Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Bill Introduced To Strip Federal Courts of Jurisdiction Over Legislative Prayer
Today's Indianapolis Star reports on the latest reaction to an Indiana federal district court decision last year banning sectarian prayer in the state's House of Representatives. That decision is on appeal to the U.S. 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Indiana's U.S. congressman Mike Sodrel however would like to short-circuit the appeal. Last week he introduced federal legislation to remove federal court jurisdiction over the content of prayer in state legislatures. Sodrel will hold a news conference this morning to discuss the bill.
Europeans Urge Changes In Afghanistan's Supreme Court; Islamists Demur
Today's Christian Science Monitor reports that in Afghanistan, a crisis may be brewing over whether the country's Supreme Court will move away from its strict Islamic focus and will be modernized. Presently all 9 justices are mullahs. Earlier this year at the London Conference on Afghanistan, the country agreed to reform its justice system. (Text of 2006 Afghanistan Compact.) On February 11, European diplomats delivered a demarche to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, calling for compliance with the agreement to address existing gender imbalance in the judiciary, and particularly in appointments to the Supreme Court.
This however is likely to meet opposition from Islamic scholar Fazel Hadi Shinwari who presently heads Afghanistan's Supreme Court and whose rulings have reflected strict compliance with Sharia. Responding to the European pressure for professionalization of the Court, Shinwari said: "Anything that is according to the Koran is fine with me, but if you go against the Koran, you Europeans will have to tell Karzai to get rid of this old man who is in charge of the Supreme Court. I'm ready to resign, but then there will be lots of problems, just as the desecration of the image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him, caused 60,000 people to go out into the streets. The same thing will happen here."
As to pressure to address gender imbalance in the judiciary, Shinwari who is both Chief Justice and head of Afghanistan's Council of Islamic Scholars says: "We have many women judges here, but a woman cannot be a judge over the general country, and she cannot sit in this chair. If a woman becomes a top judge, then what would happen when she has a menstruation cycle once a month, and she cannot go to the mosque? Also, a woman judge cannot give an execution order, according to Islamic law."
This however is likely to meet opposition from Islamic scholar Fazel Hadi Shinwari who presently heads Afghanistan's Supreme Court and whose rulings have reflected strict compliance with Sharia. Responding to the European pressure for professionalization of the Court, Shinwari said: "Anything that is according to the Koran is fine with me, but if you go against the Koran, you Europeans will have to tell Karzai to get rid of this old man who is in charge of the Supreme Court. I'm ready to resign, but then there will be lots of problems, just as the desecration of the image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him, caused 60,000 people to go out into the streets. The same thing will happen here."
As to pressure to address gender imbalance in the judiciary, Shinwari who is both Chief Justice and head of Afghanistan's Council of Islamic Scholars says: "We have many women judges here, but a woman cannot be a judge over the general country, and she cannot sit in this chair. If a woman becomes a top judge, then what would happen when she has a menstruation cycle once a month, and she cannot go to the mosque? Also, a woman judge cannot give an execution order, according to Islamic law."
Court Issues Revised Opinion In Florida Drivers' License Case
A Florida state court of appeals has issued a revised opinion in a case it decided last September upholding requirements of the state's Motor Vehicles Department regarding drivers' license photos. The Department refused to permit a Muslim woman to be photographed in a veil, but permitted her unveiled photo to be taken by a woman photographer. The revised opinion in Freeman v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Feb. 13, 2006), deletes references in the original opinion to deposition testimony of the license applicant regarding her beliefs about veiling, but reaches the same conclusion as the original opinion. On Religionlaw listserv, a post by Eugene Volokh discusses the modification in the court's opinion.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Editorial Commentary: The Cartoon Controversy and the False Holocaust Analogy
Today in Austria, British revisionist historian David Irving goes on trial for violating Austria’s law against Holocaust denial. In the wake of the Muhammad cartoon affair, some in the Muslim world have attempted to draw parallels between the caricatures of Muhammad and neo-Nazi propaganda. An Iranian newspaper editor thought that an appropriate response to Danish publication of the Muhammad drawings was a contest calling for Holocaust cartoons. Others have urged that laws banning neo-Nazi propaganda, Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial, enacted in several European countries, are precedents for new legislation prohibiting drawings insulting to Islam. However, the attempted analogies are false ones, even though few commentators have noted the asymmetry involved.
The fundamental difference between Neo-Nazi propaganda and the "cartoon affair" is the well-recognized difference in U.S. constitutional law between incitement cases and hostile audience cases. Incitement cases, to which U.S. courts apply the clear-and-present-danger test, involve situations in which we fear that listeners will so strongly agree with the speaker that language will quickly move to conduct. That is the concern with neo-Nazi propaganda and marches. Given the history of mid-20th century Europe, and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, a real fear exists that those who agree with neo-Nazis will quickly be recruited to persecute and resort to violence against Jews.
Hostile audience cases, on the other hand, are cases in which the listeners vociferously disagree with the speaker. The fear is not that listeners will follow the speaker’s urgings, but that listeners will attack the speaker or otherwise exert a hecklers’ veto. In these cases, American constitutional law protects the speaker, except in the most extreme of circumstances. The Muslim cartoons are problematic because of the reaction of a hostile audience, the reaction of Muslims who are offended by them. No one realistically fears that the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban will so convince the Danes that Muslims are terrorists that they will begin to violently attack Muslims. Non-Muslims in general recognize the cartoons as exaggerations or over-generalizations. The fear—justified in the reality—is that some Muslims, insulted by the cartoons, will react violently against those who have published them. American law generally protects speakers from this kind of hostile reaction.
Understanding this distinction does not solve the problem of the cartoons. But hopefully it does prevent us from using false analogies in seeking a solution. Balancing the interests of listeners and speakers is difficult. Western democracies have, by and large, come down heavily in favor of the rights of speakers and have told listeners who are offended by the ideas being expressed to walk away, turn the page, switch off the broadcast, stay away from the presentation, or reply with ideas that are more convincing to listeners. Muslim protesters around the world do not agree with that resolution of the conflicting values at stake. But they need to at least recognize that the problem is different from that posed by neo-Nazi attempts to find sympathizers who would like to revive Hitler’s "final solution".
--- HMF
The fundamental difference between Neo-Nazi propaganda and the "cartoon affair" is the well-recognized difference in U.S. constitutional law between incitement cases and hostile audience cases. Incitement cases, to which U.S. courts apply the clear-and-present-danger test, involve situations in which we fear that listeners will so strongly agree with the speaker that language will quickly move to conduct. That is the concern with neo-Nazi propaganda and marches. Given the history of mid-20th century Europe, and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, a real fear exists that those who agree with neo-Nazis will quickly be recruited to persecute and resort to violence against Jews.
Hostile audience cases, on the other hand, are cases in which the listeners vociferously disagree with the speaker. The fear is not that listeners will follow the speaker’s urgings, but that listeners will attack the speaker or otherwise exert a hecklers’ veto. In these cases, American constitutional law protects the speaker, except in the most extreme of circumstances. The Muslim cartoons are problematic because of the reaction of a hostile audience, the reaction of Muslims who are offended by them. No one realistically fears that the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban will so convince the Danes that Muslims are terrorists that they will begin to violently attack Muslims. Non-Muslims in general recognize the cartoons as exaggerations or over-generalizations. The fear—justified in the reality—is that some Muslims, insulted by the cartoons, will react violently against those who have published them. American law generally protects speakers from this kind of hostile reaction.
Understanding this distinction does not solve the problem of the cartoons. But hopefully it does prevent us from using false analogies in seeking a solution. Balancing the interests of listeners and speakers is difficult. Western democracies have, by and large, come down heavily in favor of the rights of speakers and have told listeners who are offended by the ideas being expressed to walk away, turn the page, switch off the broadcast, stay away from the presentation, or reply with ideas that are more convincing to listeners. Muslim protesters around the world do not agree with that resolution of the conflicting values at stake. But they need to at least recognize that the problem is different from that posed by neo-Nazi attempts to find sympathizers who would like to revive Hitler’s "final solution".
--- HMF
Arizona Bill Would Permit Opt-Out From College Assignments
In Arizona last week, the Senate Committee on Higher Education approved a bill that would require university faculty to offer alternative course work for students who find an assignment offensive to their sexuality, morality or religion. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Thayer Verschoor introduced the bill after a community college student complained to him after he was assigned to read Rick Moody's The Ice Storm, which contains scenes of sexuality and drug use.
Appeals In Ritual Beheading By Indigenous Indonesian Tribe
Today's Jakarta Post discusses pending appeals of murder convictions of members of the indigenous tribal community of Naulu in the interior of Seram Island, Maluku, in Indonesia. The tribe carries on its tradition of ritual decapitation. A segment of the Nauli people are convinced that unless human heads are offered when repairing or replacing a clan house, illness or death will result. The chief of the Nuane community, Sahune Matoke, said his members were motivated by the belief that performing the customary ritual was a sacred mission. "They had no idea of any punishment for such a killing." Samson Tahapary, a lawyer filing an appeal for the Naulu said, "The government knows of the unlawful tradition but no action has been taken to make the Naulu people understand the law. " Samson added, "The judges' decision will not be a means to increase my clients' awareness and provide further guidance. So I'm filing an appeal for proper consideration of nonjudicial matters before passing a verdict."
Recent Articles and Upcoming Conference
Recent law review articles form SmartCILP:
- Ivan E. Bodensteiner, The Demise of the First Amendment As a Guarantor of Religious Freedom, 27 Whittier Law Review 415-434 (2005).
- E. Frank Stephenson, An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics: A Rejoinder, 36 Cumberland Law Review 103-113 (2005-2006).
- Fundamentalism and the Rule of Law, Cardozo School of Law, March 14, 2006.
No Federal Court Jurisdiction In Priest Abuse Case
In Doe v. Archdiocese of Denver, (Feb. 7, 2006), the Colorado federal district court refused to find a federal question supporting federal court jurisdiction present in a child sexual abuse claim against a priest and the Archdiocese. It held that the claims of negligent supervision and retention, vicarious liability, and fraud against the Archdiocese, and claims against the priest for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy do not raise free exercise or establishment clause problems.
Science Association Denounces States' Anti-Evolution Efforts
Meeting in St. Louis, yesterday the Board of Directors of the world's largest general scientific organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), criticized state legislative efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution and "deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community." (AAAS release.) Their statement said that science and religion "need not be incompatible. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view." The AAAS statement was released in connection with an event for teachers at the group's 2006 Annual Meeting: "Evolution on the Front Line".
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Private Maryland Center Refuge For Christian State Legislators
Today's Baltimore Sun profiles Querencia House, an unmarked rented residence two blocks from the Maryland State House that since 2004 has served as a refuge for the capital's conservative Christians. Each week that the legislature is in session, Christians gather at the privately-funded center to pray for the president, the governor and state legislators and to ask that the kingdom of God be realized in Maryland. Del. Gail H. Bates says she feels lifted up by their support. Begun by Barb Stiegler, a former missionary, the house was the idea of Sen. Janet Greenip who was was looking for a quiet place in the capital during the legislative session. "I felt that the Christians here needed to be together sometimes," she said. "A place where they could be Christian."
Inside A High School Bible Class
A lengthy article by a Wilmington, North Carolina Star-News reporter gives insight into what is actually taking place in the classroom in a New Testament course offered in Wilmington high schools. Teachers are hired and paid by a church-supported group, the Executive Committee of the Bible. As recounted by the reporter:
At Harris's class last week there was nothing close to preaching. He asked students questions about aspects of the Bible, like which events in world history explained why the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. At another, he talked about the tensions leading to the Protestant Reformation. But other moments arguably reinforced a traditional brand of Christian thinking. Harris referred to creation and made statements such as the Bible is one book, which has 66 smaller books, 40 authors and one central theme: "The redemption of man through Jesus Christ."Rick Holliday, New Hanover County School's executive director of instructional services said that the classes have been renamed to reflect a more historical bent. The course that was "In the Beginning" is now "Old Testament I" and "The Life of Christ" is now "New Testament I." The school is also insisting that miracles are not treated as history, but instead as something “the Bible says”. Holliday says that the goal is to give the community what it wants and to follow the constitution, but adds, "That's a tough balancing act".
NH Supreme Court Rejects Foreign Islamic Divorce Of NH Domiciliaries
On Valentine's Day, the New Hampshire Supreme court rejected a husband's claim that his Islamic divorce a day before his wife filed in New Hampshire should have prevented the New Hampshire trial court from asserting jurisdiction to end their marriage. The case, In the Matter of Sonia Ramadan and Samer Ramadan (NH Sup. Ct., Feb. 14, 2006), is discussed in yesterday's Concord Monitor. Samer Ramadan claimed that he validly divorced his wife under Islamic law by declaring "I divorce you" three times in succession in her presence. He then telephoned an attorney in Lebanon and declared, with two witnesses listening, that he had divorced his wife. Two months later, a religious magistrate in Lebanon issued a decree confirming that divorce. However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the Lebanese decree had no legal effect because both husband and wife were domiciled in New Hampshire when the wife's divorce petition was filed.
The court decided that another issue raised by the husband was moot. The trial court's initial temporary decree had ordered the husband "not [to] speak about the Petitioner as a Muslim/Muslim woman to the children or within hearing of the children." Since that provision was not in the final divorce decree being appealed, the Supreme Court held it did not have to determine whether it amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
The court decided that another issue raised by the husband was moot. The trial court's initial temporary decree had ordered the husband "not [to] speak about the Petitioner as a Muslim/Muslim woman to the children or within hearing of the children." Since that provision was not in the final divorce decree being appealed, the Supreme Court held it did not have to determine whether it amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Closing Arguments In Trial Challenging InnerChange
The Des Moines Register reports on closing arguments that were presented Friday by lawyers in federal district court in Iowa in a case challenging InnerChange, a faith-based prison treatment program. Operating in Iowa and elsewhere, inmates in the program immerse themselves in Christian values. (See prior related postings 1, 2.) Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has sued Iowa prison officials and Prison Fellowship Ministries, which operates the program, claiming that InnerChange violates the Establishment Clause. The suit seeks repayment of $1.5 million in state funds that have been used for InnerChange.
Lawyers for Americans United argue that the program "requires and coerces inmates to take part in religious activities." They say it discriminates against other religious beliefs, particularly Catholicism, and provides special privileges to participants. These include an opportunity to complete treatment classes required for parole earlier than they could otherwise. Defense lawyers dispute these claims, saying no one is forced to participate and that participants receive no preference for paroles. "Inmates of all faiths and no faiths are welcome," said Anthony Troy, a lawyer for Prison Fellowship. He says that those of other faiths who join the program can continue to observe their traditions
Lawyers for Americans United argue that the program "requires and coerces inmates to take part in religious activities." They say it discriminates against other religious beliefs, particularly Catholicism, and provides special privileges to participants. These include an opportunity to complete treatment classes required for parole earlier than they could otherwise. Defense lawyers dispute these claims, saying no one is forced to participate and that participants receive no preference for paroles. "Inmates of all faiths and no faiths are welcome," said Anthony Troy, a lawyer for Prison Fellowship. He says that those of other faiths who join the program can continue to observe their traditions
2 Prisoners Successful, 1 Is Not, In 3 Free Exercise Cases
Opinions in three prisoner free exercise cases have recently become available.
In Bess v. Alameda, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6079 (ED Cal., Feb. 16, 2006), a Magistrate Judge in a California federal district court recommended that a motion for summary judgment by prison officials be denied because they had failed to carry their burden of showing that their restrictions on inmates receiving religious books and materials were necessary, nor did they show they were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Plaintiff, a state prison inmate complained that his free exercise rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA were being violated by a prison mail room practice of returning religious mail to the sender marked "unauthorized", without notice to the inmate to whom it was addressed. He also claimed that greater restrictions were placed on receiving religious books and materials than on comparable secular material.
In Fulbright v. Evans, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40240 (WD Okl., Sept. 8, 2005), an Oklahoma federal Magistrate Judge recommended that a permanent injunction be granted that orders state prison officials to furnish plaintiff prisoners with a kosher diet. The opinion rejects defendants' claims that furnishing kosher food would violate the Establishment Clause, and accepts plaintiff's free exercise claims. The opinion concludes that the Department of Correction's "refusal to provide a kosher diet, in light of its provision of religious-based diets for other inmates without negative impact, is not entitled to total deference. Here, the record does not reflect more than a de minimis impact upon DOC's economic resources and does not reflect any significant negative impact upon the other concerns submitted by DOC as rational bases for the current policy."
In Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6118 (WD Mo., Jan. 30, 2006), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a new trial to an inmate who claimed that erroneous jury instructions were given in his former trial involving free speech and RLUIPA claims. Among the instructions upheld by the court was one that characterized Plaintiff's request for religious accommodation as a request for "racially-segregated group services for the Christian Separatist Church". The court said that "racially-segregated" accurately describes the Christian Separatist Church.
In Bess v. Alameda, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6079 (ED Cal., Feb. 16, 2006), a Magistrate Judge in a California federal district court recommended that a motion for summary judgment by prison officials be denied because they had failed to carry their burden of showing that their restrictions on inmates receiving religious books and materials were necessary, nor did they show they were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Plaintiff, a state prison inmate complained that his free exercise rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA were being violated by a prison mail room practice of returning religious mail to the sender marked "unauthorized", without notice to the inmate to whom it was addressed. He also claimed that greater restrictions were placed on receiving religious books and materials than on comparable secular material.
In Fulbright v. Evans, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40240 (WD Okl., Sept. 8, 2005), an Oklahoma federal Magistrate Judge recommended that a permanent injunction be granted that orders state prison officials to furnish plaintiff prisoners with a kosher diet. The opinion rejects defendants' claims that furnishing kosher food would violate the Establishment Clause, and accepts plaintiff's free exercise claims. The opinion concludes that the Department of Correction's "refusal to provide a kosher diet, in light of its provision of religious-based diets for other inmates without negative impact, is not entitled to total deference. Here, the record does not reflect more than a de minimis impact upon DOC's economic resources and does not reflect any significant negative impact upon the other concerns submitted by DOC as rational bases for the current policy."
In Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6118 (WD Mo., Jan. 30, 2006), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a new trial to an inmate who claimed that erroneous jury instructions were given in his former trial involving free speech and RLUIPA claims. Among the instructions upheld by the court was one that characterized Plaintiff's request for religious accommodation as a request for "racially-segregated group services for the Christian Separatist Church". The court said that "racially-segregated" accurately describes the Christian Separatist Church.
Russian President Cautions About Religious Crimes
Interfax News Agency reports that last Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the Internior Ministry board that law enforcement agencies have underestimated the threat posed by the outburst of xenophobic, racial, national and religious crimes in Russia.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Muhammad Cartoon Reaction Continues; Danish Editor Responds
Reaction around the world to publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad continues with unbelievable intensity. Here is Saturday's summary of developments from an article by the Associated Press:
Meanwhile, Sunday's Washington Post carries an op-ed, Why I Published Those Cartoons, by Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (the paper in which the cartoons were first published). He says:Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.
It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.
In Libya, the parliament suspended the interior minister after at least 11 people died when his security forces attacked rioters who torched the Italian consulate in Benghazi.
Right-wing Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli resigned under pressure, accused of fueling the fury in Benghazi by wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with one of the offending cartoons, first published nearly five months ago in a Danish newspaper.Danish church officials met with a top Muslim cleric in Cairo, meanwhile, but made no significant headway in defusing the conflict.
And in what has become a daily event, tens of thousands of Muslims protested - this time in Britain, Pakistan and Austria - to denounce the perceived insult.
I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.UPDATE: On Sunday, two Saudi papers carried a full-page ad dated Feb. 5 in which Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, apologized for the cartoons published by his paper. (Reuters.)
2nd Circuit Applies RFRA To Private ADEA Claim
On Thursday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued fascinating majority and dissenting opinions in a case in which a Methodist minister claimed that his church violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act by forcing him into retirement because he had reached the age of 70. In Hankins v. Lyght (2nd Cir., Feb. 16, 2006), Judge Winter’s majority opinion rejected the district court’s application of a “ministerial exception” in ADEA cases. It held, instead, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now sets out the controlling standard. Under RFRA, the case should be dismissed if the application of the ADEA would place a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the church or its Bishop, unless it is shown that the ADEA furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive manner. The majority remanded the case to the district court for it to apply the RFRA standards to the facts. In the course of reaching its conclusion, the majority also clearly held that RFRA was constitutional as applied to the interpretation of federal statutes.
Judge Sotomayor’s dissent argued first that the church and Bishop Lyght had waived reliance on RFRA, and instead were relying only on the free exercise and establishment clauses. Second, the dissent argued that RFRA only applies to claims against the government, and does not apply in suits between private parties. Finally, Judge Sotomayor argued that Congress did not intend the ADEA to apply to the selection or dismissal of clergy by a religious body.
Judge Sotomayor’s dissent argued first that the church and Bishop Lyght had waived reliance on RFRA, and instead were relying only on the free exercise and establishment clauses. Second, the dissent argued that RFRA only applies to claims against the government, and does not apply in suits between private parties. Finally, Judge Sotomayor argued that Congress did not intend the ADEA to apply to the selection or dismissal of clergy by a religious body.
US In Dispute Over Discovery In Suit Against Hollywood, Florida
This week brought interesting skirmishing in a federal lawsuit against the city of Hollywood, Florida, accusing it of religious discrimination in its refusal to permit an Orthodox Jewish Chabad group to hold religious services in a house in a neighborhood zoned as residential. (See prior posting.) Yesterday’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel detailed the legal maneuvering. The Justice Department asked the court to impose sanctions on the city for its belated production of police memos describing police surveillance of the home of Rosa Lopez. Lopez claims the Virgin Mary appears at her Hollywood home on the 13th of each month. Approximately 100 people show up each month to pray and seek miracles, and the city has never tried to prevent that under its zoning laws. The government is pointing to this discrepancy in making its discrimination claim. The city argues that Lopez’s home is not a house of worship and does not need a special zoning exception.
Justice Department attorney Sean Keveney argued that had the federal government known police were watching Lopez, it would have done its own surveillance to possibly "rebut any testimony offered by the city." Keveney also said the city has provided incomplete information on why it contends Lopez’s home is not a house of worship.
Justice Department attorney Sean Keveney argued that had the federal government known police were watching Lopez, it would have done its own surveillance to possibly "rebut any testimony offered by the city." Keveney also said the city has provided incomplete information on why it contends Lopez’s home is not a house of worship.
Hindus Split On How Textbooks Should Portray Them
Today’s San Jose Mercury News reports that in California, efforts by the state Board of Education to more accurately portray Hinduism in school textbooks are meeting new complications. (See prior postings 1, 2 .) Initially, a number of changes were proposed by two Hindu groups, the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation. Their proposals would change the depiction of women, low-caste Indians (dalits) and the diversity of spiritual beliefs to create what these groups argue is a more accurate and balanced portrayal of Hinduism. However, other Hindus now argue that these changes are an attempt to whitewash history and promote a Hindu nationalist agenda.
In September the state's Curriculum Commission hired Indian historian Shiva Bajpai, who had been recommended by the foundations, to review the proposals. He endorsed most of the revisions. But just before a November meeting to approve them, 50 other leading professors wrote the board urging it to reject the changes. Over the winter, hundreds of other scholars from the nation's leading research universities also wrote to protest the changes.
In the midst of this, Indian dalits ("untouchable class") in the United States became more vocal. They are demanding that the term “dalit” not be omitted from textbooks, as the Hindu groups want. The dalits also have asked that a photo of a dalit cleaning a latrine be replaced with one of a dalit engaged in a faith practice. They say that it would serve the dalits' cause better if the textbooks said that "untouchability is a living reality in India," instead of accepting the Foundations’ suggestion that to have textbooks read that it is illegal to treat someone as an untouchable. (India West report.)
Dismayed by all of this, the board of education has created a new review committee, held a private meeting and solicited the opinions of non-Hindus. In response, the Hindu American Foundation is considering legal action.
In September the state's Curriculum Commission hired Indian historian Shiva Bajpai, who had been recommended by the foundations, to review the proposals. He endorsed most of the revisions. But just before a November meeting to approve them, 50 other leading professors wrote the board urging it to reject the changes. Over the winter, hundreds of other scholars from the nation's leading research universities also wrote to protest the changes.
In the midst of this, Indian dalits ("untouchable class") in the United States became more vocal. They are demanding that the term “dalit” not be omitted from textbooks, as the Hindu groups want. The dalits also have asked that a photo of a dalit cleaning a latrine be replaced with one of a dalit engaged in a faith practice. They say that it would serve the dalits' cause better if the textbooks said that "untouchability is a living reality in India," instead of accepting the Foundations’ suggestion that to have textbooks read that it is illegal to treat someone as an untouchable. (India West report.)
Dismayed by all of this, the board of education has created a new review committee, held a private meeting and solicited the opinions of non-Hindus. In response, the Hindu American Foundation is considering legal action.
9th Circuit Hears Argument In Library Use Case
The Mercury News reports that yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover (LEXIS link to trial court decision). The case involves a challenge by a Christian group that was prohibited from using a library meeting room for prayer services. The group argues that the library’s policy of excluding religious services and activities is discriminatory and violates the its free speech rights. Kelly Flanagan, attorney for Contra Costa County, argued that religious groups have free access to public library facilities, but allowing prayer services would mean taxpayers would be subsidizing religion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)