First Clergy Admitted As Lawyers In India

Now that nuns and priests in India have won the right to become lawyers (see prior posting), the first ones have been admitted to the bar. According to Chennai Online, today two nuns and six priests were among the 300 new lawyers enrolled in Kerala as advocates.

Constitutionality of Eagle Protections To Be Argued In Federal Court

In U.S. federal district court in Jackson, Wyoming on Monday, oral arguments are scheduled in a case involving the constitutionality of federal restrictions on Native Americans taking bald eagles for religious purposes. The Jackson Hole Star Tribune reports that the Northern Arapaho tribe and defendant Winslow Friday (charged with shooting a bald eagle without Interior Department permission) claim that federal law places an undue restriction on their free exercise of religion. They argue that the population of eagles has increased to the point that now some could appropriately be taken for religious purposes. They say that the current system that forces tribes to rely on the National Eagle Repository for salvaged eagles imposes a lengthy delay and often furnishes eagles that are "unusable" for traditional ceremonies. Prosecutors say that since Friday never applied for a permit to hunt eagles, he cannot now assert that hunting restrictions infringe his rights.

Articles of Interest - Including New Symposia

From SSRN:

• Sara C. Galvan, Beyond Worship: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and Religious Institutions' Auxiliary Uses, Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 24, pp. 205-237 (2006).
• Michael M. O’Hear, Faith, Justice, and the Teaching of Criminal Procedure (May 2006)Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 06-23.

From bePress:

• Sean J. Young, The Rise and Fall of the Centrality Concern in Free Exercise Jurisprudence (May 2006). (Yale Law School Student Scholarship Series).
  

From SmartCILP:

• John P. Forren, Revisiting Four Popular Myths About the Peyote Case, 8 Univ. Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 209-253 (2006).
• Vol. 14, No. 1 of the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal contains a large group of articles of interest. A group of essays comprise a mini-symposium on An Analysis of the Ten Commandments Cases. Contributors are Erwin Chemerinsky, William VanAlstyne, Jay Sekulow & Francis Manion, and Greg Abbott. Also in the issue is Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights. Jour. 73-140 (2005).

• Emory International Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 2005) is an 850 page symposium on The Permissible Scope of Legal Limitations on the Freedom of Religion or Belief. It contains articles by 19 authors from around the world.
  

Appeal Filed In CLS Suit Against Hastings Law School

The Alliance Defense Fund announced that on Wednesday its attorneys and those from the Christian Legal Society Center for Law & Religious Freedom filed an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Christian Legal Society of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Kane. In April, the federal district court upheld the anti-discrimination rules applied by Hastings Law School to prohibit recognized student groups from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society was denied official recognition because it required its voting members and officers to hold Christian beliefs and avoid sexual activity that violates Christian doctrines.

Church Entanglement In Solution To Puerto Rico's Budget Crisis

Puerto Rican writer Mayra Montero has an op-ed column in today’s New York Times suggesting that the role of religious groups in settling Puerto Rico’s recent budget crisis was much greater than had generally been realized. While it had been reported that San Juan’s Catholic Archbishop Roberto González had been instrumental in getting a special commission formed to come up with a solution to the governmental crisis, Montero’s reporting suggests a much more pervasive religious influence in the matter. She says:

Serious debates over taxes, public spending and government bonds were held amid prayers and hymns. Although San Juan's Roman Catholic archbishop took part in the negotiations, the messianic tone of evangelical and Pentecostalist churches predominated. Each session began and ended with a "prayer circle." The speaker of the House told reporters that he was consulting with God about the budget. San Juan's mayor led a mystic march accompanied by a woman with a title like "director of spiritual affairs."

At the Capitol, legislators surrounded a singer of religious music, a "holy man" with miracle-working pretensions who walked around laying on hands. The governor himself joined his opponents to murmur praises, and he was "anointed" by the leaders of evangelical churches who wandered through the Capitol and the executive mansion, La Fortaleza, advising, instructing and eating snacks. If anyone complained about their presence, they threatened to put "100,000 Christians" inside the Capitol to apply pressure.

It worked: on Monday, public employees returned to work after a resolution was reached, though not without a mini-crisis last weekend that was once again resolved thanks to mediation by religious leaders, who declared their work a "great victory of Jehovah, king of kings."

Ms. Montero argues that the role of religious institutions in this crisis will give them undue influence on substantive issues that are likely to later come to the Puerto Rican legislature.

Death Penalty Survives Establishment Clause Challenge

In Hogan v. State, (May 15, 2006), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected a novel Establishment Clause challenge to the death penalty. Convicted murderer Kenneth Hogan argued that the effectiveness of capital punishment depends on the sectarian religious notion of a merit-based afterlife, such as heaven and hell, and thus unconstitutionally advances religion. The court, however, held that there are adequate secular punitive reasons for the death penalty, so that its primary purpose and effect are not to advance religion.

Prison Sex Offender Program Has Establishment Clause Problems

In Edmondson v. Curry, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30416 (D. NH, April 3, 2006), a federal Magistrate Judge in New Hampshire concluded that complaints of a New Hampshire State Prison inmate, William Edmondson, about the religious nature of the prison’s 12-step sex offender program (SOP) had merit, but that there was no need to issue an injunction since Edmondson was not currently in the program.

While public prayer is not a part of the SOP, inmates post a daily quote—often from a religious text-- in a public area for use by all the participants in the program. The judge concluded that “there is no substantive difference between posting a scriptural quote on a public board and hanging a crucifix on the wall.” He also found that the state, through its management of the program, was responsible for the quotes being posted. He found that the Establishment Clause was violated by subjecting inmates to quotes from a particular religious tradition as part of a state-run program.

Religious Minorities Concerned About Reported Iranian Sumptuary Law

A number of news outlets today, including Canada's National Post, UPI, the Jerusalem Post and YNet News , are reporting that Iran's Parliament has passed a National Uniform Law that obligates non-Muslims to wear specific colored ribbons or bands when they are in public. They say that Iranian expatriates have confirmed that the law has been enacted. However, another news source, 940 Montreal, says that the report is false, quoting independent reporter Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran.

The reports on the law's passage say that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must still approve it before it goes into effect. Under the law, Jews will have to wear yellow bands, Zoroastrians blue ones, while Christians will be required to wear red bands.

These provisions are part of a broader requirement in the law that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" in order to remove ethnic and class distinctions. These Islamic uniforms will establish "visual equality" for Iranians as they prepare for the return of the Hidden Imam. The identifying ribbons for others are to then prevent Muslims from becoming najis (ritually unclean) by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.

These requirements, of course, remind many of similar mandates in Nazi Germany. Rabbi Marvin Heir, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said that Iran is getting "closer and closer to the Nazi ideology." He demanded that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan intervene immediately.

UPDATE: On Friday night and Saturday, information coming from Iranian diplomats, and from the Jewish community in Iran (including a Jewish member of parliament), suggests that the bill preliminarily passed by the Iranian parliament does not contain provisions regarding the wearing of distinctive colors by religious minorities. Piecing together the reports, it appears that a bill to promote an Iranian-Islamic style of dress for Muslim women was approved in preliminary form. Sponsors were mainly concerned with recent tendencies among Muslim women to move to light colored clothing during the hot summer months. Apparently there was some discussion in parliament of dress requirements for other religious groups, and language on the matter may have been in earlier drafts of the bill. However the language is not in the preliminary version of the bill that was adopted. (Globe & Mail, National Post, Debka).

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim that Jews Were Kept Off Capital Jury

In the case of In re Freeman, (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 16, 2006), the California Supreme Court rejected the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Fred Freeman who had been sentenced to death for murder. Freeman claimed that Judge Stanley P. Golde, who presided over his trial, had secretly urged the prosecutor, John Quatman, to peremptorily challenge Jewish jurors in order to make it more likely that the jury would impose the death penalty, and that the prosecution exercised challenges on this basis. The referee that the Supreme Court appointed to hear evidence in the habeas case found that there was no factual basis for Freeman's claim, concluding that Quatman's testimony that the alleged improprieties occurred was not credible. (See related prior posting.) Yesterday's Contra Costa Times has more on the case.

Louisiana House Defeats Anti-Discrimination Bill

By a vote of 39 in favor, and 55 against, the Louisiana House of Representatives on Tuesday defeated HB 853. The bill would have prohibited harassment or discrimination in employment or the provision of services by any state agency on the basis of religion, as well as on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation, or disabilities. The Associated Press reports that the bill would have put into permanent law a ban that is now in place through Executive Order KBB 2004-54 that expires at the end of current governor Kathleen Blanco's term of office. A similar bill, SB 347, had also been introduced in the Senate, but had not reached a final vote. The House defeat is attributable to the provisions in the bill that would protect gays and lesbians from discriminatory treatment.

Four Charged With Using Religious Schools To Steal State Voucher Funds

In Bartow, Florida yesterday, four defendants went on trial accused of using two private religious schools to siphon off funds from Florida's school voucher program for their personal use. The Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger reports that the four are charged with using the Faith Christian Academy in Bartow and Cathedral of Faith Christian Academy in Lakeland as conduits for some $200,000 from the voucher program and the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.

Vatican Speaks Out On Religious Freedom And Proselytization

In a conference report, and in two papal speeches this week, the Vatican focused on issues of religious freedom and proselytization. In Lariano, Italy, an inter-religious consultation (WCC news release) organized by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches issued a report on Conversion: Assessing the Reality. Here are some of the report's conclusions:

Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.

We affirm that while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.

Freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.

Meanwhile, in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI spoke twice this week on the importance of religious freedom in countries with non-Christian majorities. (Reuters report.) On Monday, speaking to the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, he urged Muslim countries to grant Christian minorities the same rights as Muslims have in Western nations. (Zenit report.) He said that Christians in Muslim nations should be able to speak openly about their religion.

On Thursday, the Pope told India's new ambassador to the Vatican that the efforts by Hindu nationalists in some Indian states to ban conversions were unconstitutional and "contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers." (Full text of statement.) His objections, and others, seem to have had an effect. BBC News and Daily India report today that the governor of the Indian state of Rajasthan, citing religious freedom concerns, has refused to sign a bill passed by the state assembly that would have prohibited religious conversions impelled by fraud, force or allurement. (See prior posting.)

Senate Committee Passes "Marriage Protection Amendment"

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and sent to the full Senate a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Washington Post reports on the bitter 10-8 party-line committee vote favoring S.J.Res. 1. Reaction to the vote fell along expected lines. Americans United for Separation of Church and State said "that the Senate is trying to wed church and state in unholy matrimony." On the other hand, the Family Research Council applauded the Committee's action.

Memorial Day 2006-- Is It A Religious Holiday?

Memorial Day, celebrated this year on May 29, was first officially proclaimed in 1868 by Gen. John Logan, commander of the Grand Army of the Republic. (Background.) His General Order No. 11 was framed largely in secular terms, providing that the day is "for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit."

As with other aspects of our civic culture, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the struggle against "godless Communism" in the 1950's led the U.S. Congress to stress the role of religion in national ceremonies. That more recent aspect of Memorial Day is reflected in the 2006 Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day Proclamation that President Bush issued at the White House on Tuesday. It provides in part:

Those who lost their lives in the defense of freedom helped protect our citizens and lay the foundation of peace for people everywhere. On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation pays tribute to their personal courage, love of country, and dedication to duty.

In respect for their devotion to America, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 158), has requested the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 29, 2006, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day.

Native American Couple Seek Damages For Wrongful Peyote Enforcement

James "Flaming Eagle" Mooney, and has wife Linda, have been in a long battle with authorities over the use of peyote. They are leaders of the Oklevueha Earth Walks Native American Church of Utah. In February, federal charges against them were dropped under an agreement that they would refrain from possessing, buying, using or distributing peyote "until they become members of a federally recognized tribe or there is a definitive clarification of the law regarding the use of peyote by court ruling or legislative action." Now the Washington Post reports that the Mooneys have filed a federal law suit seeking damages from local, state and federal governments, claiming that past enforcement actions aimed at their peyote use violated their First Amendment rights.

Court Refuses To Order Amendment In Baptismal Certificate

In Matter of Wilson v. Kilkenny, (NY Sup Ct, Kings Co., May 15, 2006), a New York state trial court refused an unmarried father's request that the court order the Roman Catholic Church to issue his child an amended baptismal certificate. As part of a suit to force a change in the child's name, the father sought to have the baptismal certificate reflect that he is the child's father. The court held that the First Amendment precludes it from interfering in what amounts to a religious dispute between the parents, finding that it is solely for Church authorities to decide whether the baptismal certificate should be amended.

Illinois Governor Signs Bill To Bar Funeral Protests

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act" to prevent a Topeka church group from conducting anti-gay protests at soldiers' funerals. Public Act 094-0772 prohibits loud demonstrations at funerals, and prohibits visual images that contain fighting words or actual or veiled threats within 200 feet of a funeral. It also prohibits blocking anyone's entry to or exit from to a funeral. The prohibitions apply for 30 minutes before and after the funeral ceremony. Other states have passed similar laws.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church said that despite the law, pickets would be at the Illinois funeral of Afghanistan veteran Christopher Donaldson on Friday. Defiantly, she said, "The law is impotent. You've done nothing to change that God is killing your children and sending them home from battle. Keep your big, fat snout out of our religion."

Prisoner Free Exercise Claims Move Ahead

Ghashiyah v. Frank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29083 (ED Wis., May 11, 2006) is a broad-ranging civil rights suit filed by 8 prisoners, pro se, against 85 Wisconsin officials and employees alleging a wide variety of constitutional claims growing out of alleged mistreatment while in prison. This decision is the initial screening of the complaints as required by 28 USC Sec. 1915A for prisoner claims. A group of claims alleging violations of RLUIPA and the Free Exercise clause were permitted to move forward. They included claims by one plaintiff that his prison forms were diverted because officials refused to recognize his religious name; and that he was prevented from participating in Ramadan. Various plaintiffs contend that they are prohibited from possessing religious materials other than the Bible, Quran, or equivalent major text while in segregation, and are denied access to other religious materials. And plaintiffs allege that Jewish and Muslim inmates were involuntarily injected with a pork by-product.

Florida Synagogue Can Move Ahead With Discrimination Claims

Today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports on last week's Florida federal district court decision in Hollywood Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 2006 WL 1320044 (S.D.Fla., 2006, May 10, 2006). The Hollywood Community Synagogue Chabad Lubavitch, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, has has sued the city of Hollywood alleging various violations of the synagogue's religious freedoms after the Hollywood City Commission reversed the grant of a Special Exception to zoning restrictions that had been granted by the city's Development Review Board. The Commission said that the synagogue was "too controversial". (See prior posting.)

The court held that the synagogue had sufficiently shown a practice of harassment and selective enforcement against the Synagogue through checking daily for code violations and ticketing only cars parked on the synagogue's side of the street. The court dismissed the synagogue's claim under the federal RLUIPA and Florida's RFRA that a substantial burden was placed on its religious exercise by the city's denial of a Special Exception under its zoning laws, but permitted the synagogue to proceed with its discrimination claim under RLUIPA, as well as its equal protection, due process and promissory estoppel claims. It also permitted it to move ahead on its claim that City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations fail to provide objective criteria to measure zoning decisions made by the Commission.

Turkish High Court Judges Shot In Religiously Motivated Attack

BBC News reports that in Ankara, Turkey today, a gunman attacked the judges of the Council of State, the country's the top administrative court, in what may have been a religiously motivated shooting. One judge died after 6 hours of surgery, and four others are wounded. One of the wounded judges, Judge Mustafa Birden, whose injuries are not life-threatening, achieved notoriety earlier this year when he ruled that a school teacher should not be promoted because she wore her Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside of school, even though she removed it, as required by law, while teaching. (See prior posting.) He has received death threats since then, and an Islamist newspaper has printed photos of him and his fellow judges. The gunman, who was carrying papers indicating that he is a lawyer, reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is great) as he fired at the judges.

UPDATE: On Thursday, more than 15,000 Turks, including students and judges dressed in their robes, marched in Ankara to support secularism and to condemn the shooting of Council of State judges. (AP report.)