Israel's High Court Hears Challenges To Army Alternatives For Religious Students

Jerusalem Post reports that yesterday a 9-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice heard arguments challenging the "Tal" law. The law allows Orthodox Jewish students in yeshivot an alternative to the usual required military service. They serve only one year of military service or alternative public service and then enter the work force without being drafted. The law was intended to give an opportunity for some full-time ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students who have draft exemptions to leave their full time religious studies. The five petitions before the court essentially challenge as a denial of equality in the special draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox students. In 2006 the High Court rejected similar challenges, expressing concern but saying that there should be a resolution through the political process. However it threatened to act in the future if this did not happen. (See prior posting.) Instead of any changes, in 2007, the Tal law, that had originally been enacted for only a 5-year period, was reauthorized by the Knesset for another 5 years. [Thanks to Religion & State in Israel (Joel Katz) for the lead.]

New Repressive Religion Law Takes Effect In Azerbaijan

Forum 18 reported last week that in Azerbaijan, a repressive new religion law, along with related amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code came into effect on May 31. All religious organizations are required to re-register by January 1, 2010. The amendments create a new offense of producing, importing or selling religious literature without specific permission of the Committee for Work with Religious Organizations. Also it will be illegal to conduct religious activities away from a group's registered address. Also included in the new law is language that may be seen as banning conscientious objection and language creating a lengthy list of reasons for banning a religious organization.

Swiss Senate Urges Defeat of Ban on Minarets

In Switzerland last Friday, the country's Senate voted 36-3 to recommend that voters defeat an initiative to ban minarets. Swissinfo says most Senators believe the ban would damage the Switzerland's international reputation and the country's trade relations with Muslim countries. The right wing Swiss Peoples Party got enough signatures on a petition to force a vote on the proposal later this year.

Federal Suit On California's Textbook Portrayal of Hindus Settled

Last week, a federal district court in California entered an order settling a lawsuit that had been brought by a group of Hindu parents and their supporters challenging the way Hinduism was portrayed in textbooks chosen by the California state Board of Education in 2005-06. In a prior decision, the court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for its equal protection challenge to the textbook adoption process. A parallel state court case has already led to the state Board revising its book selection procedures. Now, according to today's Sacramento Bee, the federal lawsuit has been settled by the state paying plaintiffs $250,000 to CAPEEM (the plaintiff group), an amount that probably will not even cover their expenses. Today's Sacramento Bee reported on developments.

Bosnian Election Restrictions Challenged In European Court As Discriminatory

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights heard arguments in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina challenging provisions in Bosnia's constitution and the election act of 2001. (Court press release.) Haaretz also reports on the case brought by the head of Bosnia's Jewish community and the head of its Roma Council are challenging restrictions that limit candidates for the Presidency and the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly to members of the Bosnian Serb, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat communities. They argue that the restrictions violate Articles 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to free elections) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (general prohibition of discrimination).

Obama Speaks To Middle East Reporters About Religious Pluralism

After his speech in Cairo yesterday, President Obama met with Middle East reporters. JTA has a transcript of the session. While much of the Q&A focused on the Israeli-Palestinian question, one exchange allowed the President to expand on his notion of a religiously pluralistic society:

What I tried to communicate in the speech ... is that in an interdependent world like ours ... we have to have a mature faith that says "I believe with all my heart and all my soul in what I believe, but I respect the fact that somebody else believes their beliefs just as strongly." ... I can't force my religion on you.... Now, that doesn't mean that I can't make arguments that are based on my belief and my faith... If I'm a politician and I say I'm going to pass a law against murdering somebody, that's not me practicing my religious faith; that's me practicing morality that may be based in religious faith, but ... one that can translate into a principle that people of various faiths can agree on.

I think it's very important for Islam to wrestle with these issues.... [I]n Islam there's a debate about sharia and how strict an interpretation or how moderate an interpretation of that should be; or should that be something that is not part of the secular law. I don't presume to make that decision for any country or any groups of people. But I do think that if you start having rules that guarantee other faiths and other groups, or in the case of the United States, people with no faith at all, are somehow forced to abide by somebody else's faith, I think that is a violation of the spirit of democracy and I think that over the long term, that's going to breed conflict in some way. It will lead to some sort of instability and destructiveness in that society.

But, as I said, I think this is a important debate that has to take place inside Islam.... [T]he one thing I can say for certain is that people who justify killing other people based on faith are misreading their sacred texts. And I think they are out of alignment with God. Now, that's my belief. [T]hat ... is a debate that I think is settled for the vast majority of Muslims, but we have a very small minority that can be very destructive....

President's Faith-Based Council Holds Its First Official Meeting

Yesterday afternoon, President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships held its first official meeting by conference call. Washington Post's On Faith has an account of what transpired. Each of the Task Forces reported on its activities. Originally it was reported that the White House had created six task forces (see prior posting); however yesterday's report suggests that a seventh has appeared: Reducing Teen Pregnancy and Abortion. The Council's timeline for the next few months is: Phone conferences every month with an in-person meeting , open to the public, in July. At that meeting, each task force will identify 2 to 3 areas for primary focus. In October, each task force will present a draft of recommendations, with a February meeting to release a final report and recommendations. In between,frequent phone conferences among task forces are anticipated.

Today, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Political Rights today issued a press release focusing on part of the report by the Task Force on Global Poverty and Development. The Task Force identified as an issue the importance of foreign aid going to civil society institutions, such as churches, mosques, temples and universities, as well as to governments. Donohue says: "This is a commendable proposition, but it also smacks of hypocrisy: U.S. taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for religious institutions overseas but there is no money for poor kids down the block from the White House who would like to have a school voucher to attend a Catholic school. "

Brooklyn Bishop Lobbies Hard Against Statute of Limitations Window

Today's New York Times reports on the aggressive political advocacy by Brooklyn's Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio in opposition to a bill proposed in the legislature that would create a one-year window in which anyone could sue for child abuse, no matter how long ago it occurred. The provision is in one of the two versions of bills tht would extend the statute of limitations on child abuse from 5 years to 10 years. Bishop DiMarzio warns that if the one-year window is enacted, it will bankrupt various Catholic dioceses, and that parishioners will in turn reject politicians who supported the bill.

Some charge that Bishop DiMarzio entered a political deal with Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, forcing Father James O'Shea to resign as executive director of Churches United. That group had questioned the lack of transparency in the planning process for a large urban renewal housing project in Williamsburg. Lopez headed the Assembly's housing committee that helped get funding for the project, and he also founded a nonprofit social services organization that has part of the contracts for preliminary project development work. Critics say that in exchange for the removal of Fr. O'Shea, Assemblyman Lopez introduced the competing bill that lengthened the statute of limitations in abuse cases without providing a one-time window for old claims to be asserted. Lopez denies any such deal.

Bahrain Adopts New Family Law For Sunnis; Excludes Shiites

IPS reports today that Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on May 27 approved a new family law for Sunnis that protects the rights of women in Shariah courts. The new law sets out specific guidelines for courts to apply to marriage and divorce, alimony, child custody and inheritance cases. This is intended to lessen the mistreatment of women resulting from giving excessive discretion to male judges. However Shiites were excluded from coverage under the law after conservative Shiite scholars and lawmakers threatened nationwide protests and rallies. A spokesman for the Shiite bloc in Parliament said the law clashed with Shariah principles. Fundamentalist Shiites also fear that the law could be a first step toward applying secular civil law to Bahraini Muslims

Maryland AG Says Court Security Can Require Temporary Removal of Face Coverings

A Maryland Attorney General's ruling handed down last week says that deputy sheriffs assigned to court security may require a person to temporarily remove a face covering, or veil or for identification or security purposes, even if the item is worn for religious purposes. 94 OAG 81 (May 27, 2009) concludes that there are no constitutional problems with doing this so long as the sheriff's office has a neutral and generally applicable policy of requiring removal of face coverings for security purposes. The opinion goes on, however, to urge practices that minimize religious conflicts:

To minimize potential conflicts between the requirements of courthouse security and the religious practices of individuals entering the courthouse, it would be useful if security details were comprised of both male and female officers and if a private space were available at the entrance of the courthouse for those individuals whose religion discourages removal of a head covering in public.

While the opinion is focused primarily on issues of Muslim women wearing a niqab, portions of the opinion indicate that it applies to other kinds of head coverings worn by men as well. Today's Examiner reports on Attorney General Douglas Gansler's opinion and the ACLU's concern about its impact on other head coverings.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Challenge To Illinois Drivers License Rules

In Baer v. White, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46412 (ND IL, June 3, 2009), plaintiffs challenged as too narrow the Illinois provisions protecting some religious objectors from furnishing their social security number in order to get a drivers' license. Under Illinois Vehicle Code 6-106 and 92 Illinois Administrative Code §1063.63, an exemption is available only if the religious order or sect to which an applicant belongs does not permit the individual to apply for a social security card. In this case, plaintiffs say that their individual religious beliefs-- based on Revelation 13:16-17 that prohibits the "mark of the beast"-- prevent them from furnishing a social security number in order to obtain a drivers license. However their religious sect does not specifically prohibit obtaining a social security number; instead it respects individual consciences on the matter. At issue in particular is the state's requirement for a statement from one's religious leader "attesting that the use of a social security number is against the religious convictions of the applicant's faith." The statute also requires the Secretary of State to determine which religious groups have bona fide convictions opposing participation in the social security system.

The court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' free exercise, equal protection and state RFRA challenges to the statute and regulations. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs' right to travel and due process challenges to the Illinois requirements.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Heleva v. Kramer, (3d Cir., May 22, 2009), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of appeals rejected a free exercise and RLUIPA claim by an inmate who alleged that for eight months authorities deprived him of two books on spirituality and prayer sent by his sister.

Moriarty v. Rendell, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44100 (MD PA, May 26, 2009), involves an inmate's claim that he was required to attend a religious-based 12-step drug and alcohol treatment program as a condition of parole. In this decision, a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's report and dismissed certain 1st, 8th and 14th Amendment claims relating to the required attendance.

In Colon v. Passaic County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45151 (D NJ, May 27, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court certified all persons who are or will become incarcerated at the Passaic County Jail during the pendency of the lawsuit as the appropriate class to bring a number of claims, including alleged restriction on religious freedom.

In Rouser v. White, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45171 (ED CA, May 15, 2009), a California federal district court, in a lengthy opinion, allowed plaintiffs to move forward on many of their RLUIPA, free exercise clause, establishment clause and equal protection challenges to a prison's restrictions on various Wiccan religious practices.

Falun Gong Adherent Charges Chinese Restaurant In New York With Discrimination

Wednesday's Epoch Times reports on an unusual case charging religious discrimination in public accommodations heard by the New York State Division of Human Rights this week. Three adherents of Falun Gong claimed that employees of a Chinese restaurant in Flushing Queens refused to serve them because of their religious beliefs. Zhen Sun told the administrative law judge that she went into the Lucky Joy Restaurant with a friend, and when employees saw her T-shirt reading "“Falun Dafa", they told her that they do not sell food to Falun Gong. She was ultimately told by the restaurant's owner to leave. No one attended the hearing to defend the Restaurant.

Scotish Tribunal Says Minister Is Not "Employee" In Unfair Dismissal Case

In Scotland, an employment tribunal has rejected an unfair dismissal charge brought by Rev. Allan MacDonald against the Free Presbyterian Church. Highland News yesterday reported on the decision in which the tribunal held that MacDonald was not an "employee" of the Church, but rather held office by virtue of his ordination. His obligations as a minister were to the members of his congregation and the tribunal said it could not impose a legal relationship on the members that would be contrary to their religious beliefs. MacDonald was suspended by the congregation in 2007 and 2008 after he wrote a controversial book titled Veritatem Eme – Buy the Truth. (Background.) Last June MacDonald was told by the congregation to vacate the manse within six months.

Court Says It Can Order Father To Pay Religious School Tuition

In Jordan v. Rea, (AZ Ct. App., May 28, 2009), an Arizona appellate court held, in a dispute between divorced parents over where their two children would go to school, that the best-interests standard applies and that a court may not rule out a private religious school simply because it is a private religious school. This overturned the trial court's ruling that while both parents can impart religious training to the children, school "is a theologically neutral time."
The appellate court also rejected the father's argument that ordering him to pay for a private religious school would be unconstitutional because it would require him to financially support a religious institution to which he does not subscribe. The court concluded that the father is not being required to support a religious institution, but instead is merely being required to make a child support payment to his former spouse to provide for his children's education in a school the court has found to be in their best interests. Yesterday's Douglas (AZ) Dispatch reports on the decision.

Audit of 2008 Anti-Semitic Incidents Released

The Anti-Defamation League this week issued its 2008 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents and a press release summarizing the Report's findings. The 2008 findings show a total of 1,352 anti-Semitic incidents, including 37 physical assaults. This is a 7% decline in total incidents from the year before. Among the highest profile incidents were repeated vandalism of the San Francisco Holocaust Memorial and the desecration of numerous of graves at a Chicago Jewish cemetery. The report also includes state-by-state tallies of incidents.

Clergyman Convicted of Violating Noise Law Through Playing Church Bells

In Municipal Court in Phoenix, Arizona yesterday, a local clergyman, Bishop Rick Painter of Christ the King Cathedral, was found guilty on two counts of violating the city's noise ordinance because of the hourly ringing of electronic church bells. An Alliance Defense Fund release says that the bells normally ring each hour from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Painter was given a suspended sentence of ten days in jail and three years' probation. The court also ordered that in the future the church bells can only be played once on Sunday mornings and once on each of 5 holy days for up to two minutes in duration with a noise level not to exceed 60 decibels (measured from adjacent property lines). (Full text of order.) ADF said it is reviewing the options available to protect Bishop Painter's rights.

Sikh High Schooler Sues NY Department of Education For Failing To Protect Him

A press release yesterday from the Sikh Coalition reports that a former Queens, New York high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against New York City's Department of Education charging that it failed to protect him against bias-based harassment and attacks from other students. A year ago, student Jagmohan Singh Premi was punched in the face by a fellow student who had a long history of making fun of his patka (small turban) and beard, and attempting to pull off his patka. Teachers and administrators at Richmond Hill High School tried, but could not to stop the harassment. Incidents continued even after the harasser was suspended. The lawsuit alleges that therefore the Department of Education had a responsibility to step in and do more.

Obama's Speech To Muslim World Includes Focus On Religious Freedom

This morning, President Barack Obama delivered a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt. (Full text of speech.) In his broad-ranging speech, he said that "Islam has always been a part of America's story," pointing out that the first nation to recognize the U.S. was Morocco. One section of his speech was devoted to religious freedom. He said:

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

9th Circuit Says San Francisco's Criticism of Catholics Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., June 3, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a strongly worded resolution passed by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors criticizing a directive from Catholic Cardinal William Levada instructing Catholic social service agencies to not place children in need of adoption with same-sex couples. Applying the Lemon test, the court found both a secular purpose and effect, as well as no entanglement. It said in part:

To be sure, the Board could have spoken with a gentler tone, but the strength of the Board’s language alone does not transform a secular purpose into a religious one.... [S]ame-sex adoption is "a secular dimension of the City’s culture and tradition that the City believes is threatened by the specific directive issued to the Archdiocese."... [T]he Board’s well-established practice of responding whenever the equality of gay and lesbian families is called into question necessarily colors the message conveyed by the Resolution. In adopting the Resolution, consistent with past practice, the Board sought to champion same-sex families and nondiscrimination as to gays and lesbians. An objective observer would understand as much.

Judge Berzon concurred, saying it was important that the resolution was limited in three ways: no regulation was attached to the resolution; the resolution was merely enacted; it was not made more permanent through plaques or ads; and the resolution was not repeated or pervasive. Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reported on the decision.

Mediation Settles Epicopal Church Dispute In Colorado Springs

The Colorado Springs (CO) Gazette reports that a lengthy mediation session yesterday settled litigation over ownership of Colorado Springs Grace Church & St. Stephen's. A decision handed down in March awarded the $17 million church building to the Episcopal Church USA rather than the break-away group that affiliated with the more conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America. (See prior posting.) An appeal had been filed. But now the CANA faction agreed instead to give up the building, saying it is too expensive to maintain anyway. However the Episcopal Diocese that gets the building said that the CANA faction realized they had a weak case.

NH Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill After New Religious Protections Added

Yesterday the New Hampshire House and Senate enacted changes to the same-sex marriage bill that the legislature had already passed, going along with demands of Gov. John Lynch for further protections for religious institutions as a condition of his signing the law. (See prior posting.) The Concord Union Leader reports that the governor then signed the bill yesterday afternoon. It takes effect Jan. 1. Two amendments to the already-passed HB 436 were placed into HB 73 and HB 310. The new changes affirm that religious organizations retain control over who may marry within the faith and they may not be required to participate in a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. No religious organization is required to provide in connection with a marriage that violates its religious beliefs any marriage counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals. Finally, religious fraternal benefit societies need not provide insurance where it would violate the society's free exercise of religion.

Fiji Orders Methodists To Cancel Annual Conference

AFP reported earlier this week that the military government in Fiji has ordered the Methodist Church-- Fiji's largest religious group-- to cancel its annual conference scheduled for August. A joint statement by the military and police said the church is trying create instability in the country. Global Voices today has a longer background story on these developments, pointing out that the Methodist Church was critical of the 2006 coup by Commodore Frank Bainimarama, who himself is a Methodist.

Russian Trial Reflects Split Between Young Muslims and Establishment

Today's New York Times reports on a trial taking place in Kazan, the capital of Russia's Muslim Tatarstan region. Twelve defendants are charged with being members of Hizbut Tahrir, a fundamentalist Islamic organization that, among other things, wants to create an Islamic Caliphate. Russia says Hizbut Tahrir is a terrorist organization, while its members say it is a political party that no longer advocates violence. Relatives say defendants' involvement with Hizbut Tahrir was minimal, and that the real reason for their prosecution is that they were studying different currents in Islam and proselytizing outside official Muslim religious structures. A mufti with the government-backed Muslim Religious Board of the Republic of Tatarstan admitted that the Muslim establishment had not responded well to the more modern interests of young Muslims.

Summum Seeks Dismissal of Its 7 Aphorisms Monument Challenge

Last March, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum that Pleasant Grove City, Utah need not acccept a "Seven Aphorisms" monument for a local park, it remanded to the lower courts for further consideration a more complicated companion case, Summum v. Duchesne City. (See prior posting.) In Duchesne City, Summum wanted to put up its monument on an equal basis with the Ten Commandments that was in a city park. Now, according to yesterday's Deseret News, Summum has asked a federal district court to dismiss its lawsuit because subsequent developments have in effect mooted it. The city has moved the Ten Commandments monument from Roy Park to the city cemetery. Summum's attorney, Brian M. Barnard, says that while the cemetery is still city property, cemeteries are treated differently. He explained: "Cemeteries have traditionally been a place for religious expression. Grave markers, tombstones have always had religious symbols on them. And individual plots are normally considered to be owned by the family."

Obama's Outreach To Muslims Begins With TV Interview Before Leaving

President Obama has arrived in Saudi Arabia to begin his 5-day trip to the Middle East and Europe. As reported by BBC News today, Obama hopes the trip will signal a new dialogue with the Muslim world. Tomorrow he delivers a major speech from Cairo University. On Monday, before he left on his trip, President Obama gave an interview (full text) in the White House to the French television channel, Canal Plus. Getting particular notice is this statement by the President during the interview:

I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

Tony Harnden, writing for the London Telegraph, contrasts this with Obama's statement two months ago at a news conference in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." Less noticed have been other statements about Islam made by the President in the Monday's Canal Plus interview:

I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy ... leave a lasting legacy.... And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge -- the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture... I think that has to be lifted up....

I think the importance of educating women has to be something that's emphasized. If you look at indicators of human development across the board, those where girls are getting a chance for an education end up being more economically productive. How to reconcile this with some of the traditional values and norms of Islam, that's not for me to dictate, but certainly I think it's something that can be accomplished, and I want to encourage that.

British Tribunal Says Catholic Adoption Agency Policy Violates Equality Act

In Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v. Charity Commission for England and Wales, (Charity Trib., June 1, 2009), Britain's Charity Tribunal has held that a Catholic adoption agency is violating the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 by refusing to furnish adoption services to same-sex couples. (Here are links to earlier rulings in the case.) A temporary exemption for Catholic agencies from the 2007 regulations expired in December 2008. The current case involved Catholic Care, an agency that has had particular success with "hard to place" children. Today's London Telegraph reports:

The Tribunal's ruling leaves leading charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) facing a deep religious impasse and creates a fundamental conflict between the tenets of the Catholic Church and the law of the land. If the charity now sticks to Church policy and continues to follow its "heterosexuals only" policy it could lose its charity status and public funding. It might also face discrimination claims by same-sex couples it has turned away in the past.

(See prior related posting.)

Obama Issues LGBT Pride Month Proclamation

Baptist Press reports that many evangelicals are unhappy that President Barack Obama on Monday issued a Proclamation (full text) proclaiming June 2009 as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." The proclamation notes that this year is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, a clash with New York police that is generally seen as the start of the gay rights movement. The Proclamation says in part that: "LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society." It lists a number of pro-LGBT initiatives undertaken by the Administration. Yesterday's Windy City Times says that both sides are unhappy with the Proclamation. Gay rights activists says the Administration has not done enough to further equal rights. This is not the first time a President has issued this sort of Proclamation. Bill Clinton issued gay pride proclamations in 1999 and 2000.

Ireland Will Seek More Victim Compensation From Catholic Orders

After last month's release in Ireland of a massive report on child sexual abuse over decades at Catholic institutions (see prior posting), the Irish government says that it will seek a larger share of the 1.2 billion Euros that will ultimately be paid to victims from the 18 religious orders named in the report. Today's Irish Times says that the the 127 million Euros payment agreed to by the Education Ministry in 2002 was based on the view that any abuse was intermittent. The new report shows that it was endemic. Child rights advocates say the amounts awarded to victims by a redress board have been too small and have been inconsistent.

UPDATE: The June 5 Irish Times reports that the 18 religious orders which were party to the 2002 compensation agreement with the Irish government have agreed to an audit of their assets in connection with negotiations over their contributing additional amounts to compensate abuse victims.

Court Refuses To Enjoin Graduation In Church Building

Yesterday in Does v. Elmbrook Joint Common School District No. 21, (ED WI, June 2, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to bar two Wisconsin high schools from holding their graduation ceremonies in a church building. Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the judge's oral decision which concluded that using the church would not be viewed by most as an endorsement of the church's beliefs. He said:"A ceremony in a church does not necessarily constitute a church ceremony." The order denying the injunction indicated that a written opinion would follow.

A release by Americans United, which brought the lawsuit, said that at previous graduation ceremonies held in Elmbrook Church, a suburban Milwaukee mega-church, students were awarded their degrees under a 20-foot tall cross. Also the church teaches that non-Christians, such as plaintiffs, will suffer eternal torment in Hell. AU says that there are 11 secular venues in the area that could have been used for graduation. TMJ4 News says this is likely the last year the church will be used for graduation because new gymnasiums in the two high schools will be available by next year. (See prior related posting.)

3rd Circuit Says School Can Bar Bible Reading At Kindergarten "Show and Tell"

In Busch v. Marple Newton School District, (3d Cir., June 1, 2009), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a Pennsylvania elementary school's restriction that barred a kindergartner's mother from reading aloud from the Bible as part of a "show and tell" activity in her son's classroom. The teacher assigned each student an "All About Me" week, part of which involved a parent visiting the class and leading students in an activity or story. Donna Busch wanted to read from the Bible because it was her son Wesley's favorite book. Donna claimed that the school's refusal violated her free speech and equal protection rights, as well as the establishment clauses, under both the U.S. and state constitutions. The majority said in part:

Restrictions on speech during a school's organized, curricular activities are within the school's legitimate area of control because they help create the structured environment in which the school imparts basic social, behavioral, and academic lessons.... Principal Cook disallowed a reading from holy scripture because he believed it proselytized a specific religious point of view.

Judge Barry wrote a concurrence, saying:

children of kindergarten age are simply too young and the responsibilities of their teachers too special to elevate to a constitutional dispute cognizable in federal court any disagreement over what a child can and cannot say and can and cannot do and what a classmate can and cannot be subjected to by that child or his or her champion.

Judge Hardiman dissented as to plaintiff's free speech claim, arguing that the school had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination:

Clearly, "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings."... It does not follow, however, that the state may regulate one's viewpoint merely because speech occurs in a schoolhouse — especially when the facts of the case demonstrate that the speech is
personal to the student and/or his parent rather than the school's speech. The majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable. But that goal, however admirable, does not allow the
government to offer a student and his parents the opportunity to express something about themselves, except what is most important to them.

Yesterday's San Jose (CA) Mercury News reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Oregon Passes Bill To Require Reasonable Religious Accommodation For Employees

Yesterday's Mid-Willamette Valley (OR) Statesman Journal reports that Oregon's legislature has passed and is about to transmit to the governor SB 786, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act. The new law requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices and observances. The employer need not make accommodations that impose undue hardship, i.e. that create significant difficulty or expense. The bill focuses particularly on employees' right to use vacation or leave for religious observances and their right to wear religious clothing on the job. However, under the bill, public school teachers may be barred from wearing religious clothing in the classroom. [Thanks to Don Byrd for the lead.]

Liberty Counsel Files IRS Complaint Against Americans United

Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed an 11-page letter, along with another 11 pages of exhibits, (full text) with the IRS seeking to have it investigate Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Liberty Counsel press release.) Pointing to AU's recent complaint to the IRS about Liberty University (see prior posting), the letter asks the IRS to:

(1) enjoin AU from continuing its intolerable waste of tax dollars through its barrage of unwarranted IRS complaints and subsequent investigations; (2) enjoin AU from continuing its abusive attacks and selective harassment of conservative churches, groups and related organizations; (3) enjoin AU from continuing its campaign of misrepresentation to the public of the political climate in relation to the conservative church and related groups; and (4) investigate the partisan pattern of filing complaints and the partisan activities of AU to determine whether such abuses represent illegal activities that jeopardize its current tax-exempt 501(c)(3) incorporation.

In a release yesterday, Americans United called to complaint "a desperate diversionary tactic" by Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty Counsel. AU executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn says "Falwell knows full well that Americans United is rigorously non-partisan." Last year, a Houston area Pastors Council filed a similar complaint against Americans United. (See prior posting.)

Former Alabama C.J. Roy Moore Announces For Governor's Race

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore yesterday announced that he is running for Governor of Alabama in the 2010 election. AP says that the announcement came on the first day that candidates can begin to raise money for the 2010 election. Moore is best known for his fight over a granite monument of the Ten Commandments that he put up in the lobby of the state judicial building. His refusal to remove the monument as ordered by a federal court led to his removal as Chief Justice in 2003. Moore ran for governor in 2006, but lost the Republican primary. He will face at least 4 others this time in the primary. Speaking to 150 supporters in Montgomery, Moore said: "Out of Washington comes a dangerous new message that we are not a Christian nation. Indeed, I refute that." He has also launched a campaign website that features a statement from Dr. James Dobson who calls Moore "a man of courage and strong Christian character."

Lawyer In Case Praises Sotomayor's 1993 "Menorah" Decision

In yesterday's Jerusalem Post, lawyer Nathan Lewin describes the case he won in White Plains, New York in 1993, representing a Chabad rabbi who wished to display a large menorah during Hanukkah at one of the city's two major parks. The decision in Flamer v. City of White Plains,(SDNY, 1993), has become the center of attention as one of the major religion decisions written by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor when she was a federal district judge. As Lewin recounts, the primary opposition to the menorah were other Jewish organizations and more liberal local rabbis who generally press for strict church-state separation. The mayor and city council were responding to that pressure. So Chabad sued, and Sotomayor ruled in its favor, following precedent in the 6th and 11th Circuit, while distinguishing a 1989 case decided by her own 2nd Circuit that went the other way. Lewin comments:

That court of appeals [the 2nd Circuit] had jurisdiction to review and reverse any decision the neophyte Judge Sotomayor might render in the White Plains case. The safest course for her was to hide behind the 1989 ruling and send Chabad packing. Instead, she took our constitutional claim seriously and authored a lengthy and detailed opinion reviewing Supreme Court precedents. She accurately described the Vermont decision issued by her superiors as "somewhat confusing" and distinguished it away. Citing a line of Supreme Court decisions that had had upheld speech with religious content and found it no less worthy of constitutional protection than secular speech, she upheld the right of a private party to deliver a religious message in a "public forum." The opinion was persuasive enough that White Plains decided not to appeal, and the Chabad menora is now a White Plains institution.

USCIRF Asks Obama To Raise Religious Freedom Issues In Saudi Arabia, Egypt

This Thursday, President Obama will be in Egypt. From Cairo, he will deliver a major speech reaching out to the Muslim world. (Wall Street Journal.) Last week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom sent letters (full text) to the President urging him to use the speech to stress the importance of protecting religious rights of minority religions in Muslim countries. A second letter asks President Obama to use his bilateral visits to Saudi Arabia and Egypt to raise a range of concerns about religious freedom and related human rights directly with King Abdullah and President Mubarak. The White House May 29 press briefing discusses the President's itinerary in the Middle East and Europe.

Tiller Murder May Impact Sotomayor Hearings

Some anti-abortion leaders fear that the murder of Dr. George Tiller at his church yesterday will impact hearings on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. AP reports that activists fear backlash to the killing will stifle anti-abortion viewpoints being expressed in the questioning of Sotomayor by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most anti-abortion leaders quickly issued statements condemning the murder. However the reaction (full text) of activist Terry Randall, founder of Operation Rescue, was more mixed. He said in part:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.... Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

Dutch Cabinet Will Not Move To Repeal Blasphemy Law

The National Secular Society reported Friday that the Dutch cabinet has decided not to move ahead with its earlier plans to repeal the country's blasphemy law. (See prior posting.) The cabinet now believes that other laws are inadequate after the Netherlands Supreme Court in March overturned the conviction of a man charged with hanging a poster in his window reading: "Stop the tumour that is Islam." The court said criticism of behavior or opinions is not outlawed by the section of the criminal code that bars insulting a group of people because of their religion. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Zachary R. Calo, Catholic Social Thought, Political Liberalism, and the Idea of Human Rights, (May 19, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Steven Goldberg, Does the Wall Still Stand? The Implications of Transhumanism for the Separation of Church and State, (May 22, 2009).
• Steven Goldberg, The Book of Job and the Role of Uncertainty in Religion and Law, (May 27, 2009).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Gordon Butler, The Essence of Human Rights: A Religious Critique, 43 University of Richmond Law Review 1255-1317 (2009).
• Symposium. Is There a Higher Law? Does it Matter?, 36 Pepperdine Law Review 463-665 (Special Issue, 2009).

Church In Zoning Dispute Wants City Held In Contempt of 2006 Order

Friday's Miami Herald reports on a new religious zoning dispute in Hollywood, Florida. In a 2006 settlement of federal court litigation with Chabad Lubavitch, the city was ordered to enact a new Special Exception ordinance for places of worship, with narrow, objective and definite zoning standards to guide city officials. (See prior posting.) It has not yet done so. Now a motion to intervene in that case and to hold the city in contempt has been filed on behalf of St. Gregorio's Orthodox Church of India, which wants to renovate a building in an area zoned for single family homes and use it for church services. The city says St. Gregorio's needs a special permit under the old zoning rules still in effect.

Indian Court Says It Can Decide What Are Basic Tenets of a Religion

In India, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kaur v. State of Punjab, (High Ct. P&H, May 30, 2009), upheld the decision of a Medical College to refuse to admit petitioners under the quota set aside for members of the Sikh minority community because the applicants did not observe a major tenet of the Sikh religion-- keeping their hair unshorn. The school admitted only Sikhs who maintained "Sikhi swarup" (Sikh appearance). The court concluded that it could "enter the religious thicket" to determine how a religion defines its basic tenets. It said in part:

For an issue of religion, an action cannot be bestowed with legitimacy, merely because the action is forward-looking and non-fundamentalist Religion is a package of beliefs or doctrines which all those who adopt the particular religion, are expected to follow. The issue is not of logic, but of faith.... If the tenet concerned is of fundamental importance, it is legitimate for the followers of the faith, to treat the same as unpardonable.... Religion must be perceived as it is, and not as another would like it to be.... Once a Court arrives at the conclusion that a particular aspect of a religion, is fundamental and integral, as per the followers of the faith, it must be given effect to, irrespective of the views expressed on the said issue, based either on science or logic.

The Chandigarh (India) Tribune yesterday reported on the decision.

County Backs Off Controversial Zoning Citation Against Bible-Study Group Meetings

A land use citation issued by the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use has generated a swirl of protest. As reported last week by the Christian Examiner and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Pastor David Jones and his wife hold weekly Bible study sessions at their home. Around 20 people attend. After complaints about parking congestion, the county told the Jones' that regulations required a permit to use premises for "religious assemblies." An international furor was generated when a report disseminated widely online said that when a county code enforcement officer visited the home on Good Friday, he asked-- apparently to determine if it was a "religious assembly"-- questions about whether the group prays or uses the words "amen" and "praise the Lord." The Western Center for Law & Policy sent a letter (full text) to the county arguing that the Bible study is not a "religious assembly" within the meaning of the zoning regulations, and that the administrative citation violates RLUIPA, the free exercise clause and the Jones' right to peaceably assemble. The county has now backed off, deciding that the meetings are not religious assemblies, which are defined in county regulations as: "religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches." It continues to investigate whether the questions asked by the investigating officer were proper.

Two Employment Discrimination Cases-- One Settled, One Filed

Two cases involving religious discrimination in employment are in the news. On May 28, the EEOC announced the entry of a consent decree in a lawsuit it filed in New Jersey federal district court against the oil company, ConocoPhillips. The company had required Clarence Taylor, a pipe fitter at its refinery, to work a schedule that would cause him to miss his Sunday church services for two months. Taylor is a deacon and lay leader in his church. Under the settlement, ConocoPhillips will revise its equal employment policies and provide training to managers and employees. Taylor will get 5 additional leave days and ConocoPhillips will pay damages and make a contribution to charity that total $20,000.

In Phoenix, Arizona, the ACLU announced Friday that it has filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on behalf of Sinan Fazlovic, a Bosnian Muslim who moved to the United States in 1999. (Full text of complaint.) When Fazlovic accepted a job as a detention officer, he was assured he could continue to wear his beard. However subsequently he was told he would have to shave his beard in order to keep his job, and was denied a religious accommodation. He shaved his beard temporarily, but then regrew it. He was reassigned to a lower paying position and he ultimately resigned. The Phoenix New Times reports on the case. In a statement (full text from Phoenix New Times), the sheriff's office says that its actions were the result of federal OSHA regulations governing the type of face masks authorized for use in jail emergency situations.

Wikipedia Arbitrators Ban Scientology Edits

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which normally invites the public to edit encyclopedia entries, has imposed a ban on editorial input from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology or its affiliates. The Register and OS News report on the decision (full text) handed down by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee on May 28. This is the fourth Scientology related arbitration in four years. Previously anti-Scientology editors have also been banned. The arbitration opinion, handed down May 28, reads in part:

This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.... Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage.... Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organisations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other's self-published material.... Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.

This is apparently the first time that Wikipedia has imposed such a broad organizational ban on editorial contributors.

Connecticut Diocese Sues To Avoid Registration As Lobbyist

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport on Friday filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut's Office of State Ethics seeking to enjoin the Office from taking action to force the Diocese to register with the state as a lobbyist. Catholic Online reports that the state ethics office wrote the Diocese raising questions after the Diocese took part in a rally in March opposing Raised Bill 1098 that would have forced reorganization of financial oversight in Catholic parishes (see prior posting). The state also questioned a posting on the Diocese's website urging its members to oppose another bill relating to same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Jones, (D CT, filed 5/29/2009), contends that the state's action violates the Diocese's constitutional rights of speech and assembly, its free exercise and equal protection rights, and violates the establishment clause. The Diocese also filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Israeli Court Orders American Husband To Grant Wife A Religious Divorce

In Israel, a Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court has for the first time imposed sanctions on a man who is not a citizen of Israel to force him to grant his wife a religious divorce (a "get"). Thursday's Jerusalem Post reported on the case-- a divorce proceeding of an American couple that had been dragging on for six years. The court held that the husband had sufficient contacts with Israel for the court to assert jurisdiction because he had been traveling back and forth between Israel and the U.S. for the past two years. Israeli law was changed three years ago to give Rabbinical Courts jurisdiction over Jews residing in Israel even if they are not citizens. Upon petition of the wife, the court ultimately arrested the husband and banned his leaving the country until he granted his wife the get. The husband relented and agreed to do so after three nights in jail.

10th Circuit Rejects Valedictorian's Challenge To Limits On Her Religious Remarks

In Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38, (10th Cir., May 29, 2009), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional claims brought by a high school valedictorian who delivered remarks at a high school's graduation ceremony encouraging students to accept Jesus Christ. Her short remarks were part of brief speeches by 15 co-valedictorians. Erica Corder had presented a different version of the speech in advance to the principal. She was forced to publicly apologize a few days later in order to receive her diploma. Finding that her remarks were school-sponsored and bore the imprimatur of the school, the court rejected Corder's free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and state statutory challenges. It held that the school was entitled to exercise editorial control over the speech. The decision affirms the district court's dismissal of the case. (See prior posting.) AP yesterday reported on the decision.

Texas Senate Rejects Creationist As Chairman of State Board of Education

The Texas state Senate on Thursday rejected the governor's nomination of Republican Don McLeroy to be chairman of the State Board of Education, according to yesterday's Dallas Morning News. McLeroy is currently serving as chairman under an interim appointment. A two-thirds majority was required to approve the nomination, and the vote was one short--19-11 to confirm. McLeroy-- who believes in creationism and who does not believe global warming is taking place-- has been criticized for trying to promote his religious views on curricular issues. McLeroy denies that he has pressed his views in the consideration of education policy. McLeroy supporter Sen. Steve Ogden accused Democrats of applying a religious test in rejecting the nomination. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Says City Unconstitutionally Applied Law To Restrict Street Preacher

In Netherland v. City of Zachary, Louisiana, (MD LA, May 27, 2009), in a case on remand from the 5th Circuit (see prior posting), a Louisiana federal district court held that a city's disturbing the peace ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to defendant's religious speech. John Netherland was threatened with arrest for his loud preaching, standing on a public easement near the parking lot of the Sidelines Grill yelling at customers. The court held that the city's enforcement against Netherland was content-based and did not reflect a compelling interest. The court also held that the suppression of Netherland's ability to evangelize in a public forum infringed his free exercise rights.

Challenge To National Day of Prayer Survives Dismissal Motion

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, (WD WI, May 26, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. The court said that defendants' arguments are better raised in a summary judgment motion once the record is developed further. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded standing by alleging they were exposed to unwelcome religious speech, and sufficiently pleaded an Establishment Clause violation by alleging that defendants' conduct has the purpose and effect of advancing religion. FFRF yesterday issued a press release on the decision, which includes links to all the pleadings in the case.

6th Circuit Upholds Inclusion of Churches In Detroit's Renovation Funding

In American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, (6th Cir., May 28, 2009), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Establishment Clause (as well as the parallel provision in the Michigan Constitution) was not violated by including churches in a program that used city funds to pay part of the cost of refurbishing downtown buildings and parking lots. The redevelopment program was designed to enhance the visual appearance of the downtown Detroit in preparation for hosting the 2005 Major League Baseball All-Star Game and the 2006 NFL Superbowl. As the court put it: "Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a religion."

The trial court had upheld most of the grants, but invalidated those used for signs and for covering stained-glass windows. (See prior posting.) The 6th Circuit found all the grants valid. The Court of Appeals began its 32-page opinion by finding that plaintiffs had taxpayer standing to bring the lawsuit, distinguishing standing of municipal taxpayers from that of state and federal taxpayers. Moving to the merits, the court held that the Detroit program was neutral and did not have the primary effect of advancing religion. Including churches along with dozens of secular entities would not be seen as an endorsement of their religious views. [Thanks to Brian D. Wassom for the lead.]

Russian Authorities Allow Rescheduling of Matriculation Exams By Jewish Students

The Jewish holiday of Shavuot begins this evening. In Russia, after intervention by President Dmitry Medvedev, the Minister of Education has ruled that Jewish students may postpone their taking of the national matriculation exams which were scheduled for tomorrow in conflict with the holiday. Chabad.org News yesterday reported that in a letter to Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Educational Minister Andrei Aleksandrovitch Forsenko, citing the Russian Constitution, said that students in the Ohr Avner Chabad network of Jewish day schools and Jewish children in public schools can take their exams up to June 17.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Establishment Clause Challenge To AIG Bailout

In Murray v. Geithner, (ED MI, May 26, 2009), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a taxpayer's Establishment Clause challenge to the federal government's expenditure of $40 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to rescue the giant insurance company, AIG. AIG is the market leader in Sharia-compliant financing. The lawsuit argues that use of federal bailout funds to finance "Sharia-based Islamic religious activities" is unconstitutional. Initially the court held that plaintiff has standing to bring the Establishment Clause challenge, relying in large part on the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Bowen v. Kendrick. On the merits of the claim, the court held:

[T]he fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive. "The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant."... In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the ESSA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent.... [A]fter the government acquired a majority interest in AIG... [it] co-sponsored a forum entitled "Islamic Financing 101." These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the Government's involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff's claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

The Thomas More Law Center which filed the lawsuit issued a press release summarizing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Alberta Assembly Set To Pass Parental Rights Provisions

According to yesterday's Edmonton (AB) Journal, after debate extending into the early hours of Wednesday morning, Alberta's Legislative Assembly approved on its second reading Bill 44, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009. The bill, which adds sexual orientation to the province's anti-discrimination law and makes certain other changes, has attracted much attention because of the parental rights provisions that were also added to it. Under these provisions, a school must provide notice to parents whenever a class or program will be dealing primarily and explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation, so the parent can request his or her child be excused from class or not participate. The provision does not apply to merely incidental or indirect references to religion, religious themes, human sexuality or sexual orientation in a course. The bill is expected to pass its third and final reading in the Legislative Assembly today.

Theology Professor Named As US Ambassador To Vatican

Yesterday, the White House announced the names of 12 individuals that President Obama intends to nominate as ambassadors. (Boston Globe.) Included is Miguel H. Díaz as Ambassador to the Holy See. Dr. Díaz is a Professor of Theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota. He previously taught at Barry University, the University of Dayton and the University of Notre Dame, and served as Academic Dean at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Florida. AP reports that Diaz, a Cuban-American, was a member of the Obama campaign's Catholic advisory board. He was also one of 26 Catholics who signed a statement supporting the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services Secretary. Conservative Catholics had criticized Sebelius' support for abortion rights. Yesterday's London Guardian has more on the appointment, on Diaz' reaction to it, and on the reaction of others to his choice. The question of who would be appointed ambassador to the Vatican has been the subject of some contention, as reportedly the Vatican previously rejected three other possibilities. (See prior posting.)

Holy Land Foundation Defendants Sentenced

A Justice Department press release yesterday announced that a Dallas federal district judge has sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of the Muslim charity's leaders who had been found guilty by a federal jury last November on charges of providing material support to Hamas. Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two of the convicted defendants were each sentenced to 65 years in prison. The others were sentenced to 15 and 20 years. The court also reaffirmed the jury's prior verdict that the Foundation and the 5 guilty defendants were liable to forfeit the $12.4 million they had funneled to Hamas. (Background via OMB Watch.) (See prior related posting.)

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Prop 8; Some Gay-rights Activists Question Strategy

The New York Times reports that at a news conference yesterday, David Boies and Theodore Olson-- attorneys best known as opponents in the Bush v. Gore litigation in 2000-- announced that they are jointly representing two couples who have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco challenging California's Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds. The complaint (full text) in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, filed 5/22/2009), asks the court to enter a declaratory judgment and to enjoin enforcement or application of Proposition 8, arguing that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that "California relegates same-sex unions to the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership."

A number of gay rights activists criticized the filing of the lawsuit, arguing that it could backfire strategically. Yesterday's Examiner says these critics fear that the current Supreme Court would rule against the challenge, and that this would then undermine attempts to get state courts to protect gay marriage under state constitutions. These critics point to another case moving through the federal courts challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which they say is a better first step toward getting federal courts to protect same-sex marriage.

Negotiators On FLDS Land Trust Still Have Not Reached Agreement

Negotiations which have been ongoing for some time on reshaping the $114 million trust holding land of the FLDS Church still have not resolved many of the outstanding issues. (See prior posting.) In 2005, after allegations of mismanagement against FLDS leader Warren Jeffs, a Utah state court appointed a special trustee to take control of the United Effort Plan Trust and reform it to provide for secular management of the property owned by the polygamous FLDS sect. Originally the trust was set up to hold the land and homes of Fundamentalist LDS Church members in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT in accordance with its Holy United Order tenets that call for the sharing of assets by all church members. Yesterday the parties met with Judge Denise Lindberg to report on the progress of their negotiations which are supposed to be concluded by June 15.

According to yesterday's Houston Chronicle, current negotiations are focusing on proposals to create a neutral housing board to deal with claims, and to set aside undeveloped lots for former members who were either excommunicated or left the church voluntarily. Apparently the parties are close to agreement on access to parks, use of a cemetery and payment of outstanding bills. However, Arizona Assistant Attorney General Bill Richards said current proposals raise constitutional and trust law problems and do not meet the court's standards for secular management of the trust. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is more concerned about reaching an agreement. He says otherwise there will be year of litigation.

AU Asks IRS To Review 501(c)(3) Status of Liberty University

Americans United announced yesterday that it has written the Internal Revenue Service (full text of letter) asking it to review the tax-exempt status of Liberty University. The request pointed to the University's recent denial of recognition to a Democratic Party club formed by a group of students, while recognizing a Republican organization on campus. AU argued that recognized political clubs, funded from student fees, often work on behalf of candidates. Permitting only a Republican club effectively gives Republican candidates an in-kind contribution not made available to Democrats. (See prior related posting.)

Hate Crimes Bill Opponents Invoke "Pedophile Protection" In New Campaign

Now that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (see prior posting), some conservative religious groups are using new scare tactics to oppose passage in the Senate. World Net Daily reported yesterday on a letter-writing campaign organized by Janet Porter, head of the Faith2Action Christian ministry, that argues the bill would protect pedophiles. This notion was stoked by rather outlandish statements made recently on a radio broadcast by Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert. Relying on a statement made during the House debate by Rep. Alcee Hastings, opponents of the legislation say that the term "sexual orientation" in the bill includes "547 forms of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Organizers online offer, for $10.95, to FedEx a letter to every Senator over the name of an individual urging a filibuster of S.909, the Senate version of the bill. The form letter reads in part: "This bill would more appropriately be called 'The Pedophile Protection Act.' The evidence for this extraordinary statement comes directly from debate in the House, when a simple amendment to exempt pedophiles from the protections offered by the bill were rejected."

Wrongful Death Case Against Jehovah's Witnesses In Canada Dismissed In Part

Hughes v. Brady, (Alb. Ct. App., May 25, 2009), is a wrongful death action by the father of Bethany Hughes. Bethany died at age 17 of leukemia. In the case, the Alberta [Canada] Court of Appeals held that Bethany's father may not introduce new evidence against the Watchtower Society or its lawyers in his suit for damages. Following her Jehovah's Witness beliefs, Bethany refused blood transfusions until she was made a ward of the state. The court affirmed the decision of the court below to dismiss claims that defendants had deceived Bethany and that Watchtower lawyers who advised her had a conflict of interest. In part the court found no causal connection between their actions and Bethany's death had been shown. However the appellate court agreed with the lower court that the case could proceed on certain other claims relating to informed consent, trespass and negligence. Yesterday's Calgary Herald reports on the decision.

Religious Protesters of Gun Store Acquitted

In Philadelphia (PA), a municipal court judge has acquitted 12 religious activists on trespass and disorderly conduct charges. AP reported yesterday that the protesters were arrested after they refused to leave Colosimo's Gun Center and blocked the store entrance sidewalk outside. The judge said prosecutors had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

UPDATE: The Centre Daily Times has a more extensive report on yesterday's acquittals. Defendants, including several ministers, were part of a group called Heeding God's Call, which is attempting to involve faith groups in the gun-control movement. It chose Colosimo's for its protest because of its record for selling guns later used in crimes.

UPDATE2: A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist on Wednesday published a lengthy account of the activities of the anti-gun violence group, the record of the gun store chosen and the arguments made by the defense at trial.

AU Asks County To Assure Homeless Shelter Does Not Pressure Residents Into Prayer

Yesterday's LaCrosse (WI) Tribune reports that Americans United has written LaCrosse County, Wisconsin, complaining that residents of the Salvation Army homeless shelter, funded by the county, are being pressured into attending religious services. Salvation Army gets $50,000 per year in public funds to offer the emergency housing. A Salvation Army official says residents are merely invited to join in services, and are not required to attend. AU wants the county to set up a monitoring system to make sure that coercion is not being used. County and Salvation Army officials will meet next month on the matter. Apparently county officials are willing to monitor activities to meet AU's objections.

California High Court Upholds Proposition 8, But Validates Pre-Prop 8 Marriages

The California Supreme Court today in Strauss v. Horton, (CA Sup. Ct., May 26, 2009), rejected a challenge to voters' approval of Proposition 8, thereby upholding the California constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. In a 6-1 decision, the court held that Proposition 8 was an "amendment" and not a "revision" of the state constitution, and therefore properly approved in an initiative process. However same-sex marriages entered into before the effective date of Proposition 8 will remain valid.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice George held that: Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to privacy, due process and equal protection provision in the state constitution, "reserving the official designation of the term 'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

Justices Kennard and Werdegar each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Kennard also joined the majority opinion while Justice Werdegar only agreed with the result, but rejected much of the majority's analysis. Justice Moreno dissented arguing that Proposition 8 is a "revision" of the Constitution because it "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" by requiring discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification. The Court has also issued a press release describing the opinions. The New York Times reports on the decision.

Sotomayor Is High Court Pick; Here Are Her Religion Decisions

President Obama has nominated Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. (New York Times). If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to serve on the high court. Sotomayor has served on the Second Circuit since 1998. She served as a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York from 1992 to 1998. Here is an overview of her judicial views on free exercise, establishment clause and other religion issues. She wrote more on the issue as a district court judge than she has on the 2nd Circuit.

On the Second Circuit, Sotomayor wrote an important dissent in one case

• Hankins v. Lyght, (2006): In an age discrimination challenge by a Methodist clergyman, Judge Winter writing for the majority held that RFRA is properly applied to an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. Judge Sotomayor dissented contending that RFRA does not apply to disputes between private parties and that the ADEA does not govern disputes between religious entities and their spiritual leaders.

Judge Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion in 3 other religion-related cases on the 2nd Circuit:

• United States v. Reimer, (2004)(citizenship revocation of Nazi collaborator);
• Ford v. McGinnis, (2003) (prisoner free exercise);
• Salahuddin v. Mead, (1999) (prisoner free exercise).

Sotomayor was on the 2nd Circuit panel that decided a number of other religion-related cases, many of which were either prisoner or immigration cases. Three that involved other types of religion issues in which Sotomayor joined the court's opinion were:

• Friedman v. Clarkstown Central School District, 75 Fed. Appx. 815 (2003) [LEXIS link] (religious objection to required immunization);
• Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, (2002) (use of church grounds as homeless shelter);
• Rosario v. Does 1 to 10, 36 Fed. Appx. 25 (2002) [LEXIS link] (teacher dismissed for introducing religious material in classroom).
• [UPDATE] Related opinions in Okwedy v. Molinari (1, 2) (Staten Island Borough president complains to billboard company about display of Biblical verses condmning homosexual behavior.) (Discussed at Volokh Conspiracy.)

Sotomayor wrote more extensively on religion clause matters as a federal district judge. Here is a survey of her religion opinions while on the Southern District of New York:

• Mehdi v. United States Postal Service, 988 F. Supp. 721 (1997) [LEXIS link] (rejecting claim by Muslim plaintiffs that post offices must include crescent and star along with Christmas and Hanukkah decorations);
• Moore v. Kennedy, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11474 (1996) (prisoner free exercise);
• Miller v. New York State Department of Labor, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11067 (1996) (employment discrimination);
• Utkor v. McElroy, 930 F. Supp. 881 (1996) [LEXIS link] (immigration asylum);
• DiNapoli v. DiNapoli, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13778 (1995) (accusations against sibling, member of religious order, growing out of estate administration).
• Rodriguez v. Coughlin, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5832 (1994) and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (1994) [LEXIS link] (preliminary injunction allowing Santeria prisoners to wear religious beads).
• Flamer v. City of White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (1993) [LEXIS link] (enjoining city from preventing rabbi's placing of menorah in city park during Hanukkah).
  

UPDATE: Here is the White House press release and blog posting on the nomination. Here is the full text of the President's remarks on his choice. Orin Kerr on Volokh Conspiracy points out that if Sotomayor is confirmed, six of the nine Justices will be Catholic. Two are Jewish and Justice John Paul Stevens will be the only Protestant remaining on the Court. (Background data.)

UPDATE 2: The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday posted an interesting interview with Prof. Douglas Kmiec on how Judge Sotomayor's Catholic upbringing may have affected her judicial performance and decisions.

Minnesota Boy's Mother Returns Him For Cancer Treatment

AP reports that 13-year old Daniel Hauser with his mother Colleen returned to Minnesota yesterday, after Daniel's father Anthony urged them to come home. Daniel Hauser, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, had objected to treatment on religious grounds, and his mother fled with him after a Minnesota court overruled the objections and ordered her and her husband to obtain a new X-ray and select an oncologist for Daniel. The X-ray revealed that a tumor in Daniel's chest had grown. (See prior posting.) The arrest warrant that had been issued for Daniel's mother was lifted after their voluntary return. The FBI believe that Daniel and his mother may have been heading for one of the many alternative cancer clinics in northern Mexico. Daniel is now being evaluated at a hospital in the Twin Cities, according to the Hausers' attorney. CNN reports that while Daniel's mother intends to urge the court to permit alternative cancer treatment, she will allow her son to undergo chemotherapy if that is ordered.

UPDATE: The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that at a May 26 hearing, a Brwon County judge retruned custody of Daniel Hauser to his parents after the parents agreed to drop their objections to his receiving chemotherapy.

Visiting Sikh Preachers In Austria Shot Over Disagreement With Sermon

In Vienna, Austria on Sunday, a Sikh Temple attended mainly by lower-caste Sikhs who are folowers of the Dera Sach Khand sect was the scene of attacks on two clergymen visiting from India. Sant Niranjan Dass, the Dera head, survived the attack after surgery, but his second in command, Sant Ramanand, died from gunshot wounds. Apparently a sermon being delivered by one of the visiting preachers set off the attacks by higher-caste Sikhs, armed with knives and a handgun, who said the preachers were insulting the Guru Granth Sahib, Sikhism's holy book. Sikhs attending worship services attempted to fight back, even using microphone stands and a frying pan. 16 people were injured. AP reports that 6 suspects are in custody, including four who are asylum seekers who have lived in Austria for some time. In response to the shootings, violence broke out in the Indian town Jalandhar where many followers of the Dera Sach Khand sect of Sikhs-- mainly "untouchables," or Dalits-- live. Yesterday's Times of India reports on the violence in India.

New York's Hate Crime Provisions Upheld In Recently Released Opinion

In People v. Ivanov, (NY Sup. Ct., Sept. 12, 2008)-- decided several months ago but posted online for the first time last Friday-- a New York trial court upheld New York's hate crime statute. The statute enhances applicable penalties when a crime is motivated by bias. Defendant was charged with spray painting and etching swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti on buildings (including two synagogues), on automobiles and on sidewalks in an area of Brooklyn Heights near his home. He also placed anti-Semitic flyers on the windshield of parked cars in the area. The court rejected defendant's claim that in order to violate the hate crime law, New York Penal Code. Sec. 485.05, and the related Aggravated Harassment law, New York Penal Law Sec. 240.31, the victims needed to have been selected because of their religion. The court held that as long as a religious, racial, gender, etc. group is targeted, the victim need not necessarily be a member of that class. The court also rejected defendant's constitutional challenges, concluding that the provisions are not vague as applied to this defendant, nor did they violate his free speech rights.

Scientology and Its Leaders In France Go On Trial For Fraud

In France yesterday, the Church of Scientology and six of its leaders went on trial on charges of organized fraud and of illegally prescribing drugs. The Guardian and the Telegraph yesterday both had accounts of the proceedings that target the Church's AGES-Celebrity Centre, and its Freedom Space bookshop in Paris. The case began with a complaint filed over ten years ago by a French woman, Aude-Claire Malton, who claims that at a time she was "psychologically fragile," she was pressured into spending her life savings of 21,000 Euros on life healing lessons, books, an "electrometer" and other products including "purification packs" and vitamins. Three other individuals had also filed complaints against Scientology, but they have withdrawn them after settling out of court.

The indictment by the investigating magistrate charges Scientology is a commercial business that runs a deliberately manipulative system which exploits vulnerable people. Scientology's lawyer says: "It's a trial for heresy: this could only happen in France..." If convicted, the individual defendants each face a possible 1 million Euro fine 10 years in prison. The Celebrity Centre and bookshop could be fined $5 million Euros and closed down in France.