Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Vandal Damages Radio Station Tower With Wooden Cross
Yesterday's Pensacola (FL) News Journal reports on a strange case of vandalism in Milton, Florida. Radio station WCEM discovered that its broadcast signal was weaker than it should be. After much investigation, the station's owner discovered that someone had placed a wooden cross on top of the station's 200-foot tower. Repairing the tower to restore its full power will cost thousands of dollars. The station's current owner, Baron of Fulwood, who is Jewish, acquired the 1,000 watt station in 2005. The station plays music from the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. Twice a day, however, it features a Biblical reading from Deuteronomy 4: 6-9, in both Hebrew and English. Fulwood -- who always wears a kippah (head covering) -- says he has received a number of anti-Semitic phone calls since buying the radio station. As of now, Milton Police Chief Greg Brand said he is treating the incident as vandalism and not as a hate crime.
Falun Gong Controversy Finds Way Into U.S. Chinese New Year Celebrations
The controversy between China and the Falun Gong has found its way into the United States in two separate ways this week. In San Francisco yesterday, Superior Court Judge Patrick Mahoney dismissed a lawsuit brought by Falun Gong against the city of San Francisco growing out of Falun Gong's exclusion last year and this year from San Francisco's Chinese New Year's parade. The parade is sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. According to yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle, the lawsuit claimed that the city's contribution of funds to the parade, along with its provision of police protection and other services violated the rights of Falun Gong. The city's Human Rights Commission, however, found that Falun Gong was excluded because it failed to follow parade rules against political activity during the parade. Falun Gong claims that Chinese businesses in San Francisco have given in to pressure from the government of China. (See prior related posting.)
Meanwhile this year's Chinese New Year celebration in New York has been denounced by the government of China because of supposed ties to the Falun Gong. Yesterday's International Herald Tribune reports that the "Chinese New Year Spectacular" that opened yesterday at Radio City Music Hall contains some segments that refer to Falun Gong and its persecution in China. Jian Huali, acting spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said: "We strongly oppose the show because Falun Gong is an evil cult. This is not a real Chinese culture show. It's a very politicized show."
Meanwhile this year's Chinese New Year celebration in New York has been denounced by the government of China because of supposed ties to the Falun Gong. Yesterday's International Herald Tribune reports that the "Chinese New Year Spectacular" that opened yesterday at Radio City Music Hall contains some segments that refer to Falun Gong and its persecution in China. Jian Huali, acting spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said: "We strongly oppose the show because Falun Gong is an evil cult. This is not a real Chinese culture show. It's a very politicized show."
Connecticut Synagogue Loses Zoning Appeal
In Cross Street, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Westport, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 253 (CN Super., Jan. 26, 2007), a Connecticut trial court upheld a ruling by the Zoning Board of Appeals denying a zoning variance for construction of an Orthodox synagogue. The synagogue, as proposed, would not have the required number of parking spaces. The court held that denial of the variance did not violate either the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or Connecticut's Religious Freedom Act.
8th Circuit Denies Asylum To Russian Jewish Couple Who Claim Persecution
Yesterday the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of an asylum claim by a Russian Jewish couple who have been in the United States for 15 years. In Pavlovich v. Gonzales, (8th Cir., Feb. 14, 2007), the court upheld an Immigration Judge's decision ordering removal of the couple to Russia, or alternatively to Latvia, and granting voluntary departure. The couple who originally lived in the portion of the Soviet Union that is now Russia, and who later moved to Latvia, claimed that they should be granted asylum in the United States because of past persecution of them in Latvia because of their Jewish heritage, and because of a well founded fear of future persecution because of anti-Semitism in both Russia and Latvia.
As to past persecution, the court held that neither the husband or wife "was ever arrested, detained, or questioned by Latvian authorities. Employment discrimination, anti-Semitic flyers, and harassment by private citizens -- even threats and random acts of violence -- are deplorable but do not compel a finding of past persecution." As to a fear of future persecution, the court found that the Immigration Judge was permitted to "reasonably rely on State Department reports assessing the likelihood of future persecution." The court refused to overule the Immigration Judge based on other reports of anti-Semitism in Russia and Latvia.
In concluding, Chief Judge Loken's opinion for the court said: " To us, it seems contrary to the traditions of this great Nation to remove an elderly, law-abiding couple who have spent fifteen productive years in this country to Russia, a country where they have not lived for nearly forty years and whose people do not yet enjoy our levels of economic, political, and religious freedom. But Congress has delegated this judgment to the Executive Branch." Yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on the decision.
As to past persecution, the court held that neither the husband or wife "was ever arrested, detained, or questioned by Latvian authorities. Employment discrimination, anti-Semitic flyers, and harassment by private citizens -- even threats and random acts of violence -- are deplorable but do not compel a finding of past persecution." As to a fear of future persecution, the court found that the Immigration Judge was permitted to "reasonably rely on State Department reports assessing the likelihood of future persecution." The court refused to overule the Immigration Judge based on other reports of anti-Semitism in Russia and Latvia.
In concluding, Chief Judge Loken's opinion for the court said: " To us, it seems contrary to the traditions of this great Nation to remove an elderly, law-abiding couple who have spent fifteen productive years in this country to Russia, a country where they have not lived for nearly forty years and whose people do not yet enjoy our levels of economic, political, and religious freedom. But Congress has delegated this judgment to the Executive Branch." Yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on the decision.
Courthouse Bible Study Group Defended
St. Charles County, Missouri officials have been asked by a local attorney to end a voluntary Bible study group that meets each week in the county courthouse. Judges, lawyers, and other courthouse employees began the study group-- led by Associate Circuit Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill-- in 2002. In a press release issued yesterday, the American Center for Law and Justice defended the right of the Bible group to meet.
In a 9-page letter to St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann, ACLJ argued: "An objective observer of the Bible study could not conclude that the government was endorsing the content of the group's private speech. This is not a case where any government employee or private citizen is required to participate in religious activity or where the speech is part of an official work-related meeting. There is no suggestion that employees have been harassed or intimidated or that the Bible study has disrupted the efficient performance of governmental functions. It is clear that the First Amendment prohibits the censorship of religious speech solely because someone may find that speech 'offensive.'"
In a 9-page letter to St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann, ACLJ argued: "An objective observer of the Bible study could not conclude that the government was endorsing the content of the group's private speech. This is not a case where any government employee or private citizen is required to participate in religious activity or where the speech is part of an official work-related meeting. There is no suggestion that employees have been harassed or intimidated or that the Bible study has disrupted the efficient performance of governmental functions. It is clear that the First Amendment prohibits the censorship of religious speech solely because someone may find that speech 'offensive.'"
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
8th Circuit Arguments Held On Faith-Based Prison Program; MP3 Version Available
The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports on yesterday's oral arguments in the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, a case in which an Iowa district court held that InnerChange, a faith-based prison rehabilitation program financed with state funds, violates the Establishment Clause. The 3-judge panel in the Court of Appeals included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (See prior posting.) About 15 seconds into his argument, O'Connor cut off retired Iowa deputy attorney general, Gordon Allen to ask a question about recidivism rates in Iowa and in other states. An MP3 file of yesterday's entire oral argument can be played or downloaded from the 8th Circuit's website.
UPDATE: A fuller account of the oral arguments is available at this post from Anne Farris at The Roundtable [via Blog from the Capitol]. And here is a posting at Knippenblog (Joe Knippenberg) with links to the briefs and recent op-ed pieces on the case.
UPDATE: A fuller account of the oral arguments is available at this post from Anne Farris at The Roundtable [via Blog from the Capitol]. And here is a posting at Knippenblog (Joe Knippenberg) with links to the briefs and recent op-ed pieces on the case.
Sharia Mediation Board Created In Western Australia
In the Australian state of Western Australia, the state's Islamic Council has created a board of imams to mediate civil disputes between Muslims using Islamic legal principles. Perth Now reports on the developments. A spokesman for the non-profit Ethnic Communities Council said that the new Muslim board would be required report to the federal attorney-general to make sure that its decisions using Sharia do not conflict with Australian law.
Azerbaijan Considering More Restrictive Religious Freedom Law
Interfax today reports that Azerbaijan's Parliament is preparing to enact a more restrictive version of the country's 1992 Law on Freedom of Religious Belief. A member of Parliament was quoted as saying: "Missionary organizations of unconventional religious movements have intensified their activities in Azerbaijan and some of them are with radical views. These organizations are trying to entice Azeri citizens to join their ranks. In a number of cases such activities of these organizations are the result of the flaws in the legislation, which is why a new version of the law freedom of religion is now needed."
Yemeni Editor Gives Inside Look At Paper's Decision To Run Controversial Caricatures
On the first anniversary of the government-ordered suspension of the paper for publishing controversial Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, yesterday's Yemen Observer carried a fascinating account of last year's events by the newspaper's former editor, Mohammed al-Asaadi. He described the internal debate within the paper's editorial staff on the running of the drawings and his 12 days in jail that followed. He said: "I don’t think that we were stupid, but rather, that we were too rational at the wrong moment."
Kansas Reinstates Mainstream Science Guidelines On Evolution
The Kansas State Board of Education has once again changed the state's guidelines for teaching science in the public schools, reinstating a mainstream scientific approach on teaching of evolution. Today's Lawrence (KA) Journal-World reports that the move comes after a block of Democrats and moderate Republicans won control of the school board in November. (See prior posting.) By a 6-4 vote on Tuesday, the Board eliminated its earlier standards that encouraged the teaching of intelligent design. (See prior posting.) The new guidelines define science as a search for "natural explanations" of observations in the universe. The Board removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts were controversial and were challenged by new research. This is the fifth time in eight years that the state's science standards have been changed, and state law mandates updating of the standards again by 2014-- though changes could come sooner depending on the make-up of the board in the future.
DC Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge To Freezing Of Islamic Group's Assets
In Islamic American Relief Agency v. Gonzales, (DC Cir., Feb. 13, 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the federal government's blocking of the assets of IARA-USA which the government found to be a branch of another organization that had been designated as supporting global terrorism. In a portion of its opinion, the court rejected arguments by IARA-USA that blocking of its assets violated its Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and its First Amendment rights of association and free exercise of religion. The court rejected IARA-USA's claim that it had been singled out because it was a Muslim organization. The court held that the blocking does not inhibit associational activities other than financing and does not punish advocacy of IARA-USA's goals. It also rejected the argument that blocking of funds substantially burdens the religious exercise of IARA-USA's members because they intended their donations to fulfill their religious obligation to engage in humanitarian charitable giving. Quoting an earlier case it had decided, the court said: "There is no free exercise right to fund terrorists." A story yesterday from the Associated Press reported on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]
Free Exercise Claim To Arrest Method Proceeds
In Stroman v. Lower Merion Twp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9408 (ED PA, Feb. 7, 2007), two plaintiffs sued challenging the methods used by police officers in arresting them. One of the plaintiffs, Janice Myers, claimed that a police officer searched her by putting his hands all over her body, "including on her private parts and under her religious garb and undergarments," even though she had asked to be searched by a female officer. The court rejected her federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim because that statute has been held unconstitutional as applied to states and localities. However the court permitted her to proceed with a claim that Marion Township tolerated a policy of use of police power in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, and to proceed with claims against individual officers for their actions.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Congressional Interfaith Caucus Suggested
Last Friday, an essay by four clergy in the Washington Post suggested that the new Congress needs an Interfaith Caucus that would meet regularly to discuss the positive role that religion plays in people's lives and in communities, and to explore how religion is misused by demagogues around the world.
Suit Filed Over William & Mary Chapel Cross
The controversy (see prior posting) over when a cross will be displayed in College of William and Mary's Wren Chapel has now moved into the courts. Today's Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that a William and Mary Law School graduate has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the College is restricting the practice of religion by removing the cross from permanent display. Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, says the suit is frivolous. The Daily Press reports that the plaintiff, George R. Leach, was disbarred in 2003, but is seeking reinstatement.
Christian School Challenges Exclusion From League
In San Antonio, Texas, Cornerstone Christian Schools has filed suit in federal district court challenging the decision by the University Interscholastic League to exclude the school from membership, according to today's San Antonio Express-News. The school is eligible only for membership in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools because of the size of its enrollment. Cornerstone's attorney Jonathan Pauerstein said:"We contend that the UIL, by denying membership to private schools, denies access to the UIL's programs to the children of parents who seek a religious education for them. Here, we have a state-created organization denying participation to citizens who have made choices based on religion."
Idaho Legislator Told To Redraft Proposed Workers Comp Exemption For Clergy
In the Idaho legislature, the State Affairs Committee this week asked Rep. Dick Harwood to redraft a bill he had introduced. Harwood's intent was apparently to exempt churches from paying for Workers Compensation insurance for their clergy. His bill, however, broadly exempted churches from paying workers' compensation for any employee. This would have included thrift store workers, janitors, secretaries and other staff. Yesterday's New West Politics reports that committee chair Tom Loertscher appointed Rep. Lynn Luker, an attorney, to help Harwood with revising the bill's language.
Churches Complain About Sign Limits
Churches in Noblesville, Indiana complain that the city's sign ordinance infringes their religious freedom, according to a story in today's Noblesville Ledger. The ordinance limits all businesses, non-profit organizations and churches to displaying one banner per year, for a period of up to 4 weeks. Churches say this limits them in advertising church events, and even requires them to decide whether Christmas or Easter is the most important to advertise. Mayor John Ditslear said the city's planning staff is looking at whether the limits should be liberalized for churches.
Divorce Bills In Maryland Legislature Would Help Jewish Women
Late last month and earlier this month, bills were introduced into the Maryland state House (HB 324) and Senate (SB 533) that are designed to assist Jewish women in obtaining a religious divorce (get) from a recalcitrant husband. Without a religious divorce, under Jewish law the wife is unable to remarry. The bills would require anyone filing a complaint for divorce or annulment with a civil court in Maryland to also file an affidavit stating that the person has taken all steps within his control to remove all religious barriers to remarriage by the other party. Courts will not be able to order a husband to grant his wife a get. However, the civil court will not be able to enter a divorce decree until the affidavit is filed.
The Feb. 2 edition of the Forward carried an article on the proposed legislation that is designed to deal with the problem of agunot-- women trapped by their husbands' intransigence. However, many question the constitutionality of the proposed law-- and of a similar one already on the books in New York (DRL Sec. 253). Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, said: "This is designed exclusively to deal with a religious problem, and it conditions a civil benefit-- a divorce-- on solving a religious problem. We don't think you can do that."
The Maryland Senate has scheduled its first hearing on the proposed legislation for Feb. 22.
The Feb. 2 edition of the Forward carried an article on the proposed legislation that is designed to deal with the problem of agunot-- women trapped by their husbands' intransigence. However, many question the constitutionality of the proposed law-- and of a similar one already on the books in New York (DRL Sec. 253). Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, said: "This is designed exclusively to deal with a religious problem, and it conditions a civil benefit-- a divorce-- on solving a religious problem. We don't think you can do that."
The Maryland Senate has scheduled its first hearing on the proposed legislation for Feb. 22.
Christian University Claims BFOQ Exemption In Firing Transgendered Faculty Member
Yesterday's Workplace Prof Blog discusses the legal issues involved in a Title VII employment discrimination claim brought by Professor Julie Marie Nemecek who was fired as assistant dean and Associate Professor at Michigan's Spring Arbor University. The school, that describes itself as having a "total commitment to Jesus Christ as its perspective for learning", dismissed Nemecek because she is transgendered and is transitioning from male to female. In response to Nemecek's EEOC complaint, the University said it was relying on the "bona fide occupational qualification" exception to Title VII. 42 USC 2000e-2(e) provides an exemption from the Act's prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of religion or gender where religion or sex is "a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of" the institution.
In a press release, it said: "We expect our faculty to model Christian character as an example for our students. Faculty who 'persist with activities that are inconsistent with the Christian faith'" are subject to being dismissed.
In a press release, it said: "We expect our faculty to model Christian character as an example for our students. Faculty who 'persist with activities that are inconsistent with the Christian faith'" are subject to being dismissed.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Arkansas Legislators Don't Like Thomas Paine's Views On Religion
The Arkansas House of Representatives last Thursday dealt a surprising defeat to a bill designating January 29 as "Thomas Paine Day" (HB 1317). Today's Associated Press reports that Democratic Rep. Lindsley Smith had wanted Arkansas to join nine other states that honor the Revolutionary War figure. However, Republican Rep. Sid Rosenbaum raised questions. Quoting from Paine's book, The Age of Reason, Rosenbaum said: "He did some good things for the nation, but the book that he wrote was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. I don’t think we should be passing things out like this without at least debating it and letting people in the House know what we're voting on." Thursday's vote was 46-20, but the bill needed 51 votes to pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)