Saudi Religious Police Ban Sale of Dogs and Cats

In Saudi Arabia, the Muttawa, or religious police, have banned the sale of dogs and cats in the cities of Jiddah and Mecca. The Associated Press reported Friday that religious authorities have asked city officials to help them enforce the ban . Dogs are considered unclean in Muslim tradition, and generally pets are seen as a sign of unwanted Western influence. The inclusion of cats in the ban is puzzling. One of the Prophet Muhammad's closest companions always carried a kitten and took care of it.

Mandatory Boy Scout Membership Presentation Is Not Discriminatory

Oregon law prohibits religious discrimination (as well as discrimination on various other grounds) against any person in any public elementary or secondary school. On Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court in Powell v. Bunn (Sept. 8, 2006) held that requiring elementary school students to attend a presentation at which the Boy Scouts provided information and encouraged boys to join did not amount to discrimination against a student who was precluded from joining because the scouts limit membership to those who believe in God. Justice Kistler dissented. The case was discussed yesterday by Oregon Live.

Challenge To IL Requirement On Dispensing of Contraceptives Moves Ahead

On Wednesday, an Illinois federal district court held that a number of pharmacists as well as Walgreens (the former employer of five of them) can proceed with their declaratory judgment actions against the state of Illinois challenging a rule promulgated by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation that requires pharmacies to dispense emergency contraceptives when presented with a prescription for them. Illinois takes the position that the rule applies to every pharmacist, even if filling the prescription would violate his or her moral or religious beliefs. This led Walgreens to change its former policy that had permitted individual pharmacists who had religious objections to refer the prescription on to another pharmacist at the same store or one close by. (See prior posting.)

In Menges v. Blagojevich, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63671 (CD IL, Sept. 6, 2006), the court held that plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to possibly show that Illinois' rule is not a neutral rule of general applicability. The court held that the case should move to trial. Plaintiffs claim that the Illinois rule was targeted at pharmacists to force them to either surrender their religious beliefs or else leave the practice of pharmacy, and thus the rule is subject to strict scrutiny review by the court. The court held that plaintiffs’ pleadings also adequately raise the issue of whether the Illinois rule was inconsistent with Title VII of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court however dismissed Walgreens request for a declaratory judgment that its prior pharmacist referral policy complies with Title VII and the Illinois pharmacy rules.

The Associated Press yesterday discussed the decision, as did Blog from the Capital.

Pro-Life Minister's Suit To Protect Protest Rights Moves Forward

As a previous posting reported, on August 31, an Illinois federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Granite City’s ordinance that prohibits signs larger than 8 ½ x 11 along any parade route. The suit was brought by a minister and members of his family who wanted to carry anti-abortion signs large enough for politicians marching in the parade to see. Now in Michael v. City of Granite City, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63638 (SD IL, Sept. 6, 2006), the court issued a decision dealing with a number of procedural issues as the case moves on. In addition to challenging the city’s sign limits, the suit also claims that police are restricting plaintiffs’ speech and free exercise rights by a policy of not protecting them against assaults by onlookers who disagree with their pro-life views. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit on standing, inadequate pleading and immunity grounds.

Hindu Temple In India Wants Its Own Township

In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, there is growing tension between Christians and Hindus over Christian conversionary activities around the Sri Venkateswara temple that attracts over 50,000 visitors per day. Thursday’s Indian Catholic reports that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), the administrative board that manages the temple, passed a resolution in July to ask the state government to create a new "religious township" out of the 332-square kilometer area around the temple and place it under temple jurisdiction. This would give the temple a status similar to Vatican City. Also, State Minister for Endowments J.V. Diwakar Reddy said in August that the state government is considering a new law to prohibit propagation of any religion other than Hinduism in Tirumala where the temple is located. Violators would risk to up to 2 years in prison and a fine of up to 2,000 rupees (US$43). And TTD is being asked to fire the non-Hindu employees that work at the temple site (several Muslims and 15 to 20 Christians).

Cobb County Invocations OK; But Not Planning Comm'n. Choice Of Clergy

Largely echoing the reasoning in his denial of a preliminary injunction, a Georgia federal district judge has upheld the practices of the Cobb County (GA) Commission in opening its sessions with prayer. In Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-2075-RWS (ND GA, Sept. 8, 2006) [available through PACER], the court held that legislative prayer violates the Establishment Clause only if there is an impermissible motive in the selection of clergy; use of invocations to promote the beliefs of one religious sect or to disparage the beliefs of another; or maintenance of a practice that conveys governmental preference of one religious view over others. The court found that neither the identity of those offering invocations, nor the sometimes sectarian references in their prayers, were sufficient to violate the Establishment Clause. The court similarly upheld the selection procedures used by Cobb County in locating individuals to deliver invocations, even though it resulted in 96% of those delivering invocations being Christian.

However in a parallel challenge to the invocation policy of the Cobb County Planning Commission, the court found that its policies in 2003-04 for selecting individuals to deliver invocations did violate the Establishment Clause. "[C]ertain faiths were categorically excluded from the list of prospective speakers based on the content of their faith."

Today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution discusses the decision.

UPDATE: The opinion is now available on LEXIS at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64294 (ND GA, Sept. 8, 2006),

California Mayor Sees Christian-Shiite Spiritual War

In Redding, California on Thursday, a ceremony titled "One Nation Under God" was held on the Shasta County Courthouse steps in commemoration of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The event was co-sponsored by the county Sheriff's Department, the Shasta County Jail Chaplaincy, the Marshal's Office, PrayNorthstate, the Good News Rescue Mission and Sysco Foods. Friday’s Redding Record Searchlight reports that at the ceremony Mayor Ken Murray spoke about a war to the spiritual death between Christianity and Shiite Muslims.

Murray says he distinguishes between "mainstream" practitioners of Islam, and Shiites. He says, "Since the Crusades, there's been a spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of people. I think it's a historical reality, and the rubber's meeting the road again. Either the Judeo-Christian philosophy will survive or the Islamic philosophy will survive." Mayor Murray says the noontime event was not about government sponsorship of religion; rather it was about free speech by individual officials. Murray’s remarks apparently included allegations that Shiites believe that it is acceptable to lie, cheat, steal and kill, as long as it ultimately glorifies Allah. He added: "Folks, they're not like us. They're not like us at all, and for them, their war has been going on for 1,200 years."

UPDATE: Sacramento-area Muslims are asking for an apology from Mayor Murray. (Associated Press, Sept. 11).

2005 Bankruptcy Law Makes Charitable Giving Difficult For Debtors

A press release from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys describes a recent decision by a federal bankruptcy judge in New York that makes it difficult for individuals going through Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings to meet religious obligations to tithe. In In re: Diagostino and Diagostino, Case No. 06-10384, (Bkrptcy., ND NY, Aug. 28, 2006), a bankruptcy judge interpreted Sec. 102 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 to preclude the inclusion of tithes to a church or other charitable donations as "reasonably necessary" expenses. So unsecured creditors must be paid off under the court-approved repayment plan before charitable contributions can be made. The only exceptions are for situations such as a minister whose employment contract requires tithing. An article in today's Deseret (UT) News points ot that this decision undercuts the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998 that allowed tithing by those going through bankruptcy. [Thanks to Ross Heckman via Religionlaw for the information.]

Evangelicals And American Foreign Policy

The current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine contains a long and interesting article by Walter Russell Mead on evangelicals and U.S. foreign policy. The article, God's Country?, argues that changes in contemporary Protestantism are changing American foreign policy. Mead traces the role of religion in U.S. public life. His analysis carefully distinguishes three different strands of American Protestantism:

The three contemporary streams of American Protestantism (fundamentalist, liberal, and evangelical) lead to very different ideas about what the country's role in the world should be. In this context, the most important differences have to do with the degree to which each promotes optimism about the possibilities for a stable, peaceful, and enlightened international order and the importance each places on the difference between believers and nonbelievers. In a nutshell, fundamentalists are deeply pessimistic about the prospects for world order and see an unbridgeable divide between believers and nonbelievers. Liberals are optimistic about the prospects for world order and see little difference between Christians and nonbelievers. And evangelicals stand somewhere in between these extremes....

Evangelicals are likely to focus more on U.S. exceptionalism than liberals would like, and they are likely to care more about the morality of U.S. foreign policy than most realists prefer. But evangelical power is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and those concerned about U.S. foreign policy would do well to reach out. As more evangelical leaders acquire firsthand experience in foreign policy, they are likely to provide something now sadly lacking in the world of U.S. foreign policy: a trusted group of experts, well versed in the nuances and dilemmas of the international situation, who are able to persuade large numbers of Americans to support the complex and counterintuitive policies that are sometimes necessary in this wicked and frustrating -- or, dare one say it, fallen -- world.

The full article is definitely worth reading.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments In Indiana Legislative Prayer Case

The Associated Press reports that yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Hinrichs v. Bosma, a case in which a federal district court banned the Indiana House of Representatives from opening its sessions with sectarian prayer. (See prior posting.) Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief supporting Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, and participated in oral argument. The brief argued that the trial court had imposed too strict a standard, effectively banning any mention of Jesus Christ or other sectarian references. The brief said that opening prayers in the U.S. Congress often have some mention of a specific deity. Today's Indianapolis Star reports on details of oral argument that focused in part on whether prayers offered by legislators should be considered personal speech or government speech. Meanwhile Indiana House officials plan to try to raise money from the public to pay the legal fees involved in the appeal, instead of continuing to use taxpayer funds for the costs of the private law firm hired to represent House members in the litigation. (Indianapolis Star.)

House Committee Approves Public Expression of Religion Act

By voice vote yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act. The bill, which now goes to the full House of Representatives, would limit relief in Establishment Clause claims to issuance of an injunction, and would deny the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs who win Establishment Clause lawsuits. Americans United For Separation of Church and State strongly criticized the Committee's action. AU Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn said: "This bill is nothing more than an attempt to scare people away from having their day in court. The House Judiciary Committee should be ashamed of itself for passing such a blatantly un-American scheme."

UPDATE: The vote in the House Judiciary Committee to approve the bill was 7-5, along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats against. (Associated Baptist Press.)

Secular Coalition Rates Congress Members' Voting Records

Yesterday, the Secular Coalition for America released its ratings of members of the 109th Congress based on their records on ten key votes in each house. Seven members of the House and 18 Senators earned a perfect score for their support for separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. SCA Director Lori Lipman Brown said: "With the political strength of the religious right and the irrational demonizing of the nontheist community, I am very proud of these members of Congress." The Scorecard for every House and Senate member is available at SCA's website.

Storefront Churches and Decaying Downtowns A Municipal Worry

The Raleigh (NC) News and Observer yesterday focuses on efforts by small North Carolina towns to keep churches from renting inexpensive vacant storefronts in decaying downtown areas. Last month, the Kenly, NC Town Council imposed a 60-day moratorium on new churches in the downtown area. Proponents of these moves say that churches prevent the economic redevelopment of small downtown areas. A Kenly Town Council member said town officials were unaware of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that makes these kinds of restrictions on churches particularly problematic. She said they will now consider the impact of RLUIPA as they draft a new ordinance dealing with the issue on a more permanent basis.

Cayman Officials Kept In Dark By UK Over Human Rights Convention Applicability

The United Kingdom is responsible for the international relations of the Cayman Islands. In February 2006, the UK extended the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to petition the European Court of Human Rights, to the Cayman Islands (as well as a number of other territories). However, according to today's Cayman Net News, Britain never bothered to inform the Cayman Islands Human Rights Commission that the action had been taken. HRC commissioners apparently found out about the action when a dispute over whether or not the Convention applied in the Cayman Islands appeared in the press.

Elementary School Enjoined In Gideon Bible Distribution

A federal district court has granted a preliminary injunction to elementary school parents to prohibit Annapolis, Missouri's South Iron R-1 School District from allowing the Gideons to distribute Bibles to elementary school students on school property during the school day. In Doe v. South Iron R-1 School District, (ED MO, Sept. 5, 2006), the court rejected the school board's argument that denying groups the right to distribute Bibles, while permitting other kinds of literature to be distributed, would amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Instead the court found that it was highly likely that plaintiffs would succeed in proving that the school's policy was adopted for the purpose of promoting Christianity, and was thus in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The suit was originally filed to challenge the school board's decision to permit the Gideons to distribute Bibles in the classroom to fifth graders. While the litigation was pending, the school board adopted a new policy that permitted distribution of any kind of literature, including Bibles, to students in any grade, on 48 hours notice, with distribution being limited to the hallway in front of the administrative offices and the cafeteria area during limited time periods.

National Days Of Prayer For 9/11 Anniversary Proclaimed

On Tuesday, as the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks approach, President George W. Bush issued a Proclamation declaring September 8 through 10 as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. The days are to "honor the heroism of the police officers, firefighters, rescue personnel, members of the military, and private citizens who responded selflessly in the face of terror. We also honor the courage and spirit of the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and husbands and wives who continue to grieve for their irreplaceable loss."

The Proclamation concludes with this request: "I ask that the people of the United States and their places of worship mark these National Days of Prayer and Remembrance with memorial services, the ringing of bells, and evening candlelight remembrance vigils. I also invite the people of the world to share in these Days of Prayer and Remembrance."

2nd Circuit Holds Evangelicals Not "Vulnerable Victims" In Fraud Case

In a fascinating decision yesterday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a trial court's application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to enhance the sentence of two defendants who had been convicted of carrying out a wire fraud scheme directed particularly at evangelical Christians. In United States v. Dupre, (2d Cir., Sept. 6, 2006), the trial court had found that the advance fee fraud had been aimed at particularly "vulnerable victims", concluding that the "scheme was imbued with religious elements. It asked participants to have faith, to accept what they were told, to not ask questions, to pray for the success of the project, and to plan on doing good works with the payout that they receive. It was described as a plan in which there would be a redistribution of wealth from the wicked to God’s people."

The trial court used that finding to enhance the offense by two levels, as permitted by U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b). However, the Second Circuit held:

While we recognize that a fraud grounded in religious themes may pose an especially effective threat, ... membership in religious groups cannot, standing alone, make victims "vulnerable" for purposes of the enhancement, even where a fraud involves reliance on religious themes or imagery.... We have no reason to believe that evangelical Christians as a class are "unusually susceptible" to fraud.

An Associated Press report yesterday gives additional background on the case.

Abortion Protesters Claim Arrests Violate Their Religious Freedom

In Richmond, Virginia last week, two abortion protesters filed suit in federal district court alleging that an off-duty city police officer hired by Richmond's Medical Center for Women infringed their free exercise and free speech rights. Richmond's Style yesterday reported on the lawsuit. The protesters' claims are based on their being cited three times since 2004 for violating Virginia's disorderly conduct law and Richmond's noise ordinance. In addition to claiming that the city ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it sets no standard for when noise is too loud, the complaint (full text) also alleges that enforcement of the laws prevents the demonstrators from carrying out a tenet of their religious faith in violation of their free exercise rights. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs as Christians "sincerely believe they are discharging a religious duty by publicly proclaiming and orally communicating their beliefs, particularly with respect to their beliefs on the topic of abortion."

3rd Circuit Backs Away From Its Narrow Interpretation of Title VII Ministerial Exception

Yesterday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, upon rehearing, changed its mind about the scope of the "ministerial exception" in Title VII employment discrimination cases. It joined seven other circuits that have considered the issue and held that the First Amendment precludes courts from interfering in any decisions of religious organizations about who will perform spiritual functions and how those functions will be divided. The case, Petruska v. Gannon University, (3rd Cir., Sept. 6, 2006), was set for rehearing after it was determined that the judge who wrote the majority opinion (Becker, J.) in the earlier 2-1 ruling had died after the opinions were completed, but before they were filed. In its earlier opinion in the case, the 3rd Circuit had ruled that the ministerial exception applies only where alleged discrimination is based on religious belief or doctrine, and not where the discrimination is based on some non-religious ground such as gender bias. Now, however, the 3-judge panel unanimously held that the exception applies to any claim, the resolution of which would limit a religious institution’s right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. However, the court remanded for further consideration the plaintiff's breach of contract claim against Gannon University.

Today's Inside Higher Education reports on the decision.

NY High Court Hears Arguments On Requiring Insurance Coverage For Contraceptives

Yesterday, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, heard arguments in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, a case challenging New York's Health and Wellness Act that requires employers' health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Today's Albany Times Union reports on the "fast paced" arguments over whether the legislature can define narrowly what it means to be a religious employer. The statute exempts churches and religious schools from coverage, but not social service agencies or hospitals. (See prior posting.) The suit brought by Catholic Charities and two Baptist churches argues that the statute is unconstitutional, infringing plaintiffs' rights of speech, association and free exercise of religion. Sister Maureen Joyce, CEO of Catholic Charities in Albany, says: "We're not saying our employees can't use contraceptives. We're saying as an employer we should not be mandated by the state to provide contraceptive services."