Police Officer's Claim of Religious Discrimination In Investigation Dismissed

Longmire v. City of Oakland, (ND CA, Nov. 2, 2010), is a lawsuit by an Oakland,California police officer who believed that racial and religious discrimination impacted an investigation that concluded he interfered with the police department's criminal investigation of a Black Muslim Bakery. Members of the bakery were suspected of being involved in two homicides, a kidnapping, a robbery and more. Plaintiff Derwin Longmire claims he was targeted because he was suspected of being a member of the Black Muslim religion while in fact he is a Christian African-American.  In this opinion, a California federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, Longmire's free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and privacy claims. In dismissing plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court concluded:

Plaintiff ... has failed to provide support for the legal contention that a state may infringe an individual’s free practice of religion based on discrimination on a (mis)perceived religious affiliation.

In dismissing his claim for infringement of associational rights, the court said:

There can be no inference from the allegations made in the current complaint that his rights to associate with the Black Muslim Bakery were infringed if he did not actually associate, or wish to associate, with the group.

The court permitted plaintiff to proceed with his claim that the investigation against him was tainted with race-based discrimination. Yesterday's Contra Costa (CA) Times reports on the decision.

Fair Housing Charges Dismissed In Case of Church Posting For Female Christian Roommate

The U.S. Region V Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has found no reasonable cause to believe there was a violation of the Fair Housing Act in the case of a woman who posted an ad for a "female Christian roommate" on her church bulletin board.  The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed a complaint against a 31-year old Grand Rapids (MI) woman who posted the notice after someone in her congregation complained about the ad. (See prior posting.) While the complaint was filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, that agency, in a statement, said that it coordinates with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assure uniform application of the law, and HUD decided that the legal and Constitutional issues posed by the case were ones it wanted to address.

In its Oct. 28 Determination of No Reasonable Cause, HUD said:

The advertisement contains statements that indicate a preference or limitation based on religion and gender. In general, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c) prohibits such statements whether made verbally or in writing. However, in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion.

The statement issued by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights emphasized that it had never implied during its investigation that there was a violation of law. It went on to say:

We do not comment on the specifics of an open investigation until we have reached an official determination, and we do not reach a determination until after an investigation is complete and it can be based on all of (and only) the facts. In this instance, we sincerely wish everyone would have done the same.

Because some chose to ignore the difference between conducting a legally-required investigation and the decision to bring a charge of discrimination based upon that investigation when appropriate, this office and specifically a member of our staff was subjected to a barrage of phone calls, emails, comments, posts and blog entries. Although these communications were premature in that they falsely accused us of having made a determination, they were mostly valid expressions of personal opinion, which the Department is always interested in receiving. However, many also included threats or other inappropriate personal attacks. The Department of Civil Rights will not tolerate such conduct, which it believes is never appropriate. All threatening communications have been and will be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Under the Fair Housing Act (background), HUD's determination does not preclude filing of a federal lawsuit by a victim of discrimination at that person's own expense. (42 USC Sec. 3613.) Today's Grand Rapids Press reports on the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Church Zoning Case

On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of  San Leandro. An audio recording of the oral arguments is available from the court's website. In the case, a California federal district court rejected RLUIPA, First Amendment, due process and equal protection challenges to a California city's refusal to rezone for "assembly" use industrial property a church had agreed to purchase. (See prior posting.)

Lawsuit Seeks To Bar Certification of Oklahoma Vote on Shariah Law

Two days after Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure barring state courts from considering or applying Shariah law, the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the State Board of Elections from certifying the election results on the proposed constitutional amendment. The complaint (full text)  in Awad v. Ziriax, (WD OK, filed 11/4/2010), alleges that the amendment enshrines a condemnation of plaintiff's Muslim faith in the state constitution. In support of the injunction plaintiff argues that the Shariah ban violates the Establishment Clause because it has a sectarian purpose and effect. The complaint also asserts that the amendment violates the federal free exercise clause by targeting only one religion. Wall Street Journal reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Consent Decree Entered In Suit By Group Seeking To Distribute Bibles In High Schools

On Tuesday, a Florida federal district court entered a consent decree (full text) in World Changers of Florida, Inc. v. District School Board of Collier County, Florida, (MD FL, Nov. 2, 2010). The lawsuit challenged a school policy instituted in 2008 that only permitted distribution of literature in the schools by outside groups if administrators found that it promotes student interests.  Applying the policy, the school ended the prior practice of allowing World Changers to set up a table in high schools to hand out Bibles on Religious Freedom Day. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement embodied in the consent decree, the school will create a limited public forum, allowing all non-profit groups to passively distribute literature to high school students from tables outside of classrooms on one day each year, set by the consent decree as January 16 (which is National Religious Freedom Day). Each table will carry a sign indicating the group handing out material and stating that the material is not endorsed by the school board. Certain materials can be excluded-- such as that promoting of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs; material likely to cause substantial disruption, incite imminent lawless action or material inappropriate for the age and maturity of high schoolers; pornographic or libelous material; commercial advertising; or material that infringes intellectual property or privacy rights. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the settlement.

Financial Scandal Surrounds Pakistan Ministry's Hajj Arrangements

With the arrival of Hajj participants from around the world underway in Saudi Arabia, scandal swirls around the financial dealings of Pakistan's Religious Affairs Ministry in its arrangement of housing for Pakistani Hajj pilgrims. First, according to Monday's Pakistan Express Tribune, Pakistan's Hajj officials arranged for housing for Pakistanis too far away from Hajj activities, so many are instead camping on foot paths and roads. Then Hajj Director General Rao Shakeel was called back to Pakistan, charged with corruption in arranging the inadequate housing. According to today's Express Tribune, Saudi Prince Bin Bandar Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud in a letter to Pakistan's Chief Justice alleged that the Religious Affairs Ministry rented out housing to pilgrims at more than twice the actual cost, apparently embezzling the difference. The Supreme Court has ordered the government to deal with the issue on a national level, has ordered the Foreign Office to contact the Saudi government, and has ordered the government to respond to the court within 15 days.  Meanwhile, Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani has appointed a 3-member committee to probe the charges.

Pakistan's Parliament has reacted to the situation. According to Online International News Network, the Senate's Standing Committee on Religious Affairs has recommended that the Prime Minister remove Shakeel from his position, as has the Federal Minister for Religious Affairs.

Evangelist Sues Challenging City's Noise Ordinance

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Virginia federal district court by a Christian evangelist challenging Winchester, Virginia's noise ordinance.  Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, was required by police to stop using a hand-held microphone and speaker while preaching at at Winchester's 2010 Apple Blossom Festival.  The complaint (full text) in Marcavage v. City of Winchester, Virginia, (WD VA, Nov. 3, 2010), contends that the city's ordinance that bars "any noise which unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, safety, welfare, or environment of others" is unconstitutionally vague.  The suit also alleges that the law, on its face violates the free expression provisions of the First Amendment and Virginia's Constitution as well as Virginia's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Finally, plaintiff contends that because police acted on the basis of one person's complaint that the preaching caused the individual to be uncomfortable, the ordinance was not applied in a viewpoint neutral fashion. The Rutherford Institute issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

SG's Standing Argument In Arizona Christian School Organization Case Surprises Some

The Los Angeles Times reports that many are surprised at the government's position on standing put forward yesterday by Acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal in his Supreme Court argument on the constitutionality of Arizona's tuition scholarship tax credit. (See prior posting.) Here is part of the argument in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn that has caused American United executive director Barry Lynn to describe the Obama administration's position as "inexplicable":

GENERAL KATYAL: Not a cent of the Respondent's money goes to fund religion. If you placed an electronic tag to track and monitor each cent that the Respondent plaintiffs pay in tax, not a cent, not a fraction of a cent, would go into any religious school's coffers.... Their complaint is not that the government is spending ... money that has been extracted [from] ... taxpayers. Their complaint is that someone else's money is not being extracted and spent enough. And the relevant language in Flast says that for taxpayer standing to occur ... "his tax money" must be extracted and spent, and here that is not occurring.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Counsel, does anyone have standing, in your view, to challenge this scheme?

GENERAL KATYAL: The way this scheme is set up, our answer is no. And I think that accords with this Court's general reluctance to confer taxpayer standing in this area.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: And if we leave out the fine points that you were discussing, isn't the underlying premise of Flast v. Cohen that the Establishment Clause will be unenforceable unless we recognize taxpayer standing?

GENERAL KATYAL: I don't see that, Justice Ginsburg..... I think Flast is a very narrow exception for when someone's dollars are being taken out of their pocket and spent by the government on religion, and I don't think that's happening here....

JUSTICE KAGAN: So if you are right, General Katyal, the Court was without authority to decide Walz, Nyquist, Hunt, Mueller, Hibbs, this -- this very case, just a few years ago? That the Court was out of authority to decide any of those cases, but somehow nobody on the Court recognized that fact, nor did the SG recognize that fact? The SG participated, I believe, in each of those cases.

GENERAL KATYAL: Right.

The government's amicus brief in the case similarly argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their Establishment Clause challenge.

Christian Proselytizer Seeks To Appeal Mormon Judge's Refusal To Recuse Himself

Yesterday in Palmer v. City of Prescott, plaintiff filed a motion for interlocutory appeal (full text) of an Arizona federal district court judge's refusal to disqualify himself from hearing plaintiff's civil rights case. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff, an evangelical Christian who proselytizes Mormons, claimed that Judge David Campbell's Mormon religious beliefs would bias him. In the motion, plaintiff claims that: "true-believing Mormons believe I am a hireling of Lucifer, paid by the devil.... I have further prejudiced the judge against me by disclosing parts of his 'sacred' temple ceremony ... which the church considers blasphemy."

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Arizona Tuition Scholarship Tax Credit Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments (full transcript) in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn along with Garriott v. Winn. At issue is the constitutionality of Arizona's program that gives tax credits for contributions to school tuition organizations that in turn provide scholarships primarily to children attending parochial schools. Scotus Blog has links to all the briefs filed both by the parties and by amici.  In the case, the 9th Circuit held that plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to challenge the state programs and that the programs violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Lyle Denniston has a recap of the arguments posted at Scotus Blog. He described it as "a passionate hour spent heavily on the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction, intertwined with a focus on the arcane subject of "taxpayer standing" to file a lawsuit...."  ABC News also reports on the arguments.

Colorado Voters Defeat Personhood Amendment

In Colorado, Amendment 62, the anti-abortion Personhood Amendment was voted down yesterday. 70% of the voters cast their ballots against the amendment. (Election results.) The Denver Post reporting on the defeat, said the result was similar to the vote on a comparable proposal in 2008. The Personhood Amendment (full text) would have applied state constitutional protections for inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law "to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Opponents argued that this would not only ban abortion, but also emergency contraception in rape cases, and would limit treatment for miscarriages and tubal pregnancies and would impact infertility treatment.

South Africa Plans To Amend Tax Law To Equalize Treatment of Shariah Compliant Mortgages

Bloomberg reports today that in South Africa, the government plans to introduce new tax rules next year to level the playing field for Islamic mortgages. South African law now exempts interest under $3206 (US) earned by those under 65 years of age from taxation. The new rules will give similar treatment to made from murabahah, mudarabah and diminishing musharaka arrangements-- transactions based on the exchange of assets structured to avoid the ban on interest imposed by Shariah law. South African banks plan to increase their offerings of Shariah-compliant mortgages once the new tax rules are in place. The government may also sell Islamic bonds if the tax law amendments are adopted.

3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices Voted Out of Office Because of Their Gay Marriage Ruling

In Iowa, for the first time since the judicial merit selection system was adopted in 1962, three state Supreme Court justices were voted out of office. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit each received only 45% support for retention. (Unofficial results.) The vote came as a result of a campaign by those who are opposed to the state Supreme Court's ruling last year upholding same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute limiting marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. (See prior posting.)  The Des Moines (IA) Register reports that the campaign to remove the justices spent $650,000, with much of the money from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. The Iowa Independent last month profiled the various groups supporting the campaign to oust the justices. The campaign in support of the justices spent $200,000. Two trial court judges in Polk County who were also targeted kept their seats.  Judge Robert Hanson who sided with same-sex couples at the trial court level received 66% support for retention, while Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted for signing a gay couple's marriage waiver, was retained by a 69% vote.

Oklahoma Voters Approve Ban On Courts Using Shariah Law

In Oklahoma yesterday, voters approved State Question No. 755, amending the Oklahoma constitution to bar state courts from considering or using international law or Shariah law when deciding cases. With all precincts reporting, 70% of voters cast ballots in favor of the measure. (Unofficial results.) According to AP, the sponsor of the measure, Rex Duncan, called it a "pre-emptive strike."  Some members of the Muslim community say they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In RLUIPA Damages Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Sossamon v. Texas (full transcript). At issue is whether states and state officials in their official capacities may be sued for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Scotus Blog has links to all the merits and amicus briefs as well as to the other relevant primary source documents in the case. The case was brought by a prisoner who objected to the prison's policy of prohibiting congregational worship in the prison's chapel. He claimed that alternative worship venues did not give him access to Christian symbols or furnishings such as an altar or cross. In the case, the 5th Circuit held that RLUIPA did not clearly alert the state of Texas that it would waive sovereign immunity for damage actions by accepting federal funding for its prisons. The text of RLUIPA merely provides that a plaintiff may obtain "appropriate relief" against  a governmental defendant. (See prior posting).

Ugandan Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Tabloid Publishing Names of Gays

CNN and Canadian Press both report on a temporary injunction issued by a court in Uganda ordering the publication Rolling Stone (unrelated to the U.S. magazine of the same name) to stop publishing names of photos of people it claims are gay.  Last month the tabloid published the names of 100 supposedly leading gays and lesbians in the country accompanied by a yellow banner reading "hang them." On Monday it published a second list and photos of people it said are gay and urged that they be reported to the police. The gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit that led to the temporary injunction. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 23. Last year Uganda came under heavy criticism as a bill was introduced that would have imposed the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" and life imprisonment for gays. (See prior posting.) It is reported that some American evangelicals have promoted the anti-gay agenda in Uganda. (See prior posting.) Uganda is mostly Christian and, according to CNN, a Pew poll reported that almost two-thirds of the country's Christians favor making the Bible the law of the land.

Settlement Approved In Suit Challenging Ban On Wearing Rosaries In School

A New York federal district court yesterday approved a settlement in a suit that was brought on behalf of a 13-year old middle school student in Schenectady, New York who was suspended for wearing a rosary outside his shirt to school. The school argued that items made of beads are gang-related. The settlement stipulation (full text) in R.H. v. Schenectady City School District, (ND NY, Oct. 30, 2010), calls for defendants to pay the student $2500 in damages and expunge his school record. The settlement also calls for defendants to pay $20,000 in attorneys' fees. The school has already modified its policy on wearing rosaries.  American Center for Law & Justice announced the approval of the settlement. (See prior related posting.)

High-Profile Defendant Removed From Jury Selection For Singing Hymns In Court

Yesterday in Salt Lake City, Utah, jury selection began in the federal court trial of Brian David Mitchell who is charged in the high profile 2002 kidnapping of then 14-year old Elizabeth Smart. Mitchell insisted on softly singing hymns during the court proceedings.  AP reports that after a half hour of the singing, Judge Dale Kimball ordered Mitchell removed, but to another room where he was still able to watch the proceedings by closed circuit television. It is expected that Elizabeth Smart will return to Utah to testify against Mitchell. Smart is currently serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in France.

Canadian Preacher's Rights Infringed By Calgary's Limits On Use of Parks

A Canadian court in Calgary, Alberta ruled yesterday that Calgary city parks rules barring the distribution of free food, posting signs and gathering people together for religious services violates the religious freedom rights of street preacher Artur Pawlowski. The Calgary Sun reports that the court also found that the ban on using amplification systems in the park violated Pawlowski's free speech rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Israel Criticizes UNESCO Vote Classifying Two Biblical Sites As Palestinian

JTA reported  on Sunday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has criticized as absurd a vote last month by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization that classified two historical Biblical sites as "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories." The resolution also called from removal of the sites from Israel's national heritage list. (London Guardian). At issue are the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron where the Bible says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried, and the Biblical Tomb of Rachel located in Bethlehem. Muslims call the Cave Al-Ibrahimi Mosque because Abraham is buried there. Since 1996, Rachel's burial place has been called Bilal bin Rabah Mosque by Palestinians. The UNESCO Executive Board vote was 44-1 with 12 abstentions. The sole negative vote was cast by the United States. 

RLUIPA Challenge Filed To Michigan Town's Law

Crain's Detroit Business reports that a RLUIPA challenge to a Hazel Park, Michigan zoning ordinance was filed last week by the Salvation Temple Church which is seeking to open a church on residential property that has been vacant since 2002. The challenged ordinance, passed in 2005, bars religious institutions in areas zoned commercial or industrial.  They can open in residentially zoned areas with approval of the city, but Hazel Park has no residential property large enough to house a church and required parking.  The federal lawsuit claims that the zoning law effectively bars any new religious institution from opening in the city.

52 Dead In Iraq After Attack On Catholic Church

In Iraq yesterday, security forces stormed a Syrian Catholic Church that was taken over by terrorists wearing suicide vests. At least 52 people, including a priest, have been killed. It is unclear how many were killed by terrorists and how many were casualties of the security force's raid.  Canadian Press reports that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq in a website message linked the reason for the attack to two wives of Coptic priests in Egypt, The women allegedly converted to Islam in order to divorce their husbands. It is charged that Egyptian police located the women and sent them off to distant monasteries. The terrorist group that is linked to al-Quaida in Iraq, says it will exterminate Iraqi Christians if the Egyptian women are not released.

Arizona To Try Utah Appointed Fiduciary For FLDS Property On Trespass Charge

An Arizona judge last week refused to dismiss criminal trespass charges against Bruce Wisan, the special fiduciary appointed by Utah courts to reform the United Effort Plan trust that holds property of members of the FLDS Church.  According to yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune, Wisan is charged with authorizing a former FLDS member to break into homes in Colorado City, Arizona, one of the twin towns occupied by the polygamous FLDS group, to change locks on the houses. Wisan argues he is not guilty because he has a claim of right over all property held by the trust. Wisan's trial is now scheduled for Dec. 16-17.

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mary Jean Dolan, Salazar v. Buono: The Cross Between Endorsement and History, (Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 105, p. 42, 2010).
• Mary Jean Dolan, P.S. Untold Stories and the Cross National Monument, (October 26, 2010).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Ornamental Repugnancy: Identitarian Islam and the Iraqi Constitution, (St. Thomas University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Rohen Peterson, The Emperor’s New Scanner: Muslim Women at the Intersection of the First Amendment and Full Body Scanners, (Hastings Women’s Law Journal, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Robert J. Friedman, Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: The Persistent Polarized Struggle, 11 Transactions: Tennessee Journal of Business Law 143-165 (2010).
• Armany R. Hacking, A New Dawn for Muslims: Asserting Their Civil Rights in Post-9/11 America, 54 St. Louis University Law Journal 917-941 (2010).
• Steven D. Smith, Why Is Government Speech Problematic? The Unnecessary Problem, The Unnoticed Problem, and the Big Problem, 87 Denver University Law Review 945-970 (2010).
• Tom R. Tyler, Stephen Schulhofer & Aziz Z. Huq, Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counterterrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans, 44 Law & Society Review 365-401 (2010).

Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases

In Lockamy v. Dunbar, (5th Cir., Oct. 29, 2010), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an inmate's claim that his rights under RLUIPA were violated by officials' classification of pages he tore out of a religious magazine as contraband and their refusal to mail them out for him.

In Shepherd v. Wenderlich, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114269, (ND NY, Oct. 26, 2010), a New York federal district court applying the fee award limitations in the Prison Litigation Reform Act awarded attorneys' fees of $1.50 in a case in which an inmate recieved only nominal damages for a violation of his free exercise rights.

In Williams v. Mathena, 2010 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 113273 (WD VA, Oct. 25, 2010), a Virginia federal district court held that an inmate failed to show that prison officials knowingly placed a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion by taking several weeks to adjudicate his religious food request.

British Government Says Church of England Is Not Preventing Bogus Marriages

British government officials are accusing the Church of England of failing to take sufficient steps to prevent bogus marriages of foreigners to British citizens.  Marriage gives the foreign spouse the right to stay in Britain and claim government benefits.  Yesterday's London Telegraph reports that the number of Church marriages of foreigners to British citizens has nearly tripled since 2005 when new rules were adopted to require Home Office approval for marriages of foreigners in civil ceremonies, but not for marriages performed by the Church of England. (See prior related posting.)

Atheist Group Forms In Russia To Support A Secular Russian Society

Yesterday's Georgian Daily reports that in Russia, a group of atheists has come together to form the "Sanity Public Foundation." The new organization is designed to support and defend the secular character of the Russian state. Art. 14 of the Russian Constitution declares: "1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one." The new group says it wants to call attention to the increasing "clericalization" of Russian society. It will adapt the international Atheist Bus Campaign to Russian conditions, which means driving around Moscow with signs advocating secularism posted on cars.

Malaysian Court Allows Women's Rights Group To Call Themselves "Sisters in Islam"

AFP reports that yesterday a court in Malaysia dismissed a lawsuit seeking to keep a vocal women's rights group from using the name "Sisters in Islam."  The suit was filed by the Malaysian Assembly of Mosque Youth who claimed that the title used by the women's group was confusing to Muslims. They argued that the women's group should operate under its legally registered name--- SIS Forum Malaysia.  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to file the complaint.

British City Council Says Christian Views Opposing Gay Rights Disqualifies Couple As Foster Parents

In Britain, a High Court hearing is scheduled to begin on Monday in a challenge to action taken by the Derby City Council to disqualify as potential foster parents a Christian couple who believe that homosexuality is unacceptable. Today's London Telegraph reports that the action was taken after a social worker discovered Eunice and Owen Johns' views. Those views would mean that the Johns could never tell a child that homosexuality is acceptable. In the past, the Johns have acted as foster parents to nearly 20 children. The gay rights group, Stonewall, backs City Council's action, saying that it is the interests of the child, not the prejudices of the parent, that count.  However the Christian Legal Centre that represents the Johns says that

One of the issues before the Court is whether Christian couples, who have traditional views on sexual ethics, are ‘fit and proper persons’ to foster - and, by implication, adopt. That the Court even needs to consider this is a remarkable reversal in the concept of the public good and the traditional definition of sexual morality.

Yesterday Was Anniversary of Cylinder of Cyrus the Great

The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies reminds us that yesterday was the International Day of Cyrus the Great. On October 29, 539 BCE, the Persian king, Cyrus, ordered what some have called the first human rights decree  to be inscribed on a clay cylinder.  The Cyrus Cylinder describes the king's policy of allowing local cults to return their gods to their shrines. It also makes specific reference to the Jews who Cyrus encouraged to return from their exile in Babylon to Judea to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

Court Upholds Biblically-Based Mediation Agreement

In Woodlands Christian Academy v. Weibust, (TX App., Oct. 7, 2010), a Texas appellate court upheld an arbitration clause in an employment agreement requiring disputes to initially be submitted for settlement by Biblically-based mediation. It rejected arguments that the agreement is unconscionable because it requires "biblical scripture" to be substituted for the law of the case. BNA Daily Labor Report [subscription required] reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Philippine Tour Guide Pleads Not Guilty To Offending Religious Feelings

In the Philippines, Carlos Celdran, a tour guide and reproductive health activist, yesterday plead not guilty to charges of violating Section 133 of the Philippines Revised Criminal Code which imposes criminal penalties on "anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful." Both the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA News.TV report that the charges against Celdran grew out of a protest he staged in September during an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral. Dressed a Philippine national hero Jose Rizal, Celdran shouted inside the Cathedral that the Catholic Church should stop getting involved in politics, objecting particularly to the Church's opposition to enactment of a proposed reproductive health bill. He held up a sign reading "Damasao", referring to the cruel priest in Rizal's novel Noli Me Tangere. Celedran insists he did not say anything offensive when he held up the sign bearing the name of the novel's character who. He appeared in court in his Jose Rizal costume.

State Proclamations On National Day of Prayer Are Upheld

The Chicago Tribune reports that yesterday a Colorado state trial court judge dismissed a challenge to proclamations issued by Gov. Bill Ritter recognizing a National Day of Prayer. The lawsuit, filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, alleged that the proclamations violated the religious freedom clause of Colorado's constitution. The court disagreed, saying that the Proclamations did not carry the force of law. (See prior related posting.)

Baptist Group Will Publish Pamphlet Defending Church-State Separation

The Virginia Baptist Mission Board has approved publishing a new "layman-accessible" pamphlet to explain why the separation of church and state is crucial in protecting religious liberty. ABP reported Wednesday that the Board has adopted a resolution asserting that Baptists cannot remain true to their principles if their knowledge or collective memory of the importance of both religious liberty and separation of church and state is altered or replaced by a false version of history.  The Resolution says that systematic efforts have been under way in recent decades to deny the historic basis that made both religious liberty and church-state separation part of the Bill of Rights.

Proposal For National Panels To Oversee Islamic Financial Instruments Draws Criticism

A plan put forward by the Accounting & Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) to create separate national Shariah boards to oversee the sale of Shariah-compliant financial instruments is drawing criticism from lawyers and bankers. Bloomberg reported yesterday that the proposal to appoint panels of experts in each country to rule on whether the instruments comply with the requirements of Islamic law is seen as adding a layer of bureaucracy in the $1 trillion Islamic finance industry. AAOIFI says that the proposal is a move toward standardization in the industry. Advisory boards for separate financial institutions will create products that will then be approved by a single national body, which in turn it hopes will create greater investor confidence.

US Ambassador To Human Rights Council Speaks on Defamation of Religion Proposal

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donohoe, United States Reprentative to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday addressed the annual human rights luncheon of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights organization that monitors the United Nations. (Full text of remarks.)  She used an 8-point action plan that was published by UN Watch earlier this year as the focus of her remarks.  On UN Watch's recommendation that countries oppose efforts to create an international prohibition on defamation of religion, Donohoe said:

Protection of freedom of speech is a core U.S. value, as well as a guiding principle for our engagement at the Human Rights Council.  In fact, we view our participation at the Council as a powerful reflection of our own faith in the power of free speech:  While the issues of religious and racial intolerance entail difficult and divisive debates at the Council, we have deep confidence that over time, our willingness and ability to stand up and articulate our values will translate into results – because we do believe in the power of speech.  We are committed to working with genuine partners on the issues of racial and religious discrimination, including the OIC, but we have made it clear to all parties that we will not, under any circumstances, do so by allowing the advancement of unacceptable limits on the freedom of expression and religion. We will continue to champion protection of these fundamental freedoms throughout our tenure on the Council.

Suit Challenges 2009 Raid On Church of Universal Love and Music

William Pritts, founder of the controversial Church of Universal Love and Music, filed a lawsuit in a Pennsylvania federal district court on Tuesday charging the Fayette County (PA) Drug Task Force with conducting an illegal raid of a church concert last year. (See prior posting.) According to yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the suit claims that the raid-- which resulted in the arrest of 22 music fans on drug charges-- was conducted in a "callous and militaristic fashion" with an overly broad search warrant. 14 co-plaintiffs claim that police lacked probable cause to search them because the warrant carried the wrong address for the church and allowed a search of "all persons present."

Amish Elders Plead Guilty To Violating Child Abuse Reporting Requirement

Missouri Rev. Statutes Sec. 352.400.1 requires any member of the clergy who has supervisory responsibility over those in charge of children to report suspected child abuse to state authorities. In Webster County, Missouri, four Amish elders have been charged with violating the reporting requirements because they knew for six months that a member of one of the county's Amish churches had been molesting two of his children. In fact, the molester was formally shunned by his church.  The attorney for the Amish elders argued that holding the elders liable violates their First Amendment rights, since it is against their religious beliefs to report a brother who has admitted wrongdoing and who has been punished within the community. Explaining that the elders are not affiliated with a formal organization and held no license to perform their duties, defendants' attorney argued that convicting them would be a precedent for entrapping volunteers who are not aware of their reporting duties. However, according to yesterday's South County (MO) Mail, last week the Amish elders plead guilty and were each fined $300 plus court costs.

British Appeals Court Says Teaching Order Not Vicariously Liable For Abuse of Students

In Various Claimants v. Catholic Child Welfare Society, (Eng. and Wales Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2010), England's Court of Appeal held that the Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools, a lay community of teachers dedicated primarily to educating the poor, is not vicariously liable for physical and sexual abuse of students who attended St. William's, a school where the Headmaster and some of the teachers were supplied by the Brothers. The court concluded that the Institute did not control the school or the manner in which the teachers carried out their work-- prerequisites to vicarious liability.  The court said:

It is certainly true that the Institute's power to regulate the deployment of its members gave it the power to decide who was to be offered to St William's and when anyone currently teaching there should be recalled, and thus required to resign.... But the power to ordain the deployment of the brothers did not give the Institute the power to insist that any particular person should be accepted and employed by the managers. That decision was for them, even if they may often have chosen simply to accept what the Institute proposed....

Brother Reginald, headmaster for 11 years, gave evidence that he pretty well ran the school and that the managers largely let him get on with it. He said that they often did not really know what he was doing. But that could be said of his Board of Governors by a great many strong-willed headmasters, certainly in the 1960s. It shows independence of mind in Brother Reginald, but it comes nowhere near demonstrating that the Institute ran the school through him.... 

Yesterday's London Guardian reports on the decision.

St. Paul City Council Delays Vote To Refine Church-State Protections In Development Project

Yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the St. Paul (MN) City Council has delayed it vote to approve a draft agreement for a $36 million community center project that involves church as part of the plans. The proposed Payne-Maryland Project will include a city-run library, recreation center and performing arts center, but also a privately run funeral home and a building for  the Arlington Hills Lutheran church.  The ACLU has requested project documents. There is to be a strict separation between city and church spaces, and no funds raised by city bonds can be used for religious instruction or worship. The delay however is to work further on the indemnification provisions designed to protect project partners from liability in any church-state challenge to the plans.

Japanese Court Rejects Suit By Relatives of War Victims Enshrined At Yasukuni

In Naha, Japan on Tuesday, a three-judge district court panel rejected claims by relatives of war victims against the government and a Shinto shrine in a lawsuit alleging unauthorized "collective enshrinement" of plaintiffs' relatives. The enshrinement took place at the Yasukuni Shrine in central Tokyo. Yasukuni has enshrined most of the 2.5 million Japanese soldiers and civilian employees who died in various wars since the mid-19th century. However, the shrine is controversial because included among those are 14 Class-A World War II war criminals, such as Prime Minister Hideki Tojo. In its decision this week, the court concluded that even if the enshrinement took place without the consent of the deceased victims' relatives, the action did not damage plaintiffs' reputations or infringe their freedom of religion. According to Tuesday's Mainichi Daily News, plaintiffs sought to have their deceased relatives removed from the list of those enshrined at Yasukuni because they objected to their identification with the war criminals also honored there. The court also rejected plaintiffs' demand for damages for the mental suffering they experienced. The government in the lawsuit claimed that it was not involved in the collective enshrinement, but merely furnished names of war dead to the shrine. (See prior related posting.)

Injunction Granted To Permit Elementary Student's Distribution of Church Flyers To Classmates

In J.S. v. Holly Area Schools, (ED MI, Oct. 26, 2010), a Michigan federal district court concluded that a preliminary injunction should issue to guarantee an elementary school student the right to distribute religious flyers and invitations to a church summer camp to his classmates, so long as he distributes them in a manner that does not disrupt normal school activities. The school's across-the-board ban on student-to-student distribution of materials during the school day is not a reasonable time, place and manner regulation of student speech.  The court also concluded that the student's mother had wrongfully been denied access to the school's "flyer forum" through which she wanted to communicate with other parents about church activities. Her flyers were rejected on the basis of the viewpoint they expressed. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Science Teacher Settles Establishment Clause Lawsuit By Student

Details have now become available of a previously reported settlement in an Establishment Clause lawsuit brought on behalf of a student against Mount Vernon, Ohio middle school science teacher John Freshwater. Freshwater posted the Ten Commandments in his classroom, kept a Bible on his desk, and allegedly engaged in a science experiment that resulted in a mark in the shape of a cross being placed on the student's arm. Yesterday's Mount Vernon (OH) News reports that the settlement in the federal court lawsuit still requires approval by a state probate court judge (see Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 2111.18). As part of the settlement, the student's parents (plaintiffs in the case) agreed to forgo recovery of sanctions awarded to them by a federal district judge after Freshwater failed to comply with various court orders. Under the settlement, the school district's insurance company will pay $300,000 to the parents for mental pain and other suffering, and separately $150,000 will be paid over the next 13 years to buy an annuity for Zach Dennis, the student on whose behalf the suit was filed. Finally $25,000 in attorneys' fees will be paid to plaintiffs' counsel. Last week, Freshwater asked a federal court to dismiss his free exercise of religion lawsuit against the Mt. Vernon school board. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Filed In Kentucky 10 Commandments Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky.  In the case, a majority of a 6th Circuit panel (see prior posting) approved issuance of a permanent injunction against a display of the 10 Commandments with other historical documents that refer to God in two Kentucky county court houses. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court found the display violated the Establishment Clause, but later litigation focused on whether the counties had changed their religious purposes for the display. The 6th Circuit denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) The petition seeking Supreme Court review asks the Court to replace the Lemon test with a new Establishment Clause test for passive religious displays. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

ED Returns To Prior Policy On Religious-Ethnic Discrimination On Campuses

JTA reports that in new guidance issued yesterday by the U.S. Department of Education on bullying, DOE made clear that it is returning to its 2004 policy on religious discrimination designed to permit the application of federal civil rights laws to anti-Semitic incidents on campuses, as well as to discrimination against Arab Muslims and Sikhs at schools receiving federal funds.  Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, but it does not bar religious discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds. However, in a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) sent by the Department's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to 15,000 schools, and 5,000 colleges and universities around the country (ABC News), the Department announced:

While Title VI does not cover discrimination based solely on religion, groups that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith.  These principles apply not just to Jewish students, but also to students from any discrete religious group that shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics (e.g., Muslims or Sikhs).  Thus, harassment against students who are members of any religious group triggers a school’s Title VI responsibilities when the harassment is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, rather than solely on its members’ religious practices.  A school also has responsibilities under Title VI when its students are harassed based on their actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity.

Rep. Brad Sherman who had introduced legislation to extend the coverage of Title VI to religious discrimination (see prior posting) issued a release applauding ED's announcement. In 2006, DOE as well as the U.S. Civil Rights Commission had apparently backed away from enforcing Title VI to get at anti-Semitic incidents. (See prior posting.)

 

New Report Issued On Impact of Blasphemy Laws

Freedom House last week issued a 138-page report titled Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights. Examining blasphemy and religious insult laws in seven countries, the report concludes that:

blasphemy laws are often vaguely worded and ill-defined, making them prone to arbitrary or overly broad application, particularly in settings where there are no checks and balances in place to prevent such abuses. In countries with weak democracies, authoritarian systems, or compromised judiciaries, these laws have a particularly pernicious effect:

• Governments have abused blasphemy laws to silence the political opposition, government critics, and other dissidents.
• Individuals have fabricated charges of blasphemy against others in their communities to settle petty disputes.
• Religious extremists have exploited blasphemy laws to justify attacks on religious minorities, thereby fostering an environment of intolerance where discrimination is effectively condoned by the state.
• Religious institutions, often with official or unofficial government backing, have used blasphemy laws to impose the state-sanctioned interpretations of religious doctrine on members of minority sects that are deemed deviant or heretical.

California Court Upholds Sexual Harassment Award To Firefighters Ordered To Drive In LGBT Pride Parade

In Ghiotto v. City of San Diego, (CA App. Oct. 14, 2010), a California state appellate court upheld a trial court's award of damages for sexual harassment and an award of attorneys' fees to four firefighters who were required, over their personal objections, to drive a fire engine in the San Diego Pride Parade celebrating the local LGBT community. Parade spectators directed sexual comments and gestures at the firefighters and some spectators wore sexually suggestive clothing or exposed themselves. The appeals court also affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' free expression challenge, finding that only injunctive relief had been sought and a policy change limiting staffing of parades to volunteers meant that there is no threat of firefighters being forced to participate in parades in the future. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Court Clears Mississippi Personhood Amendment For 2011 Ballot

In Hughes v. Hosemann, (MS Cir. Ct., Oct. 26, 2010), a Mississippi state trial court judge cleared the way for a "personhood" amendment to appear on the November 2011 ballot in the state.  Challengers argued that Initiative Measure Number 26 violates Sec. 273(5)(a) of the Mississippi Constitution that bars use of the initiative procedure to propose, modify or repeal any portion of the state constitution's Bill of Rights.  Without elaboration, the court stated merely that plaintiffs had not carried the "heavy burden" required to restrict the citizenry's right to amend the state's constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment would define the word "person" as used in the state constitution to include "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." Liberty Counsel issued a press release commending the court for its "commonsense ruling."

Court Dismisses Jewish Student's Discrimination Claim Against Seton Hall

In Vaynberg v. Seton Hall University, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112634 (D NJ, Oct. 21, 2010), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a religious discrimination claim brought against Seton Hall University by a Jewish student who was dismissed from the school's doctoral program in physical therapy for failing to maintain a 3.0 GPA. Plaintiff Farakh Vaynberg alleged that one of her instructors, Dr. Kim Poulson, refused to excuse her from class on Yom Kippur and told her to choose between her faith and her school work. She claims that this exchange made her feel compelled to take a mid-term exam on Yom Kippur in a second course offered by a different instructor who had in fact excused Jewish students for Yom Kippur. The court found  no causal connection between Dr. Poulson's alleged conduct and Vaynberg's dismissal because Poulson gave Vaynberg some of her best grades. She also failed to present evidence to support her claim that meetings with Poulson after an unsatisfactory grade in her clinical practicum (which did not count in her GPA) upset her so that she performed poorly in other courses. Finally, according to the court, no state action was shown to support Vaynberg's First Amendment free exercise claim.

Plaintiffs Can Proceed With Negligent Retention and Supervision Claims Against Catholic Church and School

In Jones v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, (Sup. Ct. NY County, Oct. 7, 2010), a New York state trial court dismissed negligent hiring, breach of contract and deceptive business practice claims brought by a female student and her parents against the Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, the Church of St. Paul and the school it operates, growing out of sexual abuse of the student by a female part-time gym and music teacher.  It also dismissed negligent retention and supervision claims against the Diocese.  However plaintiffs were permitted to proceed with their claims of negligent retention and supervision against the Church of St. Paul's and St. Paul's Catholic School.

Survey Released On Church Involvement In Distributing Candidate Information

A survey released last week by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that among voters who attend religious services at once per month, 15% say that information on political parties or candidates has been made available at their places of worship. Within that group, 36% of Black Protestants report that information has been made available at their churches. However only 5% of all respondents, 6% of Black Protestants, and 7% of Catholics say that clergy have urged them to vote in a specific way.

In Tajikistan, Islamic Party's Prayer Room Burns Down

In Tajikistan's capital of Dushanbe on Sunday, a controversial room used for daily prayers in the headquarters of the Islamic Revival Party (IRP) was destroyed by fire. Central Asia Newswire reports that Tajikistan's Committee on Religious Affairs had threatened to close the room because under the country's constitution political parties are not allowed to sponsor religious activities. An IRP leader has suggested constitutional changes to recognize the importance of religion in Tajik culture.

Blogger Who Criticized Church Pastor Settles Lawsuit Against Police Officials

ABP last week reported on a settlement in Rich v. City of Jacksonville, a Florida federal court lawsuit by a blogger against against a sheriff's office official and an assistant state attorney charging free speech and Establishment Clause violations. Tom Rich began an anonymous blog on which he raised concerns about the pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville. Officer Robert Hinson, who was also on the pastor's security detail, opened an investigation in order to be able to subpoena Google and Comcast to discover the owner of the blog. Hinson obtained subpoenas from the Office of the State Attorney. Ultimately church officials were told the blogger's identity and the church barred Rich from its premises and began proceedings to revoke his church membership. (See prior posting.)  The settlement, announced on Rich's blog, gives plaintiff $50,000 in damages and commits the Jacksonville sheriff's office to make changes in its conflict of interest code and develop training for detectives on First Amendment issues. [Thanks to Wall of Separation for the lead.]

California Abusive Priest Personnel Records Released Implementing 2007 Settlement

The San Francisco Examiner reports that after three years of litigation, a California judge on Friday issued an order releasing some 10,000 pages of personnel records relating to 48 Catholic priests in the San Diego diocese who were either convicted or credibly accused of sexual abuse or who were named in a civil suit.  The order (full text) in The Clergy Cases II, (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 22, 2010), grew out of a 2007 settlement by 144 plaintiffs with the diocese for some $200 million and an agreement that an independent judge would decide which personnel records would be made public. (See prior posting.) All of the documents released Friday are available at BishopAccountability.org. Attorneys are still seeking release of another 2000 pages of files.

Supreme Court Review Sought In Pastor's Defamation Claim Against Church

On Friday, a petition for certiorari (full text) to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed in Cooke v. Tubra.  In the case, an Oregon state appellate court held that jurisdiction over an interim pastor's defamation claim against his former church and two of its officers is not necessarily barred by the First Amendment. (See prior posting.) The Oregon Supreme Court denied review. The court below distinguished between statements made by a church that are necessarily religious in nature, and those that do not concern the religious beliefs and practices of the organization or are made for a non-religious purpose. [Thanks to Mark Chopko for the lead.]

Indian Court Holds Women Heirs of Priests Have Equal Rights To Share In Offerings

In India, a Delhi High Court judge has ruled that women in priestly families of the Kalkaji Temple have an equal right with men to share in the offerings collected during festivals. Today's Hindustan Times  and Express India report on the decision that dismissed a suit by one of the priests seeking an order to prevent his three sisters from claiming a share of the offerings.  The court rejected arguments that historically only males shared in the offerings because they are the ones who performed temple rituals.  The court wrote in part: "If one keeps the underlying principles of the international covenants and the guarantee of equality held out by our Constitution in mind, it would be anachronistic and regressive to affirm the contention that the discriminatory practice of excluding female heirs from the benefits of property rights to which Baris are attached, which appears to have existed all this while, should be continued."

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Maimon Schwarzschild, How We Judge the Judges, (Conversations, No. 8, p. 83, 2010).
• Geoffrey P. Miller, Monarchy in the Hebrew Bible, (NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-76, Oct. 19, 2010).
• Diane Marie Amann, Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg, (International Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Amos N. Guiora, Protecting the Unprotected: Religious Extremism and Child Endangerment, 12 Journal of Law & Family Studies 391-407 (2010).
• Ran Kuttner, What Does It Mean to Do the Right Thing?, 10 Nevada Law Journal 407-432 (2010).
• Adelaide Madera, Civil and Religious Law Concerning Divorce: The Condition of Women and Their Empowerment, 12 Journal of Law & Family Studies 365-389 (2010).
• Brett G. Scharffs & Suzanne Disparte, Comparative Models for Transitioning from Religious to Civil Marriage Systems, 12 Journal of Law & Family Studies 409-430 (2010).
• Rhona Schuz, The Relevance of Religious Law and Cultural Considerations in International Child Abduction Disputes, 12 Journal of Law & Family Studies 453-497 (2010).
• Lynn D. Wardle, Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Laws Solutions, 12 Journal of Law & Family Studies 315-364 (2010).
• Symposium: Families, Fundamentalism, & the First Amendment. Introduction by Vivian E. Hamilton; articles by Randall Balmer, Frederick Mark Gedicks, Andrew Koppelman, Robin Fretwell Wilson, Marci A. Hamilton, Catherine J. Ross, June Carbone, Naomi Cahn and John E. Taylor. 18 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 883-1095 (2010).

Tony Blair's Sister-In-Law Converts To Islam; Says She Hopes It Changes Blair's Views

Yesterday's London Mail reports that Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has converted to Islam after having a holy experience at the shrine of Fatima al-Masumeh in the city of Qom during a visit to Iran six weeks ago. Booth, the half-sister of Cherie Blair, works for Press TV, the English language Iranian news channel. She says she hopes her conversion will cause Blair-- now an envoy on the Middle East for the so-called Quartet-- to change his views of Islam.  Booth now wears a hijab whenever she is in public, prays five times a day and abstains from alcohol despite her previous craving for a glass or two of wine at the end of each day.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Clifton v. Lappin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111569 (WD LA, Oct. 18, 2010), adopting magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111473, Oct. 4, 2010), and Plummer v. Lappin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111502, Oct. 18, 2010), adopting magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111477, Sept. 20, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court rejected complaints that inmates are prohibited from attending religious services when the entire prison is on lock down.


In Townsend v. Byers, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2285 (CT Super., Sept. 21, 2010), a Connecticut state trial court held that an inmate's free exercise rights were not violated when a correctional officer responded to his threat to file a grievance by telling him "to write to Allah."


In Means v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112507 (D NV, Oct. 7, 2010), a Nevada federal district court permitted a prisoner to move ahead with due process and free exercise challenges to delays by prison officials in recognizing Vedantu/Kashmir Shavism as a religion and in approving various items, including prayer beads, to allow him his religious observances.

Complaint Says Roommate Ad On Church Bulletin Board Violates Fair Housing Act

WOOD-TV News and Fox News report on a complaint filed (full text) with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights over an ad that a woman posted on her church's bulletin board seeking a Christian roommate.  The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan filed the complaint against a 31-year old Grand Rapids (MI) woman after someone in the congregation complained about the ad. A Fair Housing Center spokesperson says that the woman has the right to limit renting out to Christian roommates, but it is a violation of law to advertise publicly using religious criteria. The federal Fair Housing Act, 42 USC Sec. 3604 provides that it is unlawful:

To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

An Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing the woman charged with the FHA and Michigan Civil Rights Act violations said: "Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity." [Updated]

Geert Wilders Trial Halted Over Bias of Judicial Panel

The London Guardian reports that on Friday the trial in the Netherlands of far-right political leader Geert Wilders was halted as a separate panel of judges ruled that the panel hearing hate speech charges against Wilders was biased. Wilders is charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims after urging that the Qur'an be banned (see prior posting) and production of a film titled Fitna.  Distributed online, the video equates Islam with violence. (See prior posting.) The move to disqualify the judicial panel came after it refused to permit Wilders to call as a witness a Dutch professor of Arabic studies, Hans Jansen.  Originally the Dutch prosecution service refused to file charges against Wilders, but an appeals court ordered charges to be brought. (See prior posting.) Now it appears that Tom Schalken, one of the appeals court judges who was involved in issuing that order, had dinner with Prof. Jansen and tried to convince him of the correctness of the decision to press charges against Wilders.

Fired Muslim Truck Driver Sues For Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

Philadelphia Daily News on Friday reported on an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania by a Muslim man who was fired from his job as a truck driver because he refused to transport a shipment of Miller Lite beer.  Plaintiff Vasant Reddy claims that when he was hired, Schneider National, Inc. told him they could accommodate his religious objections to transporting alcohol or tobacco. However two days after Reddy refused to transport a shipment of alcohol, he was told to resign or be fired.  Reddy's attorney claims that accommodation would not be difficult because less than 5% of Schneider National's shipments are of alcoholic beverages.

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.

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.