Religion Clause

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Catholics' Challenge To Critical San Francisco Resolution Dismissed By En Banc 9th Circuit

In Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., Oct. 22, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, en banc, dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Catholic League and two individual Catholics challenging on Establishment Clause grounds a resolution passed by the San Francisco (CA) Board of Supervisors. The Resolution, adopted in in 2006, "urg[ed] Cardinal William Levada ... to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households." A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit had dismissed the case. (See prior posting.) A majority of the eleven judges of the 9th Circuit en banc agreed that the case should be dismissed-- 5 would dismiss on standing grounds (without reaching the merits) and 3 would dismiss on the merits. Conversely 6 judges concluded that the plaintiffs had standing, but only 3 concluded that plaintiffs should have prevailed on the merits.

Judge Kleinfield, joined by Judges Thomas, Silverman, Clifton, Bybee and Ikuta, comprised the majority finding standing. Judge Kleinfield wrote:

The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views, and official urging by their government that their local religious representative defy their church. Their “personal stake” assures the “concrete adverseness” required.... Plaintiffs aver that not only does the resolution make them feel like second-class citizens, but that their participation in the political community will be chilled by the City’s hostility to their church and their religion.

Judge Graber, joined by Chief Judge Rymer and Judges Kozinski, Hawkins and McKeown would have dismissed on standing grounds. Judge Graber wrote:

I agree with the District of Columbia Circuit that, "[w]hen plaintiffs are not themselves affected by a government action except through their abstract offense at the message allegedly conveyed by that action, they have not shown injury-in-fact to bring an Establishment Clause claim."

On the merits, Judge Silverman, in an opinion joined by Judge Bybee and Ikuta, concluded:

duly-elected government officials have the right to speak out in their official capacities on matters of secular concern to their constituents, even if their statements offend the religious feelings of some of their other constituents. The key here is that the resolution in question had a primarily secular purpose and effect and addressed a matter of indisputably civic concern.

However Judge Kleinfield, joined by Judges Thomas and Clifton, wrote:

We have not found another Establishment Clause case brought by people whose religion was directly condemned by their government.... For the government to resolve officially that "Catholic doctrine is wrong," is as plainly violative of the Establishment Clause as for the government to resolve that "Catholic doctrine is right."

SF Appeal today reports on the decision. [Corrected].

Ohio Middle School Science Teacher Drops Suit Over His Firing For Promoting Religion

Today's Mount Vernon (OH) News reports that on Thursday, Ohio middle school science teacher John Freshwater and his wife filed a stipulation along with the Mount Vernon (OH) school board asking an Ohio federal court to dismiss Freshwater's religious discrimination and other claims. Freshwater was fired for posting copies of the Ten Commandments in his classroom, refusing to remove his personal Bible from on his desk, and a storing a box of Bibles in the back of the classroom for use by the school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes. It was also claimed that an in-class experiment with a Tesla coil left a mark on a student's arm in the shape of a cross. (See prior posting.) No settlement was reached between the parties in the case, but apparently Freshwater has run out of funds and is now hoping to prevail when a referee issues a decision in his administrative appeal of his firing. The referee heard 38 days of testimony. Referring to the fact that the school board has not paid anything in settlement to him in exchange for his dropping the case, Freshwater said: "We have already spent our life savings and have pledged our farm to get to the truth. It is better to leave the money on the table than to take the Bible off of my desk." The school's attorney said there was never any monetary settlement offer for Freshwater to reject.

Cert. Petition Filed In "Ministerial Exception" Case

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that parochial school teachers who teach primarily secular subjects are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. They are not "ministerial employees" who are excepted from coverage. (See prior posting.) The Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the petition seeking Supreme Court review. [Thanks to Douglas Laycock for the lead.]

Tax Exempt Status of Prayer Breakfast Sponsor Challenged

According to the Washington Post last week, an Ohio-based clergy group, ClergyVOICE, filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service on Oct. 12 (full text) challenging the tax-exempt status of the Fellowship Foundation, the organization that sponsors the National Prayer Breakfast. The Foundation received two $25,000 checks in 2004 from the Missouri-based Islamic-American Relief Agency which was included on a Senate Finance Committee list of organizations that finance terrorist activities. In an indictment, the Justice Department claims that the funds were stolen from an AID grant for relief work in Mali. Allegedly, some $18,000 of the funds were funneled through the Fellowship Foundation and used to pay former Congressman Mark J. Siljander for lobbying to get IARA off the Senate Finance Committee list. The remaining $32,000 was allegedly retained by the Foundation, and possibly used to fund overseas travel for member of Congress or to fund the C Street Center which provided subsidized housing to certain members of Congress. The Foundation denies that it retained any of the funds or that it used them for these purposes.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Court Rejects Ethics Charge In Suit Challenging Establishment Clause Settlement

Responding rather quickly to a filing with it of a "Notice Suggesting Improper or Unethical Conduct" on the part of defendants (see prior posting), a federal district court in Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County Florida, (ND FL, Oct. 21, 2010), yesterday issued an order (full text) concluding that "The notice merits no action by the court." At issue was a charge that a high school principal did not authorized filings made on his behalf in a suit challenging a settlement of an Establishment Clause challenge to religious practices in the Santa Rosa, Florida school district. [Thanks to Glenn Katon and Randall Marshall for the lead.]

New Survey Says 33% Believe Religious Messages Contribute To Gay Suicides

A survey released yesterday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Partnership with Religion News Service shows that 33% of Americans believe that messages from places of worship are contributing "a lot" to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youths. 42% gave places of worship a grade of "D" or "F" on their handling of the issue of homosexuality. However 75% of white evangelicals gave their own church an "A" or "B" in its handling of the issue. Young adults and Democrats are more likely than older Americans and Republicans to be critical of messages from religious groups about gays and lesbians.

Obama Visit To Sikh Temple In India Scrubbed, Apparently Over Head Covering Issue

President Obama will visit India next month. The New York Times reported yesterday that Sikhs in the United States are distressed that tentative plans for him to include a stop at the Golden Temple in Amristar have been cancelled. It is reported that part of the reason for the cancellation is the Sikh tradition that men tie a piece of cloth on their heads before entering the Temple. Apparently the White House is concerned that photos of the President wearing a Sikh headscarf will further false perceptions that he is Muslim, not Christian. However security reasons may also be playing a part since the Temple is near the Pakistan border. Sikh groups in the U.S. are encouraging Obama to reconsider, saying that a visit by him would allow Sikhs to introduce themselves to the world. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama's schedule is not finalized

Germany's President Urges Turks To Give More Religious Freedom To Christians

According to Today's Zaman, Germany's president, Christian Wulff, on an official trip to Turkey has used two events to urge more freedom of religion for Christians in Turkey. Both in remarks to the Turkish Parliament in Ankara on Wednesday and at a mass held in the historic St. Paul Church in Tarsus-- now a museum-- Wulff urged legal changes to assure full religious freedom for Christians. At Tarsus, he emphasized the need to reopen the Halki seminary on Heybeliada so Christian clergy can be educated in the country. Recently Turkey has allowed Christians to hold Mass at two historic churches.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

NPR Fires Juan Williams Over Remarks About Muslims Delivered On Fox News

Yesterday evening, NPR terminated its contract with its news analyst, Juan Williams, after Williams made comments on Fox News about his views of Muslims. The New York Times today reports that Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, made the offending comments while appearing on The O'Reilly Factor in response to a question posed to him by Bill O'Reilly. Williams said in part:

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

NPR issued a statement saying that the remarks were inconsistent with NPR's editorial standards and undermined Williams' credibility as an NPR analyst. In response, former Republican governors Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, both Fox News personalities, called for Congress to defund NPR. (CBS News.)

Maryland High Court Judge Responds To Dissent With Biblical Midrash

Maryland's highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals, today decided a case on the applicability of the statute of frauds provision of the Maryland Credit Agreement Act. In Pease v. Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc., (MD Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2010), three judges in a partial dissent argued in part that the majority should have "amplified" its reasoning. Reacting to that criticism, the majority opinion by Judge Harrell [corrected] added this footnote (n.7), responding with a Midrash from Jewish religious writings:

The Concurring and Dissenting opinion's efforts to grapple with the Maryland Credit Agreement Act's plain language, legislative history, and how other jurisdictions may havetreated debatably similar facts under arguably similar statutory schemes, where not entirely necessary, call to mind the story of the Exodus. The Midrashic interpretation of the Exodus from Egypt recounts that, upon reaching the Red Sea, the waters did not automatically part before the Israelites. MIDRASH RABBAH, VOL. III 272 (S.M. Lehrman, trans., 3d ed. 1983). While the Israelites stood by the shore contemplating their impending doom, Nahshon Ben Amminadab entered the water until the sea reached his nostrils. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA VOL. IX 146 (Funk & Wagnall 1905); MIDRASH RABBAH, supra. It was not until this act of self-sacrifice that the sea’s waters parted. Imagine, however, that there was a way for the Israelites to continue on their path without having to wade in water over their heads. The Concurring and Dissenting opinion here takes on the Maryland Credit Agreement Act at least up to its eyebrows; we wade in, however, only up to our nostrils.

We regret that the quality of our abridged analysis apparently does not meet the more rigorous standards expected by the subscribers to the Concurring and Dissenting opinion.

Free Exercise Challenge To Custody Decree Rejected

In Forthner v. Forthner, (MS App., Oct. 19, 2010), a Mississippi court of appeals rejected a father's religious free exercise challenge to a judge's decision giving his wife custody of their children and denying the husband separate maintenance. The appellate court explained:

In this case, Desmond bases his claim of religious discrimination on exchanges within the record where the chancellor provided his opinion that Desmond should reconsider his attitude toward the children and "rethink the idea that children should always be told the truth." Desmond asserts that his idea regarding truthfulness is based on his religious beliefs. The chancellor's view on Desmond's attitude was in no way derogatory toward a religious practice.... The record simply does not support the contention that the chancellor's decision regarding the issues of custody and separate maintenance were in any way influenced by Desmond's religion.

High School Cancels Football Prayers In Response To Group's Complaint

My Fox Memphis reported yesterday that in response to a complaint by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (full text of letter), Hamilton County, Tennessee school superintendent Jim Scales has ordered an end to public prayers at a district high school's football games. According to yesterday's Chattanooga Times Free Press , traditionally Hamilton County's Soddy-Daisy High School has broadcast Christian prayers over loudspeakers at football games and at graduation the salutatorian delivers a prayer. Before the superintendent's decision, Hamilton County school board member Rhonda Thurman defended the practice saying that the prayers are part of the school's tradition anyone who does not wish to hear them can "put their fingers in their ears." She continued" "Everybody is offended by something. I'm offended by a lot of those little girls running around with their thong panties showing, but I can't make that go away." And a parent of the student football team manager said: "People who find Christianity contrary to their beliefs shouldn’t be offended that [Christians] have the freedom to express their religious beliefs."

Iowa Absentee Voting During Church Services Concerns ACLU

Iowa law provides that county auditors may approve satellite absentee voting stations at which voters can cast an absentee ballot prior to election day. Today's Des Moines Register reports that for the first time, two Ames Iowa churches will host absentee voting during church services. The Iowa ACLU is concerned about the move, especially because of the church-based campaign in Iowa to unseat state Supreme Court justices over their decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) However church representatives say they will not instruct their members how to vote. Apparently the move to have churches host satellite voting was initiated by county auditor Mary Mosiman, not by the churches. Three other churches will also host satellite voting, but not during the time of church services.

Filing Suggests Improper Conduct In Santa Rosa School Litigation

Yesterday brought another unusual development in the long-running litigation challenging religious practices in the Santa Rosa, Florida schools. In March 2009, the Santa Rosa County School Board agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it by the ACLU challenging various religious practices in the school system. (See prior posting.) In May 2010, a large group of parents, teachers, staff, students, former students, and community residents sued to enjoin the school board and superintendent from enforcing the settlement. (See prior posting.) In Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11111 (ND FL, Aug. 20, 2010), the court found that the principal of Pace High School and other plaintiffs in the original lawsuit that led to the challenged settlement are indispensable parties and ordered them joined. In response, in September a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of principal Bryan Shell. Now, in a motion with the court titled "Notice of Potentially Improper or Unethical Conduct," plaintiffs claim that the principal in fact never agreed to submissions on his behalf. The current filing declares in part:

These facts suggest that the two existing Defendants in this suit may have considered the Court’s invitation to the Principal as merely an opportunity for them to have a third bite of the litigation apple, and are using the office of Principal to suit their purposes without the knowledge, much less authorization, of the duly appointed occupant of that office. This prejudices Plaintiffs, by requiring them to respond to a third set of arguments and motions in this litigation controlled and advanced entirely by two existing parties.

The allegations in the filing are supported by affidavits not of the principal, but of the principal's secretary and of a reading coach who say that the principal told them he had not authorized participation in the lawsuit or any filings on his behalf, that he never saw the filings and is upset that someone took action on his behalf without his authorization. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing.

Father Acquitted of Contempt Over Charges of Taking Daughter To Mass

Last May, in a widely publicized custody case, Joseph Reyes was ordered to stand trial for criminal contempt for violating a court order that he not expose his daughter to any religion other than Judaism. (See prior posting.) The order was issued after Reyes, in the midst of a divorce proceeding, sent his wife, who was raising their daughter in the Jewish faith, photos of his taking their daughter to be baptized. Reyes responded by inviting a television crew to film him taking the daughter to Catholic Mass. Chicago Breaking News reports that at Reyes trial yesterday, a Cook County judge said there was no evidence to prove that Reyes had violated the order. The video introduced at trial did not show the daughter's face or show her at Mass.The restriction on Reyes taking the daughter to church was removed in the couple's final divorce decree, and Reyes has taken his daughter to Christmas and Easter services. His wife is appealing the provisions in the final decree that permit this.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Minnesota Secretary of State Candidate Says No Church-State Separation Requirement Exists

Yesterday's Minnesota Independent reports that Minnesota Republican Secretary of State candidate Dan Severson has been giving interviews on conservative religious radio in recent weeks arguing that there is no requirement for separation of church and state. Here is part of his interview by Brad Brandon on World of Truth Radio Show:

Quite often you hear people say, ‘What about separation of church and state?’ There is no such thing. I mean it just does not exist, and it does not exist in America for a purpose, because we are a Christian nation. We are a nation based on Christian principles and ideals, and those are the things that guarantee our liberties. It is one of those things that is so fundamental to the freedoms that we have that when you begin to restrict our belief and our attestation to our Christian values you begin to restrict our liberties. You simply cannot continue a nation as America without that Christian base of liberty.

Turkey Acquits 2 Christian Missionaries of Most Charges

Compass Direct News yesterday reported that two volunteers with the Bible Research Center were acquitted by a court in Turkey on Oct. 14 of charges that they had violated Art. 301 of the Turkish Penal Code that prohibits insulting the Turkish state, and Art. 216 that prohibits insulting the Turkish people. The charges were initially filed in 2006 after a complaint to police that Christian missionaries were attempting to form illegal groups in schools and insulting Turkishness, the military and Islam. It was alleged that they were portraying Islam as a primitive and fictitious religion that results in terrorism and portrayed the Turks as cursed. However no evidence was produced to support these charges. The two men were however convicted of collecting information on citizens without permission (Art. 135) and fined the equivalent of $3170 (US) in lieu of 7 months in prison-- apparently for using contact information people provided on their organization's website. Defendants Turan Topol and Hakan Tastan said their attempts to disseminate information about Christianity was constitutionally protected. The two converted from Islam to Christianity 15 years ago.

Delaware Senatorial Debate: O'Donnell Supports Intelligent Design, Is Unaware of 1st Amendment's Text

Richard Adams's Blog at the Guardian reports on Tuesday's Debate at Widener Law School between the two candidates for U.S. Senate from Delaware. It includes an 8 minute video from the debate between Republican/ Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell and Democrat Chris Coons which first shows O'Donnell strongly supporting the right of local school boards to authorize schools to teach the theory of "intelligent design" along with evolution. In another part of the exchange, O'Donnell appears incredulous when Coons tells her that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and requires the separation of church and state. After the debate, O'Donnell's campaign tried to explain her response by saying that the specific words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution.

Kentucky Senatorial Candidate Exchange Bitter Religious Charges

The U.S. Senate race in Kentucky has spawned competing TV ads focusing on aspects of each candidate's religious background or views. Initially, Democrat Jack Conway ran this ad focusing on a secret society to which Republican Rand Paul belonged 27 years ago as a student at Baylor University. As transcribed in yesterday's Cherry Hill (NJ) Courier Post, the ad features a narrator asking:

Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible "a hoax," that was banned for mocking Christianity and Christ? Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up, tell her to make her bow down before a false idol and say his god was Aqua Buddha? Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?

Rand Paul countered with this ad, accusing Jack Conway of "bearing false witness" against his political opponent. In the ad, a narrator assures viewers that "Paul keeps Christ in his heart and in the life he shares with his wife and three boys." At Sunday night's candidate debate in Louisville, Paul charged that Conway had "descended into the gutter to attack my Christian beliefs." Paul refused to shake Conway's hand at the end of the debate, saying: "I will not be associated with someone who attacks my religion." (CBS News.)

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Bhutan Sentences Christian Man To Prison For Showing Religious Films

Charisma News reported yesterday that in the predominately Buddhist nation of Bhutan, a local court in the town of Gelephu on October 6 sentenced Christian activist Prem Singh Gurung to three years in prison for showing films on Christianity. In two small villages that lacked electricity, Gurung (a citizen of Nepal) brought in a generator and projector and invited residents to watch Nepali movies. In between features, he showed Christian films. Authorities charged Gurung with attempting to promote civil unrest and with violating Secs. 105 and 110 of the Bhutan Information, Communication and Media Act of 2006 that requires advance government review of all films intended for public exhibition.

Anti-Muslim Sentiment Grows In Germany

A Reuters report carried today by Bernama reviews the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Germany. According to the report: "Germany's inflamed public debate about Islam and integration risks serious overheating as politicians compete to make ever tougher statements criticizing Muslim immigrants they accuse of refusing to fit in here." The current round of criticisms was apparently flamed by a book, "Germany Abolishes Itself," written by Bundesbank council member Thilo Sarrazin. He portrays Muslims as welfare cheats who are outbreeding native Germans. Sarrazin was forced to resign after the book appeared, but many Germans agree with him. (Background.) A new poll shows that 58% of Germans say that Muslims' rights to practice their religion in Germany should be considerably limited. Opponents charge the ruling Christian Democratic and Free Democratic parties with using Muslims as scapegoats in the current economic crisis. However Germany's president Christian Wulff has called for integration of Muslims, saying that Islam belongs in Germany. (See prior related posting.)

Pastor Challenges IRS Non-Profit Limits With Endorsements From Pulpit

In an open challenge to the constitutionality of the tax code's ban on non-profits endorsing political candidates, a Hastings, Minnesota pastor has endorsed from the pulpit a slate of conservative candidates running for governor, other state offices and Congress after indicating in advance on a radio show that he would do so. Americans United announced yesterday that it had filed a formal complaint (full text) with the Internal Revenue Service over the activities of pastor Brad Brandon of Hastings' Berean Bible Baptist Church. In addition to the endorsements from the pulpit, Brandon also distributed a flyer during services listing the church's endorsements.The St. Paul Pioneer Press yesterday quoted Brandon as saying:

I'm not necessarily excited about an investigation or possible audit, but to me, that's a small price to pay. This is an issue of clergy not being able to say what they want. ... It is something I've been thinking about for quite some time. I've been praying about it. I see so much around me; we are losing our freedom to speak and speak out.

Yesterday's Minnesota Independent has a photo of the flyer and audio excerpts of Brandon's sermon.

Warren Jeffs Fights Extradition To Texas

Attorneys for Warren Jeffs, former leader of the polygamous FLDS Church, are seeking to quash an extradition warrant signed by Utah Governor Gary Herbert that would turn Jeffs over to Texas state authorities for trial on sexual assault and bigamy charges there. The move comes after the Utah Supreme Court overturned Jeffs' Utah conviction on charges of being an accomplice to rape because of improper jury instructions. (See prior posting). According to CNN, Jeffs argues that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply because Jeffs is not a person who has "entered upon a term of imprisonment" since his conviction was reversed. Apparently Utah is relying upon the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act to authorize Jeffs transfer to Texas. Jeffs' attorneys argue that Utah and Texas have "shrouded their ungodly alliance in the semantics of extradition law."

Justice Department Files Amicus Brief In Mosque Case To Argue That Islam Is A Religion

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice yesterday announced the rather unusual move of filing an amicus brief (full text) in a case pending in a state trial court. Estes v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission is a lawsuit in Rutherford County, Tennessee Chancery Court seeking to halt construction of a controversial Islamic center being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Plaintiffs in the case have argued, among other things, that Islam should be classified as a political or ideological movement, not a religion, and that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. (See prior posting.) The Justice Department's brief counters these claims, arguing that Islam is a religion entitled to First Amendment protection and that the proposed Islamic Center and mosque is a place of religious assembly protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Reporting on the filing, AP quotes the Tennessee U.S. Attorney who said: "Plaintiffs' implication that Islam is not a recognized religion by the United States is wrong and is not supported by any authority whatsoever."

Megachurch Files For Bankruptcy Protection

Garden Grove, California's mega-church, the Crystal Cathedral Ministries, founded by Dr. Robert H. Schuller, announced yesterday that it is filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Act protection. The Orange County Register reports that the cathedral owes unsecured creditors some $7.5 million, including $56,000 to the livestock supplier who supplied camels, horses and sheep for the cathedral's Glory of Christmas Pageant. The bankruptcy filing occurred after a committee of creditors refused to extend a moratorium which had been agreed to so negotiations could proceed.

Party's Ballot Listing Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In McMillan v. New York State Board of Elections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109894 (ED NY, Oct. 15, 2010), James McMillan, the founder of the Rent Is Too Damn High party, sued for $350 million in damages claiming that the New York City board of elections violated his constitutional rights in removing the word "Damn" from his party's name in listing him on the 2009 New York City mayoral ballot. (Claims as to earlier elections were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds and claims against the state election board were dismissed on 11th Amendment grounds.) The city board of elections contended that ballot space limitations require that a Party's name not to exceed 15 characters. Plaintiff claims the city board of elections was motivated by religious concerns in removing "Damn" for his party's name, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court found, however, that McMillan offered no evidence to support his charges that the board's actions were religiously motivated. The court also rejected McMillan's free speech, equal protection and due process arguments. In earlier proceedings, the parties agreed that on future ballots the party will be listed as "Rent Is 2 Damn High", thus meeting the 15 character limit.

Monday, October 18, 2010

New Jersey Environmental Officials Challenge Ritual Burial of Holy Objects

Jewish religious law requires shaimos-- certain worn out religious items such as old books containing the name of God and certain religious garments-- to be disposed of by burial instead of merely being thrown into the trash. Asbury Park (NJ) Press last week reported on a lawsuit in state court in New Jersey in which the state Department of Environmental Protection is attempting to require Rabbi Chaim Abadi to dig up truckloads of shaimos buried in two different sites in New Jersey. Apparently state environmental officials were present at the first site (in Jackson, NJ) when the burial took place and "looked the other way." However after a second site in Lakewood, NJ was used, officials objected to both saying they are near a water well and protected wetlands. An April article from the Asbury Park Press says that over 2000 bags of sacred Jewish texts and clothing were disposed of at the Lakewook location. Rabbi Abadi has found another site at a Lakewood Jewish cemetery to which the shaimos could be removed. However that also requires Department of Environmental Protection approval and so far that has not been forthcoming. Apparently environmental officials are claiming that the shaimos constitutes solid waste and must be moved to a licensed landfill.

British Cabinet Minister Criticizes Cities' Tax Breaks For Scientology

City tax authorities in four British cities-- London, Westminster, Birmingham and Sunderland-- have given the Church of Scientology property tax relief even though it is not classified as a charitable religious organization by the Charity Commission. Free Internet Press reported last week that Britain's Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has criticized the action by the various cities, saying: "Councils may award charitable relief. They should take into consideration the Charity Commission's rulings when weighing up whether to do so. I do not believe the majority of the public would want their own council to be giving special tax breaks to such a controversial organization."

Indian State Announces Quick Compensation To Kin of 10 Killed In Temple Stampede

AFP reports that in the Indian state of Bihar, outside a Hindu temple in the Banka district, a stampede late Saturday killed ten and injured 15 others as thousands came to the temple to sacrifice goats for the Hindu festival of Durga Puja (also known as Navartri Puja)-- a festival honoring the mother goddess Durga. AFP says that the stampede was caused by rumors that a portion of the temple had collapsed or that snakes had entered it. However an AP report carried by the Wall Street Journal says that the injuries were triggered by arguments among those in attendance over whose goats would be sacrificed first. Some 30,000 goats were sacrificed at the temple on Saturday. According to Sify News, the Bihar disaster management department has announced that it would pay Rs.1 lakh (around $2270 US) to each relative of those killed.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

China Bars House Church Members From Attending International Conference

The New York Times reported Friday that in China more than 100 Christians were barred by authorities from leaving the country to attend the Third Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization that begins today in Cape Town, South Africa. The Christians seeking to attend are members of unofficial "house churches" in China. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Conference organizers did not invite representatives of China's official Christian churches and instead:

secretly extended multiple invitations to Christians who privately set up meeting points. This action publicly challenges the principle of independent, autonomous, domestically organized religious associations, and therefore represents a rude interference in Chinese religious affairs.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Hall v. Ekpe, (2d Cir., Oct. 13, 2010), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim that a prison policy allowing attendance at formal Ramadan services only to inmates identified by the prison's chaplain as observant Muslims violated plaintiff's 1st Amendment rights. The court reserved judgment on plaintiff's damage claim under RLUIPA pending decision by the United States Supreme Court in a pending case on whether damages can be awarded in official capacity suits under RLUIPA. (See prior posting.)

In Avery v. Thompson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106937 (ND CA, Oct. 4, 2010), a prisoner complained that his free exercise rights were infringed when 265 pamphlets published by a White supremacist publisher were confiscated from him. Since no evidence was introduced about the actual contents of any of the pamphlets, the court denied prison authorities' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, indicating that a reneewed motion could be made with a proper evidentiary showing.

In Krieger v. Brown, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108822 (ED NC, Oct. 13, 2010), a North Carolina federal district court rejected a prisoner's claim that his rights under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment were violated by prison authorities refusal of his requests to use certain ritual items and an outdoor worship circle in the practice of his Asatru religion.

In Butler v. Hogue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109072 (ND NY, Oct. 13, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109075, Feb. 4, 2010) and dismissed an inmate's claims that his 1st, 8th and 14th Amendment rights were violated when prison authorities served him a contaminated kosher meal on one occasion and soup in a defective container on another.

In Brancho v. Alexander, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109581 (ND OH, Oct. 14, 2010), an Ohio federal district court dismissed an inmate's free exercise claims that he was denied a religious diet and religious services because the complaint failed to allege adequate facts to show a violation and failed to connect particular defendants with the claims.

In Sayed v. Profitt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109221 (D CO, Sept. 27, 2010), a Colorado federal district court rejected a claim by a Muslim inmate that his free exercise rights were violated because he was unable to perform full ablution before Friday Jum'ah prayers. The claims for injunctive relief were moot because the inmate had been moved to a different facility. Some of the damage claims were barred by the 11th Amendment. As to others, the court found no violation of plaintiff's free exercise rights because substitute ablution is an adequate alternative.

Supreme Court Review Sought In RLUIPA Case

According to the Longmont (CO) Times Call, a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado. In the case, the 10th Circuit upheld a jury's determination that denial of a special use permit to a church violated the equal terms and unreasonable limitations provisions of RLUIPA. (See prior posting.) The 10th Circuit subsequently denied a rehearing after making minor changes in its original opinion. (See prior posting.)

Pastor Who Reversed Qur'an Threat Now Claims Car Offered To Him

In the midst of high-profile threats by Florida pastor Terry Jones to sponsor a Sept. 11 burning of Qur'ans (see prior posting), a New Jersey car dealer known for his unusual ads used one of those ads to offer Jones a year's free use of a new car if he did not go through with his plans. According to AP on Friday, now that Jones has decided for other reasons not to burn Qur'ans, he is asking car dealer Brad Benson for the car. Jones says he will not keep the car for himself, but will donate it to an organization that helps abused Muslim women. Car dealer Benson says he will now donate the car outright to Jones because he does not want to be connected to whatever Jones does with the car.

Council of Europe Parliament Affirms Healthcare Providers' Right To Conscientious Objection

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on Oct. 7 adopted a resolution (full text) supporting the right of conscientious objection by medical providers. As reported by Radio Free Europe last week, the PACE's Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee presented a very different draft (full text) to the Assembly. The draft focused on the problems posed by "unregulated use of conscientious objection," and recommended limiting its availability to individual health care providers directly involved in performing a procedure, and not to public hospitals and clinics as a whole. The original proponents of the resolution would have gone even further and totally banned conscientious objection even by individual providers. PACE debated the proposal extensively. (See Press Release.) The resolution it adopted ended up broadly supporting conscientious objection. The resolution reads in part:

No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

White House Defends Conference Call To Faith-Based Leaders On Health Care Reform

CNN yesterday reported that the White House is responding to criticisms of its faith-based office leveled by former Bush administration officials. At issue was a conference call to leaders of faith based and community groups by President Obama and Joshua DuBois, his director of faith-based initiatives, urging the leaders on the call to help explain the advantages of the Obama health care plan to their constituencies. (See prior posting). In a blog posting on the White House website yesterday, Joshua DuBois said in part:

recently, President Obama hosted a conference call with thousands of religious and community leaders to share important information about new health care benefits that will impact those in need. There could hardly be a more appropriate audience. When congregants falls ill, faith communities come together to support their brothers and sisters in need. And when families struggle, they often turn to religious leaders for the spiritual and practical support to move forward. This is why faith leaders requested information about a new health care law that includes, for example, provisions that make it illegal for insurance companies to deny care to sick children, and allows young people to remain on their parent’s health insurance until they turn 26.

White House Faith Based Head Keynotes Vatican Conference On Interfaith Action

This week Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, delivered the keynote address (full text) at the Holy See's Conference on Interfaith Action held in the Vatican. He said in part:

My Office is also tasked with assessing, and improving, the United States Government’s engagement of religious issues and religious actors around the globe. President Obama believes that faith-based organizations can be powerful catalysts for development and social action: from rebuilding communities ravished by natural disasters to responding to outbreaks of deadly disease. The President also believes that while faith-based groups are powerful as singular actors, they can multiply their impact by joining across religious lines: Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, retaining their individual beliefs but coming together to serve communities around the globe in times of dire need. My Office seeks to create opportunities for this sort of interfaith engagement, and for the first time develop mechanisms for the United States Government to systematically partner with religious organizations abroad.

Bolivia Enacts Broad Anti-Discrimination Law, But Impact On Media Protested

On October 8, Bolivian President Evo Morales signed the newly enacted Law Against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination. According to Workers World, the law prohibits racism and also prohibits discrimination based religion as well as numerous other grounds. A translation of the anti-discrimination section is furnished as part of the Andean Information Network's analysis of the law:

A person who arbitrarily or illegally obstructs, restricts, infringes upon, impedes or prevents the exercise of individual or collective rights, motivated by sex, age, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, cultural identity, family affiliation, nationality, citizenship, language, religious creed, ideology, political opinion or philosophy, marital status, economic or social situation, illness, occupation, level of education, being differently abled or having a physical, intellectual or sensory disability, pregnancy, regional origin, physical appearance and dress, will be sanctioned to a prison sentence between one and five years.

The news media oppose two sections of the new law that prohibit the media from publishing or broadcasting racist or discriminatory statements, even when reporting statements by third parties. Sanctions include withdrawal of operating licenses and prison sentences for journalists and media owners. CNN reports that 28 journalists in Santa Cruz are on a hunger strike in protest, fearing that the government will use the new law to muzzle media outlets that publish articles supporting political opponents. Journalists and others are seeking a national referendum on the provisions that impact the press.

Hundreds Turn Out for "Islam on Capital Hill"

CNN reports that hundreds of Muslims today turned out on in Washington for Islam on Capitol Hill. Event organizer Abdul Malik said that the event, which he hopes to hold annually, is aimed mainly at Muslim young people. Malik said: "Muslim children need to know that this is their country and that they have a responsibility to protect and honor it. I want to make sure they're not radicalized by any elements, especially on the internet." The day included tours of Congress, prayers, speeches and a banquet.

7th Circuit Upholds Illinois Moment of Silence Law

In a 2-1 decision yesterday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Illinois' Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act against Establishment Clause and vagueness challenges. The Act requires every public school classroom to open with "a brief period of silence." The statute goes on to provide: "This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day." The majority in Sherman v. Koch, (7th Cir., Oct. 15, 2010), held:

The Illinois legislature had a secular purpose in passing Section 1, namely mandating a period of silence to calm school children before the start of their day. There is no evidence that the secular purpose is a sham and that Illinois’s true purpose was to promote prayer. And there is nothing impermissible about clarifying that students may pray during that time period. Section 1 also does not advance or inhibit religion (or specific religions that practice momentary silent prayer), but rather mandates only a period of silence. There is also no state entanglement with religion. Therefore, Section 1 satisfies the Lemon test and Sherman’s First Amendment challenge fails. Sherman’s vagueness challenge also fails because Section 1 is not unconstitutionally vague in all of its operations.

Judge Williams dissenting however argued:

The Act makes what I believe to be an unnecessary reference to prayer, signaling a predominantly religious purpose to the statute. And by enumerating prayer as one of only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options. I have concluded that the purpose and effect of the Act is to encourage prayer in public schools, which violates the first two prongs of the Lemon test.

The Chicago Tribune reports on the decision. Among the advocacy groups issuing press releases on the case were the ACLU of Illinois and Alliance Defense Fund. (See prior related posting.)

Friday, October 15, 2010

School Board Drops Bible Class In Response To Lawsuit

Indy Channel News today reports that in response to an ACLU lawsuit filed earlier this month, the Fairfield, Indiana school district board voted unanimously yesterday to end a Bible class that was offered in the district's New Paris Elementary School. The suit was filed on behalf of a first-grader and his mother, alleging that the student was left unsupervised in the school hallway during the 20-minute weekly class after his mother opted him out of it. Even though the school board's attorney advised the board that they would clearly lose the federal court lawsuit, 48 people attending the school board meeting urged the board to fight the suit. One parent told the board: "Anything through God is possible."

USCIRF Urges Obama To Raise Religious Freedom Issues On His Trip To Indonesia, India

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom this week sent a letter (full text) to President Obama urging him to highlight the importance of religious freedom during his upcoming visits to Indonesia and India. On Indonesia, the letter said:

In our visit earlier this year, USCIRF was impressed by the commitments made by officials from different levels of government to advance religious freedom and related human rights as essential to Indonesia’s democratic future. However, strong political forces, terrorist networks, and extremist groups continue to challenge Indonesia’s democratic trajectory and are a source of ongoing, serious violations of religious freedom and related human rights.

As to India, USCIRF said:

India’s democracy, religious pluralism, and tradition of religious tolerance are truly noteworthy. Despite this history of tolerance and the current national government’s commitment to sustaining it, unfortunately episodic communal violence continues to occur. The governmental response, particularly at the state and local levels, has not been adequate, and justice for victims, such as those in Gujarat and Orissa, often has been slow and ineffective.

5th Circuit Upholds Texas Pledge Against Establishment Clause Attack

In Croft v. Perry, (5th Cir., Oct. 13, 2010), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the Texas pledge of allegiance (which includes the phrase "one state under God") and to a state statute requiring school students to recite the pledge each day. Treating the suit as a facial challenge to the pledge and the related statute, the court concluded:

The pledge is a patriotic exercise, and it is made no less so by the acknowledgment of Texas’s religious heritage via the inclusion of the phrase "under God." A pledge can constitutionally acknowledge the existence of, and even value, a religious belief without impermissibly favoring that value or belief, without advancing belief over non-belief, and without coercing participation in a religious exercise.

The Houston Chronicle reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Kate Shellnutt for the lead.]

Malaysia Promotes Islamic Finance

Islamic banking is growing fast in Malaysia which is promoting itself as the world's center for Shariah compliant financial products. Bloomberg Business Week reports today that Malaysian banking assets that comply with the Islamic ban on interest rose to the equivalent of $109 billion (US)-- 20% of Malaysia's total banking assets. Also Islamic insurance (takaful) now accounts for 9% of Malaysia's insurance industry. The Ministry of Finance's 2010-2011 Economic Report sets out the new data.

Mixed Response To Schools' Limits On Wearing Rosaries

Catholic News Service this week reported that the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, Colorado has decided not to oppose a decision by some Colorado Springs schools to allow students to wear rosaries only if they are tucked into their shirts. The Diocese said in an Oct. 12 statement: "Because some gangs in the local area have decided to wear rosaries as jewelry as a symbol of their gang affiliation, the diocese does not oppose the decision by some schools in School District 11 to ask students who choose to wear rosaries to keep them inside their shirts." Last week the ACLU announced it opposed the school's policy and the American Center for Law and Justice sent a letter to the principal of Mann Middle School threatening to sue on behalf of a student if the policy is not changed. (UPI). However Colorado Springs Diocese judicial vicar and chancellor Msgr. Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue said that rosaries are not meant to be jewelry and opposed the use of rosaries to symbolize gang membership. A memo from Mann Middle School to students and parents said that some Catholics are offended by rosaries being worn like fashion accessories.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Residents Protest Removal of Christian Flag From War Memorial

As previously reported, last month King City, North Carolina's city council voted to remove a Christian flag that had flown at the city's veteran's memorial along with U.S., state and other flags. Today's Daily Tar Heel reports that, in response, residents have been protesting. They placed a new Christian flag there on a temporary stand and are guarding it 24 hours a day. The protest will continue until Oct. 23 when there will be a march through town to support a return of the flag which depicts a soldier kneeling in front of a cross. Also local businesses and homes are now flying the flag and vendors are selling T-shirts and magnets depicting it. A supporter said: "We are not trying to represent diversity of the world. We are trying to represent the community and the values that the country was founded on."

Chaplain Says DADT Injunction Will Impact Ability To Counsel Soldiers

On Tuesday, a California federal district court in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2010), held, in a lengthy opinion, that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates due process and 1st Amendment speech and petition rights of gay and lesbian members of the armed forces. The accompanying 3-page order imposing a permanent injunction bars enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" and requires the government to discontinue any pending investigation or discharge under the rules. Baptist Press yesterday interviewed retired Chaplain (Col.) Keith Travis who is now chaplain team leader for the North American Mission Board, who said:

In order to best serve soldiers, our chaplains need to be able to practice their faith freely. Under this order, there's a question as to whether our chaplains would be able to offer the full counsel of Scripture to soldiers who seek their guidance.

CNN reported yesterday that even though the Obama administration opposes "don't ask, don't tell", the Justice Department is likely to seek an emergency stay of the district court's injunction and, if rejected by the district court, to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit.

Ontario High Court Says Allowing Witness To Wear Niqab Requires Contextual Analysis

In Canada yesterday, Ontario's highest appellate court held that a judge conducting a preliminary inquiry in a criminal case has discretion whether or not to permit Muslim women to testify with their face covered. In The Queen v. N.S., (Ont. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2010), defendants were charged with criminal sexual assault. The victim, niece and cousin of defendants, asserted the right to continue to wear her niqab, with her face covered, when testifying at the preliminary inquiry. The court said in part:

just as the preliminary inquiry judge has the power to regulate how and when a witness will testify, he or she has the power to determine whether a witness should be required to change his or her attire before testifying.... While it is clear that face to face confrontation between the accused and prosecution witnesses is the accepted norm in Canadian criminal courts, there is no independent constitutional right to a face to face confrontation.... Departures from the traditional face to face public confrontation between accused and witness will run afoul of the Charter only if they result in a denial of a fair trial to the accused...... A minimal interference with cross-examination would not impair an accused's right to a fair trial and would not justify any limitation on the witness's exercise of her right to freedom of religion....

The reconciliation may be very different at a preliminary inquiry, where the witness's credibility is essentially irrelevant, than at trial, where the outcome of the case and the accused's liberty may turn entirely on the witness's credibility....

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the contextual analysis is that which requires the court to take into account other constitutional values and societal interests.... N.S. is a Muslim, a minority that many believe is unfairly maligned and stereotyped in contemporary Canada. A failure to give adequate consideration to N.S.'s religious beliefs would reflect and, to some extent, legitimize that negative stereotyping. Allowing her to wear a niqab could be seen as a recognition and acceptance of those minority beliefs and practices and, therefore, a reflection of the multi-cultural heritage of Canada recognized in s. 27 of the Charter. Permitting N.S. to wear her niqab would also broaden access to the justice system for those in the position of N.S., by indicating that participation in the justice system would not come at the cost of compromising one's religious beliefs....

There is also a societal interest pointing against a witness wearing a niqab when testifying. Society has a strong interest in the visible administration of criminal justice in open courts where witnesses, lawyers, judges and the accused can be seen and identified by the public.... Attempts to reconcile competing interests using "constructive compromises" might include the use of an all female court staff and a female judge. Those measures might also include, where constitutionally permissible, an order that a witness be cross examined by female counsel.... If necessary, the court could be closed to all male persons other than the accused and his counsel. In this case, resort to the measures outlined above could result in N.S., if she was required to remove her niqab, revealing her face to only one male person, M---d.S., to whom her religious beliefs indicated she should not....

If the judge concludes that the wearing of the niqab in all of the circumstances would infringe the accused's right to make full answer and defence, that right must prevail over the witness's religious freedoms and the witness must be ordered to remove the niqab.

The Toronto Sun reported on the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Supreme Court Refuses Review In One Case; Permits SG To Argue In Another

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two orders of interest in the church-state/ religious freedom area. (Order list). It denied certiorari in Association of Christian Schools v. Stearns, (Docket No. 90-1461). In the case, the 9th Circuit rejected constitutional challenges to the University of California's admissions policy. The University refuses to accept certain high school courses offered by Christian schools as courses that will be counted to qualify students for admission. (See prior posting.)

In Garriott v. Winn (Docket No. 09-991) along with Arizona Christian School Organization v. Winn (Docket No. 09-987), -- both on the Court's docket for this term-- the Court granted the motion of the Acting Solicitor General to participate in oral argument on the side of appellant. In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit found taxpayer standing and ruled that, as applied, Arizona's tax credit of up to $500 to individuals who contribute funds to nonprofit "school tuition organizations" violates the Establishment Clause. The 9th Circuit then denied en banc review, but with 40 pages of opinions. (See prior posting.) The government in its amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court argues both that challengers lack standing to assert their claim and that on the merits the Arizona statute is a constitutionally permissible neutral program that permits individuals to direct aid to religious programs.

School Principal Sues Claiming Religious Discrimination After He Promoted Prayer Breakfast

In Santa Barbara, California, an elementary school principal has filed a lawsuit against the Goleta Union School District charging that the district is attempting to fire him because of his evangelical Protestant religious beliefs. Principal Craig Richter was disciplined and threatened with contract non-renewal after he appeared in a video promoting the 2010 Santa Barbara Community Prayer Breakfast which had a theme of honoring teachers. The complaint (full text) in Richter v. Goleta Union School District, (CD CA, filed 10/12/2010), claims that the district took action against him on the grounds that his participation in the video violated church-state restrictions by implying district endorsement of the prayer breakfast. The suit charges violation of Title VII, of California's employment discrimination law and of plaintiff's free speech rights. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release reporting the filing of the lawsuit.

Federal Government Appeals Cases That Invalidated DOMA

Reuters reports that the Justice Department yesterday filed notices of appeal in two companion rulings by a Massachusetts federal court that held the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Even though President Obama opposes DOMA, the Justice Department says it "is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." Bay Windows points out that the notices of appeal were filed on the last possible day for doing so.

European Commission To Investigate Italy's Tax Benefits To Church-Owned Commercial Property

Bloomberg News reported yesterday that the European Commission is opening an investigation into tax exemptions that Italy grants to the Catholic Church. In addition to a property tax exemption for non-commercial properties, Italy gives the Church a 50% reduction on the tax imposed on commercial property. European Union regulators say this may amount to an illegal state subsidy if the Church's commercial activities are in competiton with private commercial service providers. In a press release yesterday the European Commission also announced that it would examine Italian laws that protect ecclesiastical institutions (as well as amateur sports clubs) from losing tax exemptions for their property even if they begin to use formerly non-commercial property for commercial purposes.

Suit In Belarus Seeks Religious Burial For Executed Murderer

According to a report published yesterday by Forum 18, in Belarus the mother of convicted murderer Andrei Zhuk who was executed in March has filed a civil suit in Lenin District Court in Minsk seeking to obtain her son's body for religious burial. The suit against the Ministry of Interior's Department for the Execution of Punishments claims that the refusal to release Zhuk's body or tell his mother where he is buried violates the religious exercise rights of Zhuk's mother protected under Art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 21 of the Belarus Constitution obligates the government to guarantee rights specified in the country's international obligations.

Cert. Petition Filed In D.C.Refusal of Marriage Initiative

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday seeking review of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. In the case, D.C.'s highest appellate court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld election officials' refusal to accept a petition seeking an initiative vote to bar D.C. from recognizing same sex marriages. (See prior posting.) The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the D.C. Council violated the Congressionally approved D.C. Charter in limiting the issues that can be put to an initiative vote. An Alliance Defense Fund press release announces the filing of the cert. petition.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Court Says State Agency Can Ban Employee From Giving Faith-Based Counseling

In Moore v. Metropolitan Human Service District, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107997 (ED LA, Oct. 8, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a social worker employed by a state agency that provides counseling for patients suffering from addictive disorders. Plaintiff Beulah Moore is also an ordained minister. The clinic manager at the facility employing Moore ordered her to cease providing spiritual based counseling and prayer in her clinical treatment of clients. Evidence failed to support broader claims in Moore's complaint that she was also ordered to stop mentioning God at all in the work facility. (See prior related posting.) Moore resigned in a letter stating: "I refuse to be harassed and discriminated against because I speak of God, mention Jesus and have given Spiritual Support to clients on their request." The court concluded that the state agency was justified in restricting Moore's faith-based treatment of clients in order to avoid an Establishment Clause violation.

New Study Examines Assignments of Accused Priests In Chicago

Voice of the Faithful yesterday released a new study titled Priest Work History of Credibly Accused Priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago. It concludes that 60% of Chicago's parishes and institutions had an accused priest working there or in residence at some point in time. In 2009, 20% still had a credibly accused priest in residence. Most of the 97 credibly accused priests were assigned to parishes and institutions in a few Chicago zip codes. These appear to be areas with higher concentrations of African-Americans and low median household incomes. A number of parishes and institutions had more than one accused priest assigned to them at the same time.

OSCE Review Conference Session Focuses On Religious Freedom

The Review Conference of the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) began in Warsaw, Poland on Sept. 30 and ran until Oct. 8. Other portions of the Review Conference will be held later this month and next month ahead of the OSCE Summit to be held in early December. The Warsaw segment focused on the human rights commitments of the 56 member countries. (Press release). The dozens of documents (links to full texts) from Working Session 2 focus on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Numerous statements were submitted by governments and NGOs.

In Israel, Teenager Sues For Right To Become A Rabbi

In Israel, a 14-year old boy, hoping to become Israel's youngest rabbi, has filed suit in the Supreme Court to force the Chief Rabbinate to grade an ordination exam which he took. According to Arutz Sheva yesterday, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger gave Moshe Raziel Sharify permission to take the exam, despite his age and despite opposition from Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar. However now the Rabbinate is refusing to grade the exam, saying that its internal rules require a person to be at least 22 years old to become a rabbi. Apparently Sharify is a child prodigy who has been tested on his knowledge of Jewish law by several respected rabbis, including the head of Jerusalem's religious court.

First Responder Sues Ground Zero Mosque Developers For Emotional Distress; Counter Suit Filed

According to the Huffington Post yesterday, 9-11 first responder Vincent Forras has filed a state court class action against the developers of the proposed Ground Zero mosque seeking damages of $350 million for infliction of emotional distress and assault. The complaint (full text) in Forras v. Rauf (apparently filed in mid-September) alleges that for people who live, work or often visit the area around ground zero, many of whom were first responders, the mosque project is "a nuisance, a terror risk and a conscious and/or negligent desire to inflict additional psychological terrorism and emotional distress...." The complaint goes on to allege:

Defendants’ actions and decisions to erect a Mosque at or near the site of a terrorist attack where nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of radical Islamic terrorists’ actions is careless, negligent, and unlawful in that as a result of Defendants’ ties to terrorist organizations, Defendants have increased the access of terrorists and the likelihood of attacks on Ground Zero. Defendants, given their professed role as clergy, and as professed people of faith, and as citizens of the City of New York and property owners, owe a duty of care to Lead Plaintiff and other members of the class, particularly under these unique circumstances.

Yesterday's New York Post reports that defendants are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on free exercise of religion grounds. UPI reported yesterday that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Park51, defendants in the lawsuit, have also responded with a counter-suit claiming that the action against them is motivated by "blind bigotry." The counter suit asks for $50,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Court Says Undue Hardship In Accommodating Refusal To Handle Domestic Partnerships Must Go To Jury

In Slater v. Douglas County, (D OR, Sept. 24, 2010), an Oregon federal district court refused to grant either plaintiff's or defendant's motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, sending to a jury trial the question of whether accommodating a county employee's religious beliefs would have posed an undue hardship under state or federal employment discrimination laws. The suit was brought by a former employee of the Douglas County, Oregon County Clerk's Office. Plaintiff Kathy Slater was fired from her position after she objected to being involved in registering domestic partnerships under Oregon's Domestic Partnership Law. Doing so would have violated her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The court concluded that the county's offer to help Slater transfer to a position in another county department if one became available was an insufficient effort at accommodation of her religious beliefs. However it was unable to determine the question of undue hardship on the record before it. The court did reject the county's argument that accommodating Slater's religious beliefs would have violated the Establishment Clause because the county would have been supporting the employee's religious beliefs. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Suit Says County Sign Control Ordinance Is Unconstitutional

A federal court challenge to a Berkeley County, South Carolina sign control ordinance was filed last week. The complaint (full text) in Moultrie v. Berkeley County, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 10/5/2010), argues that by providing exemptions for political signs (as well as for "for sale" and "for lease" signs) but not for signs expressing religious messages, the county has violate the free expression, free exercise and equal protection rights of plaintiff who was cited after he failed to obtain permits for seven signs containing Biblical references that he placed on his own property. Plaintiff alleges that the county ordinance is a prior restraint, as well as an over-broad content-based regulation. Last week, the Rutherford Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Friday's Charleston (SC) Post and Courier reports on the case.