Topeka Has Strained Relationship With Westboro Baptist Church Leaders

Today's New York Times explores the relationship between the city of Topeka, Kansas and the Phelps family, leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church that was at the center of a Supreme Court argument last week over free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Here are some excerpts from the Times account:

The city has tried and failed for decades to rid itself of the Phelpses, or at the very least to quiet them a bit. There have been counterprotests, violent attacks and endless rounds of legal efforts trying to silence them or force them out. But much to the embarrassment of the conflict-averse residents of this capital city of about 125,000, Mr. Phelps remains perhaps Topeka’s most famous resident....

But as the years of conflict have turned to decades, the city has settled into a tenuous, if mutually disdainful, co-existence with the Phelpses. The children of Mr. Phelps work white-collar jobs: 11 of the 13 are lawyers, including the three daughters who appeared before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. (Mr. Phelps was disbarred in 1979.) His 56 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren attend public school.

Gender Discrimination Claim By Former Pastor Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Barton v. Mikelhayes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107233 (ND NY, Oct. 7, 2010), a New York federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a Title VII gender discrimination complaint brought by Todd David Barton, a former minister in the United Methodist Church, whose pastoral license was withdrawn by the bishop.  The Church claimed that the action was taken, pursuant to its Book of Discipline, because of patterns of behavior by Barton that undermined the ministry of his church's Lead Pastor. The court said: 

[I]n order to decide the case ... the Court would be forced to question the Church's administration in order to decide whether Plaintiff's pastoral license was revoked due to his violation of the United Methodist Church's governing doctrine, as Defendant claims, or whether the Defendant's reasons for deciding that Plaintiff violated the doctrine were actually "not only erroneous, but also pretextual" as Plaintiff claims. This question cannot not be answered by the Court without impermissible entanglement with the United Methodist Church's religious doctrine.

British Court Orders Muslim Woman To Remove Veil, But Allows Testimony From Behind Screen

In England, according to Sunday's London Express, the Leicester magistrate's court has rendered a controversial decision by requiring a Muslim woman to uncover her face to testify in court, but permitting her to testify from behind a screen where only the judges could see her. The woman, Georgiana Richards, was pregnant and brought domestic violence charges against her ex-partner, Ismail Mangera who was ultimately found guilty of punching Richards and scrawling abusive language on her front door.  Richards criticized the court for requiring her to uncover her face,  while Tory MP Phillip Hollobone said the court did not go far enough and should have required Richards to testify in open court with her face uncovered.

2nd Circuit Voids Vermont's "Vanity" License Plate Law That Excludes Religious References

In Byrne v. Rutledge, (2d Cir., Oct. 8, 2010), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vermont's statute that allows for "vanity" license plates, but does not permit the issuance of plates that refer to a religion or deity, is unconstitutional.  The court concluded that by allowing residents to select combinations of letters and numbers that convey a message on a variety of topics, including statements of personal philosophy, taste, inspirational messages and affiliation with causes, but not allowing religious references, the state has engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The court also found the statute unconstitutional as applied.  In this case, a resident applied for a license plate reading JN36TN. The state refused to issue it because the applicant informed them that he intended the plate to refer to a Biblical verse, John 3:16.  However, had the applicant supplied a secular meaning for the numbers and letters, the state would have issued the plate.  The court found that interpreted this way, the statute fails to further a legitimate governmental interest and constitutes an unreasonable restriction on expression. New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

Woman Arrested For Destroying Offensive Jesus Depiction In Museum Display

As reported by Fox News, since Sept. 11, the Loveland, Colorado Museum Gallery, a tax funded museum, has hosted a show titled "The Legend of Bud Shark & His Indelible Ink." It is a display of 82 prints by ten artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. One of the prints is a 12-panel lithograph by Stanford University Professor Enrique Chagoya called "The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals."  Huffington Post has a photo of all the panels in its report on the show. While the show spent four months at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Denver without incident, in Loveland it has triggered protests as a Loveland City Council member and the media say that one of Chagoya' panels depicts Jesus having oral sex. However City Council voted 6-3 not to take up complaints about the exhibit.  According to AP, on Wednesday, a 56-year old Montana woman, Kathleen Folden,who is a long-haul trucker, drove to Loveland and using a crowbar, broke the plexiglass case housing the panels and ripped up the offending panel.  Here is a photo of the print after the attack. Police arrested Folden and charged her with felony criminal mischief. CNN reports today that Folden will plead not guilty, arguing that the print was not worth $1000, the threshold for bringing the charges as a felony. Folden's attorney said: "The real issue is the city of Loveland, which is not supposed to be endorsing or belittling religion. They specifically endorsed a piece that belittled Jesus Christ."

Church Official In Malta Says Lawyers and Judges Should Not Take Part In Divorce Cases If Law Is Changed

Malta is the only European Union country where divorce is banned. In July, a member of Parliament in Malta introduced a bill to permit divorce in the country. Malta's prime minister says the issue should be the subject of a referendum or at least of an election debate. (Times of Malta; PressEurop). Now, according to today's Times of Malta, a high-ranking Catholic Church official in the country says that if the law is passed, any judge who applies it would be committing a grave sin. Judicial Vicar Arthur Said Pullicino, head of the Church tribunals that examine religious petitions for annulments, said in a homily at the beginning of the judicial year, that members of the judiciary and lawyers should refuse to take part in divorce proceedings. He explained: "A lawyer who takes up the case of somebody who files for divorce, the guilty partner, cannot do it. He would be going against God’s law. On the other hand, the lawyer who takes up the case of the innocent party is doing nothing wrong."

Suit Challenges Kentucky's Rejection of In God We Trust License Plates

Fox News and Fox 41 this week reported on a lawsuit that has been filed in state court in Kentucky by an anti-pornography group known as ROCK ("Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana") challenging a 2008 denial by the state's Transportation Cabinet of ROCK's application for issuance of an "In God We Trust" specialty license plate. The state cited three reasons for refusing the request: the plate would not readily identify the motor vehicle operator as a member or supporter of ROCK; the legislature had previously considered, but not passed, legislation to authorize a similar plate; and the relevant Kentucky statute (KRS Sec. 186.164(9)) bars creating specialty plates for any group that has as its primary purpose the promotion of any specific faith, religion, or non-religion.  Last week, in its memorandum (full text) supporting its motion for summary judgment, ROCK argued that while it promotes Judeo-Christian principles, it does not promote any specific religion. It also argues that the statute's exclusion of religious groups violates the Equal Protection clause. (See prior related posting.)

FLDS Asks Federal Court To Enjoin State Court Trust Reformation

On Wednesday, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints renewed their federal court motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to stay all proceeding in the Utah state court case that is implementing reform of the United Effort Plan Trust that holds FLDS property. The motion also seeks to enjoin the further transfer of any property from the trust, including the proposed sale of the Berry Knoll Farm that is a sacred temple site for FLDS members. (Full text of motion.) The federal court case was originally filed in 2008 to contest the state's actions in taking over administration of the property of the polygamous FLDS church in twin towns in Utah and Arizona. (See prior posting.)  This week's federal court motion comes after the Utah Supreme Court in August rejected a similar FLDS challenge on the ground of laches. (See prior posting.) In its 45-page memo (full text) accompanying this week's federal court motion, FLDS contends that the state court's reformation of the UEP trust violates the Establishment Clause, arguing:

No reading of the Religion Clauses justifies the State’s involvement in the FLDS Church and the UEP Trust. The State violates that clause when it takes over an institution of religion and then, by stripping the religion from the institution, claims to be able to minister to the needs of its members by applying rules of secular neutrality.

Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune reports on the federal court proceedings. For those following the case, an extensive collection of primary source documents in the state court proceedings are available at a UEP website.

9th Circuit: Immunity Protects Several Defendants In Lease and Sale of Homeless Shelter To Religious Group

In Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, (9th Cir., Oct. 6, 2010), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the mayor and individual members of city council of Boise, Idaho enjoyed absolute legislative immunity in a suit charging that their approval of a lease and eventual sale of of a homeless shelter to the Boise Rescue Mission violated the Establishment Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act.  They may not be sued individually for either damages on injunctive relief. The court went on to hold that two city development officials enjoyed qualified immunity from a claim for damages in their individual capacities because at the time of the lease and sale a reasonable official would not have known that the actions violated the Establishment Clause or the FHA. The majority wrote:

Faced with a dearth of binding case law on the subject of non-profit leases to religious organizations — and a Fourth Circuit case holding that “rent discrimination” based on religion was unconstitutional — a reasonable official would not have known that the BRM lease violated the Establishment Clause.... Given that no other non-profit organizations were willing or able to keep the doors of the shelter open, the decision to lease the building to the BRM was reasonable....

With respect to the option to purchase, case law before 2005 suggested that, generally, a sale of public property to a religious organization for less than market value would likely violate the Establishment Clause.... But no case in the Ninth Circuit or elsewhere had held that a below-market sale would be unconstitutional where the organization also executed an important city policy and saved the city money...

Thus plaintiffs are limited to suing the city and city council and the development officials in their official capacity. Chief Judge Kozinski filed a concurring opinion.

French Constitutional Council Upholds Ban on Burqa

CNN reported yesterday that in France, the Constitutional Council has upheld the Parliament's recently enacted ban on wearing the burqa or niqab-- garments including a full face veil-- anywhere in public. (See prior posting.) This was the last step necessary for approval of the new law that will take effect in the spring. The Constitutional Council held that the new law does not impose disproportionate punishments and does not prevent the free exercise of religion in a place of worship and thus "conforms to the Constitution."  Under the new law, a woman wearing a niqab or burqa will be fined 150 Euros ($190 US) and required to take a citizenship course.  The law classifies forcing a woman to wear a niqab or burqa as a much more serious offense, punishable by a sentence of one year in prison or a fine of 15,000 Euros ($19,000 US). The government called this type of coercion a new form of enslavement that cannot be accepted on French soil.

Suit Filed Over School's Refusal To Allow Nose Stud Worn for Religious Reasons

ACLU of North Carolina announced Wednesday that it had filed a lawsuit in a North Carolina federal district court on behalf of 14-year old high school freshman Ariana Iacono and her mother challenging Clayton (NC) High School's refusal to grant Ariana an exemption from its dress code so she can wear a small nose stud for religious reasons.  The complaint (full text) in Iacono v. Croom, (ED NC, filed 10/6/2010), asserts that the Iacono's are members of the Church of Body Modification. Ariana joined in August, while her mother had been a member for a year prior to that.  The complaint alleges free exercise, equal protection and other violations stemming from the school's suspending of Ariana and sending her to an alternative school for violating the school dress code. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE:  Two days after the lawsuit was filed, a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order permitting Ariana Iacono to return to classes at Clayton High School. (Apex (NC) Herald). A hearing on a preliminary injunction to permit Ariana to continue in classes is pending is scheduled for Nov. 2. (WRAL News). Here is the full text of the judge's order granting the TRO. The court concluded that plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of her free exercise claim.

Anti-SLAPP Law Applied To Dismiss Claims In Suit Growing Out of Condo Mezuzah Dispute

In Shoreline Towers Condominium Association v. Gassman, (IL App., Sept. 30, 2010), an Illinois appellate court agreed with the trial court that portions of a lawsuit by a condominium association against a former resident should be dismissed under Illinois' anti-SLAPP law. What began as a dispute between former resident Debra Gassman over condo rules that prevented her from placing a mezuzah on her door escalated into several confrontations between Glassman on the one hand and the Association and its president on the other.  This suit by the Association and its president seeking an injunction and alleging defamation and malicious prosecution, among other charges, followed. In upholding dismissal of claims brought by the Association (while allowing claims by its president to proceed), the court said that the anti-SLAPP law: "does not protect only public outcry regarding matters of significant public concern, nor does it require the use of a public forum in order for a citizen to be protected. Rather, it protects from liability all constitutional forms of expression and participation in pursuit of favorable government action." The court also upheld retroactive application of the anti-SLAPP law and the award of attorneys' fees.

Appeal To 6th Circuit Filed In Recess Bible Reading Case

On Tuesday, a Notice of Appeal (full text) to the 6th Circuit was filed in L.W. v. Knox County Board of Education.  In the case, a federal district court jury in Knoxville, Tennessee found in favor of the Knox County Schools in a lawsuit over the right of elementary school students to read the Bible during recess. (See prior posting.) The jury accepted the school's contention that the school's refusal was merely the result of a misunderstanding about what the children were requesting. In a decision last month (full text), the district court rejected plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law despite the jury verdict, and also rejected plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the appeal.

Christian Groups File Consultation Paper With United Nations On Interpretation of ICCPR

Last week, a group of Christian organizations submitted a 35-page consultation paper (full text) to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The paper responds to a call by the High Commissioner for papers addressing the interplay of two section of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At issue is the relationship of Article 19 which guarantees freedom of expression with Article 20 that prohibits advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility of violence. The paper calls on the High Commissioner to also consider the impact of Article 18 that guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  The paper takes strong issue with language in the High Commissioner's concept paper that rephrases Article 20.  The consultation paper argues that the change in wording may favor hate speech codes or bans on defamation of religion "that will result in restrictions upon legitimate freedom of expression and upon the ability of minority groups to challenge reigning religious and political orthodoxies."  A press release issued on Tuesday by Alliance Defense Fund announcing the filing of the consultation paper says: "What’s at stake here is the ability of Christians to be able to share freely their belief that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation without fear of reprisal by any government that has signed on to this covenant."

City Council Opts To End Exploration of Opening Sessions With Prayer

The Canandaigua, New York City Council's Planning Committee yesterday rejected a proposal by one Council member to explore opening of Council meetings with a prayer.  According to the Canandaigua Messenger Post, Councilwoman Trudy White-Hamilton proposed the idea last month, saying that "prayer would benefit our community."  However Mayor Ellen Polimeni said that instituting a prayer policy would invite a lawsuit, and Councilman Matt Smythe complained that using city staff to investigate the issues involved would divert them from addressing other matters. A motion to continue research on the issue of legislative prayer was defeated by the Committee by a vote of 2-1.

Suit Challenges Jail's Policy Allowing Inmates To Receive Bibles But No Other Publications

The ACLU announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit in South Carolina challenging the policy at the Berkeley County (SC) Detention Center which bars sending of any books, magazines or newspapers to inmates, except for copies of the Bible.  The complaint (full text) in Prison Legal News v. Berkeley County Sheriff H. Wayne Dewitt, (D SC, filed 10/6/2010), alleges that the censorship policy, which includes barring letters sent by magazine publishers, infringes the right of the publisher of a  monthly journal on prison law to communicate with detainees. The suit also claims that the policy violates the Establishment Clause because allowing Bibles, but no other books, to be sent discriminates on the basis of religion. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Funeral Picketing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Westboro Baptist Church and its leaders that a $5 million judgment against them growing out of their picketing of the funeral of Iraq veteran Matthew Snyder and a related Internet posting violated their free speech rights. (See prior posting.)  The full transcript of today's oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court's website. Scotus blog has extensive links to briefs in the case and material relating to the oral arguments. The New York Times describes today's arguments as "featur[ing] disputes about the facts and a parade of hypothetical alternative scenarios."  Interestingly, oral arguments for Westboro Baptist Church were made by Margie J. Phelps, a daughter of Westboro's pastor, Fred W. Phelps, Jr. Before the arguments, another of Phelps daughters picketed outside the Supreme Court carrying a sign reading "America Is Doomed."

UPDATE: An audio recording of the full oral arguments is now also available from the Supreme Court's website.

Court Says Confidentiality Agreements Will Not Prevent Discovery In Establishment Clause Suit

Last year a Minnesota federal district court held that the ACLU has taxpayer standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to state funding of a charter school-- the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. The suit claims that the school advances the Muslim religion and fosters entanglement between government and religion. (See prior posting.) Now in ACLU of Minnesota v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104961 (D MN, Oct. 1, 2010), the district court has upheld a federal magistrate's grant of a protective order to prevent enforcement by TiZA of non-disclosure/ confidentiality provisions in its employee handbook against current and former employees in connection with disclosures the employees may make to the ACLU. The ACLU is attempting to interview employees as part of its informal discovery process, and at least one has expressed concern that talking will subject him to a civil suit by TiZA. The court concluded that these confidentiality agreements may well be contrary to public policy when invoked by a public employer such as a charter school.

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Green v. Werholtz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102867 (D KA, Sept. 28, 2010), a Kansas federal district court  rejected plaintiffs' complaints about the manner in which prison kosher meals were prepared, finding that their preparation was approved by a rabbi.


In Delgado v. Ballard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102552 (SD WV, Sept. 24, 2010), a West Virginia federal district court adopted most of a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102532, Aug. 19, 2010) and allowed an inmate who is a Taino Indian from Puerto Rico to move ahead with his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff claimed that his religious rights were infringed by denial of his needs to smoke tobacco daily, grow some of his hair long, listen to certain music full time and correspond with Latino or Taino religious groups.


In Zuege v. Geffers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102406 (ED WI, Sept. 28, 2010), an inmate complained that in the earned release program he was singled out because of his non-religious beliefs and was told to write a report on a book titled Ethics of Religion. He alleged this violates the Establishment Clause. The ERP group leader denied the allegations. The court held that because of factual disputes, neither side was entitled to summary judgment.


In Miller v. Wilkinson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103364 (SD OH, Sept. 30, 2010), an Ohio federal district court rejected free exercise and RLUIPA challenges by Asatru prisoners seeking exemptions from the prison's grooming code and seeking recognition of their Asatru religious names.

In Sosa v. Lantz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103535 (D CT, Sept. 30, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court rejected an inmate's complaint that he was being forced to participate in a religion when he was housed with a Muslim cell mate who used the cell for prayer and religious practices.  The court held that double-celling plaintiff with a Muslim cell mate did not amount to state action in violation of 1st Amendment rights.


In Johnson v. Jabe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103483 (WD VA, Sept. 30, 2010), a Virginia federal district judge remanded an inmate's free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims to the magistrate for further fact finding on whether The Nations of Gods and Earth (sometimes called the Five Percenters) is properly classified as a Security Threat Group. Prison officials classify NGE as a gang and refuse to recognize it as a religion. The magistrate's original recommendations are at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103486, Aug. 23, 2010.


In Abdul-Matiyn v. Allen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102825 (ND NY, Sept. 28, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted most of the recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102972, March 4, 2010) and permitted plaintiff (who was civilly committed after the expiration of his prison term based on psychological issues and sexual misconduct convictions) to move ahead with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when authorities prohibited him from engaging in Jum'ah prayers. However the court rejected his complaint that he was not provided with halal meals.

Irish Court Refuses To Assert Universal Jurisdiction Over Alleged Chinese Persecutor of Falun Gong

Ireland's Central Criminal Court last week held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant for Li Changchun, a high ranking Chinese Communist Party official who was visiting Ireland for two days on his way to Iran. Yesterday's Epoch Times reported that a criminal complaint was filed in Ireland against Li by several Falun Gong practitioners who charged that Li, as Secretary General of the Party of Guangdong Province and the Politburo Standing Committee Propaganda and Media Officer, played a key role in the persecution of Falun Gong in China. Petitioners attempted to assert universal jurisdiction, charging that Li was linked to crimes of torture, extra-judicial killing, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and genocide.

PBS To Air Series On "God In America"

On Oct. 11-12-13, PBS will air a 6-hour series titled "God In America." Jointly presented by American Experience and Frontline, the series will explore the historical role of religion in American public life. Here is PBS' description of the series:

God in America examines the potent and complex interaction between religion and democracy, the origins of the American concept of religious liberty, and the controversial evolution of that ideal in the nation's courts and political arena. The series considers the role religious ideas and institutions have played in social reform movements from abolition to civil rights, examining the impact of religious faith on conflicts from the American Revolution to the Cold War, and how guarantees of religious freedom created a competitive American religious marketplace. It also explores the intersection of political struggle and spiritual experience in the lives of key American historical figures....

Boston Phoenix yesterday had an advance review of the series.

DC Circuit: Federal Employee Need Not Relitigate Religious Discrimination Victory To Appeal Retaliation Holding

In Payne v. Salazar, (DC Cir., Sept. 7, 2010), the D.C. Circuit gave a substantial victory to federal employees asserting Title VII employment discrimination claims.  In the case, Department of Interior employee Cassandra Payne won her religious discrimination clam at the administrative level.  An EEOC administrative judge found that the Interior Department had violated Title VII by refusing Payne's requests for weekends off so she could attend church and Bible study.  However the administrative judge rejected her claim that her supervisor had retaliated against her for filing the EEO claim.  Payne appealed the retaliation ruling by filing suit in federal district court. However the district court accepted the government's contention that in order to sue on the retaliation claim, Payne must also relitigate the religious discrimination claim on which she had been successful at the administrative level. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the government's interpretation of the statutory language. It held that a federal employee does not have to re-prove in court a claim on which she has already been successful in order to sue on other Title VII claims which were rejected at the agency level. [Thanks to FedSmith for the lead.]

Algerian Court Dismisses Prosecution of Two Christians For Eating During Ramadan

In Algeria yesterday, a court in the town of Ain El-Hammam dismissed a prosecution that had been brought against two Christian construction workers charged with eating during daylight hours during Ramadan. Prosecutors demanded that the two be punished for insulting Islam.  The defendants argued that they were not eating in a "public place", and that their prosecution violated constitutional protections and provisions of international conventions protecting freedom of religion.  According to Times Live and the Christian Post, the court ruled that no law provided for bringing charges against the two non-Muslims.

Christian Wrestling Coach Settles Religious Discrimination Claim Against Dearborn, MI School

Dearborn, Michigan's Fordson High School has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by its former wrestling coach who claimed he was fired because the school's principal, a Muslim, is weeding out Christian teachers, coaches and staff. (See prior posting.) AP reported yesterday that Dearborn Public Schools paid 65-year old wrestling coach Gerald Marszalek $24,500 to settle the religious discrimination claims. Earlier this year it paid him $500 to drop his age discrimination claims.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Justice Department's Title VII Case Against NYC Transit Authority

In United States v. New York City Transit Authority, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102704 (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2010), the Department of Justice sued the New York City Transit Authority claiming that it violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through polices and practices that discriminate against employees whose religious beliefs require them to wear certain head coverings, such as turbans or khimars, without logos on them. The complaint alleged selective enforcement of the Transit Authority's uniform policies and failure to reasonably accommodate Sikh and Muslim employees. The court rejected three arguments for dismissal put forward by the Transit Authority. The court held that the suit can be maintained as a "pattern or practice" claim, that in such a claim the government does not have to show that each person for whom it will ultimately seek relief was a victim of the employer's discriminatory policy, and that such claims are not subject to the same rules regarding shifts of burden of proof as in individual Title VII actions. The court also held that whether the Transit Authority offered reasonable accommodation of employees' beliefs could not be determined as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.

Prosecutor's Biblical References Not A Basis For Overturning Death Sentences

Jackson v. Epps, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102562 (ND MI, Sept. 28, 2010) is a habeas corpus action by a prisoner challenging his capital murder convictions and the resulting four death sentences imposed on him.  Among other claims, petitioner asserted that the prosecutor's Biblical references during closing arguments at the sentencing phase of his trial violated the Establishment Clause and urged jurors to rely on impermissible factors in reaching their decision. The court disagreed, pointing out that the prosecutor:

asked the jury to apply the secular law given to them, and she used a familiar reference to argue that point. The reign of King Herod and his death from a painful disease, are historical fact, and her comments concerning the slaughter of children referenced a story in a book. That the comments have a religious connotation does not render the argument inherently religious....

Moreover, [the prosecutor's] reference to "God's law" was responsive to Petitioner's own arguments..... [Her] statements were not an endorsement of extrajudicial authority for imposing a sentence of death. Her statements were more akin to familiar Proverbs and parables that are used to support arguments outside of a religious context.... [T]here was no prosecutorial suggestion that personal responsibility for the sentence did not ultimately rest with the jury, and the comments did not suggest that religious principles, rather than the law, applied.

Trial of Geert Wilders For Anti-Muslim Incitement Opens In Netherlands

In Amsterdam, Netherlands yesterday, the trial of Geert Wilders, an anti-Muslim right wing member of parliament, opened. Hurriyet Daily News reports that Wilders is charged with giving religious offense to Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.  In his opening statement, Wilders defended freedom of speech, and then refused to answer any questions from judges. This led presiding judge Jan Moors to observe that Wilders appeared to be avoiding discussion. Wilders attorney said that this statement shows that Judge Moors is biased, and moved to have him disqualified. (See prior related posting.) Support by Wilders' Freedom Party is critical to the coalition government that will shortly take office in the Netherlands. (See prior related posting.)

Husband In Contempt For Teaching Child Christian Faith In Violation of Divorce Settlement

In Greene v. Greene, (GA Ct. App., Oct. 1, 2010), a Georgia appellate court upheld a trial court's finding that a divorced husband was in contempt for violating a Settlement Agreement that gave his former wife final decision-making authority over matters related to their daughter's religious upbringing.  The wife was Jewish and the husband was Christian. The husband had agreed that the child would be raised in the Jewish faith.  However, according to the court:

Husband admitted that he had taken the child to numerous Christian churches ...[;] that he told the child that she was Jewish on the outside and Christian on the inside; that he shared Christian prayers with the child; that he and his mother read the Bible to the child; that his mother taught the child the Christian faith from the Bible...; and that the child told him that she was conflicted about the two different faiths. Husband also admitted that he gave the child a children's Bible, as well as DVDs of Christian stories and movies; that he taught her Christian songs and played them while riding in the car with the child; and that he had referred to Wife's parents by numbers but denied that he was referencing the Holocaust.

The appeals court also concluded that the trial court's instructions to the Husband on how to purge himself of contempt were sufficiently clear.

Muslims Get Mixed Messages On Their Integration In Germany

Deutsche Welle reported yesterday that Muslims in Germany are getting mixed messages from top government leaders.  On Sunday, Germany's President Christian Wulff, in a speech marking the 20th anniversary of German reunification, called for the integration of Muslims in Germany. In his speech, Wulff said: "Christianity doubtless belongs in Germany. Judaism belongs doubtless in Germany. That is our Judeo-Christian history. But now, Islam also belongs in Germany." A day later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, endorsed Wulff's views but added that Muslims living in Germany must conform to "fundamental German values." She said there was no leeway on this demand. Meanwhile Norbert Geis, a member of parliament from a Bavarian party allied with Merkel's Christian Democrats said that Wulff's statement should not be interpreted to mean that Islam and Christianity have an equal footing in Germany.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To School Ban On Religious Music In Holiday Concerts

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Stratechuk v. Board of Education, (Docket No. 09-1184) (Order List.) In the case, the 3rd Circuit upheld a New Jersey school district's policy banning celebratory religious holiday music at school-sponsored holiday concerts. (See prior posting.) The policy was challenged on Establishment Clause grounds and on the ground that the school was unconstitutionally restricting students' access to ideas. Yesterday's Newark (NJ) Star Ledger reports on the Supreme Court's refusal to grant review.

England's Charity Commission Says Druids Are A Religion

The Charity Commission for England and Wales last Saturday, for the first time, recognized Druidry as a religion. The action gives the Druid Network charitable status for tax purposes in Britain.  CNN reports the Commission found that in Druidry: "There is a sufficient belief in a supreme being or entity to constitute a religion for the purposes of charity law." The Druids are generally seen as a neo-Pagan religion.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Susanna Mancini & Michel Rosenfeld, Unveiling the Limits of Tolerance: Comparing the Treatment of Majority and Minority Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere, (Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 309, Sept. 28, 2010).
• Paul Schiff Berman, Towards a Jurisprudence of Hybridity, (Utah Law Review, No. 1, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Scott W. Gaylord, Licensing Facially Religious Government Speech: Summum's Impact on the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses, 8 First Amendment Law Review 315-413 (2010).
• David L. Gregory & Stephen Martir, The Catholicity of the Middle Class: Reflections on Caritas in Veritate, 24 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 379-398 (2010).
• Guy Haarscher, Secularism, the Veil and "Reasonable Interlocutors": Why France Is Not All That Wrong, 28 Penn State International Law Review 367-382 (2010).
• Susan Pace Hamill, A Moral Perspective on the Role of Education in Sustaining the Middle Class, 24 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 309-325 (2010).
• R. Ashby Pate, Blood Libel: Radical Islam's Conscription of the Law of Defamation into a Legal Jihad Against the West--and How to Stop It, 8 First Amendment Law Review 414-451 (2010).
• Robert E. Rains, Marriage in the Time of Internet Ministers: I Now Pronounce You Married, but Who Am I To Do So?, 64 University of Miami Law Review 809-877 (2010).
• Mehmet Cengiz Uzun, The Protection of Laicism in Turkey and the Turkish Constitutional Court: the Example of Prohibition on the Use of the Islamic Veil in Higher Education, 28 Penn State International Law Review 383-426 (2010).

New Books:

• John Witte, Jr. & Joel Nichols, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment, Third Edition, (Westview Press, July 2010).
• Jeff Sharlet, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, (Little Brown, Sept. 27, 2010), excerpted in The Takeaway.

Red Mass Marks Beginning of Supreme Court's October Term

The U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term today.  Yesterday, according to CNN, the traditional Red Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington to mark the new term.  Among those in attendance was Vice President Joe Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.  Breyer was the only Justice attending who is not Catholic. He is Jewish.  The Court now is made up of six Catholics and three Jews. The homily at the Mass was given by Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia.  During the current term, the Court will decide at least two cases involving the intersection of law and religion.  Arizona School Tuition Organization v. Winn involves a church-state challenge to Arizona's tuition tax credits (background), while Snyder v. Phelps involves a challenge by members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church to a damage award against them for emotional distress caused by their picketing of a veteran's funeral (background).

Lawyer in Mosque Zoning Case Argues Islam Is A Political Movement, Not A Religion

Last week, court hearings began in the Rutherford County (TN) Chancery Court in a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to halt construction of a controversial Islamic center being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. (See prior related posting.) Normally RLUIPA gives religious institutions special protections in zoning matters. The Tennessean reported yesterday, however, that challengers argued in court that Islam should be classified as a political movement, not a religion, and that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship.  In his opening statement, Smyrna (TN) attorney Joe Brandon, Jr. argued: "Shariah law is pure sedition." Local officials disagree and say the mosque should be treated like any other house of worship.

En Banc Rehearing Sought In Christian Student's Challenge To College's Policy

A petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit in Lopez v. Candaele was filed last week. (Full text of petition.)  In the case, a panel of the 9th Circuit held that a Christian student at Los Angeles City College lacks standing to challenge the school's sexual harassment policy because there was never any credible threat that the policy would be used to discipline the student despite a speech professor's objections to the student's religious opposition to same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The rehearing request argues that the panel holding is at odds with decisions in the 3rd and 6th Circuits which permit a challenge to overbroad statutes that chill speech without a threat of enforcement. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the rehearing request.

Appeals Court Upholds Release of Psychiatric Files of Clergy In Sex Abuse Settlement

In Doe 1 v. Franciscan Friars of California, Inc., (CA App., Sept. 30, 2010), a California appellate court held that pursuant to a settlement in a clergy sex abuse case, various confidential files of six alleged perpetrators could be released to the public. The court found that "compelling social interests in protecting children from molestation outweigh the Individual Friars' privacy rights, and the trial court correctly ordered the public release of psychiatric and other confidential records in the possession of the Franciscans." (See prior related posting.)

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Patterson v. Schriro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100187 (D AZ, Sept. 2), an Arizona federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction ordering plaintiff receive a kosher diet because plaintiff alleged no threat that his current kosher diet is likely to be discontinued or changed.


In Pugh v. Caruso, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100683 (WD MI, Sept. 22, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100713, Aug. 25, 2010) and dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge to various limits on his practice of Wicca.


In Ali v. Quarterman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100621 (ED TX, Sept. 24, 2010), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100707, July 20, 2010) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's objections to the prison's grooming code that prevented him from wearing a beard and to its headgear policy that allowed him to wear a kufi only in his cell and at religious services.


In Ahmad v. Thomas, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100866 (SD  TX, Sept. 23, 2010), a Texas federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's attempt to obtain Friday Jum'ah services at the Harris County Jail as well as the right to use his prayer carpet and kufi cap in his cell.


In Braithwaite v. Hinkle, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100510 (ED VA, Sept. 20, 2010), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's free exercise challenge to prison grooming rules that prohibited him from wearing a beard. UPDATE: Affirmed, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (4th Cir., Feb. 24, 2011).


In Vinson v. Riley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101666 (WD MI, Sept. 27, 2010), a Michigan federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with certain of his claims asserting that his free exercise and RLUIPA rights were violated when he was removed from the kosher meal program.  Officials said plaintiff had changed his religion by asserting that he was an active Moorish Science member. Plaintiff said that his nationality is Moorish American, but his religion is still African Hebrew Israelite.


In Jean-Pierre v. Bureau of Prisons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101546 (WD PA, Sept. 27, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101614, July 30, 2010) and permitted a Rastafarian inmate to move ahead on his free exercise and equal protection claims growing out of his removal from the Certified Religious Diet Program. However the court dismissed plaintiff's official capacity claims and claims for monetary damages under RFRA.


In Hall v. Skolnik, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102277 (D NV, Sept. 13, 2010), an inmate challenged authorities' denial of his request for kosher meals and charged that prison policies prevent black-Jewish inmates from practicing their religion to the same extent as other Jewish inmates. The court dismissed plaintiff's  official capacity claims for monetary damages and claims against the Nevada Department of Corrections, his 8th Amendment claims and his claims for emotional distress. However he was permitted to proceed on other claims.


In Avery v. Ferguson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101947 (WD AK, Sept. 24, 2010), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101864, Sept. 3, 2010) and rejected a number of claims of constitutional violations growing out of conditions when plaintiff was held as a pre-trial detainee. However it permitted him to proceed with his claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was denied a vegetarian diet.

USCIRF Puts Religious Freedom Spin on President's New Iran Sanctions

On Sept. 29, President Obama issued an Executive Order (full text) imposing financial sanctions on eight Iranian officials connected with the Revolutionary Guard, armed forces, Iranian intelligence service and national police.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the sanctions were imposed on "officials responsible for serious and sustained human rights abuses since the disputed election of June 2009." (Full text of statement.) As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Order for the first time makes use of new authority given to the President in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010.  The Executive Order blocks funds of the 8 individuals in the U.S. or in overseas branches of U.S. banks and bars the contribution of funds, goods or services to the individuals. A Release issued last week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom attempts to put a religious freedom spin on the new sanctions order. According to USCIRF: "During the past year, the Iranian government’s poor religious freedom record deteriorated, especially for religious minorities such as Baha’is, Christians, and Sufi Muslims, and physical attacks, harassment, detention, arrests, and imprisonment intensified. Even the recognized non-Muslim religious minorities–Jews, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, and Zoroastrians–protected under Iran’s constitution faced increasing discrimination and repression."

Court Issues Letters Rogatory Seeking Aid In Serving Process on Pope, Cardinals

In an unusual move, a Wisconsin federal district court in Doe 16 v. Holy See, (ED WI, Sept. 24, 2010), issued Letters Rogatory to "the appropriate judicial authority of the Holy See," requesting its assistance in serving process on Pope Benedict XVI and two cardinals named as defendants in a civil suit seeking damages and and other relief growing out of sexual abuse plaintiff suffered at the hands of Rev. Lawrence Murphy who taught at St. John's School for the Deaf. (See prior posting.) Here is the full text of the court order granting the motion for Letters Rogatory and the Letters relating to Pope Benedict, Cardinal Bertone (Vatican Secretary of State) and Cardinal Sodano (Bertone's predecessor). Raw Story carries its own and the AP report on the court orders. SNAP also issued a press release on the court's action.

California Governor Vetoes Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act

Equality California reports that on Sept. 30 California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 906, the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act. The bill was designed to protect clergy who refuse to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to their faith.  The Governor, however, objected to the portion of the bill that inserted the word "civil" before "marriage" in the California Family Code's definition of marriage. In response to the veto, Equality California said: "The governor’s mistaken belief that religious and civil marriages are identical and that religious marriages can be regulated by the state is exactly why this bill is needed.... We look forward to addressing the issues set forth in this bill with our next governor who hopefully will have a legal background and a clearer understanding of the fact that California law already defines marriage as a 'civil contract.'"  GLT News Now also reports on the veto. (See prior related posting.)

AU Asks IRS To Investigate Church Project Seeking To Unseat Iowa High Court Justices

Americans United announced on Thursday that it has written the Internal Revenue Service (full text of letter) complaining that Sioux City Iowa's Cornerstone World Outreach is violating the terms of its Section 501(c)(3) status by organizing Project Jeremiah 2010.  The Project is a campaign to urge parishioners to vote "no" on retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices in November because the justices invalidated the state's ban on same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Cornerstone and other groups sponsoring the Project are asking pastors on the three Sunday's before election day to preach a message asking their followers to vote no in the retention vote. Yesterday's Sioux City Journal covers the reaction of a Cornerstone pastor and links to additional letters from Cornerstone on the matter.

In 2 Suits, EEOC Charges Businesses With Refusing To Accommodate Sunday Sabbath Observance

In two lawsuits filed Friday, the EEOC sued two unrelated businesses for refusing to accommodate the religious observance of employees who refused to work on Sundays because it is their Sabbath.  In a suit filed in federal court in Washington state, the EEOC charged that Walmart ended the accommodation it had provided the manager of its Colville (WA) store for the last 14 years. (EEOC press release.)  Employee Richard Nichols is a devout Mormon and, according to the Bellingham (WA) Herald, is also the mayor of Colville.

Meanwhile, in a suit filed in a California federal district court, the EEOC charged that a new manager at a Supercuts store refused to continue the practice that for 9 years had accommodated hair stylist Carolyn Sedar's observance of Sunday as her sabbath. (EEOC press release.)

Reference To Defendant's Satanist Beliefs Is Not Basis For Reversal of Death Sentence

In Davis v. State of Texas, (TX Ct. Crim. App., Sept. 29, 2010), a Texas appellate court rejected a defendant', appeal of his death sentence, finding that defendant's various claims of prejudice because he was a Satanist did not call for reversal of the jury's decision in the punishment phase.  The issue arose on a retrial of the penalty phase of his case after his successful appeal.  Defendant had become a Satanist while in prison. the court rejected defendant's objection to the prosecutor's statement in closing argument that evidence of defendant's affiliation with Satanism is another piece of the puzzle for the jury to consider on the issue of whether defendant would likely pose a danger in the future. The appeals court also upheld the trial court's rejection of for cause challenges to two jurors who defendant claimed would be prejudiced against him because of his Satanist affiliation. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Indian Court Issues Compromise Ruling In Long-Running Dispute Over Title To Sacred Land

In India on Thursday, the Allahabad High Court issued a compromise ruling in a 60-year long dispute over title to a sacred site claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.  NDTV and the Wall Street Journal report on the 2-1 decision that divided the site in the town of Ayodhya between the two religious groups. Hindus say the site was the birthplace of Lard Ram and was the location of an ancient temple. However the Babri Masjid mosque was constructed on the site sometime between the 16th and 18th century.  In 1992, a Hindu mob partially destroyed the mosque, and widespread violence followed.  In its decision (excerpts), all three judges agreed that the area below the central dome where idols of Lord Ram and other gods sit in a makeshift temple, should be warded to the Hindu Nirmohi Akhara. Under the majority judgment, one-third of the site also goes to the Hindu party for Ram Lalla, and one-third goes to the Muslim Sunni Waqf Board. The inner courtyard belongs to both Hindus and Muslims.The ruling however maintains the status quo for three months so the parties can appeal. Each of the three judges issued a separate opinion, which in total were reported to run 8000 pages.

CNN Fires Rick Sanchez For Anti-Semitic Comments On Radio Interview

Yesterday CNN fired news anchor Rick Sanchez after Sanchez's anti-Semitic remarks in an interview on SiriusXM radio.  In the interview with Pete Dominick on "Stand Up!", Sanchez called Comedy Central's John Stewart a bigot.  Sanchez was promoting his new book, "Conventional Idiocy." As reported by the Washington Post, Stewart has repeatedly criticized Sanchez on The Daily Show. Among Sanchez's comments in the long interview was the following : "I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart. And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish are oppressed minorities? Yeah." The Washington Post has more excerpts and audio from the interview.

Challenge To Pledge and National Motto In Capitol Visitor Center Dismissed On Standing Grounds

In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Ayers, (WD WI, Sept. 29, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court held that neither the Freedom from Religion Foundation, nor any of its members, have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to a Congressional joint resolution calling for the Architect of the Capital to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto, “In God We Trust”, in the Capitol Visitors Center.  The court held:

Plaintiffs fail to establish standing because they cannot point to any specific congressional appropriation for the allegedly unconstitutional concurrent resolution. Plaintiffs allege that performing the engraving as required by the concurrent resolution cost between $100,000 and $150,000 “funded from U.S. taxpayer appropriations made by Congress[.]” … This allegation … does not provide the necessary link between taxpayer status and the expenditure. “[U]se of funds for [an] allegedly unconstitutional program, without more, is not sufficient to meet the nexus required by Flast”; the appropriation of those funds for such a purpose is what provides the necessary link between taxpayer and expenditure to create standing.

The American Center for Law & Justice issued a press release calling the decision "an encouraging victory."  Huffington Post reported on the decision.   

European Human Rights Court Rules on Right of Churches To Dismiss Employees for Private Behavior

In a press release last week, the European Court of Human Rights announced two Chamber Judgments, ruling for the first time on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights application to the dismissal of church employees for conduct in the sphere of their private lives. Article 8 of the ECHR protects the right to respect for family and private life.

In Obst v. Germany, the court upheld action by the German courts in permitting the Mormon Church to dismiss Michael Obst, the Church's director of public relations for Europe, for having an affair with another woman while he was married. As described by the press release, the European Court held that:

the German labour courts had taken account of all the relevant factors and undertaken a careful and thorough balancing exercise regarding the interests involved. They had pointed out that the Mormon Church had only been able to base Mr Obst’s dismissal on his adultery because he had informed the Church of it by his own initiative. According to the German courts’ findings, his dismissal amounted to a necessary measure aimed at preserving the Church’s credibility, having regard in particular to the nature of his post.

However, in the second case, Schuth v. Germany, the European Court held that the German courts had violated Art. 8 of the ECHR in permitting a Catholic parish to dismiss Bernhard Schuth, its organist and choirmaster, for living with a new partner after he separated from his wife. The press release describes the views of the European Court:

the [German] labour court of appeal had confined itself to stating that ... [Schuth's] functions were ... so closely connected to the Catholic Church’s proclamatory mission that the parish could not continue employing him without losing all credibility. That court had not examined this argument any further but appeared to have simply reproduced the opinion of the Church employer on this point. 

The labour courts had moreover made no mention of Mr Schüth’s de facto family life or of the legal protection afforded to it. The interests of the Church employer had thus not been balanced against Mr Schüth’s right to respect for his private and family life, but only against his interest in keeping his post. A more detailed examination would have been required when weighing the competing rights and interests at stake.

The full text of each of the decisions are available in French: Affaire Obst c. Allemagne, (ECHR, Sept. 23, 2010) and Affaire Schuth c. Allemange, (ECHR, Sept. 23, 2010). These Chamber Judgments can still be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Thanks to Pew Sitter for the lead.]

Judge Refuses To Recuse Himself Over Charge of Religious Bias

Palmer v. City of Prescott, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101136 (D AZ, Sept. 7, 2010), is a suit against the city of Prescott, Arizona and various of its officials alleging violations of plaintiff's 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Plaintiff moved to disqualify federal district court Judge David Campbell from hearing the case because Campbell is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Plaintiff, Peter Palmer, is an evangelical Christian who proselytizes Mormons. He alleges that Judge Campbell's religious beliefs will bias him against plaintiff. The judge refused to disqualify himself, saying that plaintiff's proselytizing activities have nothing to do with the claims in this case, and citing federal precedent holding that church membership does not create a sufficient appearance of bias to require disqualification.

EEOC Sues AutoZone On Behalf of Sikh Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts against AutoZone, Inc. on behalf of a Sikh employee.  The suit alleges that AutoZone refused to allow employee Frank Mahoney-Burroughs wear a turban and kara (religious bracelet). The suit also alleges a hostile work environment in which Mahoney-Burroughs' manager asked him if he was a terrorist and had joined al-Qaeda, and in which Auto Zone failed to intervene when customers made terrorist jokes and referred to Mahoney-Burroughs as Bin-Laden. The suit alleges that Mahoney-Burroughs was fired because of his religion and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination.

DC Circuit Stays Preliminary Injunction Against Stem Cell Guidelines

Yesterday the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Sherley v. Sebelius granted a stay of a preliminary injunction during the appeal of a federal district court's order enjoining application of the Obama Administration's guidelines expanding grants for stem cell research. (Full text of order.) The court also ordered that argument of the appeal be expedited.  According to a Reuters report, government lawyers argued to the D.C. Circuit that dozens of research projects would be ruined if their grant funding was cut off, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.

AU Asks IRS To Investigate Church's Political Endorsement On Pulpit Sunday

Reaction is now beginning to activities of churches which last Sunday participated in Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Sunday challenging tax code restrictions on non-profits, including churches. (See prior posting.)  Americans United announced yesterday that it has sent a letter (full text) to the Internal Revenue Service asking it to investigate Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma.  The church's pastor, Paul Blair, endorsed Rep. Mary Fallin for Oklahoma governor from the pulpit during Sunday services.

Lehi, Utah Police Investigate TV Reality Show Polygamous Family

The TLC Channel on Sunday premiered a new reality TV show titled "Sister Wives." The network describes the program as" "Meet husband Kody-- along with his three wives: Meri, Janelle and Christine and their combined 13 children-- and see how they attempt to navigate life as a 'normal' family in a society that shuns their lifestyle."  Yesterday's Rexburg, Idaho Standard Journal reports that Lehi, Utah police have launched an investigation of the Kody Brown family which is featured on the program. (It says Brown has four wives, 13 children and 3 stepchildren.) Evidence gathered in the investigation will be turned over to the Utah County attorney's office for possible prosecution.  The policy of the Utah attorney general's office has been not to pursue cases of bigamy involving consenting adults.Utah's polygamist community has been working over the last ten years to educate law enforcement agencies about its culture, and the Browns had hoped that this show would broaden public understanding of plural families.

New York Town Wants Sufi Cemetery Shut Down

AP reported  yesterday that in the rural upstate New York town of Sidney Center, the town board voted in August to pursue legal action to shut down the town's small Sufi cemetery. Town Supervisor Bob McCarthy says the cemetery is illegal and that the two bodies already buried should be removed. He fears that the town may be saddled with the cost of the cemetery some day if it is abandoned. A Sufi spokesman says that the town zoning board approved the cemetery in 2005 and that burial permits were filed with the town for the burials that took place. Hans Hass of the 30-member Osmanli Naksibendi Hakkani community charges that the town board's action was motivated by the controversy over the proposed Islamic center at Ground Zero in New York City. The leader of the group proposing that mosque is a Sufi, but is not affiliated with the Sufi group in Sidney Center.

MRFF Charges New Religious Freedom Problems At Air Force Academy

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation announced yesterday that it has sent a letter (full text), co-signed by the heads of nine other groups, to the Secretary of Defense making three demands for changes to deal with the allegedly worsening situation involving Christian proselytizing at the Air Force Academy.  The letter asks that the Air Force release its most recent Climate Survey of cadets and staff at the Air Force academy. The voluntary survey asks about the religious environment at the Academy. Second, the letter asks that the Defense Department begin an investigation of "Cadets for Christ" and other proselytizing organizations. Third, the letter demands that the Defense Department investigate the Air Force Academy's "incontrovertible and unconstitutional establishment of a fundamentalist Christian culture/ meme amongst its cadet and staff populations." The letter claims that there is an "underground" group of over 100 cadets at the Academy who are pretending to be fundamentalist Christians merely in order to remain in good standing with their peers and superiors. (See prior related posting.)

Obama Tells Audience Why He Is A Christian

As reported by the New York Times, President Obama continues his series of stops in back yards in various parts of the country in the run up to the mid-term elections. Today, in New Mexico, he was asked by one questioner : "Why are you a Christian?" Here is the CBN News transcript of his answer (the article also includes a video of the Q&A and a transcript of his response in the Q&A to a question about abortion rights):

I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t ... frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me into church. I came to my Christian faith later in life. ... It was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life I would want to lead. Being by brother’s keepers ... treating others as they would treat me ... also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings. ... We’re sinful, and we’re flawed, and we make mistakes, and we achieve salvation through the grace of God. ... We can still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. So that’s what I strive to do and pray to do every day. ... I think my public service is a part of that effort to express my Christian faith.

But the one thing I want to emphasize ... as President of the United States, I’m also someone who deeply believes part of the bedrock strength of this country is that it embraces people of many faiths and of no faiths. This is a country that is still predominantly Christian, but we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own, and that’s part of what makes our country what it is.

Egypt's Coptic Leader Apologizes For Bishop's Questioning of Qur'anic Verses

The leader of Egypt's Coptic Christian Church, Pope Shenouda III, in an interview aired on Egypt's state-run television Sunday apologized to Muslims for remarks made recently by the church's top bishop. Al-Azhar criticized Bishop Bishoy for provoking sectarian tension after Egyptian media quoted him as suggesting that verses in the Qur'an disputing the divine nature of Jesus were inserted after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Daily News Egypt reports that Egypt's ambassador in Cyprus also raised the issue directly with Bishoy. The bishop has also contributed to rising tensions between Muslims and Copts by telling a newspaper last week that Muslims are only guests in Egypt. Egypt was majority Christian before the 7th century. Pope Shenouda said in his interview that it is now Christians who are guests since Muslims are the majority. Thousands of Muslims demonstrated Friday against Bishoy's statements and Al-Ahzar's Islamic Research Center held an emergency meeting to condemn the statements.

Pew Survey On Religious Knowledge Shows Confusion Over Religion In Schools

The Pew Forum yesterday released the results of a survey on U.S. Religious Knowledge (Executive Summary, Full Report). The survey of 3,412 Americans asked questions about the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, world religions, religion in public life and atheism. The groups scoring highest on the survey were atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons.  Here is the Report's summary of knowledge on church-state issues:

The survey also finds widespread confusion over the line between teaching and preaching in public schools.... [T]he single question that respondents most frequently get right is whether U.S. Supreme Court rulings allow teachers to lead public school classes in prayer. Nine-in-ten (89%) correctly say this is not allowed. But among the questions most often answered incorrectly is whether public school teachers are permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature. Fully two-thirds of people surveyed (67%) also say "no" to this question, even though the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Bible may be taught for its "literary and historic" qualities, as long as it is part of a secular curriculum. On a third question along these lines, just 36% of the public knows that comparative religion classes may be taught in public schools. Together, this block of questions suggests that many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are tighter than they really are.

The question on which respondents scored worst was identifying the religion of Maimonides. Only 8% knew he was Jewish.  Today's New York Times reports on the survey.

Property Tax Exempt As Parsonage, But Not As Property Use Exclusively For Religious Purposes

In Rockland Hebrew Educational Center, Inc. v. The Village of Spring Valley, (NY Sup Ct, Sept. 8, 2010),  a Jewish religious educational organization challenged a village's refusal to renew the tax exemption for its property. A New York trial court held that the village carried its burden of showing that the property was not entitled to a tax exemption as real property owned by a religious or educational institution and used exclusively for those purposes. The exemption was unavailable because the organization was also using the property in violation of the zoning code by conducting religious services there. However the property is entitled to an exemption for property owned by a religious organization and used as a parsonage by its clergy.

Cert Filed In Challenge To Inauguration Oath and Prayers

Yesterday a Petition for Certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in Newdow v. Roberts. In the case, the majority of a 3-judge appeals court panel held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to prayer and use of "so help me God" in the oath at Presidential inauguration ceremonies. The panel also held that the challenge was now moot. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]