Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Riots After Indonesia Executes Three Catholics
Church Votes To Fight IRS Summons
House Resolution Condemns Repression of Bahais By Iran
Funeral Picketers Become Kansas Election Issue
Thursday, September 21, 2006
9th Circuit OK's Exclusion Of Worship Services From Library Rooms
A dissent by Judge Tallman argued that any attempt by the County to distinguish worship from other kinds of religious speech would create excessive government entanglement with religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
However, the most interesting reading was Judge Karlton's concurring opinion. He wrote:
The San Jose Mercury News covers the decision. (Also see prior related posting.)I concur in Judge Paez's well-reasoned opinion, which reflects the sorry state of the law. I write separately to express my dismay at that sorry state.
This should be a simple case it asks whether the county can be forced to subsidize a religious organization's prayer meetings by requiring it to provide the religious organization with a free place to worship. A quick reading of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should answer the question....
[Prior cases] turn on the High Court's purported inability to distinguish between a sermon and a speech. That distinction, however, is compelled by the First Amendment.... [R]eligious speech is categorically different than secular speech and is subject to analysis under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause without regard to the jurisprudence of free speech.
Those, like myself, who advocate adherence to the strictures of the Establishment Clause, do so not out of hostility towards religion.... Rather, we are motivated by recognition of the passions that deeply-held religious views engender, and the serious threat of marrying those passions to government power.... That threat is not merely historic. One need only look about the world to see that danger in play.
Study of Black Churches and Faith-Based Initiative
Pope Again Tries To Explain His Remarks About Islam
For the careful reader of my text, it is clear that I did not wish at any time to make my own the negative words uttered by the medieval emperor in this dialogue and that its controversial content does not express my personal conviction.... I wished to invite the Christian faith to dialogue with the modern world and to dialogue with all cultures and religions.He said that he has tried to make clear his
deep respect for the great religions, in particular for Muslims -- who 'adore the one God' and with whom we are engaged in "preserving and promoting together for all mankind social justice, moral values, peace and freedom."
Two Decisions On Jurisdiction Over Religious Employment Disputes
In Vann v. Guildfield Missionary Baptist Church, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66947 (WD VA, Sept. 19, 2006), a Virginia federal district court permitted the minister of a church to proceed with his claim that his dismissal by the deacon of his church violated the church's bylaws. The bylaws provided for the minister's dismissal only by a vote of a majority of the church's members. The court said that since no member vote was ever taken, "the Church itself has never acted. Thus, I have subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case because the decision to fire Vann .... was not the decision of a religious entity or church. As a result, that decision is not constitutionally protected from judicial review."
Maruani v. AER Services, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66789 (D MN, Sept. 18, 2006), involved the dismissal of Leo Maruani , a shochet (kosher butcher), from the employ of AER Services, a commercial business that provides slaughtering services for companies that sell kosher meat products. He was dismissed after the rabbi supervising the plant in which he worked objected to the fact that Maruani was not leading a visibly pious life because he did not live within walking distance of an Orthodox synagogue.
The court dismissed Maruani's claim that he was discriminated against because of his religion in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He alleged that the supervising rabbis placed religious requirements upon him that they did not impose on other shochtim. The court held: "An examination of the gradations in the rules of Kashruth or severity with which the rabbis enforced those rules is precisely the type of religious-based claim the Court is forbidden from entertaining." However the court permitted Maruani to proceed with claims that the rabbis' religious objections were not the real reason for his dismissal, and that the real reasons violated Minnesota's Whistleblower Act and its Workers Compensation Act.
Michigan Gubernatorial Candidate Favors Teaching Intelligent Design
Secretary General Warns of Possible Global Religious Warfare
[A]t the very time when international migration has brought millions of people of different creed or culture to live as fellow-citizens, the misconceptions and stereotypes underlying the idea of a "clash of civilizations" have come to be more and more widely shared; and insensitivity towards other people's beliefs or sacred symbols -- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion, this time on a global scale.DPA reported Tuesday on this aspect of Annan's remarks.
Indonesia Court Dismisses Blasphemy Case From Muhammad Cartoons
School Appeals Gideon Bible Distribution Ban
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
College Can Require Instructors To Avoid Irrelevant Religious Discussion In Class
The court concluded that: " the college had an interest in ensuring that its instructors stay on message while they were supervising the beauty clinic, just as it had an interest in ensuring that the instructors do the same while in the classroom.... [W]e see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic." [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]