On Tuesday of this week, Care and Share Ministry filed suit in federal district court in New Jersey (full text of complaint) challenging the policy of South Orange, New Jersey that opens the use of its Village Square for events by public and private non-religious groups, but denies use for events sponsored by religious organizations. (Alliance Defense Fund release.) Care and Share is a Christian group that is seeking to present a family-friendly show of music, skits and puppets. The Associated Press reported on the lawsuit yesterday.
Meanwhile, a suit filed last year against Idaho Springs, Colorado, challenging its refusal to permit use of city council chambers for religious events and meetings-- while permitting use by secular non-profit and community groups-- has been settled. Alliance Defense Fund announced yesterday that the city is building a new room in city hall that can be used by the public as a meeting room-- and there will be no discrimination against use by religious groups. The group sponsoring National Day of Prayer observances that instituted the complaint last year has already reserved the new room for this year's observance.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Utah Proposed Free Exercise Bill Pulled From Legislative Agenda
In Utah, state Sen. Chris Buttars has pulled back his proposed Free Exercise of Religion Without Government Interference bill. (See prior posting.) Today's Salt Lake Tribune says that the bill will be studied further before it is reintroduced. The University of Utah had expressed concern that the bill would open them to lawsuits by extreme religious groups. Buttars is seeking a bill that will allow students to wear clothing with religious messages and caroling groups to sing at city hall, but, the paper says, "he doesn't want to open the door to female genital mutilation or any other religious practice he considers extreme."
7th Circuit Upholds State School's Exclusion of Uninvited Evangelist
Yesterday, in Gilles v. Blanchard, (7th Cir., Feb. 14, 2007), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner upheld the refusal of a state university-- Indiana's Vincennes Univeristy-- to permit traveling campus evangelist James Gilles from preaching uninvited from the library lawn in the middle of campus. The opinion refused to invalidate the university's practice of limiting speeches on the lawn those that have been invited onto campus by a faculty member or student group.
Rejecting an analysis that would categorize the library lawn as a "limited public forum", Judge Posner wrote: "The issue more simply posed is whether a university should be able to bar uninvited speakers under a policy that by decentralizing the invitation process assures nondiscrimination, and a reasonable diversity of viewpoints consistent with the university’s autonomy and right of self-governance.... [T]he Constitution does not commit a university that allows a faculty member or student group to invite a professor of theology to give a talk on campus also to invite Brother Jim and anyone else who would like to use, however worthily, the university’s facilities as his soapbox." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
Rejecting an analysis that would categorize the library lawn as a "limited public forum", Judge Posner wrote: "The issue more simply posed is whether a university should be able to bar uninvited speakers under a policy that by decentralizing the invitation process assures nondiscrimination, and a reasonable diversity of viewpoints consistent with the university’s autonomy and right of self-governance.... [T]he Constitution does not commit a university that allows a faculty member or student group to invite a professor of theology to give a talk on campus also to invite Brother Jim and anyone else who would like to use, however worthily, the university’s facilities as his soapbox." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)