NY Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill Including Religious Protections

The New York state Assembly yesterday passed and sent to the state Senate a marriage equality bill, A8354.  The Advocate reports that the bipartisan 80-63 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage followed an impassioned but civil debate that included remarks by various members on whether their religious faith should be an issue in their vote:

I wish it wasn't in the book," said Dov Hikind, who waved a copy of the Torah on the assembly floor. "The Torah's so clear on this subject," he said. "There is no choice for me. And I am open-minded."...

Deborah Glick, the first openly gay member of the state legislature, later addressed the separation of church and state head on, saying, "You do not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The bill provides that no religious organization will be required to  provide accommodations or facilities for same-sex marriages, and no clergy shall be required to perform same-sex marriages.

According to the New York Times yesterday, the state Senate is still apparently one vote short of the 32 needed for passage.   Final passage may depend on the decision on how to vote by Republican Sen. Stephen Saland from Poughkeepsie who, along with a small group of other Republicans, may vote for the bill if the protections for religious organizations that object to gay marriage are strong enough. (See prior related posting.)

Israel Interior Ministry Changes Procedures On Recognition of Conversions From Abroad

In the convoluted politics of religious identity in Israel, the Israeli Interior Ministry has declared that the Jewish Agency will decide on whether particular Orthodox Jewish conversions abroad will be recognized for purposes of permitting an individual to immigrate under the Law of Return.  The Jerusalem Post reported this week that under the new arrangement the country's Chief Rabbinate will be consulted only in "isolated cases" where questions arise.  The problem arises from a decision by the Chief Rabbinate several years ago to limit which Orthodox Jewish conversions from the United States it would recognize.  Under a High Court decision, anyone converted by a recognized Jewish community abroad qualifies for entry under the Law of Return. However the Interior Ministry never formulated a policy on how to define a recognized community, and instead deferred to the Chief Rabbinate. This has led to a growing number of applications by U.S. and Canadian converts for immigration under the Law of Return being rejected. The change in policy, which will lead to recognition of a broader group of conversions, presumably moots a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of a Canadian who was refused citizenship under the Law of Return. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Judge Sanctioned In Part For Ordering Defendant To Attend Church As Condition of Bail

In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Dearman, (MS Sup. Ct., June 16, 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a public reprimand and a 30-day suspension without pay of a trial court judge who was charged with various instances of improper judicial conduct. One of the charges was that as a condition of bail for a defendant charged with possession of cocaine the judge required that the defendant attend church at least once a week. Justice Kitchens dissenting argued that the imposition of this condition may have been only an incorrect legal interpretation by the judge. If it was, that is not a basis for sanctions. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Borough Settles Lawsuit Challenging Its Use of Sectarian Invocations

Subject to a final Borough Council vote next week that is expected to pass, Point Beach, New Jersey has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against it by the ACLU challenging its practice of opening meetings with a prayer that was generally Christian in nature. (See prior posting.) At one time, the borough opened meetings with the Lord's Prayer. After an initial lawsuit was filed, it moved to prayers by individual council members reflecting their own beliefs.  But that still resulted in Christian prayer and a new suit was brought. The settlement of that suit follows a decision by Council now to open its meetings only with prayers that do not use language specific to any religion. Point Pleasant Patch reports on these developments.

Suit Claims In-House Lawyer Fired Because He was Not An Orthodox Jew

An unusual religious discrimination lawsuit will come to trial June 27 in federal district court in the Southern District of New York. According to The Real Deal, Les Kramsky who was employed as in-house general counsel, is suing his former employer, the prominent real estate developer Joseph Chetrit.  Kramsky claims that Chetrit, an Orthodox Jew, hired Kramsky only because he believed that Kramsky was also an Orthodox Jew. The suit alleges that Chetrit began to treat Kramsky differently, and ultimately fired him, when he discovered Kramsky, though Jewish, was not Orthodox. The suit also claims that an Orthodox rabbi who regularly came to the office pressured Kramsky to pray and put on tefillin. Plaintiff asks for $500,000 in lost wages and benefits, as well as punitive damages. In court documents, Chetrit denies that Kramsky's religion played any role in his hiring, probation or firing, contending that he was terminated because it did not make economic sense to have a full-time in-house lawyer. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]


UPDATE:  Real Deal reports on June 24 that the lawsuit was settled out of court just a few days before it was set to go to trial.

5th Circuit Interprets "Equal Terms" Clause of RLUIPA

In The Elijah Group, Inc. v. City of Leon Valley, Texas, (5th Cir., June 10, 2011), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on an issue that has split various circuits-- what test to use to determine whether a zoning decision violates RLUIPA's "equal terms" clause. At issue was the city's zoning law that prohibits churches from operating in areas zoned B-2 (business).  Plaintiff argued that it was being treated on less than equal terms because it could not apply for a special use permit to operate in B-2 areas. The court held that the equal terms clause:

does require the Church to show more than simply that its religious use is forbidden and some other nonreligious use is permitted. The “less than equal terms” must be measured by the ordinance itself and the criteria by which it treats institutions differently. When we analyze the City’s ordinance within this framework, we are convinced that it is invalid because it prohibits the Church from even applying for a SUP when, e.g., a nonreligious private club may apply for a SUP.... 

The court added in a footnote: "This analysis should not be interpreted as necessarily adopting any of the tests heretofore adopted by the other circuits." Becket Fund issued a press release on the decision. The release contains links to the briefs that were filed in the case.

Two Cases Decide On Tax Exempt Status of Property Owned By Religious Groups

Two recent unrelated cases involve disputes over whether certain property is used for religious purposes so that it is exempt from property taxes.  In First Korean Church of New York, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, (PA Commonwealth Ct., June 14, 2011), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld the denial of tax exempt status for property of a former seminary that was acquired at a sheriff's sale by a church, but which appeared to be largely unused and in disrepair.

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo, (NY Ct. App., June 14, 2011), New York's highest court held that Ramapo tax authorities improperly revoked the tax exemption for property that was being used for a religious summer camp. While a contractor was operating the camp on behalf of the rabbinical college that owned the land, the rabbinical college "retained general supervision and control over the camp's operation, including the right to approve the hiring of camp personnel, the purveyors of kosher food for camp lunches, and the religious curriculum." (See prior related posting.)

House Committee Opens Hearings On Radicalization of Muslims In U.S. Prisons

Yesterday, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security began two days of hearings on "The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons." The full text of the opening statement by Committee Chairman Peter King, as well as of statements by yesterday's four witnesses is available from the Committee's website. Rep. King also announced three witnesses who will appear at the continuation of the hearings today. The Los Angeles Times yesterday reported that the hearing "erupted in bipartisan anger Wednesday, with Democrats charging Muslims were being unfairly targeted and the Republican committee chairman vowing to continue investigating what he views as threats to national security."

Bankruptcy Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional; Same-Sex Couple Can File Joint Petition

A California federal bankruptcy court has declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional insofar as it would preclude a same-sex married couple from filing a joint bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 USC 302 permits joint petitions by a debtor and the debtor's spouse. The couple involved in the case was one of 18,000 same-sex couples legally married in California before the passage of Proposition 8. In In re Balas and Morales, (CD CA, June 13, 2011), the court held that DOMA violates  the couple's equal protection rights afforded by the 5th Amendment, whether the court applies heightened scrutiny or rational basis review.  The court explained:

Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors’ right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny..... In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law.... 

In an unusual move, all 20 judges of the bankruptcy court signed the opinion in the case. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

U.S. Congressman Will Introduce Bill To Bar San Francisco's Attempt To Outlaw Circumcision

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) announced yesterday that he plans to introduce a bill into Congress that would prevent San Francisco and other cities from banning male circumcision of minors.  Currently, San Francico voters are scheduled to vote on a ban in November. (See prior posting.) Sherman said: "The Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011ensures that Jewish and Muslim families will continue to be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs." According to the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, Sherman's bill takes an approach similar to that taken by RLUIPA in protecting religious freedom in prisoner and zoning cases. [Thanks to Jonah Lowenfeld for the lead.]

Federal Court Says Judge Did Not Need To Recuse Himself In Proposition 8 Case

Yesterday, California federal district judge James Ware held, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, June 14, 2011), that now-retired federal judge Vaughn Walker did not act improperly in failing to recuse or disqualify himself from deciding a challenge to California's Proposition 8. That state constitutional amendment barred same-sex marriage in the state, and Judge Walker's decision found Proposition 8 to be inconsistent with the federal constitution. (See prior posting.) Judge Walker was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time he heard and decided the case. However in yesterday's decision, Judge Ware held:

The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification.

The New York Times reports on yesterday's decision.

Also yesterday in a separate opinion in the case (full text), Judge Ware found no reason to require the parties in the case to return to the court video copies of the trial proceedings that had been given to them. He also set an August 29 hearing date on a motion to lift the protective order that bars public disclosure of the trial videos.

UPDATE: AP reports that backers of Proposition 8 will appeal Judge Ware's decision that refused to disqualify Judge Walker.

UEP Trust Fiduciary Wants Utah To Pay Administrative Costs That Are Owed

In the latest twist in the convoluted litigation attempting to reform the polygamous FLDS Church's United Effort Plan Trust, Bruce Wisan, the special fiduciary for the trust appointed by a Utah judge, is now asking that the court order the state to pay the $4.6 million in administration costs that have accumulated for the trust.  The Deseret News reported Monday that fees owed to lawyers and to Wisan's own accounting firm remain unpaid, as do amounts owed to an engineering firm, a surveying firm and a public relations firm.  Also some $2 million in property taxes is owed.  These costs were supposed to have been paid from proceeds of the sale of property and from court-imposed monthly occupancy fees that were assessed on those living on trust property.  However most FLDS members have refused to pay the occupancy fees, and litigation challenging the trust reformation has prevented property sales from being completed. The Utah Attorney General's office, however, argues that Wisan's request violates court orders freezing everything but the most necessary administrative work pending the outcome of challenges to jurisdiction of the Utah state courts over the trust. (See prior posting.)

Push In New York For Same-Sex Marriage, Opposed By Catholic Church

In the closing days of the legislative session in New York state, efforts are again under way by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to obtain passage of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.  The state Senate defeated a same-sex marriage bill in 2009, but now, according to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, several senators have shifted their positions and the measure-- which has apparently not yet been formally introduced-- is only two votes shy of passage. So far only one Republican Senator has publicly pledged to vote in favor of the bill, but (according to AP) others Republican votes would follow if  the legislation contained exemptions so that churches, religious organizations and individuals opposed to gay marriage could not be required to perform or host them. New York's Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan has strongly opposed the measure.  In a posting yesterday on the Archdiocese's website, he said:

Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.

But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.

Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?
Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people. The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights. It is about upholding a truth about the human condition.

U.S. Religious Freedom Ambassador Calls On Political Leaders To Condemn Religious Intolerance

The United States' new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, spoke yesterday in Geneva, Switzerland at a panel on "Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" arranged by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. (Full text of remarks.) She said in part:

States have tools at their disposal to combat religious intolerance; in many cases what is needed is the political will to use them. Governments need to develop robust legal protections to address acts of discrimination against individuals and bias-inspired violent crimes. Each country should determine if it has laws on the books that allow it to prosecute individuals who discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring, access to public accommodation and other aspects of public life, or who commit violence on that basis. Each country should determine if it has a capable and dedicated band of investigators and prosecutors to enforce such laws. Even more importantly, leaders in government, politics, religion, business and the rest of society must stand ready to condemn hateful ideology; and to vigorously defend the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and exercise their freedom of expression. Leaders who remain silent are contributing to the problem and should be held politically accountable.....

Rather than seek prohibitions on offensive expression, the United States advocates for other measures such as urging political, religious, and societal leaders to speak out and condemn offensive expression; creating a mechanism to identify areas of tension between communities; training government officials on outreach strategies; and encouraging leaders to discuss causes of discrimination and potential solutions with their communities. Indeed, we believe that laws seeking to limit freedom of expression in the name of protecting against offensive speech are actually counterproductive. The suppression of speech often actually raises the profile of that speech, sometimes giving even greater voice to speech that others might find offensive. In some countries, politicians will not condemn offensive speech, but instead will defer to the courts to judge if it is legally prohibited. In our view it is far more effective if political leaders know that they cannot point to the law as an excuse for doing little to nothing. They have a moral and political obligation to use their own freedom of expression to lead a strong counter effort, and should be held to account politically.

Cert. Petition Filed In Courtroom 10 Commandments Poster Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc.  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a display posted in a courtroom by a state common pleas court judge violates the Establishment Clause. Next to a poster of the Bill of Rights, the judge hung another poster that compared the "Moral Absolutes" of the Ten Commandments with ten parallel principles of "Moral Relatives: Humanist Principles." (See prior posting.) ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Spanish Parliamentarian Is Sworn In Using Crucifix

In Spain, a Catholic member of Parliament, Juan Cotino, provoked some criticism when he insisted on taking his oath of office using a crucifix.  CNA yesterday reported that Cotino placed a crucifix next to a copy of the Constitution and the Bible as he was sworn in on June 9. Father Jose Maria Gil Tamayo, a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, however, praised Cotino, saying that his act was "an eloquent and courageous public gesture."

Supreme Court Denies Review In Pledge of Allegiance Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. United States, (Docket No. 10-1214, cert. denied 6/13/2011) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to New Hampshire's School Patriot Act that requires a time during the school day for voluntary recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (See prior posting). School Law yesterday reported on the denial of cert.

Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee Limits On Local Bias Laws

WSMV-TV reported  on a state court lawsuit filed yesterday challenging a new Tennessee law barring local governments from enacting different anti-discrimination protections than are provided by state law. (See prior posting.) The new law invalidates a Nashville ordinance that goes beyond state law by prohibiting companies doing business with the city from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The state law apparently also invalidates a Nashville school board policy that protected gay and lesbian students against bullying.  Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include three Nashville city council members and a former Belmont University soccer coach who was forced to resign when she disclosed that her same-sex partner was pregnant. The lawsuit claims that the state law violates the constitution's equal protection clause.

Suits Challenge Religious Leaders In Two New York Hasidic Enclaves

AP reported yesterday on lawsuits were filed  by religious dissidents in two New York towns that are essentially Orthodox Jewish Hasidic enclaves.  In a federal court lawsuit, followers of Brooklyn Satmar Rabbi Zalman Teiltelbaum who make up some 40% of the population of Kiryas Joel sued seeking dissolution of the city or alternatively a ban on religious leaders holding city office for 25 years.  Plaintiffs claim that the majority in Kikryas Joel, followers of grand rebbe Aron Teiltelbaum (brother of Zalman), have taken over the village and selectively enforce the village's property tax and zoning laws in a manner to discriminate against plaintiffs. It also alleges voting fraud and intimidation of voters.

In an unrelated state lawsuit, the family of a victim of an arson attack (see prior posting) is seeking $36 million in damages from New Square, New York's grand rebbe David Twersky-- the leader of the town's Skverer Hasidic sect. The suit claims that Twersky directed the arson attack that injured New Square dissident Aron Rottenberg who began attending a different synagogue outside New Square.

Republican Debate Includes Discussion of Church-State Issues and Attitudes Toward Muslims

Last night's CNN debate among 7 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination included an extensive exchange on separation of church and state, and attitudes toward American Muslims. Here is a lengthy excerpt from the full transcript:

[Question from audience:] I'm just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making.

KING: Governor Pawlenty, I want you to take that one first.

PAWLENTY: Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. This is a country that in our founding documents says we're a nation that's founded under God, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator. They're not from our member of Congress. They're not from our county commissioner.

And 39 of the 50 states have in the very early phrases of their constitutions language like Minnesota has in its preamble. It says this, "We the people of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberties," and so the Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: Let's spend a little time talking. Let's spend a little bit of time talking about it.
Senator, let's start with you. Just what role does faith play in your political life? Are there decisions, certain issues where some might you just, let's meet with my advisers, what does my gut say, and others where you might retreat and have a moment of private prayer?

SANTORUM: I'm some who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?

PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral.

But the Constitution addresses this by saying -- literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws -- which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

KING: OK. Great. Let's go down to Josh McElveen, and let's continue the conversation.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew?

CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor -- I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no. 

Republican Presidential Debate Covers Gay Marriage, DADT, Abortion Rights

Last night's CNN debate between 7 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination included a lengthy exchange on same-sex marriage, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and abortion rights.  Here is the excerpt from the full transcript:

[JOHN] DISTASO:... Congresswoman Bachmann, let's turn to a serious subject.
New Hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. This is a question of conflicting interest. I know you're opposed to same-sex marriage.
As president, would you try to overturn -- what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?

BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.

I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.

Now, I didn't come from a perfect background. My parents were divorced. And I was raised by a single mother. There's a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. That's why my husband and I have broken hearts for at-risk kids and it's why we took 23 foster children into our home.

DISTASO: What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level? Anything at all from the White House? Would you come into the state of New Hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?

BACHMANN: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. And I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: On that point -- on that point, to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's try to quickly go through it. Let me start at this end, we'll just go right through. I'll describe it this way. Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made -- this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state's decision?

CAIN: State's decision.

QUESTION: Yes.

PAWLENTY: I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. I was the co-author of the state -- a law in Minnesota to define it and now we have courts jumping over this.

KING: OK. Let's just go through this.

PAUL: The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.

But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

KING: Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision? ROMNEY: Constitutional.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to (ph) constitutional amendment.

KING: We heard the congresswoman's answer, Senator.

SANTORUM: Constitutional amendment. Look, the constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to -- have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is.

KING: Very quickly?

BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on -- on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process -- and Leon Panetta, who's the new defense secretary, will implement -- essentially, the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you -- and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question -- if you were president -- if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to "don't ask/don't tell," or something else?

CAIN: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned "don't ask/don't tell" in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as president. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.

KING: Leave it in place if you inherit the new Obama administration policy or try to overturn it?

PAWLENTY: John, we're a nation in two wars. I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders, and in this case, I would take my cues from them as to how this affects the military going forward. I know they expressed concerns -- many of the combatant commanders did -- when this was originally repealed by the Obama administration.

KING: Congressman?

PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Leave it in place, what you inherit from the Obama administration or overturn it?

ROMNEY: Well, one, we ought to be talking about the economy and jobs. But given the fact you're insistent, the -- the answer is, I believe that "don't ask/don't tell" should have been kept in place until conflict was over.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as president -- I've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working, it is dangerous, it's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.

KING: Congresswoman?

BACHMANN: I would -- I would keep the "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

KING: So you would -- whatever the Obama administration does now, you would go -- try to go back? You'd try to reverse what they're doing?

BACHMANN: I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with -- also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has -- had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.

KING: All right. Last word on this issue, Senator?

SANTORUM: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place, as Ron Paul said, that punishes -- that punishes bad behavior.

KING: Let's go back down to the floor here. Jennifer Vaughn has a question.

VAUGHN: Thanks, John.

Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think -- I think an issue should be -- in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their -- at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that's -- that a factor that -- that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I've taken the -- you know, I've not just taken the pledge, I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that's a factor that people should consider when you -- when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and -- and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Governor Romney, let me give you -- take -- take 20 or 30 seconds, if there's a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?

ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I've said as -- as I've been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.

KING: Is there anybody here who believes that that's an issue in the campaign, or is it case closed?

(UNKNOWN): Case closed.

KING: Case closed it is. All right. Let's move on to the questions.
Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We'll give you a few seconds.

PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results -- not just based on words -- I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.

As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.

I'm solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven't just talked about these things; I've done it.

UK Court Faces Prisoner Free Exercise Claim

A prisoner free exercise decision handed down last month by Britain's Administrative Court is interesting as a comparison to the approach under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA routinely taken to such cases in the U.S. In Bashir, R (on the application of) v The Independent Adjudicator , (EWHC Admin., May 3, 2011), a devout Muslim prisoner on the advice of an imam was engaged in a 3-day personal fast in religious preparation for his Court of Appeal appearance when he was asked for a urine sample for a random drug test.  He was convicted of violating prison regulations when he refused to drink enough water to allow him to give a sufficient urine sample for the test.  The court reversed the conviction imposed by the independent adjudicator, holding that under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights it needed to be determined whether the interference with religion was proportionate to the end pursued. The court concluded:

There was no evidence before the Adjudicator which enabled him to conclude (as apparently he did) that it was proportionate to require all Muslim prisoners engaged in personal fasting to break that fast as and when required to do so for the purposes of providing a MDT sample regardless of the circumstances. In any event some care needs to be taken before a Court accepts at face value assertions of an un-particularised sort that making reasonable adjustments would be too administratively inconvenient or too expensive to be contemplated.

UK Human Rights Blog reported on the decision last week. [Thanks to Peter Griffith for the lead.]

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Thomas Charles Berg, The Story of the School Prayer Decisions: Civil Religion under Assault, (First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett, Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation Press, 2011).
• Zachary R. Calo, Review of Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart, (Modern Age, Forthcoming).
• Aviva Orenstein, Once We Were Slaves, Now We are Free: Legal, Administrative, and Psychosocial Issues Raised by Passover Celebrations in Prison, (Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 195, June 6, 2011).
• Michaek G. Freedman, Prosecuting Terrorism: The Material Support Statute and Muslim Charities, (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1113-1147, 2011).
• Marie A. Failinger, Yick Wo at 125: Four Simple Lessons for the Contemporary Supreme Court, (Michigan Journal of Race and Law, Forthcoming).
• Marie A. Failinger, Islam in the Mind of American Courts: 1800-1960, (Boston College Third World Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Ruth E. Gavison, Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic?, (R. Gavison, Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State, p. 115, 2011).
• Kevin Lee Brady, Religious Sincerity and Imperfection: Can Lapsing Prisoners Recover Under RFRA and RLUIPA?, (University of Chicago Law Review, 2011).
• Ross J. Corbett, Locke's Biblical Critique, (March 3, 2011).
• Nimat H. Barazangi, Why Muslim Women are Re-Interpreting the Qur'an: A Transformative Scholarship Activism, (Sept 16, 2010).
• Nomi Maya Stolzenberg, Righting the Relationship between Race and Religion in Law, (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2011).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Jose Ambrozic, Beyond Public Reason on Energy Justice: Solidarity and Catholic Social Teaching, [Abstract], 21 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 381-398 (2010).
• Jorge O. Elorza, Secularism and the Constitution: Can Government Be Too Secular?, 72 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 53-117 (2010).
• Symposium: The Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care: Legal and Ethical Perspectives. Preface by James W. Devine; articles by Lynn D. Wardle, Kent Greenawalt, Robert K. Vischer, Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, Robin Fretwell Wilson, Richard S. Myers, Jill Morrison, Micole Allekotte and T.A. Cavanaugh. 9 Ave Maria Law Review 1-206 (2010).
• Reviewing Douglas Laycock's Religious Liberty, Volume One: Overviews and History. Book reviews by Thomas C. Berg, Steven D. Smith and Jay Wexler; response by Douglas Laycock. 89 Texas Law Review 901-966 (2011).
• Signs of the Times: The First Amendment and Religious Symbolism. Essays by Peter Irons and Thomas C. Berg; panel discussion with Joseph Thai, moderator; Carl H. Esbeck, Eduardo Penalver, Kevin Theriot, Micheal Salem and Rick Tepker. 63 Oklahoma Law Review 1-100 (2010).
• Symposium. Civil Religion in the United States and Europe. Introduction by Silvio Ferrari; articles by Blandine Chelini-Pont, Pasquale Annicchino, Emmanuel Tawil, Alessandro Ferrari, Andrew Koppelman, Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Frederick Gedicks, David Fontana, Pierre-Henri Prelot, Michael Perry, Marco Ventura, and Talip Kucukcan; afterword by Brett Scharffs. 41 George Washington International Law Review 749-1000 (2010).
• Meir Katz, The State of Blaine: A Closer Look at the Blaine Amendments and Their Modern Application, Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011.
• Luke Goodrich, The Health Care and Conscience Debate, Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011.

Canadian School Board Proposes Elaborate Religious Guidelines

In Canada, Ontario's Hamilton-Wentworth school district has posted for comment an elaborate and interesting 11-page set of guidelines for religious accommodation in the schools. (Full text). Life Site News last week reported, however, that conservative Christian groups are criticizing the guidelines because of the guidelines' definition of what constitutes a protected religious creed:

Creed does not include secular, moral, or ethical beliefs or political convictions. This policy does not extend to religions that incite hatred or violence against other individuals or groups, or to practices and observances that purport to have a religious basis, but which contravene international human rights standards or criminal law.

The head of the local Family Action Council contends that this language: "unjustly discriminates against Christians by re-defining religion to exclude moral beliefs."

Sri Lanka's Promotion of Buddha Statues Interferes With Secular Image of Nation

Sri Lankan diplomats are concerned about the Sri Lankan government's decision to send 26 Buddha statues to Sri Lankan missions overseas.  Today's Sri Lanka Sunday Leader reports that the move, organized by the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment and the Presidential Secretariat last week, interferes with attempts to portray the country internationally as a secular state. The statues were sent to mark the 2,600th Sambuddhathva Jayanthi. Religious ceremonies surrounded the transport of the statues to Colmbo en route to their overseas destinations.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Book, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59338 (ED CA, June 1, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed on qualified immunity and mootness grounds a claim by a Muslim inmate that he was entitled to a halal or kosher meat diet, not merely a religious vegetarian diet.

In Brown v. Department of Correctional Services, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59633 (WD NY, June 2, 2011), a New York federal magistrate judge refused to permit an inmate to amend his complaint to allege discrimination based on the fact that he is an African-American Jew with a disability.

In Garner v. Livingston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59546 (SD TX, May 19, 2011), a Texas federal district court issued a declaratory judgment finding the Texas prison grooming policy a violation of RLUIPA insofar as it prevents a Muslim inmate from wearing a quarter-inch beard. However the court upheld the prison's policy requiring plaintiff to remove his Kufi and make it available for inspection when going to and from religious services.

In Durbin v. Cain, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59853 (MD LA, June 3, 2011), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59895, May 9, 2011), and permitted an inmate to move ahead with claims that he has been denied the right to congregate with members of his Jewish faith and to attend Jewish services at the main prison complex, and that prison officials refuse to recognize Jewish holy days.

In O'Neal v. Bailey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60331 (CD CA, June 2, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Christian inmate's complaint regarding three occasions on which deputies refused to notify the prison kitchen regarding problems with the vegan meals he was supposed to receive.

In Thomas v. Croft, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60628 (SD OH, June 7, 2011), an Ohio federal magistrate judge rejected claims by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate regarding the refusal by prison authorities to relieve the inmate of a work assignment on one Friday evening.

In Williams v. Wong, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60786 (ED CA, June 6, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge denied a habeas corpus petition, rejecting an inmate's claim that the parole board required him to participate in a faith-based 12-step program.

Azerbaijan Parliament Passes Amendments To Law on Religion

News.az reports that on Friday, Azerbaijan's Parliament passed controversial amendments to the country's Law on Religion.  Islamic religious organizations must now report to the Caucasus Muslims Department, while other religious groups must report to the State Committee for Working with Religious Structures or to the Ministry of Justice. Houses of worship can only operate at the legal address registered with the government, and can operate only after appointment of a clergyman by a religious center or the Caucasus Muslims Department.  According to an earlier report by Forum 18, the new law also raises from 10 to 50 the number of founders required to register a religious organization.

Indonesian Court Sentences 17 In Attack on Christian Churches

In Semarang, Indonesia, four panels of district court judges last week convicted 17 Muslims of destroying public property and assault in connection with sectarian violence that took place last February in the central Java town of Temanggung. (See prior posting.)  AFP reported that 16 of the defendants were sentenced to 5 months in jail and one was sentenced to 4 months after convictions relating to the burning of two Christian churches and the ransacking of a third as a mob of 1500, unhappy with the 5-yearsentence imposed by a court, demanded that a Christian man be sentenced to death for insulting Islam. One of the defendants was found to have sent text messages the day before the Christian man's trial on the order of a local Muslim cleric who apparently planned the attack.. Nine others, including the cleric, will receive verdicts this week.

California Prisons Will Permit Beards For Religious Reasons

The ACLU of Southern California announced earlier this week that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has agreed to amend its grooming policies so that inmates will be allowed to wear beards in accordance with their religious faiths.  The policy change comes in a settlement of a lawsuit filed earlier this year. In Basra v. Cate, (CD CA, filed 2/25/2011) (full text of complaint), the ACLU sued under RLUIPA on behalf of a Sikh prisoner who faced sanctions and exclusion from prison programs because he refused to shave his beard or cut his hair for religious reasons. The U.S. Department of Justice had also filed a parallel lawsuit. (See prior posting.)

Statue of Hindu God In Art Display Provokes Controversy

This week, the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho announced its newest art-on-loan program. Fifteen sculptures from around the country are on display in the downtown corridor and City Park for one year, or until they are sold if that is sooner. (Photos of sculptures.) While several of the sculptures have religious themes, the sculpture of the Hindu god Ganesha has created controversy according to reports in the Coeru d'Alene Spokesman-Review and KXLY News.  The head of the Kootenai County Constitution Party encouraged a protest yesterday, saying in a website posting titled "Idols come to Cour d'Alene" that the Ganesha sculpture is an "abomination" which was approved by the "godless group of individuals that manage the art of the city."  Meanwhile, a Hindu spokesman applauded the inclusivity that is represented by the Ganesha statue. (Daily India, 6/10).

Article Analyzes Salafi Anti-Christian Actions In Egypt

Today's Wall Street Journal carries a lengthy article titled As Islamists Flex Muscle, Egypt's Christians Despair.  It focuses on recent actions by Salafi militants, including physical attacks on Coptic Christians. It also focuses more broadly on Salafi goals:

Before President Hosni Mubarak was toppled on Feb. 11, the Salafis mostly confined themselves to preaching. Since then, they've entered the political arena, drawing crowds and swaying government decisions. Salafi militants also have blocked roads, burned churches and killed Copts.....

Until recently, fears of an Islamist takeover in Egypt centered on the Muslim Brotherhood, a much better known organization that's trying to project a new image of moderation. While many liberal Egyptians remain deeply suspicious of the Brothers' true intentions, the Brotherhood now says it accepts Copts—the Middle East's largest religious minority—in all government positions, with the possible exception of president.

By contrast, many Salafis believe it is forbidden by Islam for Christians to exercise political power over Muslims in any capacity, such as governors, mayors or ministers.

More Religious Challenges To Official Sports Uniforms Are Raised

In the wake of the disqualification of Iraq’s women’s soccer team by international sports officials because of the team’s insistence on a uniform that meets religious requirements (see prior posting), two more challenges to international sports uniform rules have been mounted. The Atlanta Journal Constitution and CNN reported yesterday that the U.S. Olympic Committee has asked the International Weightlifting Federation to review its rules after a 35-year old Muslim woman, an Atlanta resident, was disqualified from competing in a national competition in Ohio last December. IWF rules require that athletes wear costumes that are collarless and do not cover the elbows or knees.  Weight-lifter Kulsoom Abdullah usually wears loose long pants that extend below her ankles, a long-sleeve fitted shirt with a loose T-shirt over it, and a hijab covering her hair. Modifications create several problems. Judges need to see that the weight lifter's elbows and knees are locked during the lift. They also need to make certain that the individual is not wearing anything on her elbows that would give her a competitive advantage. The IWF technical committee will review the relevant rules on June 26 at a scheduled meeting in Malaysia. It will present a recommendation to the IWF executive board the next day.

Meanwhile, in Israel, an Orthodox Jewish player on the country’s women's national basketball team has been disqualified. FIBA Europe, the governing body for European basketball, says that its rules require that all members of a team be dressed alike. Naama Shafir wears a T-shirt under her jersey in order to comply with Jewish religious rules relating to modesty. AP  and JTA this week report that FIBA has refused to make an exception for Shafir so she can play in a tournament that opens June 18 in Poland. According to Haaretz, an Israeli appeal of the ruling was rejected on technical grounds. Shafir just completed her college studies in the United States, where she led the University of Toledo (Ohio) team to a  Women's NIT championship. (Background.) Officials had no problem with permitting Shafir to wear the modified uniform when playing in the U.S. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]

1st Amendment Scholar Prof. Steven Gey Dies

Florida State University College of Law reports that First Amendment scholar, Prof. Steven Gey, died yesterday after a valiant struggle with ALS. (See prior posting.) Gey authored a casebook on Religion and State as well as numerous articles on First Amendment speech and religion issues. (Vita; bibliography; SSRN articles.) A 2007 article in Florida State's alumni magazine describes Gey's love of teaching and of "the discourse of ideas." [Thanks to Brian Sites for the information.]

Idaho City Settles RLUIPA Suit By Church

AP reported Wednesday on the settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit that was filed last month in federal district court in Idaho. No Limits Christian Ministries had sued the city of Mountain Hope (ID) challenging the city's denial to the church of a conditional use permit that would allow it to worship in a vacant building it owned.  The suit claimed that religious groups were specifically excluded under the zoning law while other organizations were not.  The settlement provides that the church's use of its building will be treated as a permitted use under the zoning ordinance. The city's mayor said that he and city council were unaware of RLUIPA.

In Pakistani Province, Christian Finance Minister May Be Barred From Giving Budget Speech

In the Pakistani province of Punjab, the province's chief minister Shahbaz Sharif has created controversy by apparently going along with pressure from a number of members of his Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Party (PML-N) to prevent the Party's current finance minister, a Christian, from delivering the annual budget presentation in the Punjab Assembly. According to yesterday's Sri Lanka Guardian, the controversy involves Kamran Michea, Punjab's minister for the Human Rights who more recently was also appointed finance minister after the PML-N's coalition with the Pakistan Peoples Party broke down.  Michea was elected to the Punjab Assembly in 2002 to fill one of the seats reserved for non-Muslim minorities. However several members of the PML-N say that only a Muslim should deliver the budget speech and are urging the Chief Minister to deliver it this year.  A senior PPP member of the Assembly says his members will walk out if the Chief Minister delivers the speech.

Mississippi High Court: Judge Misused Contempt Powers Against Lawyer Who Refused To Say Pledge

In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Littlejohn, (MS Sup. Ct., June 9, 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the public reprimand and assessment of $100 costs on a chancery court judge for misusing his powers of contempt.  Judge Talmadge Littlejohn ordered attorney Danny Lampley arrested for contempt when Lampley stood quietly and did not join in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance led by the judge.  According to the Clarion (MS) Ledger's report on yesterday's decision,  Lampley was held in jail for almost 5 hours. Judge Littlejohn admitted to the Judicial Performance Commission that his action violated Lampley's 1st Amendment rights and Littlejohn has agreed to change the way in which he leads the Pledge of Allegiance in the future. He will respect the rights of anyone who chooses not to join in the recitation.

Virginia County Reauthorizes 10 Commandments In Schools

The Giles County, Virginia school board has been struggling for months over whether and how copies of the Ten Commandments should be displayed in its schools. As previously reported, for ten years copies of the Ten Commandments had been displayed next to a copy of the Constitution. Last December they were removed after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). By January they were back up after community members complained about their removal.  But in February they were again removed. And again this was met with student and community protests. Now the Roanoke Times reports that last Tuesday, by a split vote, the school board again voted to restore the Ten Commandments to the schools, but this time with an elaborate resolution (full text) drafted with the advice of the Christian advocacy group, Liberty Counsel. The Ten Commandments are now to be included as part of a display of nine specified historical documents.  The posting of this display in any school can be financed by private parties, and a procedure is set out for others who want to finance the posting of additional historical documents. The FFRF and ACLU say they will file suit.

New USCIRF Commissioner Appointed

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced that on June 7, President Obama appointed Azizah Y. al-Hibri to be a member of the Commission.  The new appointee is Professor of Law at the University of Richmond and founder of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. Dr. al-Hibri will replace outgoing commissioner Imam Talal Eid.

IRS Announces Loss Of Non-Profit Status By Groups That Failed To File For 3 Years

The Internal Revenue Service announced yesterday that some 275,000 non-profit organizations have automatically lost their tax-exempt status because they failed to file their annual return (Form 990 or 990-N) for three consecutive years. Most of the organizations affected likely no longer exist. Churches, various church organizations, church-affiliated elementary and high schools and religious activities of religious orders are not affected since they are exempt from annual IRS filings. (IRS background). However other types of religious organizations are among those that have been affected. The IRS has posted a list of all the organizations which have lost their exemptions and has posted an FAQ document explaining how to restore tax exempt status.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ban On School Use of Primary Source Religious Books

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling. (Audio recording of full arguments.) In the case, the trial court rejected a challenge by a state-funded charter school to a state policy that barred its use of the Bible, the Koran and other sectarian books as primary source teaching material. The district court held that the charter school is itself a political subdivision and has no rights to assert against the state that is controlling the content of governmental speech. (See prior posting.) Blog from the Capital reports on the oral arguments.

Circumcision Ban Ballot Efforts Dropped in Santa Monica

As previously reported, last month a proponent began efforts in Santa Monica, California to get on the ballot there a proposal to ban circumcision, identical to the one being voted on this fall in San Francisco. Now, according to the New York Times earlier this week, the proponent in Santa Monica is dropping her efforts to get the issue placed before voters. Jenna Troutman, creator of the website wholebabyrevolution.com , explained her change of heart:  "The religious opposition really rose up, and I never intended it to be about that at all. Ninety-five percent of babies who are circumcised have nothing to do with religion — that’s what I was focused on. Once I discovered this bill was not going to open up the conversation but was closing it down, I wanted no part of it."

Illinois Catholic Charities Sue To Maintain Adoption and Foster Care Policies That Exclude Same-Sex Couples

Three Illinois Catholic dioceses-- those of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet-- today filed a lawsuit in state court in Illinois seeking a declaratory judgement that they are acting within the law in offering adoption and foster care services only to married couples and to non-cohabiting single individuals and in refusing to place children with couples in same-sex civil unions. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief.  According to a press release from the Thomas More Society, the lawsuit was filed after the state Attorney General's office had issued a letter seeking information to determine whether Catholic Charities was in violation of the state's Human Rights Law by discriminating on the basis of religion, marital status or sexual orientation in screening potential foster or adoptive parents.

The complaint (full text) in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Springfield-in-Illinois v. State of Illinois, (Cir. Ct. Sangamon Co., filed 6/7/2011), claims that the adoption agencies are not subject to the public accommodation provisions of the Illinois Human Rights Act or, if they are, that it would violate the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act to apply the provisions to them. It also contends that Illinois new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act does not require them to change their practices because the Act protects "the religious practices of any religious body." Previously, three Illinois dioceses, including two of the plaintiffs in this litigation, had announced they were ending their adoption and foster care placements because of the potential effects of the new Civil Unions law. (See prior posting.)

Egypt Recognizes Muslim Brotherhood's New Political Party

Egypt's Committee of Party Affairs on Monday gave official recognition to the Freedom and Justice Party, according to a report today from the Egyptian Gazette. The Party was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, and has now met all the requirements of the New Parties Law. Meanwhile, AP reports that a Gallup poll released Sunday shows that only 15% of Egyptians support the Muslim Brotherhood, while 60% indicated no political preference. The poll also showed that 69% of Egyptians thought religious leaders should have an advisory role in writing national legislation. (See prior related posting.)

St. Xavier University Not Entitled To Exemption From NLRA

An NLRB Regional Director's decision last month ruled that adjunct faculty at Chicago's St. Xavier University are entitled to hold a collective bargaining election.  The decision in St. Xavier University, (NLRB Reg. 13, May 26, 2011) rejected the argument that the school is exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under 1st Amendment doctrines because of its religious character . The NLRB Director concluded that the university operates as a secular institution, not as one that has a "substantial religious character."  In supporting this conclusion, the Director wrote in part:

The Employer follows Ex Corde, which is the Catholic Church’s guiding document for universities to promote academic freedom. Under this document, faculty are left unfettered with regard to imbuing or inculcating students and curriculum with Church doctrine or religion.... Similarly, there is no evidence that the University would discipline or fire faculty if they did not hold to Catholic values.

In January, an NLRB regional director reached a similar result in the case of Manhattan College. (See prior posting.) Last month, the Cardinal Newman Society published a paper titled The NLRB's Assault on Religious Liberty, arguing: "The NLRB has claimed jurisdiction over Catholic colleges and universities for decades, forcing institutions to recognize faculty unions despite the potential interference with their ability to enforce their religious missions." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Student Will Be Allowed To Wear Nose Stud In Settlement of Lawsuit

ACLU of North Carolina yesterday announced a settlement in a suit brought by a high school student who was suspended for wearing a small nose stud as an expression of her religious faith.  (See prior posting.) The Consent Order (full text) in Iacono v. Croom, (ED NC, June 6, 2011) provides that the student will be permitted to wear her nose stud as an expression of her religious faith. Also the school's policy on accommodation of religious beliefs will be modified so that in determining exemptions from provisions of the Dress Code the school will only look at whether a religious belief is sincerely held, and not also at whether the belief is central to a faith's religious doctrine

Army Appoints Military's First Hindu Chaplain

Huffington Post yesterday reported that the U.S. military has appointed its first Hindu chaplain and has developed a new badge for Hindu chaplains. It features the symbol "Om." On May 16, Army Captain Pratima Dharm moved from her position as a Chaplain Clinician at Walter Reed Medical Center Hospital to become the first Hindu member of the Army's chaplaincy corps.  Dharm earned her military commission in 2006 and previously served in Iraq where she was selected for the Army's Clinical Pastoral Education Program. Chinmaya Mission West and three lay leaders of Hindu services at the Pentagon served as endorsing agents for Dharm to become an Army chaplain.  Stars and Stripes last week carried an article on the multi-faith background that Dharm brings to her new position.

Soccer Official Bans Islamic Head Covering For Iran's Olympic Women's Team

Yesterday, Iran's women's soccer team was disqualified from competing in an Olympics qualifying match because of the head coverings which the women were wearing.  The Washington Post and AFP report on developments. In Iran, women athletes are required, in order to comply with Shiite Islamic requirements, to cover their head and body. In April 2010,the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) announced that it would ban headscarves during the 2012 London Olympics.  Iran's Football Federation designed special headscarves that wrapped tightly around the head and neck, and claims that it obtained FIFA approval for them. However, yesterday a referee disqualified the team just before they were to take the field against Jordan in a qualifying round in Amman. FIFA says Iran was informed that covering the neck was banned for safety reasons. Marzieh Akbarabadi, the official in charge of women's sports in Iran, charges that the disqualification, imposed by the FIFA referee who was a Bahraini national, was politically motivated.  Iran has been a critic of the crackdown by Bahrain's Sunni rulers on Shiite protesters in Bahrain. Iran plans to file a formal complaint over the disqualification with FIFA.  If FIFA insists on its position, apparently Iran will refuse to participate in international competitions.

Newsweek Features "The Mormon Moment" In Public Life

Newsweek's Cover Story this week is on "The Mormon Moment."  An article titled Mormons Rock! argues in part:

No question the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “having a moment.” Not only is Romney running again—this time, he’s likely to be competing against his distant Mormon cousin Jon Huntsman Jr. The Senate, meanwhile, is led by Mormon Harry Reid. Beyond the Beltway, the Twilight vampire novels of Mormon Stephenie Meyer sell tens of millions of copies, Mormon convert Glenn Beck inspires daily devotion and outrage with his radio show, and HBO generated lots of attention with the Big Love finale. Even Broadway has gotten in on the act, giving us The Book of Mormon, a big-budget musical about Mormon missionaries by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone and Avenue Q writer Robert Lopez that, with 14 nominations, is expected to clean up at the Tony Awards on June 12.

But despite the sudden proliferation of Mormons in the mainstream, Mormonism itself isn’t any closer to gaining mainstream acceptance. And nowhere is the gap between increased exposure and actual progress more pronounced than in politics. In recent weeks NEWSWEEK called every one of the 15 Mormons currently serving in the U.S. Congress to ask if they would be willing to discuss their faith; the only politicians who agreed to speak on the record were the four who represent districts with substantial Mormon populations. The rest were “private about their faith,” or “politicians first and Mormons second,” according to their spokespeople.

Czech Government Proposes Settlement For Nationalized Church Property

In the Czech Republic, another attempt is being made to settle claims of churches for property that was nationalized after the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1948.  An agreement between a government committee and religious orders reached in 2007 (see prior posting) did not obtain sufficient votes in Parliament for its approval. According to the Prague Daily Monitor last week, now a government commission has proposed that 56% of the churches' former property (mainly fields, forests and ponds) be returned to them, and that they be compensated the equivalent of $3.55 billion (US) over periods of up to 30 years for the remaining land. These figures may be adjusted as it is determined what to do with property now in military areas.

In an article last Friday, the Prague Daily Monitor reported additionally that the Defense Ministry, as part of a plan to reduce the number of military training areas, is willing to return additional forest land plus 5 church buildings on property now held by the military. This would reduce the compensation for remaining lands to $3.43 billion. These proposals will become the basis of negotiations with the Czech Ecumenical Council of Churches. The goal of the settlement is to make churches financially independent. Currently they receive the equivalent of  $9 million (US) from the government each year. The opposition Social Democratic Party has criticized the proposed settlement. It wants the settlement funds to go to a special foundation created by the government and managed by the churches.

Texas Governor Spearheads Christian Prayer Meeting For U.S. To Be Held In August

Reuters yesterday reported on an event initiated by Texas Governor Rick Perry-- "The Response: A Call To Prayer for a Nation In Crisis." Scheduled for Reliant Stadium in Houston, Saturday August 6, the event is billed as "a non-denominal, apolitical Christian prayer meeting [that] has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith." The AFA is financing the event. The event's website features an invitation to "Fellow Americans" from Gov. Perry which reads:

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.

I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

U.S. Bishops Will Vote On Statement Opposing Physician-Assisted Suicide

According to a press release last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this month will debate and vote on a policy statement on physician assisted suicide. At the Bishops' Spring General Assembly, June 15-19, participants will vote on a document titled "To Live Each Day With Dignity." Concerned with a growing movement to legalize physician-assisted suicide, the draft document says that the practice does not promote compassion because its focus is on eliminating the patient, not on eliminating suffering.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Alexander Volokh, Prison Vouchers, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas Walter, The Status of Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada, (Santa Clara Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Sadaf Mehmood, Islam and Modern Ideologies, (2011).
• Julio C. Colon, Choice of Law and Islamic Finance, (Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2011).
• Edward A. Zelinsky, Winn and the Inadvisability of Constitutionalizing Tax Expenditure Analysis, (Yale Law Journal Online, Vol. 121, p. 25, 2011).
• Mary Jean Dolan, The Cross National Memorial: At the Intersection of Speech and Religion, (Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, 2011).
• Michael Sant'Ambrogio and Sylvia A. Law, Baehr v. Lewin and the Long Road to Marriage Equality, (University of Hawaii Law Review, Vol. 33, 2011).
• Jackie Gardina, The Defense of Marriage Act, Same-Sex Relationships and the Bankruptcy Code, (May 23, 2011).
• Carolyn M. Evans and Beth Gaze, Discrimination by Religious Schools: Views from the Coal Face, (Melbourne Univeristy Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Conference: Laicite in Comparative Perspective. Foreword by Mark L. Movsesian; panel participation by Michael Simon, Mark L. Movsesian, and Marc O. DeGirolami, moderators; Douglas Laycock, Mark L. Movsesian, Nathalie Caron, Blandine Chelini-Pont, Rosemary C. Salomone, Emmanuel Tawil, Nina J. Crimm, Javier Martinez-Torr¢n and Elizabeth Zoller, panelists. 49 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 1-142 (2010).

Church's RLUIPA Challenge To Zoning Denial Is Rejected

In Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canisteo v. Village of Canisteo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58586 (WD NY, June 1, 2011), a New York federal district court held that a church had failed to plausibly plead that denial of its zoning request by the Village of Canisteo, NY imposed a substantial burden on the church's free exercise rights under RLUIPA.  The city refused to permit building of a church in a light industrial zone. However, several other alternatives were available to the church, including building new structures on its existing property.