Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, June 16, 2006
EEOC Faces Large Budget Cut
Wisconsin Gets Faith-Based Office
Finland Debates Unsolicited Religious Mailings
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Accommodating Muslim High Schoolers In Seattle
Court Permits Religious Profiling In Immigration Enforcement
However on a broader equal protection issue, the court seemed to hold that it is permissible for the government to engage in religious (as well as racial) profiling in its enforcement of the immigration laws. Relying on language from a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case, Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the judge wrote:
This is, of course, an extraordinarily rough and overbroad sort of distinction of which, if applied to citizens, our courts would be highly suspicious. Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the political branches, "[i]n the exercise of [their] broad power over naturalization and immigration ... regularly make[] rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79-80 (1976);....Today's New York Times reports on the decision, quoting Georgetown law professor David Cole's take on the decision: "What this decision says is the next time there is a terror attack, the government is free to round up every Muslim immigrant in the U.S. based solely on their ethnic and religious identity, and hold them on immigration pretexts for as long as it desires."[Thanks to How Appealing for the case link.]Similarly, I do not believe the plaintiffs’ claims of selective enforcement on the basis of their race and religion provide any cause to depart from the general rule laid out in AADC. In the investigation into the September 11 attacks, the government learned that the attacks had been carried out at the direction of Osama bin Laden, leader of al Queda, a fundamentalist Islamist group; some of the hijackers were in violation of the terms of their visas at the time of the attacks. In the immediate aftermath of these events, when the government had only the barest of information about the hijackers to aid its efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks, it determined to subject to greater scrutiny aliens who shared characteristics with the hijackers, such as violating their visas and national origin and/or religion. Investigating these aliens’ backgrounds prolonged their detention, delaying the date when they would be removed.
As a tool fashioned by the executive branch to ferret out information to prevent additional terrorist attacks, this approach may have been crude, but it was not so irrational or outrageous as to warrant judicial intrusion into an area in which courts have little experience and less expertise.
Illinois Village And Church Spar Over Building Requirements
The Associated Press report on the controversy earlier this week had a somewhat different slant. It quotes village officials as saying that there has been a long series of attempts by Cornerstone Community Church to get around the village's permit requirements.
Secretary Rice Talks About Religious Faith and Freedom
UPDATE: Here is another interview with Secretary Rice on similar topics, this time with the editor of SBC Life.
California Supreme Court Will Review Doctors' Religious Defense
Egypt To Ban Both Da Vinci Code Film And Book
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
US Muslim Women Seek Religious Accommodations
Bolivian Constitutional Rewrite Focuses On State Religion Issue
Temporary Injunction Saves Church Services In School Gym
Ugandan Police Arrest Muslim Groom After Marriage To Hindu Bride
Recent Developments In Religious Land Use Cases
In Boulder County, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Christian Church is seeking permission for a 15 to 20 year construction plan that would add an education building, a multipurpose chapel building, a gymnasium, a connecting gallery, and about 500 parking spaces. Yesterday's Longmont (CO) Daily Times-Call reported that the U.S. Justice Department has now entered the pending litigation in which Boulder County is challenging the constitutionality of RLUIPA's land use provisions.
The Orange County (CA) Register today reports that in Huntington Beach, California, lawyers for the city and Praise Christian Center are negotiating in a final attempt to settle a lawsuit, now on appeal, in which the church charges that the city violated RLUIPA in 2003 when it required the church to make various changes to a warehouse before using it a a church. These included a sprinkler system, soundproofing, and relocation of 3 parking spaces. The city prevailed at trial, but Praise Christian Center is appealing because the court refused to hear expert testimony on other situations in which the city did not require businesses to make like changes.
In Bedminster Township, New Jersey, under the prodding of a federal judge, the township is attempting to reach a settlement with Church of the Hills that has filed a RLUIPA suit because the township zoning board denied it a crucial variance it needs to proceed with its plans to quadruple the size of its facilities. Last fall, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief supporting the church. Yesterday, the Bernardsville News reported that the church has agreed to scale back its plans, and the township may now have more incentive to settle because its insurance carrier is no longer supporting its defense.
Finally, in Washington state, the Seattle Times reports today that a state court of appeals is being asked to grant an emergency stay of the order obtained by the city of Woodinville evicting 60 residents of Tent City 4. The tent city, sponsored by SHARE/WHEEL (a non-profit homeless advocacy group), is being hosted by Northshore United Church of Christ. One of the arguments on appeal is that the city's land-use code unconstitutionally infringes the church's right to religious expression. The city claims that Tent City 4 promoters did not follow proper permit procedures. In November, a RLUIPA claim was filed to challenge another Seattle suburb's regulation of a Tent City 4 encampment. (See prior posting.)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
British Religious Groups Urge Enforcement Of School Prayer Requirements
9th Circuit Permits Religious Health Care Providers To Intervene In Weldon Amendment Challenge
Today's Sacramento dBusiness News reports on a statement issued by the Alliance of Catholic Health Care praising the court's decision.
Alaska Tax Exemption Challenged As Favoring One Religion
Baltimore Funding of Faith-Based Hunger Program Opposed
Newdow Loses "In God We Trust" Challenge; Pledge Case Still Pending
In passing on the merits, the court held that it was bound by a 1970 Ninth Circuit decision (Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 [LEXIS Link]). Relying on that, the court rejected Newdow's Establishment Clause claim, finding that the motto has no theological or ritual impact, but rather merely has spiritual, psychological and inspirational value. The court similarly rejected Newdow's Free Exercise and RFRA claim that his right to exercise his Atheistic beliefs has been burdened by the government's endorsement of monotheism. It said that "In God We Trust" is a secular motto. It also rejected Newdow's attempt to rely on a 1977 Supreme Court decision striking down a New Hampshire requirement that auto owners display license plates with the motto "Live Free or Die".
Meanwhile Michael Newdow has another important case pending before the 9th Circuit-- a challenge to the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. (See prior posting.) Howard J. Bashman has an interesting article in Law.com yesterday discussing the technical question of whether the panel of 9th Circuit judges who hear this appeal will be bound by a prior 9th Circuit decision that found the Pledge's use of "under God" to be unconstitutional. That decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that Newdow lacked standing. Bashman argues that this had the effect of erasing the 9th Circuit's prior determination on the merits, even though the district court in the case now on appeal upheld Newdow's claim on the ground that it was sill bound by the 9th Circuit determination. If the Supreme Court's dismissal on standing grounds did not wipe out the 9th Circuit's substantive holding, the current 3-judge panel is also bound by the holding of the earlier 3-judge panel.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Will Britain Require Clergy To Bless Gays and Give Them Communion?
In fact it seems unlikely that the final regulations will be this broad. Here is what the March 2006 Consultation Paper said about the issue:
Churches, mosques and many other religious organisations advance their faith or belief through activities such as worship, teaching and preaching, officiating in marriage, conducting baptisms and giving sacraments to members of their religious community. We recognise that there may be circumstances where the new regulations could impact on aspects of religious activity or practice in the light of the doctrines of some faiths concerning sexual orientation and the beliefs of their followers. We need to consider therefore the application of the regulations in these areas.
We are interested to hear views on the impact that the regulations may have in these areas, particularly where the regulations may impede religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith. Any exceptions from the regulations for religious organisations would need to be clearly defined and our starting point is that these should be limited to activities closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith.