...[D]espite the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State, the Court finds that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the prison authorities and those of the applicant, namely the right to manifest his religion through observance of the rules of the Buddhist religion.
The putative subclass of medically critical plaintiffs here are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the provisions of the current Illinois law that deny them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation, as applied, violates their constitutional right to equal protection.The court's decision was contingent on the parties agreeing on a satisfactory implementation method. They have done so. As announced by the ACLU, the court finalized its order yesterday adopting a procedure that allows same-sex couples to marry before June 1 if they provide a doctor’s certification stating that one of them has a life-threatening illness. Still pending in the case is the broader attempt by plaintiffs to speed up the same-sex marriage implementation date for everyone.
A person with herpes or any similar communicable disease suffers the same privacy concerns whether or not his business or personal life is concerned. In either instance, their personal privacy concerns are implicated irrespective of their vocational situation. The fact that an infected individual is a Mohel, a sous chef, or a police officer, no less implicates their personal privacy interests, or diminishes the need to keep their health status confidential....
The court finds that the disclosure of the names of the reported persons would likely subject the named individuals to vilification in the press, as well as embarrassment and shame in both their business and private life, in addition to possible sanctions for violations of the NYC Health Code if they infected others. The Court is also aware of the difficulties encountered by the New York City Department of Health in obtaining the cooperation of infected persons or members of religious orders in reporting conditions involving the spread of contagion.The Forward yesterday reported on the decision.
As for the self-certification requirement, the Court rejects the Government’s position that plaintiffs may be compelled to perform affirmative acts precluded by their religion if a court deems those acts merely "de minimis." This argument – which essentially reduces to the claim that completing the self-certification places no burden on plaintiffs’ religion because "it’s just a form" – finds no support in the case law....
Plaintiffs’ religious objection is not only to the use of contraceptives, but also to being required to actively participate in a scheme to provide such services. The Government feels that the accommodation sufficiently insulates plaintiffs from the objectionable services, but plaintiffs disagree. Again, it is not the Court’s role to say that plaintiffs are wrong about their religious beliefs.Finding a substantial burden, the court went on to conclude that the government had not shown a compelling interest to impose the burden:
Tens of millions of people are exempt from the Mandate, under exemptions for grandfathered health plans, small businesses, and "religious employers" like the Diocesan plaintiffs here. Millions of women thus will not receive contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing through the Mandate. Having granted so many exemptions already, the Government cannot show a compelling interest in denying one to these plaintiffs....
Finally, but very significantly, the Government’s belated revelation that the regulations do not even require plaintiffs’ TPAs to provide contraceptive coverage [because they are "church plans"] fatally undermines any claim that imposing the Mandate on these plaintiffs serves a compelling governmental interest.... In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever. A law that is totally ineffective cannot serve a compelling interest.The court also found that numerous less restrictive alternatives are available, such as direct government provision of contraceptive services or insurance, or furnishing of coverage through third parties without requiring the objecting employer's active participation.
Count VI of the Amended Complaint alleges that the Mandate unconstitutionally interferes with the Catholic Church’s internal governance by "artificially splitting the Catholic Church in two," dividing its religious arm from its charitable and educational arms.... The Mandate does not "split" the Catholic Church in two – it does not require any change to the religious structure, hierarchy or organization of the Church and its affiliated organizations. At most, it could "split" the Church’s health plan in two. The prohibition on interference with internal church governance applies to ecclesiastical matters such as the selection and supervision of ministers by religious authorities, and plaintiffs have not cited any case that even remotely suggests that a health plan may constitute a matter of "internal church governance" protected by the First Amendment.Newsmax reports on reaction to the decision. [Thanks to Geoff Surtees for the lead.]
[T]he Department will recognize a student or a parent as legally married if the couple was legally married in any jurisdiction that recognizes the marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is between a couple of the same sex or opposite sex, and regardless of where the student or couple lives or the student is attending school.It also posted on its website a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) detailing how its new policy should be applied by those completing FAFSA financial aid forms and calculating the student's Expected Family Contribution. The new policy does not apply to civil unions, domestic partnerships and other arrangements short of marriage. However, as announced earlier this year, beginning with the 2014-2015 FAFSA, dependent students will be required to include on the FAFSA income and other information regarding their legal parents (biological or adoptive) regardless of marital status or gender, if those parents live together. FAFSA will include a new category: "unmarried and both parents living together." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
In the carol, sung by a choir, the “jidovi”, a derogatory term for Jews, are reproached for having “mocked” the Christ Child. “Only in the chimney, in the smoke, the ‘jidov’ is good”, the lyrics further say.The U.S. embassy in Bucharest issued a statement on Dec. 12 calling the broadcast "an unacceptable display of anti-Semitism." Romania's foreign minister, as well as the Israeli embassy in Bucharest have also condemned the broadcast.
We want the government to resign. We want the sovereignty of Italy, which today is slave to the bankers, like the Rothschilds. It is curious that five or six of the richest people in the world are Jews, but this is something I need to investigate.
Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.The decision comes only 5 days after the Australian Capital Territory's new law took effect. Some 27 same-sex couples got married during that period. According to CNN, those marriages will be annulled.
A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.Plaintiffs, the polygamous family featured on the TLC reality series "Sister Wives," sued seeking a declaratory judgment that Utah's ban on plural marriage is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs are members of a religious group that believes polygamy is a core religious practice. Federal district Judge Waddoups held that the portion of the statute barring cohabitation while married to someone else is unconstitutional as a violation of free exercise rights. Concluding that in operation the ban is not applied neutrally, but is primarily used to target religious co-habitation, the court held that the ban is subject to strict scrutiny, and fails that test. Judge Waddoups also concludes that the ban, under a rational basis review, violates plaintiffs' rights to be free from government interference in matters of consensual sexual privacy, and is void for vagueness. In ruling on this portion of the statute, the court said that it was not constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States upholding the federal anti-bigamy statute because that decision dealt only with a ban on multiple marriages, not on cohabitation while married.
the court agrees with Chief Justice Durham['s dissent] that the “purports to marry” prong should be interpreted “as referring to an individual’s claim of entry into a legal union recognized by the state as marriage. The phrase does not encompass an individual’s entry into a religious union where there has been no attempt to elicit the state’s recognition of marital status or to procure the attendant benefits of this status under the law, and where neither party to the union believed it to have legal import."The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the decision. Orin Kerr and David Kopel both analyze the case at Volokh Conspiracy.
Unless it could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline, the Armed Forces shall accommodate individual expressions of belief of a member of the armed forces reflecting the sincerely held conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such expressions of belief as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.The section also sets a 90-day deadline for issuance of regulations implementing this section, and requires the Pentagon to consult with faith-group representatives who endorse military chaplains in drafting the regulations.
The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a survey among a statistically valid sample of military chaplains of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces, to be selected at random, to assess whether—
(1) restrictions placed on prayers offered in a public or non-religious setting have prevented military chaplains from exercising the tenets of their faith as prescribed by their endorsing faith group; and
(2) those restrictions have had an adverse impact on the ability of military chaplains to fulfill their duties to minister to members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.The Joint Explanatory Statement (at pp. 63-65) explains the House-Senate compromises that led to these provisions. The Statement also contains the following language (pg. 82) that appears to be a response to criticism by some conservative Christian groups (background) that the military has given preferential access in policy making to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 530E) that would require the Department of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives advance written notice of any meeting held between Department employees and civilians for the purpose of writing, revising, implementing, enforcing, or seeking advice, input, or counsel regarding military policy related to religious liberty.
The Senate committee-reported bill contained no similar provision.
The agreement does not include this provision.
We believe the Department and the military services should proactively reach out to and meet with religious groups of all faiths when formulating and revising policies that impact religious freedom and tolerance within the military. We are becoming increasingly concerned over reports that the Department and the services appear more responsive to some religious groups and interests than others. The Department and the services must be proactive in their efforts to overcome this perception and to ensure the fairness and equity of policies and regulations that address the religious liberty of service members and their families.
an employee who concludes a PACS [civil solidarity pact] with a person of the same sex [must be] allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.Art Leonard Observations has analysis of the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
Based on the Bible’s religious and moral teachings, Plaintiffs sincerely believe that the termination of the life of a preborn child by, among other means, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and related education and counseling, including by means of acting after fertilization to prevent the newly formed embryo from implanting into his or her mother’s uterus, is an intrinsic evil and a sin against God for which Plaintiffs will be held accountable.ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification.The Supreme Court also rejected the lower court's holding that the statute infringes the substantive due process right to privacy:
In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature.Responding to the argument that police have misused the law, the Supreme Court said:
Respondent No.1 attacked Section 377 IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on ... those belonging to the LGBT community. [T]he mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 IPC.Times of India reports on the decision.
... [R]eligion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity. First and foremost, to do so would be a form of religious discrimination unacceptable in today’s society. It would exclude Buddhism, along with other faiths such as Jainism, Taoism, Theosophy and part of Hinduism....
For the purposes of PWRA, I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science.... Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula.The court went on to hold that the Scientology chapel is a place of meeting for religious "worship," concluding that it is sufficient that the location is one where members perform religious rites, whether or not the rites involve adoration of a deity:
fine theological or liturgical niceties as to how precisely they see and express their relationship with the infinite ... are more fitting for theologians than for the Registrar General or the courts.Lord Wilson wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by 3 other justices holding that the Registrar General's role in registering houses of worship is more than ministerial. The court also issued a press summary of the decision. Time reports that the decision may have broad ramifications. (See prior related posting.)
There is no justification, nor logic, in sending these Jewish archives back to Iraq, a place that has virtually no Jews, no interest in Jewish heritage and no accessibility to Jewish scholars or the descendants of those who once possessed them.A bi-partisan letter to Secretary of State Kerry (full text) signed by 47 members of Congress last month argues that the collection should be returned to the descendants of the Iraqi Jewish community outside of Iraq. It is estimated that there are only 5 Jews left in Iraq today.
While cost control may be a compelling interest in certain situations ... RLUIPA expressly contemplates that facilitating religious exercise "may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations.''.... The costs initially identifed by Defendants in this litigation are not of a compelling magnitude.... Even if participation were ... 1,000 prisoners per day - the cost would only be $2.12 million per year, or .001 of FDOC'S budget. No compelling interest is furthered by avoiding such a relatively minor expense....The court additionally held invalid several provisions in a proposed religious diet program that the state had developed while the litigation was pending. These include conditioning eligibility on clergy interpretations of religious doctrine or on prisoners' knowledge of religious law; summary suspension of prisoners from the program if they consume any item not listed as kosher; and removal from the program of prisoners who eat less than 90% of available meals, even if they consume only kosher food. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Luke Goodrich for the lead.]
Baker admitted that while employed as a security guard at the hotel, he discovered the items in the room, and defaced the Torah, the prayer books, and the musical instruments with profanity, anti-Semitic phrases, and Satanic writing. He also admitted to spitting on the Torah. Photographic evidence presented during the hearing confirmed that the Torah was defaced with profanity and phrases including "Hail Satan."
Freedom of Thought 2013 is the first report to look at the rights and treatment of the non-religious in every country in the world. Specifically, it looks at how non-religious individuals—whether they call themselves atheists, or agnostics, or humanists, or freethinkers or are otherwise just simply not religious—are treated because of their lack of religion or absence of belief in a god. We focus on discrimination by state authorities; that is systemic, legal or official forms of discrimination and restrictions on freedom of thought, belief and expression.....
Our results show that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers. There are laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, criminalize their criticism of religion, and execute them for leaving the religion of their parents. In the worst cases, the state denies the rights of atheists to exist, or seeks total control over their beliefs and actions.Reuters reports on the study.
(i) Federal Investigation Agency is directed to probe into the matter in depth and determine as to whether the extra amount charged by the authorities has been reimbursed to the Hujjaj or not?
(ii) Strict measures should be adopted in future in order to avoid such like incidents of corruption in Hajj arrangements, whereby not only the pilgrims had been looted but also it had brought a bad name to the country.
(iii) The Government should issue the guidelines regarding the Hajj arrangements including hiring of buildings for providing accommodation to Hujjaj as well as transportation and other facilities during Hajj.
(iv) The FIA is directed to take strict action against all those persons including politicians, officers and others in echelons of power, who interfered with and hampered the investigation....
(v) The amount of Rs.5000/- charged by the Hajj Tour Operators from each Haji in excess of the actual amount be refunded to them.Reporting on the decision, the Express Tribune explained:
Former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Syed Hamid Saeed Kazmi, former director-general Hajj affairs Rao Shakeel and former additional secretary to ministry of religious affairs Raja Aftabul Islam were accused of being involved in widespread corruption. They were accused of renting residential buildings for Pakistani pilgrims in Saudi Arabia at exorbitant rates and inflicting a loss of a billion rupees to the national exchequer.(See prior related posting.)
Article (1): Arab Republic of Egypt is a sovereign state, united and indivisible, a democratic republic, based on citizenship and the rule of law. Egyptian people is part of the Arab nation and work on integration and unity, and Egypt is part of the Islamic world, belong to the African continent, and is proud of its spillover Asia, and contribute to the building of human civilization.
Article (2): Islam is the state religion, and Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation.
Article (3): The principles of the laws of the Egyptian Christians and Jews’s legislation are the main source of legislation governing their personal status and their religious affairs, and the choice of their spiritual leaders.
Article (7): Al-Azhar is Islamic scientific independent institution, exclusively specializing to carry on all his affairs, which is the main reference in religious sciences and Islamic Affairs, and is in charge of advocacy and dissemination of the religion science and the Arabic language in Egypt and the world. The State is committed to provide sufficient funds to achieve its objectives. Sheikh of Al-Azhar is independent and non-insulated, and the law regulates his nomination among the members of the senior scientists.
Article (10): family is the basis of society, founded on religion, morality and patriotism, and the state is keen on the cohesion and stability and the consolidation of its values.
Article (11): The State ensures the achievement of equality between women and men in all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The State takes measures to ensure the representation of women are adequately represented in parliaments as prescribed by the law, and ensures women’s right to hold public office and functions of senior management in the country and recruitment in agencies and judicial institutions, without discrimination against them. The State is committed to the protection of women against all forms of violence, and to ensure the empowerment of women to reconcile family duties and work requirements. The State also is committed to provide care and protection of motherhood, childhood and women-headed households and the elderly and women most in need.
Article (24): Arabic language, religion and national history in all its stages are basic materials in the Pre-University public and private education. Universities operate on the teaching of human rights, values and professional Scientific ethics disciplines.
Article (50): Egypt heritage of civilization, culture, moral and material in all its diversity and grand stages, ancient Egyptian, Coptic, and Islamic, national and humanely wealth is the commitment of the state to maintain it and protect it, as well as the balance of contemporary architectural cultural, literary and various artistic and its diversity, and the attack on any of this is a punishable crime by the law. The state pays special attention to maintain the components of cultural pluralism in Egypt.
Article (64): Freedom of belief is absolute. And the freedom of religious practice and the establishment of houses of worship to the owners of the heavenly religions, the right to be regulated by the law.
Article (65): Freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to express his opinion by saying, or writing, or photography, or other means of expression and publication.
(Article 74): The citizens have the right to form political parties, to be notified and regulated by the law. And may not be engaging in any political activity, or do political parties based on religion, or on the basis of discrimination on grounds of sex, origin, or on the basis of sectarian or geographic, or exercise hostile activity to the principles of democracy, or a secret, or a nature military or quasi-military. Parties not to be dissolved without a court order.
Article (244): The State works to represent the youth and Christians and persons with disabilities and Egyptian living abroad appropriately in the first elected Deputies Council after this constitution is adopted, so as prescribed by the law.See prior related posting.
The Department of State manages approximately $10 million in foreign assistance programs to promote religious freedom, which includes current efforts to remove discriminatory and hateful material from Middle Eastern textbooks, promote greater awareness of intolerance and the plight of religious minorities globally, and hold discussions with the Pakistan government, civil society, and the religious community on issues such as curriculum reform in the public and madrassa education systems. The State Department also implements programs to support the Human Rights Council resolution on combatting discrimination and religious intolerance, while protecting the freedoms of religion and expression. The program assists governments in training local officials on cultural awareness regarding religious minorities and on enforcing non-discrimination laws.....
... U.S. officials press foreign governments at all levels to advance religious freedom, including through advocacy on specific cases, such as the case of Saeed Abedini - an Iranian-American pastor imprisoned in Iran - and Rimsha Masih - a Christian child accused of blasphemy in Pakistan.
...[T]he United States has developed a strategy that encourages U.S. government officials to develop and deepen their relationships with religious leaders and faith communities as they carry out their foreign policy responsibilities....
Hanukkah formally ends tonight as the sun goes down this evening. But it will always be appropriate for us as we gather to remind ourselves and the world of the meaning of this holiday.She also recited only two of the three traditional blessings over the Hanukkah candles, omitting the one praising God for commanding the lighting of Hanukkah candles-- since there is no commandment they be lit at the holiday's end.