did not violate the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it took a church's property through eminent domain. The county wanted the property as a location for a substance abuse facility. The court said: "The church's insistence that a specific church building for holding worship services is fundamental to religious exercise under the statute is unpersuasive.... There is nothing about this location that is unique or integral to the conduct of the religion."
Scalia's Speech Criticizes Court's Approach To 1st Amendment Religion Cases
In a speech at the University of Virginia Law School this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took issue with the way in which a majority of the Supreme Court articulates its Establishment Clause doctrines. Yesterday's Hampton Roads (VA) Daily Press reports that in receiving the the Thomas Jefferson Medal in Law, Scalia said that Jefferson never intended to banish religion from government. Scalia argued that the abstract "principle of neutrality" set out in religion cases gives way when a court is faced with a long-standing tradition, such as prayer in legislative bodies.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Interior Ministry Releases New Study of Muslims In Germany
Germany's Federal Ministry of the Interior has released a new study titled Muslime in Deutschland (Muslims In Germany). The English language summary of the 509 page study concludes:
[T]he great significance of religion for all Muslims in Germany is striking, as well as the high percentage of those who confess their religion in theory and practice. Fundamentalist religious orientations, however, are not synonymous with distance to democracy, and distance to democracy is not automatically a sign of the willingness to commit violence; other factors must be added here. It is, however, certainly the case that the seed of radicalism can be sown more easily in this ground of the basically aloof view of the Western way of life and society, a view that can change into extremism against the background of personally experienced marginalization or the sense of the worldwide oppression of Muslims. For this reason, the potential for danger is considerably greater than the modest membership figures in the known Islamic-extremist associations might suggest.
In Unusual Reversal, 6th Circuit Finds No Standing In High School Speech Code Case
Yesterday in Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, (6th Cir., April 9, 2008), a 3-judge panel reversed itelf, issuing an amended opinion in a case it originally decided last October. (See prior posting.) In an unusual move, the panel decided to reconsider its prior ruling after defendants petitioned for an en banc rehearing. Also unusual, the deciding vote in granting the rehearing and changing the result was that of a district court judge sitting by designation on the Court of Appeals.
The case involved a challenge by a Christian high school student and his parents to the Boyd County (KY) High School's anti-harassment/ discrimination policy. Plaintiffs alleged that the speech codes in effect during the 2004-05 school year (and later changed) prevented Christian students from expressing their views that homosexuality is sinful, and that the speech codes and related anti-harassment training undermined students’ ability to practice their Christian faith. The majority, adopting the reasoning of the dissent in the original decision, held that since all that is at issue is nominal damages for a policy no longer in existence, plaintiffs lack standing. It concluded: "This case should be over. Allowing it to proceed to determine the constitutionality of an abandoned policy—in the hope of awarding the plaintiff a single dollar—vindicates no interest and trivializes the important business of the federal courts."
Judge Moore dissenting reiterated the position taken in her former majority opinion. She argued that plaintiffs have standing and that their claim is not moot. She would remand the case for a determination of whether the school's policy would have had a chilling effect on a "person of ordinary firmness."
The AP yesterday reported on the decision, noting that both the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund had supported plaintiff in the case.
The case involved a challenge by a Christian high school student and his parents to the Boyd County (KY) High School's anti-harassment/ discrimination policy. Plaintiffs alleged that the speech codes in effect during the 2004-05 school year (and later changed) prevented Christian students from expressing their views that homosexuality is sinful, and that the speech codes and related anti-harassment training undermined students’ ability to practice their Christian faith. The majority, adopting the reasoning of the dissent in the original decision, held that since all that is at issue is nominal damages for a policy no longer in existence, plaintiffs lack standing. It concluded: "This case should be over. Allowing it to proceed to determine the constitutionality of an abandoned policy—in the hope of awarding the plaintiff a single dollar—vindicates no interest and trivializes the important business of the federal courts."
Judge Moore dissenting reiterated the position taken in her former majority opinion. She argued that plaintiffs have standing and that their claim is not moot. She would remand the case for a determination of whether the school's policy would have had a chilling effect on a "person of ordinary firmness."
The AP yesterday reported on the decision, noting that both the ACLU and the Alliance Defense Fund had supported plaintiff in the case.
Ohio Episcopal Diocese Sues Break-Away Churches Over Title To Church Property
In another of the many battles between the Episcopal Church and break-away congregations, the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio has filed suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeking a ruling that the parent Episcopal Church holds title to the properties of 5 dissident parishes. Yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer, reporting on the litigation, said that the parishes broke away in protest over the election of a gay bishop and other doctrinal matters.
Russia Plans To Draft Priests Into Military
The Russian News and Information Agency reports today that Russian Orthodox Church officials are concerned about a new law that came into effect this year which cancelled draft deferments for clergymen, seminary students, conscientious objectors and certain others. The government plans to draft 100 clergy this year. The Church's Canon law prohibits clergymen from entering military service other than as chaplains. They need to be technically defrocked in order to serve as soldiers. The armed forces however see the new law as a way to offset declining numbers in the military.
Delaware Prison Says No Bible Reading On The Job
Yesterday's Wilmington (DE) News Journal reports that a kitchen manager at the state's Webb Correctional Facility says his supervisor ordered him to remove the Bible he keeps on his desk and not to bring it back. Elizabeth Neal, acting warden at Webb, said the issue is employees' reading while on duty-- whether it is the Bible or anything else. Correction Commissioner Carl Danberg said the order mailed to employee William Parker by Food Service Director Emanuel Walker was "inartfully worded". Danberg promised that it "will be rescinded and modified and reissued to make it clear that the issue is not the content of the reading material, but the behavior."
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Clergyman Debates Australian Justice Over Homosexuality
Today's Sydney Morning Herald reports on an unusual public exchange of recriminations between Reverend Richard Lane of Sydney's St. Stephen's Church and Australia High Court Justice Michael Kirby. In an ABC Radio interview last year, Kirby said that the Anglican and Catholic archbishops had made it difficult for people to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward gays. In a letter to Kirby, Rev. Lane denounced him for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship . He warned him that he faces God's judgment, and encouraged him to open himself to "God's healing of homosexuality." Writing in reply, Justice Kirby said that Lane's biblical interpretation in not a universal one, and that the biblical quotations Lane used were unreliable mid-19th century translations.
Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act Trumps Tort Claims Act
In Shrum v. City of Coweta, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27930 (ED OK, March 28, 2008), an Oklahoma federal district court held that the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act authorizes a religious discrimination claim against Coweta, Oklahoma's police chief in his indivdual capacity. The court held that the provision in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (O.S. Sec. 51-153) that precludes tort suits against individuals acting within the scope of their employment does not preclude a discrimination claim under the Religious Freedom Act. (See prior related posting.)
Excluding Juror Because of Clergy Spouse Held Proper
In Green v. Prosper, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18358 (CD CA, Feb. 28, 2008), a California federal district judge in a brief opinion adopted the report and recommendation of a federal magistrate judge denying a habeas corpus petition by a convicted felon who had unsuccessfully challenged his robbery conviction in state court. Defendant Demetrious Green claimed that the prosecution had improperly used one of its peremptory challenges to exclude the wife of a clergyman as a juror. The magistrate's opinion (2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96738) concluded that this did not amount to improper religious discrimination, saying: "the occupation of the potential juror's husband as a member of the clergy does not implicate the potential juror's religious beliefs and it is a credible non-racial basis to exercise a peremptory challenge."
British Christian Group To Sue Google Over Rejection of Online Ad
In Britain, the Christian Institute plans to file suit against Google challenging its refusal to sell the Institute a pay-per-click ad (text of proposed ad) that would be triggered by a Google search for the word "abortion". Yesterday Life Site News and a Christian Institute press release both reported details. The Google affiliate AdWords rejected the ad, telling the Institute: "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content'". (Full text of e-mail rejecting ad.) In its demand letter to Google, the Institute alleges that the refusal violates Britain's Equality Act 2006 which prohibits discrimination based on religious belief in the provision of goods and services.
Appeal Filed In Santeria Sacrifice Case
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing Santeria priest Jose Merced (press release), yesterday filed an appeal with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Merced v. City of Euless. (See prior postings 1, 2.) In the case, a Texas federal district court upheld a decision by the the City of Euless to deny Merced a permit to sacrifice a goat. The animal slaughter was to be part of a Santeria religious ceremony. Today's Houston Chronicle covers the story.
Affidavit In FLDS Child-Custody Proceedings Released By Court
Media stories yesterday and today (New York Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram ) gave wide coverage to an affidavit (full text) filed in Sleicher County, Texas District Court in which an investigative supervisor for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services describes the phone calls by a 16-year old inside the FLDS ranch near San Angelo, Texas that led to the much publicized raid on the compound. While the affidavit describes the facts that were presented last week to the court to obtain a search warrant, this affidavit is the one filed in order to obtain a court order for temporary custody of the 416 children who have been removed from the site, pending an April 17 hearing. (San Angelo Standard-Times). The affidavit, dated April 6, also briefly describes interviews with children by authorities after they entered the YFZ Ranch. (See prior related posting.)
UPDATE: Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that officials are asking the court to order genetic testing to proveparentage of the 419 children from YFZ Ranch now in state custody. They want parents to pay retroactive support for the children.
UPDATE: Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that officials are asking the court to order genetic testing to proveparentage of the 419 children from YFZ Ranch now in state custody. They want parents to pay retroactive support for the children.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
FLDS Church Is Challenging Search Warrant; Wants Searh of Temple Banned
Attorneys for the FLDS Church have filed papers challenging the continuing execution of the search warrant at the group's YFZ Ranch near San Angelo, Texas. Some 401 children have been removed from the ranch and placed into temporary state custody. (See prior posting.) Today's Deseret Morning News reports that 12 attorneys have been hired to represent the Church in a hearing scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. The Church argues that the search is illegal because authorities had insufficient "probable cause" for the search warrant that was issued. Attorneys particularly argue that irreparable injury would be caused by any search of the FLDS temple at the ranch. They contend: "The temple is one of the holiest sites in the community to the religious denomination living there. Members ... consider it a desecration of one of their holiest sites for a non-member to enter the temple. Similar to the concept of unringing a bell, how would law enforcement propose to undesecrate the temple in a community should the search later be found to have been illegal?"
Scientology Demands Its Confidential Documents Be Removed From Wikileak
A law firm representing the Church of Scientology has demanded that the website Wikileaks remove the full unedited version of the Church of Scientology's Operating Thetan (OT) documents that it has posted online. M-Net today reports that this 612-page "bible" of Scientology-- titled The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology-- is normally restricted to top-ranking Scientology members. Wikileaks says it will release more Scientology documents next week. An e-mail demand letter (full text) from the Los Angeles law firm of Moxon & Kobrin says that Wikileaks is violating the Church's copyright in posting OT, which the letter describes as "confidential Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion." Wikileaks is set up to permit individuals to anonymously post confidential documents in an untraceable manner. It press release in response to the demand letter says it will not comply with the "legally abusive" request.
Japan Mayor Hit With Monetary Penalty For Church-State Violation
In Japan, an appellate court, the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court, has ruled that Hakusan Mayor Mitsuo Kado violated Japan's constitution when in 2005 he attended a ceremony at the Shirayama Hime Shrine and delivered a congratulatory speech. The court wrote: "The defendant's congratulatory speech is of a religious nature, and constitutes a religious activity (by a government official) banned by Article 20 of the Constitution." Today's Mainichi Daily News reports that the court ordered the mayor to return to the city the 2000 yen in city funds that had been paid to the driver who transported Kado to the shrine ceremony.
Posting of Bonds and Liens Ordered In Westboro Funeral Picketing Appeal
The Baltimore Sun last week reported that a Maryland federal district judge has ordered two leaders of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church to post bond in order to proceed with their appeal of a $5 million judgment issued against them in February. (See prior posting). The church and its leaders, particularly known for their activities protesting U.S. permissiveness toward gays and lesbians, were sued over their picketing of the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder and related website postings. The defendants, daughters of the Church's founder, were ordered to post bonds of $100,000 and $125,000 respectively. The court also placed a lien on the properties of the church and its founder, Fred W. Phelps Sr., to protect the assets so plaintiffs can ultimately execute judgment against them if they prevail on appeal.
India's High Court Permits Churches To Aid Christian Victims In Orissa
As previously reported, last December six Christian churches in the Indian state of Orissa were attacked and burned by Hindu extremists. Homes were also destroyed. Yesterday's Calcutta Telegraph reports on subsequent developments. In January, after the rioting and arson, Orissa's district collector ruled that no charitable or religious organization could carry out relief work in the area, arguing that relief groups would create further tension by focusing their aid only on a particular community. The Orissa High Court refused to intervene, so the archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar, Raphael Cheenath, appealed to India's Supreme Court. Yesterday in Cheenath v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court overturned the ban so church groups can now assist Christian victims of the rioting and arson.
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Litigation and Decisions
In Haymes v. Nardolillo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25822 (ED PA, March 31, 2008), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's free exercise claim. The court upheld prison officials' refusal to permit plaintiff to attend prayer services and their refuseal to appoint an Islamic chaplain to lead prayers and services.
In Coleman v. Granholm, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26335 (ED MI, April 2, 2008), a Michigan federal district judge, agreeing with a magistrate's recommendation and report, concluded that prison restrictions on inmates with respect to radios, tape players, and television programs did not imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs.
In Toler v. Leopold, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27121 (ED MO, April 3, 2008), a Missouri federal district court ruled in favor of an inmate's claim that denial of a kosher diet violated his rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment.
In Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26815 (WD OK, April 2, 2008), an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a Muslim prisoner's claims against various defendants. Plaintiff argued that a substantial burden had been placed on his free exercise rights by failing to provide a full-time orthodox Muslim spiritual leader, refusing to permit him to attend Muslim religious services while publicizing Christian services, and by failing to provide him with Halal food.
Wolff v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26889 (D NH, April 2, 2008) involved a prisoner's claim that a substantial burden was placed on his religious freedom by serving him kosher meals that he is unable to eat for medical reasons. The court held, however, that plaintiff had not established a causal link between his claims of illness and the prison's kosher meals.
In Coleman v. Granholm, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26335 (ED MI, April 2, 2008), a Michigan federal district judge, agreeing with a magistrate's recommendation and report, concluded that prison restrictions on inmates with respect to radios, tape players, and television programs did not imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs.
In Toler v. Leopold, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27121 (ED MO, April 3, 2008), a Missouri federal district court ruled in favor of an inmate's claim that denial of a kosher diet violated his rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment.
In Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26815 (WD OK, April 2, 2008), an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed a Muslim prisoner's claims against various defendants. Plaintiff argued that a substantial burden had been placed on his free exercise rights by failing to provide a full-time orthodox Muslim spiritual leader, refusing to permit him to attend Muslim religious services while publicizing Christian services, and by failing to provide him with Halal food.
Wolff v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26889 (D NH, April 2, 2008) involved a prisoner's claim that a substantial burden was placed on his religious freedom by serving him kosher meals that he is unable to eat for medical reasons. The court held, however, that plaintiff had not established a causal link between his claims of illness and the prison's kosher meals.
The AP reports that last Thursday the ACLU filed suit in a Wyoming federal district court alleging that the free exercise rights of two Muslim inmates were violated by a prison rule that requires inmates to eat their meals within 20 minutes after the food is delivered to a cell or common dining area. The rule sometimes forces inmates to choose between finishing their prayers or eating. It also precludes them from holding their food until the end of a religious fast day.
The Rutland (VT) Herald reported last week that Vermont's Corrections Department has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Gordon Bock, a Jewish former inmate, who said that while in prison he was denied matzoh at Passover and was prevented from observing other Jewish holidays. (See prior related posting.) The Department has recently drafted new rules on religious accommodation.
Canadian Study Says Get Court Review of Polygamy Ban Before Prosecutions
Echoing a 2007 report by a special prosecutor, yesterday Vancouver lawyer Leonard Doust recommended to the Attorney General of the Canadian province of British Columbia that before prosecuting members of the polygamist FLDS colony in Bountiful, B.C., the government should ask the B.C. Court of Appeal to decide whether Canada's criminal laws against polygamy are constitutional. Doust's study ordered last September (see prior posting) concludes that a reference to the B.C. courts would eventually be heard by Canada's Supreme Court and would give clear notice to FLDS members in Bountiful that their conduct is prohibited. Reporting on these developments, the Canadian Press yesterday said B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal prefers to bring polygamy charges and let defendants raise constitutional religious freedom concerns in their defenses. However he conceded that contrary recommendations now by two respected special prosecutors warrant serious consideration. The new report suggesting a strategy that would delay prosecution comes just as a high profile raid on an FLDS compound was being carried out in the United States. (See prior posting.)
Monday, April 07, 2008
Florida Church Said To Have Violated IRS Campaign Limits
Melissa Rogers on Saturday gave extensive coverage to charges that Tampa Bay, Florida's largest church, known as "Without Walls" , may have violated tax code limits on non-profits by directing its staff members to make political contributions to Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign two years ago. The church is one of the six from whom Sen. Charles Grassley has requested information in his high profile investigation into spending by "prosperity gospel" televangelists. (See prior posting.)
Legal Background For Police Raid of FLDS Texas Ranch
Since Thursday, police authorities have removed 159 children and 60 adults from the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas. The ranch is home to as many as 400 members of the polygamous sect, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, formerly led by Warren Jeffs. (CNN)
The legal background for the raid is outlined in a story published yesterday by the San Angelo (TX) Standard-Times. On March 29 and 30, Texas police authorities received a call from inside the ranch by a 16-year old girl who said she is married to-- and has an 8 month old child by-- Dale Barlow who has previously been convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual contact with a minor. In response, on Thursday afternoon police obtained a warrant from state District Judge Barbara Walther ordering the arrest of Dale Barlow, and authorizing seizure of any records or documents on the marriage of Barlow to the 16-year-old and the resulting birth of their child. It also orders the seizure of computer equipment, hard drives and data storage equipment, DVDs, videotapes and photographs. (San Angelo Standard Times).
Once inside the compound, authorities used evidence of past or imminent abuse or neglect to remove children and women. (Deseret Morning News.). On Friday Judge Walther issued another order-- this time a gag order to prevent further information about the investigation being released. (Ft. Worth Star Telegram). Judge Walther also issued an order directing officials to bring all children, including boys under age 18, out of the compound. (Salt Lake Tribune).
UPDATE: News stories Monday evening in the Houston Chronicle and the San Angelo Standard Times report on new legal moves. 401 children have now been removed by Texas' Child Protective Services that cites allegations of abuse and risk of harm. The court has awarded CPS temporary custody of the children. A guardian ad litem and an attorney ad litem will be appointed for each child to represent his or her interests. 133 women have voluntarily joined the children. District Judge Barbara Walther has decided that emergency 24-hour hearings are unnecessary and the cases will instead move into adversarial "14 day hearings". The statutory provisions governing procedures for removing children from their home to protect their health and safety are found in the Texas Family Code, Chap. 262.
The legal background for the raid is outlined in a story published yesterday by the San Angelo (TX) Standard-Times. On March 29 and 30, Texas police authorities received a call from inside the ranch by a 16-year old girl who said she is married to-- and has an 8 month old child by-- Dale Barlow who has previously been convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual contact with a minor. In response, on Thursday afternoon police obtained a warrant from state District Judge Barbara Walther ordering the arrest of Dale Barlow, and authorizing seizure of any records or documents on the marriage of Barlow to the 16-year-old and the resulting birth of their child. It also orders the seizure of computer equipment, hard drives and data storage equipment, DVDs, videotapes and photographs. (San Angelo Standard Times).
Once inside the compound, authorities used evidence of past or imminent abuse or neglect to remove children and women. (Deseret Morning News.). On Friday Judge Walther issued another order-- this time a gag order to prevent further information about the investigation being released. (Ft. Worth Star Telegram). Judge Walther also issued an order directing officials to bring all children, including boys under age 18, out of the compound. (Salt Lake Tribune).
UPDATE: News stories Monday evening in the Houston Chronicle and the San Angelo Standard Times report on new legal moves. 401 children have now been removed by Texas' Child Protective Services that cites allegations of abuse and risk of harm. The court has awarded CPS temporary custody of the children. A guardian ad litem and an attorney ad litem will be appointed for each child to represent his or her interests. 133 women have voluntarily joined the children. District Judge Barbara Walther has decided that emergency 24-hour hearings are unnecessary and the cases will instead move into adversarial "14 day hearings". The statutory provisions governing procedures for removing children from their home to protect their health and safety are found in the Texas Family Code, Chap. 262.
British Film Board Reconsidering 1989 Ban On Religious Film
Sunday's London Guardian reports that as Britain's blaspheny law is about to be repealed (see prior posting), the British Board of Film Classification is rethinking its controversial 1989 ruling refusing a release license for the film Visions of Ecstasy. The Board has invited the film's director Nigel Wingrove to resubmit it. The low-budget film that became a center of protest when it was first made shows a sexualized representation of 16th-century Spanish mystic St. Teresa of Avila caressing the body of Jesus on the cross.
Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Whale Hunting Indictment
The Peninsula Daily News reports that last week a Tacoma, Washington federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss misdemeanor charges against two members of the Makah tribe charged with hunting whale in violation of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. The court rejected defendants claims that the indictment infringed their rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ruling that the Mammal Protection Act applies to the Makah despite the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay that preserves the tribe's right to hunt and kill whale, the court said that their attorney could not argue religious or cultural rights to the jury in the trial scheduled to begin tomorrow.
UPDATE: Monday's Seattle Times reports that after the court's rejection of defendants' free exercise and other defenses, defendants decided to waive a jury trial and admit their roles. U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold promptly found Wayne Johnson and Andy Noel guilty of conspiracy to violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act and unlawfully taking a marine mammal. Defendants took this step so they could more quickly move to an appeal of the constitutional and treaty issues that are the crux of their defenses.
UPDATE: Monday's Seattle Times reports that after the court's rejection of defendants' free exercise and other defenses, defendants decided to waive a jury trial and admit their roles. U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold promptly found Wayne Johnson and Andy Noel guilty of conspiracy to violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act and unlawfully taking a marine mammal. Defendants took this step so they could more quickly move to an appeal of the constitutional and treaty issues that are the crux of their defenses.
In Scotland, Muslim Speeder Says He Needs Auto To Travel Between Two Wives
Last Thursday, in a hearing on a speeding citation in a court in Scotland, a restaurant owner succeeded in avoiding suspension of his driver's license so he can continue to use his auto to commute to work. This routine ruling has been covered in This Is London because defendant Mohammed Anwar, a Muslim, also told the court that he has an additional need for his car. He has two wives-- one in Motherwell and another in Glasgow-- and needs to commute between them on alternate nights.
Recently Available Articles and Book of Interest
From NELLCO:
- Erin Guiffre, If They Can Raze it, Why Can't I? A Constitutional Analysis of Statutory and Judicial Religious Exemptions to Historic Preservation Ordinances, (Georgetown Law Historic Preservation Papers Series, Paper 20, April 29, 2007).
- Randy Lee, Reflecting on Negligence Law and the Catholic Experience: Comparing Apples and Elephants, 20 St. Thomas Law Review 3-23 (2007).
- Christopher DeMuth & Yuval Levin (eds.), Religion and the American Future, (April 2008, American Enterprise Institute).
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Canadian Court Upholds Town's Zoning Action Against Hasidic Group
Friday's Montreal Gazette reported that the Quebec Court of Appeal has rejected a religious freedom challenge to action by the small Laurentian town of Val Morin banning a Hasidic community from continuing to use two chalets every summer for a school and a synagogue. The town says the group misrepresented its intended use for the cottages 20 years ago when they applied for building permits. The appellate court ruled that the town's zoning action may have limited the group's right to freedom of religion, but it had not "denied, ignored or compromised" it. The Followers of the Rabbis of Belz to Strengthen Torah have spent 8 weeks each summer in Val Morin for over twenty years. The remaining 40 families in the summer colony object to traffic, noise and garbage they say the Hasidic community creates. Upholding a lower court, the Court of Appeal held that the Jewish group could build on nearby land it owns. However the Belz community says that land is mostly swamp.
Appeal Questions Whether California's Privilege Law Is Discriminatory
Friday's Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise reports that child molestation defendant Gilbert Simental has filed an interlocutory appeal after a Riverside, California state court judge last week ordered two elders of a Jehovah's Witness congregation to testify about admissions that Simental reportedly made. One of the issues in the appeal is whether the California law on clergy privilege discriminates against Jehovah's Witness practices. State law privileges communications to clergy only if they are not made in the presence of any third person. Simental's statements were made to a church judicial committee of three Elders. (See prior related posting.)
Midwife Who Refuses Registration Agrees To New Injunction
In Delta, Colorado, midwife Theanna Sparrow Davis agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction preventing her from practicing midwifery unless she registers with the appropriate state licensing agencies-- something she says her religious beliefs preclude her from doing. She now will only be permitted to sing and pray while licensed personnel are assisting a woman in childbirth, and only so long as her activities do not assist verbally in the birth. Davis had been enjoined twice before after infants died during childbirths she was attending. Davis' agreement to the new restrictions mean that the Colorado Attorney General's office will not pursue sanctions for contempt of the prior injunctions. The Montrose (CO) Daily Press reported yesterday that the new order says Davis has had difficulty in the past determining the line between what she was and was not permitted to do.
Conservative Prof Can Proceed With Discrimination Claims
In Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, (ED NC, March 31, 2008), a North Carolina federal district court allowed, Prof. Michael S. Adams, a University of North Carolina faculty member and nationally syndicated conservative columnist, to proceed against the University with free speech and religious discrimination claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. An Alliance Defense Fund press release describes the case as follows:
The court however dismissed on 11th Amendment grounds Adams' claims for monetary relief against defendants in their official capacities and dismissed his Title VII claims against individual supervisors. (See prior related posting.)Adams frequently received accolades from his colleagues after the university hired him as an assistant professor in 1993 and promoted him to associate professor in 1998 when he was an atheist. However, interrogations, accusations, and refusals for promotion followed his conversion to Christianity in 2000, even though the quality of his work and conduct at the university never wavered.
ADF attorneys representing Adams sued UNCW on April 10, 2007, arguing that he was harassed and denied a promotion because his Christian beliefs did not coincide with the liberal political and philosophical stance of his superiors.
Street Preachers' Suit Against Louisiana Town Proceeds Toward Trial
In World Wide Street Preachers' Fellowship v. Town of Columbia, Louisiana, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26929 (WD LA, April 3, 2008), a Louisiana federal district court issued an opinion in a case on remand from the 5th Circuit. (See prior posting.) The case involves a group of demonstrators protesting abortion and other matters of religious belief who sued the city of Columbia (LA) after a state trooper dispersed their demonstration and arrested one of its members. The demonstrators, a group of street preachers, claimed that the officer's actions violated their right to free speech, free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly. In this decision, the court rejected the city's argument that no municipal liability exists. The court held that "the Preachers have raised a genuine issue of material fact whether there was a 'widespread practice,' i.e., a custom, of using inapplicable statutes to regulate the Preachers' First Amendment rights." The Court found that there are also genuine issues of material fact for trial on whether the state trooper's motivations in breaking up plaintiffs' demonstration were content-neutral or content-based.
Florida Commission Rejects Constitutional Amendment On School Vouchers
On Friday, Florida's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission narrowly defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have permitted-- or perhaps required-- Florida to provide private school vouchers. The Sarasota Herald Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel report on the 16-9 vote by the Commission. Seventeen votes are needed to put the proposal before Florida voters. The proposal would have amended the provision in the state's constitution calling for a "uniform ... system of free public schools". That provision was the basis for a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision invalidating Florida's Opportunity Scholarship Program. (See prior posting.) Last week the Commission did approve placing on the ballot a proposal to eliminate Florida's constitutional ban on state funding in aid of any religious institution. (See prior posting.)
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Baptist Groups Challenges Press Coverage of Obama's Church Affiliation
Leaders of three predominantly African-American Baptist denominations on Friday released a a statement attacking the way in which the press has covered Barack Obama's membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Religion Blog sets out the statement which complains that press coverage of Obama has created a religious test for office in violation of the Constitution's Art. VI and threatens Obama's religious freedom to choose his denominational affiliation.
Fisherman's Bible Defense Fails In Canadian Court
In Barrington, Nova Scotia, fisherman Ralph Thomas Atkinson was convicted of violating Canadian regulations by fishing in an unauthorized area in Georges Bank, despite his novel "Bible defense." Friday's Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald reports that, as part of his closing argument at trial, Atkinson insisted on reading to the court Matthew, Chap. 17, verses 24 to 27. He argued that the verses show that Jesus told his followers to go fish. The judge, unimpressed, found Atkinson guilty and fined him $4000, approximately the value of the fish that Canadian federal authorities seized when they boarded his boat on the high seas in August 2006.
California Jury Awards $6.54M In Religious Discrimination Suit
A federal district court jury in Sacramento, California on Friday awarded $647,174 in actual damages and $5.9 million in punitive damages to a software developer who says she was denied a promotion, and later laid off, because she was not a member of the Fellowship of Friends. Today's Sacramento Bee reports that Lynn Noyes, a 10-year employee of Kelly Services, says that many of the promotions and much of the hiring in the company's Nevada City office went to members of the religious group. Kelly lawyers in part argued unsuccessfully that the Fellowship of Friends is not a religion, but rather a "philosophical group," so favoring members of that group did not amount to religious discrimination.
Break-Away Episcopal Churches Win On First Part of Their Case
On Thursday, in In Re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Property Litigation, (VA Cir. Ct., April 3, 2008), a Fairfax County (VA) trial judge issued an 88- page "Letter Opinion on the Applicability of Va. Code § 57-9(A) " to eleven Virginia churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church USA. The court held that the churches are covered by an 1867 Virginia law that provides: "If a division has ... occurred ... in a church or religious society, to which any such congregation whose property is held by trustees is attached, the members of such congregation over 18 years of age may, by a vote of a majority ..., determine to which branch of the church ... such congregation shall thereafter belong." The court scheduled a hearing for May 28 on whether the section, interpreted in this way, violates the Free Exercise or Establishment clauses of the U.S. Constitution or the religious freedom provisions of the Virginia constitution. Yesterday Episcopal Life reported on the decision and reprinted statements issued afterwards by the Office of the Presiding Bishop and the Diocese of Virginia. Time reports on this and other cases in an article titled The Episcopal Property War.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Suit Challenges 4th of July Display Limits That Excluded Cross
In Norfolk, Virginia yesterday, the Christian Rights Ministries (CRM) filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Chesapeake over events that took place last July 4. After Chesapeake's 4th of July parade, participating groups set up booths in a local park. According to the complaint (full text), city officials demanded that CRM remove a 12-foot high white cross that CRM had set up next to its booth. A city official said it was "offensive". The lawsuit filed yesterday asks the court to rule that Chesapeake's policies and actions violated CRM's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release announcing the filing of the legal action.
Obama's Church Sets Ground Rules For Reporters
Today's Chicago Tribune reports that leaders of Barack Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have set new rules for media access to church services. Reporters must get permission on Thursday to attend Sunday services, they must check in, wear a badge and refrain from interviewing members on church property. They can use note pads, but may not use recording devices, cameras or BlackBerries on the church's campus. Audio and video recordings of the day's sermons will be available for purchase immediately after the services at the church's bookstores. Apparently not covered by the new rules are other controversial methods that reporters have used to locate church members to interview-- getting names from the church's list of those who are ailing and home bound, or approaching members at funerals.
Israeli Court Gives Narrow Interpretation To "Hametz Law"
As the Jewish holiday of Passover approaches later this month, an Israeli court-- the Jerusalem Municipal Affairs Court-- has quashed indictments against four private businesses that had been indicted for selling leavened products during Passover last year. In State of Israel v. Terminal 21, (Jer. Munic. Ct., Apr. 3, 2008), the court gave a narrow interpretation to Israel's Festival of Matzot (Prohibition of Leaven) Law, 5746-1986, (also known as the "Hametz Law"). The law provides that during Passover, "the owner of a business shall not publicly display any leavened product for sale or consumption." Arutz Sheva (which also quotes the full text of the law) and the Jerusalem Post report on the decision. Judge Tamar Bar-Asher Tsaban wrote:
The violation of the prohibition to the public display of hametz relates only to the display of hametz in a public place. Thus, for example, a table set up in the public commons fulfills this requirement of the law. Which cannot be said for the display of hametz, for sale or consumption, in a closed place of business.Religious Affairs Minister Yitzchak Cohen and National Religious Party head Zevulun Orlev both called for the Attorney General to appeal the decision.
Coptic Church Head Also Opposed To Egyptian Court's Ruling On Reconversion
It looks like it is not only Muslims that are unhappy with the ruling by Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court last month that allowed 12 individuals who had converted to Islam and then back to Christianity to get new identity papers. (See prior posting.) Bos News reported yesterday that the head of Egypt's Coptic Christian Church is also concerned. Apparently some Copts who convert to Islam do so in order to obtain a divorce not permitted by Coptic Church law. Then they convert back to Christianity. Pope Shenouda III told media that the court's recent ruling has only civil, not religious authority.
Turkish Court Acquits Translator of "God Delusion"
In Istanbul, Turkey, the Sisli 2nd Penal Court on Wednesday acquitted Erol Karaaslan, owner of Kuzey Publications. The publisher had been charged criminally with "inciting the public to hatred and hostility" because of his translation and publication in Turkish of Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion". Bianet today reported on the decision. Judge Hakki Yalcinkaya said that banning the book would limit freedom of thought. The complainant in the case said he would appeal.
Hilton Head Congregation Sues PCUSA Over Title To Church Property
Providence Presbyterian Church on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina filed suit in state court last Friday against the Presbyterian Church USA's regional presbytery to assure that Providence, rather that PCUSA, owns church property that the congregation plans to develop further. Island Packet reports on the lawsuit which is unusual because Providence has not at this point broken away from its parent church. However disaffiliation is under discussion. Members are unhappy with a number of policies of PCUSA. Providence's attorney says that Providence's name is on the deed for church land which it purchased from the Charleston Atlantic Presbytery for the nominal sum of $15. Jimmy Stuckey, an attorney for the Charleston presbytery, says PCUSA doctrine holds that church properties belong to the parent denomination, not the local congregation.
Malaysia's Islamic Lawyers Want Khalwat Ban Extended To Non-Muslim Partner
Reuters yesterday reported on a controversial proposal by a group of Islamic lawyers that would extend some Islamic law strictures to non-Muslims. Malaysia's Shariah court system has jurisdiction only over Muslims-- mainly in family and personal status matters. Others are subject to civil courts. Religious police monitor Muslims' compliance with Islamic law. One offense punishable by Shariah courts is "khalwat"-- close proximity, i.e. unwed Muslim couples holding hands or cuddling. At a legal seminar this week co-sponsored by the Sharia Judiciary Department, participants decided to forward to the Attorney-General a proposal that a civil law be enacted to prohibit khalwat between a non-Muslim and a Muslim. In response, Malaysia's Bar Council issued a statement saying that the proposal would violate the constitution's protection of freedom of religion.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Kaufman v. Karlen, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6181 (7th Cir., March 20, 2008), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of appeals upheld a district court's rejection of claims by an atheist inmate who complained that he was not permitted to wear a silver circle pin which authorities found had nothing to do with religion. The court also upheld the prison library's delay in processing atheist books that had been donated to it.
In Pogue v. Woodford, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22438 (ED CA, March 21, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that prison officials be required, in response to plaintiff's interrogatories, to furnish any state-wide guidelines issued by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding Muslim inmates' ability to practice Islam, as well as any information they have on why the prisons at which plaintiff has been housed have different Operational Procedures concerning how Islam is to be practiced.
In Dean v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24862 (ND MS, March 28, 2008), a Mississippi federal district court upheld the application of RLUIPA to a private company which under contract with the state provides prison facilities. It held however that a prisoner whose rights were violated by the denial of a diet meeting his religious needs is limited to recovering nominal damages.
In Daly v. Davis, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24851 (SD IL, March 28, 2008), and Illinois federal district court upheld a prison's requirement that in order for inmates to continue to qualify for the kosher food program, they may not eat, purchase or possess non-kosher food. The strict kosher diet requirement, according to the court, did not substantially burden plaintiff's religious exercise.
In Thomas v. Picio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24828 (SD NY, March 26, 2008), a New York federal district judge found that plaintiff's assertion that she was denied kosher meals for several days was unsupported by her testimony.
Robinson v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25001 (SD NY, March 5, 2008), is another opinion in a series of cases brought by Muslim prisoner's at Rikers Island challenging the way in which prison personnel prepare and handle Halal meals as well as the manner of sale of food in the prison's commissary. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing and permitted them to proceed to trial on their claim that the failure to list the non-Halal products in commissary items leads to their mistaken purchase by Muslim inmates who then place that food on the Halal trays in the dining facility, contaminating the trays for other observant users. However qualified immunity excused two correctional officers who merely worked in the commissary.
In Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, (SD OH, March 28, 2008), an Ohio federal magistrate judge ruled that an inmate's claim that he was denied the opportunity to freely exercise his Asatru religious beliefs should be asserted as part of a pending class action instead of in this individual lawsuit.
In Perez v. Frank, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25196 (ED WI, March 28, 2008), a Wisconsin federal district court dealt with a variety of RLUIPA and free exercise claims brought by two Sunni Muslim inmates. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to denial of the inmates' ability to participate in a religious discussion group, denial of various religious items, claims regarding Halal food, claims regarding the prison's urinalysis policy, and the food served for Eid al Fitr. However the court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants on claims regarding scheduling of the Eid al Fitr celebration and the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha. The court also rejected Establishment clause and equal protection claims.
In Pogue v. Woodford, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22438 (ED CA, March 21, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that prison officials be required, in response to plaintiff's interrogatories, to furnish any state-wide guidelines issued by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding Muslim inmates' ability to practice Islam, as well as any information they have on why the prisons at which plaintiff has been housed have different Operational Procedures concerning how Islam is to be practiced.
In Dean v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24862 (ND MS, March 28, 2008), a Mississippi federal district court upheld the application of RLUIPA to a private company which under contract with the state provides prison facilities. It held however that a prisoner whose rights were violated by the denial of a diet meeting his religious needs is limited to recovering nominal damages.
In Daly v. Davis, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24851 (SD IL, March 28, 2008), and Illinois federal district court upheld a prison's requirement that in order for inmates to continue to qualify for the kosher food program, they may not eat, purchase or possess non-kosher food. The strict kosher diet requirement, according to the court, did not substantially burden plaintiff's religious exercise.
In Thomas v. Picio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24828 (SD NY, March 26, 2008), a New York federal district judge found that plaintiff's assertion that she was denied kosher meals for several days was unsupported by her testimony.
Robinson v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25001 (SD NY, March 5, 2008), is another opinion in a series of cases brought by Muslim prisoner's at Rikers Island challenging the way in which prison personnel prepare and handle Halal meals as well as the manner of sale of food in the prison's commissary. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing and permitted them to proceed to trial on their claim that the failure to list the non-Halal products in commissary items leads to their mistaken purchase by Muslim inmates who then place that food on the Halal trays in the dining facility, contaminating the trays for other observant users. However qualified immunity excused two correctional officers who merely worked in the commissary.
In Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, (SD OH, March 28, 2008), an Ohio federal magistrate judge ruled that an inmate's claim that he was denied the opportunity to freely exercise his Asatru religious beliefs should be asserted as part of a pending class action instead of in this individual lawsuit.
In Perez v. Frank, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25196 (ED WI, March 28, 2008), a Wisconsin federal district court dealt with a variety of RLUIPA and free exercise claims brought by two Sunni Muslim inmates. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to denial of the inmates' ability to participate in a religious discussion group, denial of various religious items, claims regarding Halal food, claims regarding the prison's urinalysis policy, and the food served for Eid al Fitr. However the court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants on claims regarding scheduling of the Eid al Fitr celebration and the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha. The court also rejected Establishment clause and equal protection claims.
Court Says Religious Statue In Car Is Not Ground For Suspicion of Drug Activity
In United States v. Magana, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24859 (WD TX, March 13, 2008), a Texas federal district court granted a motion to suppress evidence because the grounds for the search involved were impermissible. An officer initiated a traffic stop after observing what he believed to be a defective tire. After he found no problem with the tire, he detained the driver and searched the car, because among other things, the driver had a religious statue on his dashboard. Police say that religious symbols are often displayed in or on cars to dispel suspicion of wrongdoing and are usually indicate drug activity. The court concluded however that "because displaying a religious symbol on a vehicle constitutes symbolic speech, and is protected by the First Amendment, it is impermissible for law enforcement to use religious paraphernalia in their reasonable suspicion calculation." Last year, a Nebraska federal district court in a somewhat similar case reached an opposite conclusion. (See prior posting.)
Church Bell Exception To Sound Ordinance Does Not Create Content-Based Law
In Service Employees International Union v. City of Houston, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25639 (SD TX, March 31, 2008), the SEIU brought a broad-based constitutional challenge to the permit requirements in the City of Houston Sound Ordinance and in its Parade Ordinance and to its Parks Ordinance. In its decision, a Texas federal district court struck down the provision on required security precautions in the Parks Ordinance and the 10-day advance notice requirement in the Parade Ordinance. It upheld most other provisions; however it held that trial was necessary to determine which section of the Sound Ordinance was being applied to deny SEIU's use of a bullhorn. In upholding a portion of the Sound Ordinance, the court held that the exemption for church bells and chimes sounded for no more than 5 minutes every hour as part of a religious observance or service during the day does not render the Ordinance content-based. The court said: "This limitation demonstrates the understanding that church bells and chimes are of limited duration and therefore are 'non-intrusive . . . acceptable background noise'."
Polygamous Muslim Marriages In Europe Growing
A report yesterday from AKI says that the number of polygamous marriages among Muslim immigrants is growing in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. It is estimated that there are 15,000 to 20,000 such marriages in Italy, even though they are illegal. Some are immigrants who were legally married to more than one wife before coming to Italy. In other cases, polygamous marriages are contracted in the consulates of immigrants' home countries with just an imam present. Britain, Belgium and Germany will pay welfare benefits to multiple wives. Italy will not.
4th Circuit Holds for EEOC In Religious Discrimination Case
In EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., (4th Cir., March 31, 2008), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment and permitted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Clinton Ingram to go to trial on charges that a Maryland company, Sunbelt Rentals, permitted a religiously hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ingram was an African American who had converted to Islam. He claims he was subjected to a steady stream of anti-Muslim comments and actions by his co-workers which his employer, Sunbelt, did nothing to stop. The main issue was whether the comments and actions were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The Court of Appeals thought that a jury might well find they were, saying: "If Americans were forced to practice their faith under the conditions to which Ingram was subject, the Free Exercise Clause and the embodiment of its values in the Title VII protections against workplace religious prejudice would ring quite hollow." Today's Maryland Daily Record reports on the decision.
Egypt Bans Demonstrations In Places of Worship
According to Reuters, Egypt's Parliament on Wednesday passed a law prohibiting holding of protests in places of worship. Inciting, participating in or organizing such a protest is punishable by a fine and up to one year in jail. Parliament members from the Muslim Brotherhood-- that often uses mosques for protests-- voted against the bill. The government says the law is intended to protect the sanctity of places of worship. Minister of Religious Endowments Mahmoud Hamdi Zakzouk, urging passage of the bill, said some people were using mosques for protests every week after Friday prayers, inviting satellite TV news to film them in order to "promote political ideas that have no connection to religion." Coptic Christians have also sometimes staged protests in churches.
Indonesia Threatens To Block YouTube Access Over "Fitna"
Indonesia's Information Minister Mohammad Nuh told a press briefing in Jakarta yesterday that he has sent a letter to YouTube demanding that Dutch Politician Geert Wilder's controversial anti-Islamic video, Fitna, be removed. (See prior posting.) According to CNS News, if YouTube does not comply within two days, Indonesia says it will block access to the popular website. Indonesia is a former Dutch colony. Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, has banned Wilders from entering the country, and the country's Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) has called for a boycott of Dutch goods until the Netherlands apologizes to the Islamic world.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
New Macedonian Religion Law Threatens Serbian Orthodox Church
Forum 18 reported on Monday that Macedonia's new "Law on the Legal Status of a Church, Religious Community and a Religious Group," passed last September and scheduled to come into effect May 1, is designed to prevent the Serbian Orthodox Church from gaining legal status. The Serbian Orthodox Church has experienced ongoing problems in Macedonia. (See prior posting.) The new law is unclear on what unregistered churches may do. Its provisions may also adversely affect the Bektashi Muslim community, Seventh Day Adventists and various Baptist Churches. The law clearly maintains the legal status of the Macedonian Orthodox, Catholic and Methodist Churches , and of the Islamic and Jewish communities.
Pastor Settles Dispute With Feds Over Unauthorized Travel To Iraq
The AP reported yesterday that New Jersey peace activist, Rev. Frederick Boyle, has reached a settlement agreement with federal authorities. In 2003, Boyle traveled to Iraq in violation of the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations then in effect. He was assessed a fine of $6700 by the Office of Foreign Asset Control. Represented by the ACLU (press release), in 2005 Boyle filed suit (full text of complaint) challenging the OFAC's regulations as being violative of the First and Fifth Amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and international law. Under this week's settlement, Boyle will pay only a small part of the assessed fine (the exact amount was not disclosed), and the government will not to file criminal charges against him in connection with his trip. Commenting on the settlement, Boyle said: "I traveled into Iraq with a Christian peacemaker team. My purpose was to go there and pray with the people. I don't feel that there should have been any prosecution at all."
Woman Indicted For Damage From Anointing UCC Church As Protest
World Net Daily reported yesterday that felony criminal mischief charges have been filed in Elmira, New York, against Holly Somers for damage she caused to a United Church of Christ building by anointing various areas of the building with cooking oil. The incident at Elmira's Park Church grew out of a protest by a group of Christians in connection with a 2007 gay pride event in Elmira's Wisner Park, located next to the church. The United Church of Christ as a denomination has an LGBT Ministry and endorses same-sex marriages. Previously four others were fined for disorderly conduct growing out of their actions at the same gay pride event.
Israel Passes Organ Donation Law; Religious Controversy Remains
According to Haaretz, Israel's Knesset last week enacted the country's first law on organ donations. Among other things, it outlaws the brokering of sales of organs. Organ donation has been controversial in Israel because many Orthodox rabbis have insisted that cardiac death, rather than the earlier brain death, defines the end of life under Jewish law. The new bill, however, has garnered support from Sephardi rabbinical leaders and those from the National Religious movement. Under the new law, a committee made up of rabbis, doctors and ethicists will be created to set guidelines and authorize doctors who will certify brain death. While Sephardi leaders (represented by the Shas Party) agree that new technology permits brain death to be used as the measure of the end of life, the Ashkenazi United Torah Judaism party led by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv objects. YNet News reported that in ultra-Orthodox areas of Jerusalem, large posters opposing the new law charged that declaring a person dead on the basis of brain death amounts to murder. The paper says the posters reflect the views of "two of the most prominent rabbis belonging to the Lithuanian non-Hasidic ultra-Orthodox Jewish community." [Thanks to Religion and State in Israel for the lead.]
EEOC Prevails In Religious Discrimination Claim Against Aldi's
In EEOC v. Aldi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25206 (WD PA, March 28, 2008), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit in a Pennsylvania federal district court against Aldi, Inc. on behalf of former employee Kimberly Bloom who was fired from her position as a cashier after she refused for religious reasons to work on Sundays. Bloom describes herself as "a Christian, Protestant, and a Born Again Christian." Aldi had offered Bloom time off to attend religious services on Sunday, but Bloom insisted that her religious beliefs included spending all of Sunday with her family. It also offered her rotation and voluntary shift swapping. The court rejected Aldi's motion to dismiss, finding that the accommodations it offered were inadequate and that Aldi's failed to establish that reasonable accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship. The court found that genuine issues of fact remain as to Bloom's claims of retaliation and claims for punitive damages.
Developer Counterclaims For $10M Against Missouri Baptist Convention
Associated Baptist Press yesterday reported on the latest installment in a complex lawsuit between the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) and Missouri land developer William Jester. Windmere Baptist Conference Center is one of five institutions that broke away from MBC in 2000 and 2001. In a separate lawsuit, MBC is attempting to reassert control. (See prior posting.) MBC has filed suit against Jester’s Windermere Development Company to prevent it, pending the outcome of the separate lawsuit, from buying Windmere property as part of Windmere's debt restructuring and expansion plan. Now Jester has filed a counterclaim against MBC, alleging defamation and interference with business relationships. He says that he has lost $10 million in business because of MBC's actions warning prospective lenders against financing development of the property. Jester says inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims in MBC's in-house newsletter The Pathway impugned his business and financial capabilities.
Court Upholds Texas Sports League's Exclusion of Christian School
In Texas, a Christian school has lost its bid to become a member of the state's intescholastic league for public schools. Cornerstone Christian Schools applied for membership in University Interscholastic League (UIL) after the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) refused in 2006 to renew its membership because of violations of the league's recruiting rules. In Cornerstone Christian Schools v. University Interscholastic League, (WD TX, April 1, 2008) [full text of opinion, Part 1, Part 2, Order], a Texas federal district court in a lengthy opinion upheld UIL's refusal to permit Cornerstone to apply for membership. As interpreted by UIL, its rules disqualified Christian Cornerstone once the school had been excluded from TAPPS for recruiting violations. The court agreed with UIL's interpretation of its rule, describing Cornerstone's attempt to read the rule otherwise as "semantically and ecclesiastically akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
The court's conclusion was signaled by its its initial description of Cornerstone's allegations: "Having successfully created an athletic powerhouse no longer welcomed by other Christian schools, Cornerstone incongruously invokes the power of the federal government to have its earthly desires accomplished."
Moving to plaintiffs' various constitutional assertions, the court held that only the parents and students who were plaintiffs, and not Cornerstone itself, had standing to raise the claims being asserted. The court went on to hold that UIL's membership rule is no more than a de minimis burden on plaintiffs' right to educate their child and on their free exercise of religion. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to the rule, finding that it bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in reducing unfair competition in extracurricular activities. Yesterday's San Antonio Express News reported on the decision.
The court's conclusion was signaled by its its initial description of Cornerstone's allegations: "Having successfully created an athletic powerhouse no longer welcomed by other Christian schools, Cornerstone incongruously invokes the power of the federal government to have its earthly desires accomplished."
Moving to plaintiffs' various constitutional assertions, the court held that only the parents and students who were plaintiffs, and not Cornerstone itself, had standing to raise the claims being asserted. The court went on to hold that UIL's membership rule is no more than a de minimis burden on plaintiffs' right to educate their child and on their free exercise of religion. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to the rule, finding that it bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in reducing unfair competition in extracurricular activities. Yesterday's San Antonio Express News reported on the decision.
British Tribunal Considering Muslim Hair Stylist's Discrimination Claim
This Is London today reports on an interesting religious discmination case being heard by the Central London Employment Tribunal. Sarah Desrosiers runs Wedge, a hair salon that specializes in "an alternative form of hairdressing, which is ultra-modern and may be described as urban, edgy and funky." Derosiers wants her employees to wear the type of hair styles the salon offers. Now Derosiers is being sued by a Muslim woman, Bushra Noah, who was turned down for a stylist's position because she covers her hair with a headscarf for religious reasons. Desrosiers says she was not discriminating on racial or religious grounds; she would object to any kind of head covering worn by an employee.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
High Schooler Sues To Challenge Art Project Limits
In Madison, Wisconsin, a Tomah High School senior (identified as A.P.) last Friday filed a federal lawsuit challenging a school policy that prohibits art class projects from depicting "violence, blood, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs." In an art class assignment involving drawing of a landscape, A.P. included a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of peace." Teacher Julie Millin, asked him to remove the Bible reference because other students were making remarks about it. When A.P. refused, she gave him a zero on the project, showing him the class policy. A.P. responded by tearing up the policy statement in front of the teacher. She ejected him from class and he later received two detentions for tearing up the policy. In a later incident, A.P.'s metals arts teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross because it was religious.
The complaint in A.P. v. Tomah Area School District, (WD WI, filed 3/28/2008), alleges that the school policy and its enforcement against A.P. violates A.P.'s First and 14th Amendment rights. It says that other artwork with religious themes are displayed throughout the school and argues that "per se censorship of religious speech in assignments does not represent a legitimate pedagogical interest." A release yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund contains links to copies of A.P.' drawing and to drawings of demonic images created by other students in the class. Yesterday's Racine (WI) Journal Times reports on the case
The complaint in A.P. v. Tomah Area School District, (WD WI, filed 3/28/2008), alleges that the school policy and its enforcement against A.P. violates A.P.'s First and 14th Amendment rights. It says that other artwork with religious themes are displayed throughout the school and argues that "per se censorship of religious speech in assignments does not represent a legitimate pedagogical interest." A release yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund contains links to copies of A.P.' drawing and to drawings of demonic images created by other students in the class. Yesterday's Racine (WI) Journal Times reports on the case
German Court Says Muslim Student Must Have In-School Place For Prayer
Yesterday's Deutsche Welle reports that educators in Germany are hotly debating a March 10 decision by a Berlin administrative court which held that Diesterweg Upper School must provide a 14-year-old Muslim student with a place for his daily prayers. Relying on the protection of freedom of religion in Germany's Basic Law (Art. 4), the judge in expedited proceedings said that the prayers had to take place outside of class time, but space on school grounds needed to be made available. Judgments in expedited proceedings are temporary pending a full court hearing. No full hearing date has yet been scheduled. Educators opposed to the ruling say that it conflicts with German law that keep public institutions religiously neutral.
Death of Children After Prayer Alone Raises Homicide Prosecution Issues
Should parents who elect faith healing rather than traditional medical treatment for a child be criminally responsible if the child dies? That is the question posed in two recent cases. In Clackamas County, Oregon, parents Carl and Raylene Worthington have been indicted by a grand jury in the death of their 15-month old daughter last March. She suffered from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, both of which could have responded to antibiotics. Her parents, members of the Followers of Christ church, yesterday plead not guilty to charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. Their religious beliefs prevented them from seeking out traditional medical care for their daughter. In 1999 Oregon changed its law, repealing the former religious exemptions from child abuse and homicide statutes. Yesterday's Oregonian and today's London Guardian report on the case.
Meanwhile Marathon County, Wisconsin, District Attorney Jill Falstad is deciding whether to file criminal charges against the parents of 11-year old Madeline Neumann who died from a diabetic reaction. Yesterday's Green Bay Press Gazette reports that her parents, Leilani and Dale Neumann, prayed for her recovery from a diabetic reaction rather than getting her medical help. Prosecution may be difficult because Wisconsin law specifically exempts from punishment parents who treat their children "through prayer alone in lieu of medical or surgical treatment." [Thanks to Rev. Jeanene Hammers for the lead to part of this posting.]
Meanwhile Marathon County, Wisconsin, District Attorney Jill Falstad is deciding whether to file criminal charges against the parents of 11-year old Madeline Neumann who died from a diabetic reaction. Yesterday's Green Bay Press Gazette reports that her parents, Leilani and Dale Neumann, prayed for her recovery from a diabetic reaction rather than getting her medical help. Prosecution may be difficult because Wisconsin law specifically exempts from punishment parents who treat their children "through prayer alone in lieu of medical or surgical treatment." [Thanks to Rev. Jeanene Hammers for the lead to part of this posting.]
Facial Challenge By Christian High School To UC's Admissions Policy Rejected
Last week, a California federal district court handed down an initial decision in Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, (CD CA, March 28, 2008). In the case, Calvary Chapel Christian School, 5 of its students and an association of Christian schools challenged the admissions policy of the University of California on free speech, free exercise, establishment clause and equal protection grounds. Plaintiffs brought both facial and "as applied" challenges. At issue was UC's decision not to approve certain high school courses in science, social science and history offered by Christian schools. This precluded applicants for admission from using these to show their proficiency in various subject areas.
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting their claims that UC rejects courses solely because they are taught from a religious viewpoint. The court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's facial challenges. This leaves for trial the "as applied" challenges, including questions of the reasonableness of UC's decisions to denial approval for specific religious school courses. The University's press release describes the court's holding in its 49-page opinion as follows:
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting their claims that UC rejects courses solely because they are taught from a religious viewpoint. The court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's facial challenges. This leaves for trial the "as applied" challenges, including questions of the reasonableness of UC's decisions to denial approval for specific religious school courses. The University's press release describes the court's holding in its 49-page opinion as follows:
UC moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that that its review policies and the position statements are constitutional exercises of the University’s right to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission. The Court agreed, holding that the University has a legitimate interest in evaluating the adequacy of high school courses to prepare students for study at UC; that its process for doing so is reasonable; that the University’s academic standards are also reasonable and do not discriminate against religion; that the position statements are a reasonable application of those academic standards; and that the University accommodates religious school students in various ways.(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Ed Brayton for the lead via Religionlaw listserv.]
Court Says No Standing To Challenge State Funds For Faith-Based Agency
In Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., (WD KY, March 31, 2008), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a lawsuit by Kentucky state taxpayers claiming that the state violated the Establishment Clause by providing funding to Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC). The state pays KBHC to provide services to children placed in its care as wards of the state. Plaintiffs alleged that KBHC filled staff positions in accordance with religious tenets and sought to instill Christian values and teachings in youths in its programs. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court relied on two recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. It held that Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno requires the application of federal standing doctrines to state taxpayer lawsuits, including those brought under the Establishment Clause. It then held that because KBHC receives funds through contracts with state agencies rather than through legislative action, under Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation plaintiffs lack taxpayer standing. Yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the case which was originally filed in 2000 and included religious discrimination claims against KBHC which were subsequently dismissed by the court.
Most of Church's RLUIPA and Constitutional Claims Will Go To Trial
Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado, (D CO, March 31, 2008), involves a challenge to the denial of a church's application for a special use permit so it could expand its facilities. The church claimed that the denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as well as various provisions of the US. and Colorado constitutions. The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on most of plaintiff's 16 claims, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact that need to go to trial. However the court did rule for defendant on three matters. It dismissed plaintiff's facial Free Exercise challenge to the Boulder County Land Use Code, its retaliation claim and the portion of its RLUIPA claim that alleged unequal treatment with public schools that were exempt from county land use controls. The U.S. Justice Department had intervened in the case on behalf of plaintiff Rocky Mountain Christian Church. The Becket Fund which has assisted the church in its land use battle, issued a release praising yesterday's decision
Kentucky Court Permanently Enjoins 10 Commandments Display
In ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County, Kentucky, (WD KY, March 28, 2008), a Kentucky federal district court permanently enjoined a display of the Ten Commandments as part of a Foundations of American Law and Government Display in the Grayson County (KY) Courthouse. This follows up on a preliminary injunction issued in 2002, after which the County removed the 10 Commandments from the display, but re-hung on the wall the empty frame in which they had appeared. In granting the permanent injunction, the court first held that county residents who are users of the courthouse and taxpayers, as well as the ACLU, have standing. It then concluded that the display violates the Establishment Clause because the Grayson County Fiscal Court had a predominately religious purpose in approving the display and a reasonable person would conclude it had the effect of endorsing religion.
In a press release issued Sunday, the ACLU of Kentucky praised the decision saying it is not the business of government to endorse religious beliefs. Today's Louisville Courier-Journal, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal is planned. It quoted Rev. Chester Shartzer who originally requested that the county install the display. He complained that the court's decision was "not fair to the children" because it removed part of "our heritage" from the display.
In a press release issued Sunday, the ACLU of Kentucky praised the decision saying it is not the business of government to endorse religious beliefs. Today's Louisville Courier-Journal, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal is planned. It quoted Rev. Chester Shartzer who originally requested that the county install the display. He complained that the court's decision was "not fair to the children" because it removed part of "our heritage" from the display.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Supreme Court Grants Review In "7 Aphorisms" Monument Case
The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, (Case No. 07-665). (Order list.) In the case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Summum was entitled to erect a "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in a city park that already features a number of other displays, including a 10 Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The 10th Circuit denied en banc review of the case by a 6-6 vote. (See prior posting.) AP reports that the main issue that the Supreme Court will decide is whether placing donated monuments in a government-owned park creates a public forum or whether the government retains authority to select which monuments to display. The petition for certiorari, explaining the issues presented more fully, is available online. A Reuters report also has background information. The court took no action on a cert petition in a companion case, Duchesne City v. Summum, (Case No. 07-690). That case poses more complicated factual issues. (See prior posting.) The petition for cert in that case suggests that the Court might hold the case pending disposition of the Pleasant Grove case.
UPDATE: Links to all the briefs relating to the cert petition are available at Scotus Blog. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]
UPDATE: Links to all the briefs relating to the cert petition are available at Scotus Blog. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]
Turkey's Constitutional Court Will Hear Case Charging AKP With Anti-Secularism
The AP reports that Turkey's Constitutional Court today voted unanimously to hear a case that has been filed against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) accusing it of undermining the secular principles enshrined in Turkey's Constitution. (See prior posting.) Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, the chief prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals, filed the lawsuit, asking the Constitutional Court to ban the AKP and bar 71 people, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Dedogan and President Abdullah Gul, from politics for five years. Even if the suit succeeds, Gul could remain president because the post is technically a non-political one. Reuters says that the European Union is concerned that Turkey's constitution permits submission to a court of these kinds of issues that are normally settled through elections. The case could eventually lead the European Commission to recommend suspending the accession negotiations with Turkey.
UPDATE: The New Anatolian on Tuesday published excerpts from the lengthy indictment filed against AKP.
UPDATE: The New Anatolian on Tuesday published excerpts from the lengthy indictment filed against AKP.
Another Televangelist Responds To Sen. Grassley's Information Request
As previously reported, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley whose Senate committee has oversight authority over administration of the tax laws, has asked six televangelists who preach the "prosperity gospel" for financial information. Today's Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that another of Grassley's targets, Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, has agreed to cooperate. Grassley has threatened to formally subpoena information from those who do not cooperate by today. Two churches still refuse to furnish any documents. Melissa Rogers continues to cover this story in detail on her blog.
Canadian City Seeks Injunction Against Preacher Who Feeds Homeless In Parks
A trial court in Calgary, Alberta today will hear the city's request for an injunction against Rev. Art Pawlowski whose Street Church Ministry feeds the homeless and preaches to them in local parks. The Calgary Sun reports that the city has previously ticketed Pawlowski 50 times for preaching to up to 500 homeless people in downtown Calgary's Triangle Park. However the court consistently refuses to rule in the cases charging offenses such as illegal use of an amplifier and disturbing the peace. Pawlowski asserts free speech and religious freedom defenses.
New Articles and Books of Interest
From SSRN:
- Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Hate in the Classroom: Free Expression, Holocaust Denial, and Liberal Education, (American Journal of Education, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 215-241, February 2008).
- Russell Powell, Theology in Public Reason and Legal Discourse: A Case for the Preferential Option for the Poor, (March 20, 2008).
- Carl H. Esbeck, What the Hein Decision Can Tell Us about the Roberts Court and the Establishment Clause, (Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 78, No. 2, Forthcoming).
- Nicholas A. Mirkay, Is it 'Charitable' to Discriminate?: The Necessary Transformation of Section 501(C)(3) into the Gold Standard for Charities, (Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2007, July 3, 2007).
- Nicholas A. Mirkay, Losing Our Religion: Reevaluating the 501(C)(3) Exemption of Religious Organizations that Discriminate, (Widener Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 08-35, March 24, 2008).
- Sue Irion, The [Un]Constitutionality of the NLRA's Religious Accommodation Provision, (Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2008).
- Dayna Bowen Matthew, Race, Religion, and Informed Consent -- Lessons from Social Science, (Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2008).
- David L. Gregory, Not the Bishops' Finest Hour: Economic Justice, with Cerberus Unchained?, (St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0119, March 2008).
From SmartCILP:
- David K. DeWolf, Book Review (Reviewing Stephen Mansfield, Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America.and What's Happened Since), 85 Denver University Law Review 443-461 (2007).
- Randy Lee, A Rose By Any Other Word Would Smell As Sweet", But Would It Still Be Treasured: The Mislabeling and Misunderstanding of Parents and Grandparents in American Policy, 15 Elder Law Journal 607-631 (2007).
- Mark Strasser, Preaching, Fundraising and the Constitution: On Proselytizing and the First Amendment, 85 Denver University Law Review 405-441 (2007).
Recent Books:
- David Gushee, The Future of Faith in American Politics: the Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, (Baylor University Press, 2008).
- Eleanor Abdella Doumato & Gregory Starrett (eds.), Teaching Islam: Textbooks and Religion in the Middle East, (Viva Books New Delhi, 2008), reviewed in Pakistan Daily Times.
- Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, (Princeton University Press, 2008), reviewed in Middle East Online.
- George Weigel, Against the Grain, (Crossroad Publishing Co., 2008).
Paper Publishes Interview With Geert Wilders
Der Spiegel today carries an interview with right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders whose video attacking the Quran has provoked widespread negative reaction. (See prior posting.) He says: "For me, Islam is a vision of a society that defines all forms of interpersonal behavior -- from inheritance to criminal law. This ideology endangers our values. I hate it, I don't hate Muslims."
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Two Cases Say Muslim Inmates Are Entitled To Halal Meals
Two recent cases have broken new ground by granting Muslim prison inmates the right to receive Halal meals, rather than relegating them to receiving only the prison's vegetarian diet. In Hudson v. Dennehy, (D MA, March 5, 2008), a Massachusetts federal district court held that refusal by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide a daily Halal menu to Muslim inmates violates RLUIPA. It found that the alternative vegetarian diet is not an adequate substitute. It also held that Muslim prisoners in the Special Management Unit must be permitted access to Jum'ah services through closed-circuit television. However the court upheld the DOC's policy of banning prayer rugs and instead furnishing Muslim inmates with prayer towels. Friday's Boston Business Journal reported on the decision, saying that it "marked the first time a U.S. court decided that Muslim inmates have a right to daily Halal meals and prayer services."
A week later in Perez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, (SDNY, March 12, 2008), a New York federal district judge approved a settlement (full text) under which any Muslim inmate may now request and must receive Halal meals containing meat as frequently as Jewish prisoners receive kosher meat meals (currently 4 times per week). Friday's New York Law Journal reported on the case. Quoting one of the pro bono lawyers who filed the lawsuit, it reports that the settlement represents a "significant departure from current case law with respect to Muslim inmates' equal protection rights to receive Halal meals containing Halal meat, as opposed to a vegetarian diet, which up until this case was arguably the constitutionally reasonable alternative meal plan."
A week later in Perez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, (SDNY, March 12, 2008), a New York federal district judge approved a settlement (full text) under which any Muslim inmate may now request and must receive Halal meals containing meat as frequently as Jewish prisoners receive kosher meat meals (currently 4 times per week). Friday's New York Law Journal reported on the case. Quoting one of the pro bono lawyers who filed the lawsuit, it reports that the settlement represents a "significant departure from current case law with respect to Muslim inmates' equal protection rights to receive Halal meals containing Halal meat, as opposed to a vegetarian diet, which up until this case was arguably the constitutionally reasonable alternative meal plan."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)