Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, February 16, 2007
NYPD Has Liaison To New York's Muslim Community
Yesterday's Canarsie Digest carries a story on Erhan Yildirim, whose job is community coordinator between the New York Police Department and the Muslim community. Employed directly under NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, Yildirim's job is to both explain Islam to the police and explain police practices to New York's Muslim community.
British Court Upholds Conviction For Sending Photos Of Fetus To Pharmacies
In Britain yesterday, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court upheld the conviction of a Catholic grandmother who had been charged with violations of the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 for sending photos of an aborted fetus to three pharmacies that had begun to sell the "morning after" pill. One of the letters containing the photo was opened by a pharmacy employee whose relative had recently given birth to a still-born child. In Connolly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin) (Feb. 15, 2007), the court found that the law's prohibition on sending an article that is indecent or grossly offensive in nature to someone else for the purpose of causing stress or anxiety had been violated.
It also held that applying the law in this way did not violate Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights that protects the freedom to manifest one's religious beliefs "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Christian Today reporting on the decision says that Mrs. Connolly has instructed her counsel to appeal the decision to the House of Lords. In comments to the press, she particularly reacted to a portion of the court's opinion that said: "A member of the Cabinet who spoke publicly in support of abortion and who received such photographs in his office in Westminster might well stand on a different footing..." Mrs. Connolly said: "on every moral issue which affects the public, it is everyone's democratic right to be able to obtain full information on which they can make an informed decision."
It also held that applying the law in this way did not violate Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights that protects the freedom to manifest one's religious beliefs "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Christian Today reporting on the decision says that Mrs. Connolly has instructed her counsel to appeal the decision to the House of Lords. In comments to the press, she particularly reacted to a portion of the court's opinion that said: "A member of the Cabinet who spoke publicly in support of abortion and who received such photographs in his office in Westminster might well stand on a different footing..." Mrs. Connolly said: "on every moral issue which affects the public, it is everyone's democratic right to be able to obtain full information on which they can make an informed decision."
First Amendment Challenge To Denial of Immunization Exemption Moves Ahead
In Nagy v. Bayport Bluepoint Union Free School District, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9809 (ED NY, Feb. 13, 2007), a New York federal district court permitted parents to move ahead with their First Amendment challenge to a school district's rejection of their application for an exemption from mandatory immunization requirements for their school-age daughter. However the court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection and state law challenges to the refusal to grant an exemption.
Delaware Court Upholds Religious Discrimination Finding Against Department Store
A Delaware state Superior Court has upheld the finding of the state's Human Rights Commission that Boscov's-- a department store chain-- discriminated on religious grounds against two Christians, two Wiccans and a pagan when it cancelled classes they planned to offer as part of the store's October 2005 Campus of Classes. Yesterday's Wilmington News Journal reports on the case. Wednesday's court decision rejected the store's argument that sessions on tarot, talismans, candle magic and the pentagram were called off for lack of diversity. Instead the court affirmed findings of the Human Rights commission that the cancellation stemmed from complaints by members of Capitol Baptist Church. The church's pastor, William Jeffcoat, complained that some of the classes would be taught by practitioners of Wicca, which was "very, very dark".
Virginia Legislators Weigh In On Wm. & Mary Chapel Cross
The battle over how often a cross should be displayed in the chapel at the College of William and Mary continues (see prior posting)-- now in the Virginia legislature, according to yesterday's Virginia Informer. Delegate Robert Marshall, a Republican member of the Virginia General Assembly, this week introduced an amendment to the state budget bill that would have reduced the salary of William and Mary president Gene Nichol by 50% if the cross was not restored to the chapel by May 3. The proposal was defeated 36-58. Earlier, another Delegate introduced an amendment aimed at withholding funds from the school. It would have required that "any building interior or exterior change, alteration or modification shall be restored to its original state with 45 days." That provision was considered too vague, and was removed from consideration. However, the House of Delegates did pass, 83-14, a bill calling for a review board made up of college administrators, students, faculty and alumni to look into the issue. William and Mary president Gene Nichol has already appointed a 14-person committee to address the question of the role of religion at a public university, including the use of the historic Wren Chapel. (W&M News).
Iowa Legislators Disagree On Exemptions From Bullying Policies For Non-Public Schools
Last week (Radio Iowa, Feb. 8), the Iowa House of Representatives passed a bill to require schools to adopt policies to protect students against bullying on the basis of age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status. However, administrators at religious schools raised objections that the bill could open them up to lawsuits if they teach that homosexuality is a sin. So the Iowa House approved an amendment providing that the bill is not intended to affect the way non-public schools teach about religious topics. The Senate however disagreed with this exception, and on Tuesday, by a vote of 36-14, approved a version of the bill without an exclusion for non-public schools. (SF 61). Reporting on developments, Wednesday's Sioux City Journal said that opponents of the House version were concerned that it suggested "that there is a double standard for nonpublic schools". They say the bill is about bullying, not about curriculum.
One Suit Filed, Another Settled, On Equal Use of Public Space By Religious Groups
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.
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.
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)