Rehearing Scheduled For Niqab-Wearing Woman's Small Claims Case

Yesterday's Detroit Free Press reports that a new hearing has been granted to Ginnnah Muhammad, the Muslim woman whose small-claims case in Hamtramck (MI) was dismissed last October when she refused a judge's order to remove her veil while testifying. (See prior posting.) Muhammad says she plans again to wear her niqab (full face veil). It is unclear what Judge Paul Paruk's reaction to this will be at the Feb. 21 hearing. The case involves claims between Muhammad and a rental car company.

Pakistan's Blasphemy Laws May Eventually Be Changed

Reform of Pakistan's blasphemy laws has become a subject of increasing interest. This recent background article from Pakistan's The News argues: "Blasphemy laws are objectionable for three fundamental reasons: (i) they violate Article 25 of the constitution that makes all citizens equal before law and entitled to its equal protection; (ii) they are manipulated to penalize and harass citizens belonging to minority communities; and (iii) they undermine free speech and encourage religious bigotry and obscurantism by threatening to persecute intellectuals and scholars who debate or question stereotypical views on religious doctrine."

The issue has become more pressing in light of last week's decision by the Lahore High Court overturning the 25-year sentence of a Christian, Shahbaz Masih Kaka. The court found that the original accusations against the mentally disabled youth, who had already spent 18 months in jail, were not credible. (AsiaNews.it, Jan. 22.) A senior Pakistani government official says that the blasphemy laws will be amended after the national elections that will be held later this year or early next year. Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, chairman of the Pakistan Senate's foreign affairs committee, said that action any earlier than that would give an election issue to opposition Islamic parties. (Catholic News, Jan. 25).

District Court Dismisses Poway School T-Shirt Claim As Related Cert. Petition Is Pending

Last April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by two California high school students claiming that their high school improperly banned one of them-- Tyler Harper-- from wearing a T-shirt proclaiming: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned", and "Homosexuality Is Shameful". A school rule banned the T-shirts as "hate behavior". A petition for cert. is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. Now in Harper v. Poway Unified School District, (SD CA, Jan. 24, 2007), the district court has dismissed claims brought by Tyler Harper as moot because he has graduated. It also rejected the First Amendment and state law challenges to the school's hate behavior policies brought by Tyler's sister, Kelsie Harper. Yesterday's San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the decision. It says that Kevin Theriot, lawyer for the Harpers, says they will appeal the district court decision.

UPDATE: On Feb. 7, Alliance Defense Fund filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Tyler and Kelsie Harper.

Indian State Seeks Return Of Lands Held By Catholic Missionaries

The Indian state of Chattisgarh has filed 262 cases against the Catholic Church seeking to obtain the return of land on which Catholic missionaries have built hospitals, schools and other institutions. The state's government is controlled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. Relying on local legislation that bans the sale of Tribal lands to non-Tribals, in one of the cases a local court has required the Sisters of the Holy Cross return to 12 acres on which they built a monastery and a school. Asia News reported yesterday that more than 80,000 Tribals demonstrated in support of the Catholic Church last Monday. One demonstrator said that the land "was not stolen from us, but was regularly sold to the Church by our ancestors, which now uses it to help. We are happy for the schools and hospitals [because they] educate us and provide us with medical care."

Recently Available Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Cummings v. Darsey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4257 (D NJ, Jan. 16, 2007), a New Jersey federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with a challenge to a drug treatment program that he is required to attend. He claimed that it includes a religious component that is offensive to him as a Muslim and that attendance at the program prevents from attending most of the Muslim religious services that are available.

In Furnace v. Arceo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3725 (ND CA, Jan. 5, 2007), a California federal district court permitted a state prisoner to proceed with a free exercise and equal protection challenge claiming he was denied religious meals and refused a transfer to another prison that could provide him such meals.

Whitfield v. v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94779 (ND IL, March 20, 2006) is an older case that has just become available on Lexis. In it the court rejected a prisoner's claim that his right to practice his African Hebrew Israelite religion (including its dietary restrictions) was infringed, and that retaliation was practiced against him for filing a grievance. Plaintiff failed to prove that he was in fact affiliated with the African Hebrew Israelite religion.

Lawson v. McDonough, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94681 (ND FL, Dec. 27, 2006) involved claims under RLUIPA and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act by an Orthodox Jewish inmate who was serving a life sentence in Florida. He asserted that he was denied the right to observe over a dozen religious requirements. In a lengthy opinion, a federal magistrate judge in Florida federal district court recommended permiting him to move ahead with some of his claims, but dismissed others because plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies or because of mootness or lack of standing to raise the claims.

Liberal Clergy Question Goal Of Proposed New Hampshire Bill On Marriages

In New Hampshire, House Bill 69 recently introduced into the legislature may interfere with the right of liberal clergy to perform religious wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. Yesterday's Concord Monitor says, however, that the the bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Daniel Itse, denies that this is the bill's goal. He says it is aimed at strengthening separation of church and state and is neutral on the issue of same-sex ceremonies.

The bill would amend RSA 457.37 that currently exempts some religious officials from obtaining licenses to perform marriages. The amended statute would read: "Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of ... religious officiants authorized by their church, religion, sect, or denomination to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid unless proscribed by RSA 457:1 or RSA 457:2". Sections 457:1 and 2 prohibit, among other things, same-sex marriages.

Reform Rabbi Richard Klein of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord says the bill is a response to the growing practice among liberal clerics to stop asking for licenses from couples, gay or straight, who seek religious marriages. He fears that the statute implies some kind penalty-- such as loss of the right to perform any marriages-- for clergy who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. He says that interferes with freedom of religion. Rev. Jed Rardin, pastor of South Congregational Church in Concord, says he officiates at marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples even though they are not legally recognized.

Philadelphia Anti-Gay Pride Protesters Lose Civil Rights Suit

Last week, a Pennsylvania federal district court handed a defeat to a group of evangelical Christians who brought civil rights claims after they were prevented from disseminating their anti-gay messages at a 2004 Philadelphia gay pride event. (See prior posting.) In Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Jan. 18, 2007), the court held that Philadelphia's content-neutral permit requirement did not violate the group's First Amendment rights. It held that organizers of Philly Pride had the right to exclude the Christian group's contrary message from their event. The court found that the Philadelphia police acted to protect First Amendment rights and prevent violence at the event, saying that there is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person. Yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer covered the decision and reported that an appeal is planned. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Russian Court Finds Nude In Ad Violates Religious Norms

In Moscow this week, a Russian trial court has upheld a complaint brought by Russia's Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) against a magazine publisher that ran an ad featuring a semi-nude model in its Moulin Rouge magazine. Interfax reported yesterday that the FAS relied on quotations from the Bible and the Koran in demonstrating that the ad violates "the commonly accepted norms of humanity and morality" and contains "offensive images of the religious beliefs of natural persons". Alexander Osokin, lawyer for the publisher, Rodinov Publishing House, says his client will appeal. He said: "we did not insult religious things; the model in the advertisement does not hold any crosses or crescents or other symbols in her hands. The FAS can go too far in this way and turn our state into a clerical one."

Suit Seeks Right To Proselytize Outside Shopping Center

On Monday, Alliance Defense Fund filed suit in federal court against the city of Jacksonville, Florida on behalf Christian activist John Schaffer to vindicate his right to proselytize passersby near Jacksonville Landing shopping center. (Press release.) At issue are his speech rights in the exterior commons area and perimeter sidewalks of the Landing. These are owned by the city and are not leased to the shopping center. The complaint in Schaffer v. City of Jacksonville (full text) alleges violations of the First and 14th Amendments and of Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ADF has filed a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Court's Revocation of Treatment Alternative Not Based On Religion

In State of Ohio v. Caulley, (OH 12 Dist. Ct. App., Jan. 22, 2007), an Ohio appellate court upheld a trial judge's revocation of a community control sanction that allowed a convicted defendant to attend a treatment program instead of serving his 3-year prison sentence. Keith Caulley had asked to be removed from the MonDay program because it violated religious beliefs. He said that the program would require him to report the disruptive behavior of other participants, contrary to his religious beliefs. He believed that it is only God's job to judge.

In revoking the community control sanction and sentencing Caulley to prison, the judge made remarks such as: "Can you tell me where in the Bible it says it is all right to drink and drive, it is all right to flee the police, it is all right to steal your children? You have a record that is four pages long, what part of God's plan does that come under?" Caulley claimed that this demonstrates his sentence was based on his religious belief, in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2929.11(C) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, finding that the judge's remarks were merely an expression of skepticism regarding the sincerity of Caulley's religious beliefs that he claimed prevented him from completing the MonDay program

Jacksonville Settles "Day of Faith" Lawsuit

The city of Jacksonville, Florida has settled a suit filed against it last summer challenging city sponsorship of a Day of Faith anti-violence rally. (See prior posting.) Yesterday News4Jax reported that the city has issued a directive providing that all future city programs must have a secular purpose, must not advance or inhibit religion, and must not foster excessive entanglement with religion. The city will also pay plaintiffs, American Atheists, $5000 plus court costs.

Christian Leaders Press Again For Religious References In EU Constitution

Reuters reported this week that as Germany is attempting to revive efforts to get agreement on a Constitution for the European Union, Catholic and Protestant leaders are stepping up their campaign to have a reference to Europe's Christian heritage included in the document. A 2004 draft included a reference to the continent's "cultural, religious and humanist heritage". Christian religious leaders however are urging German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- a pastor's daughter -- to press for a stronger statement during her current term as EU president. However religious leaders are unlikely to be successful since the EU is currently negotiating with largely Muslim Turkey for its entry into the EU. (See prior related posting.)

Suit Claims Church-Sponsored Youth Cabaret Is Religious Activity

In Albany, New York, Trinity Methodist Church has been charged with zoning violations because its New Age Cabaret featuring drug- and alcohol-free shows is considered by the city to be an illegal nightclub. Today's Albany Times Union reports that police ordered the show closed down last July after neighbors complained about noise and youths on the street. In December, City Court Judge Gary Stiglmeier rejected the church's motion to drop the zoning charges, and set trial to begin February 2. Stiglmeier wrote that the protection for religion extends to "worship or the discussion of religious beliefs, participating in the sacramental use of bread and wine, and proselytizing," and that here the Church was trying to improperly extend the definition. However, Michael Rhodes-Devey, a lawyer representing Trinity in the federal lawsuit, said: "There is no difference between Trinity's shows and the dinner dance for couples at the Catholic church where they play music that has nothing to do with religion."

Last Friday Trinity Church filed suit in federal district court claiming that the city is violating the church's free exercise of religion. The church is seeking a federal order permitting it to reopen its musical shows. It will also seek a postponement of the zoning violations trial in state court.

Catholic Church In England Threatens To Close Adoption Services Over Gay Rights Law

BBC News reports today that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has written to Britain's cabinet ministers to tell them that the Church will be forced to close down its adoption agencies if the Church is not permitted an exemption from new rules that will require agencies to permit placement of children with gay and lesbian couples. The Equality Act, which comes into force in England, Scotland and Wales in April, prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation. Catholic Church's agencies handle only 4% of all adoptions (about 200), but these comprise about one-third of the children who are difficult to place. (See prior related posting.)

Australian State Funds Rebuilding Of Destroyed Catholic Church

In Australia, the government of the state of Western Australia has given $2.5 million in disaster aid to the Catholic Diocese of Bunbury to help rebuild historic St Patrick's Catholic Cathedral that was largely destroyed in a 2005 tornado. Developments were reported in today's Catholic News. The Australian Constitution imposes some constraints on the federal government under its establishment clause, but these do not limit the separate Australian states. (Background).

Court Orders Illinois To Issue "Choose Life" License Plates.

Last week in Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White, Case No. 04-C-4316 (ND IL, Jan. 19, 2007) [opinion available on PACER] an Illinois federal district court ordered the Illinois Secretary of State to issue "Choose Life" specialty license plates, finding that the Secretary of State's denial amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against private speech. The court found that under Illinois law, enabling legislation is not needed for each new specialty plate design, so long as the requisite number of applications for a plate design is received and other design requirements are met. The district court stayed its order for 30 days so the state would have time to file an appeal. Today's Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Church Autonomy Leads To Dismissal of Damage Claim For Disfellowshipping

In Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, (TN App., Jan. 19, 2007), a Tennessee state appellate court dismissed a suit brought by two former members of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking $20 million in damages because of their expulsion from the organization and related injuries. They asserted various claims growing out of their disfellowshipping and shunning after they went public with charges about the church's handling of child sexual abuse allegations. The court held that plaintiffs' claims should have been dismissed because they are barred by the First Amendment's protection of purely religious matters from interference by secular courts. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that the religious reasons given by the church were merely pretexts-- saying that courts are precluded from making that sort of inquiry. The court also rejected plaintiffs' defamation claims. The Associated Press reported on the decision yesterday.

Cert Filed In Title VII "Ministerial Exception" Case

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a petition for certiorari has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Petruska v. Gannon University. In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the "ministerial exception" to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act precluded recovery by a female chaplain who claimed that she was demoted at Gannon University because she was a woman. (See prior posting.)

6th Circuit Ends Funds For Faith-Based Group That Coerces Religious Participation

In Teen Ranch, Inc. v. Udow, (6th Cir., Jan. 17, 2007), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Michigan's Family Independence Agency to stop placing abused, neglected and delinquent children with Teen Ranch because the faith-based organization coerces religious participation and incorporates religious teaching as part of its treatment plan for troubled youth placed there by the state. The Michigan statue authorizing contracts with faith-based organziations provides that no state funds shall be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. The provision follows the madate of federal law. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that youth participants did not have a true private choice to opt out of religious activities. Finally the court held that federal law, 42 USC 604a, limits Teen Ranch to a suit in state court insofar as it is attempting to assert a violation of provisions of federal law allowing faith-based organizations to participate in contracts using federal funds given to states under the TANF block grant program.

As Appeal About To Be Argued, Controversial Texas Monument Is Removed

Tomorrow the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments en banc in Staley v. Harris County Texas, to review a 2-1 a panel decision upholding an Establishment Clause challenge to a monument to a local philanthropist that contained a Bible and was located on the grounds of the Harris County, Texas courthouse. (See prior posting.) However the case now takes on a new twist. Today's Houston Chronicle reports that last Friday the monument was totally removed from the courthouse lawn as part of a courthouse renovation. The Bible had already been removed in response to a federal court order. The contractor carrying out the renovation said the county wants to reinstall the monument elsewhere on county property with the Bible back in it. Plaintiff's attorney Randall Kallinen says this is an attempt by the county to get the case dismissed as moot.

UPDATE: A report from the Houston Chronicle covers oral arguments that were held on Tuesday before 16 judges on the 5th Circuit. Questions focused on whether the case had become moot, instead of focusing on the merits. In response to a question from Judge E. Grady Jolly, plaintiff's lawyer said his client would accept a mootness finding if the district court's decision and ruling on attorney fees were not vacated.