Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Perry Dane, Christmas, (November 2006).
  
• Philip Weinberg, O Centro Espirita: The Supreme Court Raises the Spirits of the Free Exercise Clause, (St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-0059).

From SmartCILP:

• Niaz A. Shah, Women's Human Rights in the Koran: An Interpretive Approach, 28 Human Rights Quarterly 868-903 (2006).
  
• Varun Soni, Freedom From Subordination: Race, Religion, and the Struggle for Sacrament, 15 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 33-64 (2005).

San Francisco OK In Criticizing Catholic Opposition To Gay Adoptions

Last March, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a directive to the Archdiocese of San Francisco's social service agencies, instructing them to stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households. This led San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution calling for the Cardinal to withdraw his directive. The resolution said that it is "an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need." Upset with that resolution, a Catholic civil rights group sued San Francisco, claiming that the resolution violates the Establishment Clause. The suit asked the court to enjoin the Board of Supervisors from criticizing and attacking religion and religious beliefs. (See prior postings 1, 2.)

On Thursday, in Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86698 (ND CA, Nov. 30, 2006), relying in particular on a 2002 Ninth Circuit decision, a California federal district court dismissed the claim against the Board of Supervisors, finding that the Supervisors' Resolution has a secular purpose and effect. It also rejected the claim that the resolution constitutes excessive entanglement, saying that "it is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders."

Teacher Loses Title VII Challenge To Wearing Of ID Badge

Sidelinger v. Harbor Creek School District, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86703 (WD PA, Nov. 29, 2006), is a case brought by a Pennsylvania high school chemistry teacher under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claiming that his school failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and that it illegally terminated his employment. Teacher David Sidelinger objected to Harbor Creek High School's requirement that all teachers wear a photo identification badge. He claimed that wearing the badge would require him to commit the sin of pride and the sin of hypocrisy. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for defendants. It found that Sidelinger had failed to establish that his belief was a sincerely held religious one, that he failed to give sufficient notice of his beliefs to the School District, and that he failed to show that he would not have been fired for reasons independent from his religious beliefs.

U.S. Military Chaplain Corps Is Increasingly Diverse

USINFO, published by the U.S. State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs, carried a posting on Friday discussing the increasing religious diversity of the 5,000 clergy in the U.S. military's chaplain corps. This is in part a response to the increasing diversity of the personnel in the military-- active duty soldiers report belonging to 109 different religions. The Defense Department wants to make certain that even small groups of believers have access to a chaplain. This month the first Buddhist chaplain will join the Navy. Chaplains are trained in interdenominationally and provide services not just to individuals of their own denomination, but to all service personnel.

Buddhist Definition of Death Clashes With State's Recognition of Brain Death

Today's Boston Globe reports on a difficult case in Boston's Suffolk Family and Probate Court, pitting a religious definition of death against the state's recognition of brain death as the end of life. Last week, doctors declared 72-year-old Cho Fook Cheng brain dead after he suffered cardiac arrest. They said he should be removed from ventilators and intravenous medications that were keeping his organs functioning. However, his family refused arguing that their religious views as Buddhists were that so long as Cheng's heart was beating, he was still alive. The family went to court and obtained a restraining order preventing Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center from removing Cheng's life support system. As the hospital prepared to fight the issue in court-- arguing that parts of Cheng's body were deteriorating biologically-- his family reluctantly agreed to end intravenous medication so that his heart would stop beating naturally. Hospital ethicists found little guidance on reconciling Buddhist beliefs with modern technology. Apparently different strands of Buddhism have different beliefs about death. Even though Cheng's heart has now stopped beating-- so everyone agrees he has died-- the parties will be back in court on Tuesday. It is not clear exactly what issues remain to be resolved at that time.

Pakistan's President Signs Women's Protection Bill

On Friday, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf signed the controversial Women's Protection Bill that has passed both houses of Parliament. (See prior posting.) This Tuesday, Musharraf is expected to announce the government's future strategy in eliminating laws that unjustly impact women, according to today's Pakistan Daily Times. Meanwhile, the Information Ministry will launch a campaign to inform women about the new law's protections. The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA)-- an alliance of Islamic parties-- continues to object to the new law that allows rape cases to be tried in criminal courts instead of Islamic courts, and eliminates the death penalty for persons convicted of having sex outside of marriage. An ANI report quotes MMA's president, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who charged yesterday that "Musharraf is exploiting the issue of women's rights and wants to see brothels everywhere in the country under the supervision of the police and Army."

Indian Tribal Council Bars Military Funeral Protesters

In anticipation of yesterday's funeral for Nathan Goodiron, the first member of North Dakota's Three Affiliated Tribes to be killed in Afghanistan, the Tribal Council on Friday passed a resolution barring Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and his followers from protesting at the funeral. (Associated Press.) Phelps' group (from the Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church) has shown up at military funerals around the country with signs claiming that combat deaths are due to U.S. tolerance of homosexuality. Shirley Phelps-Roper said her group from Westboro Baptist church would protest outside the reservation "on public rights of way."

Second Circuit Hears RLUIPA Case From Mamaroneck, NY

Yesterday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a long-running RLUIPA case in which the Village of Mamaroneck, New York is seeking to use its zoning laws to block construction of a new building by the Westchester Jewish Day School. The trial court ruled in favor of the school. (See prior posting.) The Westchester Journal News reports that Kevin Plunkett, the village's attorney, argued yesterday that the lower court's decision gives religious schools an unfair advantage over secular ones. He also argued that that RLUIPA, as it was applied by the trial court, violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The U.S. Department of Justice has entered the case on the side of the school. Barry Welprin, a former zoning board member who voted in favor of the school's expansion charged that the majority of the board "did not approach this project with an open mind."

Cert. Granted On Taxpayer Standing To Challenge White House Faith-Based Office

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, No. 06-157. (See prior posting on filing of petition for cert. [Updated:] Here is the Brief in Opposition [Westlaw link] and the Solicitor General's reply brief to the petition.) The case involves the question of whether taxpayers have standing under the Establishment Clause to challenge activities of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is taxpayer standing to challenge Executive Branch spending for organizing national and regional conferences and for making speeches promoting faith-based funding, even though these activities were paid for from a general appropriation without Congressional earmarking of the funds for a specific program. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Washington Post reported on the Supreme Court's action. [Thanks to Aaron Stemplewicz & to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw, for the cert. petition and reply brief links.]

Wiccan Symbol Dedicated In Nevada Military Cemetery

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that friends and family of a Nevada soldier killed over a year ago in Afghanistan, gathered today for the dedication of the first Wiccan pentacle symbol in a military cemetery. Yesterday's Las Vegas Sun gave additional details. While the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has still failed to act on requests by Wiccan families, the pentacle was placed on the Veterans Memorial Wall at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley because in September the Nevada Office of Veteran Services that has jurisdiction over the state cemetery approved the plaque. (See prior posting.) The multicultural, interfaith service for Sgt. Patrick Stewart of Fernley was scheduled to include blessings by American Indians, Jews, Christians and Wiccans.

Last Monday night, according to yesterday's Wren's Nest News, the cemetery was vandalized when someone using a high-powered rifle sprayed the cemetery's columbarium wall with bullets. Cemetery Superintendent Wes Block said he did not think that the shooting was related to the controversy surrounding Sgt. Patrick Stewart.

Settlement In Zoning Case Lets Illinois Mission Stay Downtown

A consent decree signed by an Illinois federal judge on Thursday ends a dispute between the city of Waukegan and a downtown storefront church, God's Hand Extended Mercy Mission. (See prior posting.) Last July, the city's Department of Planning & Zoning issued an order declaring that the church (which offers prayer, food and shelter to the disadvantaged) was in violation of zoning provisions barring "places of worship (and) religious organizations" from business districts. Sister Callie Dupree, founder of the mission, sued claiming that the city's zoning rules violate the mission's free exercise and equal protection rights. The Lake County (IL) News-Sun today reports that the parties' have now agreed that the mission can stay, and that the property on which it is located will not be rezoned in the future. In exchange, the church agreed not to seek damages from the city for violating its free exercise rights. [Thanks to Tom Ciesielka for the lead.]

Cert. Granted In Student Speech Case

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case involving free speech rights of high school students. The Court's ultimate decision will impact religious, as well as other, speech in high schools. And the speech at issue in the case, Morse v. Frederick, Case No. 06-278, arguably had a religious aspect to it. In 2002 in Juneau, Alaska, high school students were released from classes to watch the torch for the Winter Olympics-- on its way to Salt Lake City-- pass by. In hopes of getting his banner on television, student Joseph Frederick unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". (For the uninitiated, "Bong Hit" refers to smoking marijuana using a water pipe.) School principal Deborah Morse tore down Frederick's banner and suspended him for 10 days. Frederick sued Morse for damages, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his claim. Yesterday's Baltimore Sun reports on the case.

Two Prisoner Free Exercise Decisions

The usual flood of prisoner free exercise cases has slowed down recently. Here are the two that have appeared since my last collection of decisions:

In Slusher v. Samu, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84765 (D CO, Nov. 21, 2006), a Colorado prisoner claimed that authorities used his lack of a prison job as a pretext for refusing to permit him to attend Catholic mass. A federal district judge rejected his claim that this amounted to retaliation for filing certain grievances, but permitted him to proceed with a free exercise challenge to the denial.

In Watkins v. Trinity Service Group, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85592 (MD FL, Nov. 27, 2006), a Florida federal district court rejected a prisoner's claims that his rights were violated when meat products were present in the vegetarian meals served to him for religious reasons. The court found that the defendant company providing the meals had no authority to change the menu prescribed by the Sheriff's office. The court also held that merely receiving occasional meals that violate his religious tenets subjects plaintiff only to de minimis injury.

No Monetary Damages For Violation Of Connecticut's Free Exercise Clause

Spector v. Board of Trustees of Community-Technical Colleges, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86601 (D CT, Nov. 29, 2006), involves a series of claims by a priest who was a faculty member and coordinator of marketing at Naugatuck Valley Community College. After he was denied an academic promotion, he sued in federal court on a number of bases. As part of a long opinion largely devoted to other issues, the court held that while the Connecticut constitution protects the free exercise of religion, it does not provide a private right of action for money damages for violation of this protection.

State Appeals Court Upholds San Diego Voters' Transfer Of Mt. Soledad To Feds

Yesterday, another decision in the seemingly endless series of rulings relating to the Mt. Soledad Cross was handed down. The 29-foot, 24-ton Latin cross was erected by the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association in 1954 on parkland belonging to the city of San Diego, California. Yesterday's decision, Paulson v. Abdlnour, (CA 4th Dist. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2006), involved an Establishment Clause challenge to a decision by San Diego voters to "donate to the federal government ... the City's ... interest in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial property for the federal government's use ... as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces." The court held that the referendum on the issue, known as Proposition A, did not violate either the state or federal constitution's establishment prohibitions, nor did it violate the state constitution's "no preference" clause.

Reversing the trial court, the court of appeals held that it could not find that the predominant purpose of the voters in approving Proposition A was to advance religion. Nor was the primary effect the endorsement or advancement of Christianity. Nothing in Proposition A required the federal government to keep the Cross on the transferred property. Finally the court of appeals rejected the trial court's "troublesome proposition" that there was excessive religious entanglement between the City and the Thomas More Law Center because a TMLC attorney served as a special assistant to the city attorney.

This decision will have practical impact only if other litigation challenging the federal government's taking of the Mt. Soledad property by eminent domain is successful. That taking did not rely on the transfer authorized by Proposition A. (See prior posting.)

A report yesterday by City Wire discusses reaction to the decision.

Debate Over Ellison's Right To Be Sworn-In On Quran

Minnesota Representative-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, made the seemingly unremarkable decision that he would take his oath of office in January on his religion's holy scriptures-- the Quran. However, as McClatchy Newspapers report, the decision has set off a fury of debate in the blogosphere. Dennis Prager a politically conservative Jewish talk-show host wrote a scathing article at Townhall.com arguing that Ellison should be required to take his oath on the Bible. He said: "Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?"

UCLA Constitutional Law Professor Eugene Volokh responded at National Review Online, saying that Prager "mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution". He continued, "If Congress were indeed to take the view that 'If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress,' it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test.... Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath -- a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share -- would be [religious] discrimination."

UPDATE: McClatchy Newspapers report that in the official ceremony swearing-in House members, those taking the oath do not place their hands on anything. It says: "The House speaker administers the oath to members en masse on the floor of the House.... It's up to individual members if they want to hold religious texts.... After the official swearing-in, members often have photos taken at a staged swearing-in ceremony in the speaker's office or their own offices, where they can place their left hands on sacred texts or hold them and have their families or religious leaders present...."

Think Tank Recommends Conciliatory Tactics For British Christian Student Groups

In Britain, evangelical Christian student groups, known as Christian Unions, find themselves in disputes on a number of college campuses with Students' Unions, the bodies that determine whether a student group will have access to campus facilities and financial support. The Christian think tank Ekklesia has just issued a report titled "United We Stand? A Report on Current Conflicts Between Christian Unions and Students' Unions". The report recommends a strategy that is at odds with that taken by Christian student groups facing similar issues on U.S. campuses-- do not take confrontational legal action; instead try mediation. If that fails, consider operating with funding from religious groups or other sources. Christian student groups that wish to belong to Students' Unions should open themselves to democratic elections, but with safeguards to prevent infiltration by non-Christian groups. A Christian Union should use a broad statement of values for its members, instead of a narrow doctrinal one. Or else it should change its name to reflect its narrower focus. Yesterday's Guardian Unlimited summarized the report.

Texas Court Dismisses Dispute Among Members Over Church Assets

A Texas state court of appeals yesterday dismissed a petition by members of the House of Grace church in Fort Worth seeking a division of the church's assets among two competing factions. Smith v. North District Texas Council of the Assemblies of God and House of Grace, (TX Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2006), involved a dispute growing out of the intervention into church affairs by the church's District Council. The Council, the church's parent body, implemented a plan for the church to remain united, after a proposal to split into two churches failed to receive a two-thirds vote of church members. The court held that members' claim that the vote was not held in accordance with church bylaws was an ecclesiastical matter that civil courts are precluded from adjudicating under the First Amendment.

Jewish Groups Oppose Two Aspects Of Proposed Congressional Reform

This week's Forward reports that while Jewish groups support most of the ethics and lobbying reforms being considered by Democrats for enactment in the next Congress, two aspects of reform proposals are opposed by key Jewish organizations. The proposed ban on privately funded Congressional travel will interfere with educational trips to Israel by lawmakers and their aides, sponsored by groups such as the American Israel Education Foundation. The other area of concern is the proposed ban on earmarks in appropriation bills. The key national Jewish charitable group, United Jewish Communities, stands to lose millions of dollars it receives for its Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities project in 41 cities. Earmarks in the Older Americans Act reauthorization bill has funded the program that finances on-site social service programs that allow elderly residents to remain in their existing apartments and neighborhoods. A total ban on earmarks is unlikely; instead it is probable that reforms will require the name of every earmark sponsor to be disclosed.

Arkansas Faith-Based Pre-Release Program For Women Launched

Today Arkansas correctional officials will dedicate a faith-based pre-release program for women prisoners, according to the Associated Press. The program, InnerChange Freedom Initiative, will be operated by Prison Fellowship Ministries at the Wrightsville prison. A similar program for male prisoners is already operating in Arkansas. InnerChange in an Iowa prison has been found by a federal district court to be unconstitutional and the decision is currently on appeal to the 8th Circuit. (See prior posting.) Mark Earley, the program's CEO, says that unlike the Iowa program, the one in Arkansas is funded privately. The state pays only for housing and feeding the inmates. (See prior posting.)