Teacher Sues Saying School Thought She Was A Witch

An Associated Press story published today reports on the trial in a New York federal district court of a case brought by an elementary school teacher who claims that her born-again Christian principal denied her tenure because he decided that she was a witch. Teacher Lauren Berrios claims that principal Andrew Albano pressed his brand of Christianity on Hampton Bays (NY) elementary school. School officials deny that Berrios was fired because of a belief she was a witch. They say she did not get along with co-workers, had a condescending attitude and was reported to Child Protective Services after talking about imaginary injuries to her own son.

3rd Circuit Rejects Religious Objector's Refusal To Pay Income Taxes

On Tuesday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Jenkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, (3d Cir., March 6, 2007), rejected a taxpayer's claim that his religious objections to military activities and spending should permit him to withhold paying a portion of his federal income taxes. The court concluded that neither RFRA, the First Amendment nor the Ninth Amendment permits the avoidance of income taxes for religious reasons.

Court Rejects Amish Objections To Septic Tank Requirements

In Beechy v. Central Michigan District Health Department, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15157 (ED MI, Feb. 20, 2007), a Michigan federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge by members of the Old Order Amish faith to a health ordinance prescribing the capacity of a septic tank that must be installed on their residential property. The court found that plaintiffs merely claim that their religious beliefs and practices lead to their not generating enough waste water to require the 750 gallon tank required by law. They do not claim that installing the larger tank actually interferes with their religious beliefs or practices. So their objection to the larger tank are based on secular concerns of cost, convenience and lack of need.

Policy On William & Mary Wren Chapel Cross Changed Again

Officials at the College of William and Mary are making a new attempt to resolve the bitter dispute over whether an historic cross will continue to be displayed in the state university's Wren Chapel. President Gene Nichol set off a storm of controversy when, in order to make the chapel more inviting to students of all religious faiths, he ordered the table cross to be removed from permanent display and-- under the most recent revision of the policy-- to be displayed only on Sundays or during Christian worship services. (See prior posting.) One donor revoked a $10 million pledge to the University in protest. Yesterday's Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that now President Nichol has endorsed the recommendation of a special study committee that he appointed. The Wren cross will now be permanently displayed in the chapel, but in a glass case with a plaque explaining the college's Anglican roots and its historic connection to Bruton Parish Church. Sacred objects of other religious traditions used by the campus community will also be able to be stored in the chapel. The Washington Times says that college officials hope this compromise will end the dispute.

John Edwards Gives Extensive Interview On His Views Of Relgion In Public Affairs

In the first of a series of interviews with Presidential candidates, BeliefNet carries a long interview with John Edwards covering a wide range of issues. Among Edwards' comments about his faith and the impact of religion on public affairs is the following:

Faith is not a political strategy, and should not be a political strategy. If it is being used as a tool to garner votes, to convince people they should support one political party or the other, I think that is a huge mistake. I believe with every fiber of my being that God is not a Democrat or a Republican and does not support either party.

If you're being asked about how you make decisions, what are the things that affect you when you make decisions, I think it's perfectly reasonable under those circumstances to give honest answers about your faith and how your faith affects your value system and what you believe and what you care about.

Army Medic Objector to War Gets Light Sentence In Court Martial

A U.S. Army medic who refused to be redeployed to Iraq because of his moral objections to war was convicted of desertion in a court martial in Wuerzburg, Germany on Tuesday. The courts had previously rejected the request of Specialist Agustin Aguayo to be classified as a conscientious objector, so he fled to his home rather than be redeployed. Three weeks later he turned himself in.

Even though he was convicted, the court imposed a light sentence. Aguayo was sentenced to 8 months in prison, reduced in rank to private, ordered to forfeit pay and was given a bad conduct discharge. However he could have been sentenced to 7 years in prison. The Associated Press yesterday reported that since Aguayo has already served 161 days in jail awaiting trial, his attorney expected that he would be released in about 6 weeks.

Priest Says Poverty Vow Precludes Recovery Against Him For Child Support

Yesterday's Oregonian reports that 83-year old James E. Jacobson, a retired Jesuit priest and former Oregon prison chaplain, is being sued by two men recently identified as his children. Jacobson fathered the children while working in Eskimo villages in Alaska beginning in the 1960's. They are attempting to collect as past child support part of the salary that Jacobson earned while working as a prison chaplain for 25 years. Jacobson says, however, that his vow of poverty precludes recovery against him. Jacobson cashed out his retirement benefits and transferred the proceeds to the Jesuits after the child support suit was filed against him.

Proposal Would Ban Politics On Religious Basis In Egypt

MWC News yesterday reported that proposed amendments to Egypt's Constitution will ban political activities based "on any religious reference or basis". The amendments are aimed at limiting the power of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Currently Egypt prohibits the Muslim Brotherhood from forming a political party, but Brotherhood members can-- and do-- run as independents for Parliament. If enough Brotherhood members win seats in Parliament and local councils, they could run a presidential candidate.

Pennsylvania City Council Is Strong On Sectarian Prayer

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Monica Kinney yesterday reported on a rather extreme example of sectarian prayer at meetings of the Coatesville, Pennsylvania City Council. Two of the council members are ministers. At the Feb. 12 meeting, one of them, Democrat Kurt Schenk, began the meeting with: "Holy Father, we commend this city into your hands." The other, Republican Council President Patsy Ray, said: "I am like Jesus, I'll stand!" and, "I will serve the people as my God." Schenk also says lawyers are helping him draft a Council resolution that will affirm City Council's belief in the power of prayer.

Florida Condo Owner Denied Right To Hang Mezuzzah

A dispute between a Fort Lauderdale condo owner and her condo association could lead to new legislative proposals in Florida according to a report published Monday by JTA. Jewish condo owner Laurie Richter was told that the mezuzah that she placed on her front door violates condo bylaws that prohibit affixing anything to exterior walls, doors or balconies. Richter claims that the condo association did not object to Christmas wreaths on other owners' doors. Similar disputes in Illinois led that state to adopt legislation prohibiting condo associations from banning mezuzahs.

Alaska Trial Court Hears Evidence On Religious Basis of Marijuana Use

In October, the Alaska Court of Appeals in Lineker v. State of Alaska, a case involving a free exercise challenge under the Alaska constitution to a possession of marijuana charge, remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on whether the defendants' conduct was based on a sincere religious belief. (See prior posting.) A few days ago the Kodiak Daily Mirror reported on the hearing that was held last week. Defendant Michael Lineker testified that Jewish and Hindu scriptures led to his belief that a liquid extract of marijuana buds is an essential ingredient of an anointing oil used since ancient times. He said that growing marijuana plants, and rituals at various stages of its growth, is part of the religious practice of his religion, United Global Mankind - Divine Maintenance and Direction. Under cross-examination, Lineker conceded that since his wife-- who is also charged with marijuana possession-- does not like to participate in the sacrament, it is presently a religion of one person. The judge scheduled a hearing beginning April 21 on whether the state has a sufficiently compelling interest that the marijuana laws should be enforced, without an exemption, even if defendants' conduct was based on a sincere religious belief.

UPDATE: On March 7, the Alaska Attorney General's office announced that in a March 1 order, Judge Larry Weeks held that "there is no religion in the Lineker’s professed belief system and that those beliefs are not sincere religious beliefs and a second hearing is not necessary." [Thanks to All American Patriots for the lead.]

Arizona Judge Leaning Toward Upholding Tax Credits For Private Tuition Contributions

In Arizona on Monday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge told the parties at a hearing that her preliminary view was that she would uphold Arizona's law providing a tax credit to businesses that donate funds to provide low-income students with grants for private school tuition. KVOA News reported yesterday that Judge Janet Barton said that she was bound by a 1999 Arizona Supreme Court decision that upheld similar tax credits for individuals, though attorneys disagree over the scope of that ruling. The suit in Judge Barton's court was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Arizona School Boards Association. It claims that the tax credit provisions violate state constitutional prohibitions against public funding for religious schools (Art. 2, Sec. 12) and provisions requiring a general and uniform public school system (Art. 11, Sec. 1).

UPDATE: On Wednesday, Judge Barton issued an opinion upholding the tax credit provisions. Plaintiffs said they would appeal, and said that a pending federal case may also rule on the issue. (Arizona Republic.)

Florida Religious Leaders Disagree On Firing Of Transgendered City Manager

Last week, the Largo, Florida City Commission voted 5-2 to begin the process to fire its city manager, Steve Stanton, after Stanton disclosed that he is transgendered and plans to seek sex-change surgery. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that 500 people attended the City Council meeting, and while some defended Stanton, many called for his ouster. Pastor Ron Saunders of Largo's Lighthouse Baptist Church told Council: "If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he'd want him terminated."

Now however, another group of religious leaders plan to attend tonight's City Commission meeting to urge the Commission to reconsider its decision to fire Stanton. Yesterday's Largo Leader quoted Rev. Leddy Hammock, pastor of Unity Church of Clearwater, who said: "The Jesus I know called us to love one another, and taught, 'Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly'."

Indian Christians Urge Amendment of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In India, this week's issue of Organiser reports that the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue, in a letter signed by 700 Christians, says it opposes "aggressive faith marketing" by any group. It also calls on the government of India and other nations to seek an amendment to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to qualify the provision that protects religious freedom, including the right to change one's religious belief. The letter suggests an added sentence at the end of Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration that would provide: "However, no individual or organisation may seek to convert an individual or a group of individuals, including minors or individuals of limited cognitive abilities, formally or informally, from one religion to another by offering financial or other material incentives; through physical, mental or emotional coercion; or through threats or intimidation of any kind."

California Supreme Court Upholds Conduit Financing For Religious Schools

Yesterday in a 4-3 decision, California's Supreme Court upheld the governmentally-sponsored conduit financing of campus improvements at three pervasively-sectarian religious schools. Under the arrangement, state and local governments expend no public funds, but Community Development Authorities act as issuers of tax-exempt bonds to permit the schools to finance construction at lower interest rates than they would otherwise have to pay.

In California Statewide Communities Development Authority v. All Persons Interested In the Matter of the Validity of a Purchase Agreement, (CA Sup. Ct., March 5, 2007), a majority of the court held that the arrangement did not violate either California's Constitution (Art. XVI, Sec. 5) that bars state support for any school controlled by a sectarian denomination; nor does it violate the First Amendment.

The majority held that financing would be valid if it met 4 tests: it must serve the public interest and provide no more than an incidental benefit to religion; it must be equally available to secular and sectarian institutions; the program must prohibit use of bond proceeds for "religious projects"; and the program must not impose any financial burden on the government. The court went on to hold that the first of these tests would be met so long as the school provides a broad curriculum in secular subjects, and remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine whether the schools offer a sufficiently broad variety of secular courses.

The dissent argued that California's Constitution prohibits the state from acting as a fundraiser for schools. The Associated Press yesterday reported on the court's decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for my updated link to the opinion.]

Parliamentary Committee On Religious Freedom and Britain's Sexual Orientation Regulations

Last week, Britain's Joint House of Lords/ House of Commons Committee on Human Rights issued its report, Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations. Among other things, the report examines the impact on freedom of religion of anti-discrimination regulations already in effect in Northern Ireland, and those that will go into effect next month in the rest of Britain.
It says that in order to protect freedom of conscience, religion and belief, exemptions should assure that no one will be required to perform same-sex marriages, admit homosexuals to their religious organizations, or allow them to join in their activities or use their premises if this would violate their religious belief. It recommends that the new Regulations for Great Britain contain a narrow definition of harassment on the basis of sexual orientation in order to avoid incompatibility with freedom of speech religion and belief.

The report also recommended that there be no exemption for government-supported faith schools from the regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It says:

Regulations prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong. [This] would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful. In our view there is an important difference between this factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against homosexual pupils.

LifeSiteNews yesterday reports on reactions to the Joint Committee's report.

Indiana Hate Crimes Bill Dies In Legislature

Last week, a proposed hate crimes bill in the Indiana legislature (HB 1459) died under pressure from conservative Christians who opposed giving special protection on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill would have permitted victims of a criminal offense to bring a civil action to recover damages if the person who committed the offense knowingly or intentionally selected the victim because of the victim's color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex. Also, targeting individuals on these bases would have been an aggravating circumstance in sentencing for a crime. Indiana is only one of five states without a hate crimes law.

The American Family Association of Indiana pushed a grassroots campaign that resulted in many e-mails to legislators from those opposed to the law. Then Rep. Jackie Walorski proposed an amendment that would have made the hate crimes law apply to a fetus. Democrats who control the House of Representatives decided to shelve the legislation in order to avoid a divisive debate on abortion. These developments were reported by WDC Media and by 365Gay.com.

US Supreme Court Dismisses School T-Shirt Case As Moot In Complex Procedural Move

Today the U.S. Supreme court engaged in a complex procedural maneuver in Tyler Harper v. Poway School District (Case No. 06-595). Last April, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a challenge by a student to Poway High School’s banning of his wearing a T-shirt condemning homosexuality in religious terms. (See prior posting). In October, a petition for cert was filed. (See prior posting). However, these proceedings did not finally decide the question of whether a permanent injunction should issue, and whether requested declaratory relief and damages should be awarded. Subsequently, in January, as cross motions for summary judgment were pending, the district court dismissed the claims brought by Tyler Harper as moot because he has graduated. It also rejected the First Amendment and state law challenges to the Poway, California school's hate behavior policies brought by Tyler's sister, Kelsie Harper, who had been added to the case through an amended complaint. (See prior posting).

Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari in the preliminary injunction proceedings, but without further briefing or argument vacated the lower court judgment and remanded the case to the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss Tyler Harper's appeal as moot. The Supreme Court also rejected the motion by Tyler Harper’s sister, Kelsie Harper, to intervene at the Supreme Court level in order to prevent the case from being moot. Her claims, however, are still pending on appeal in the lower courts.

En Banc Rehearing Sought In 7th Circuit In Campus Preaching Case

Last week, a petition for rehearing en banc was filed with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Gilles v. Blanchard. (ADF Press Release.) The 3-judge panel in the case had upheld the refusal of a state university-- Indiana's Vincennes University-- to permit a traveling campus evangelist from preaching uninvited in the center of campus. (See prior posting).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Holley v. California Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12683 (ED CA, Feb. 23, 2007), a California federal district court dismissed a prisoner's RLUIPA and Equal Protection claims, finding that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff had claimed that he should be allowed to grow his hair for religious reasons despite prison grooming requirements.

In Fisher v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13063 (WD VA, Feb. 23, 2007), a Virginia federal Magistrate Judge recommended that certain of defendants' summary judgment motions be denied and that a prisoner be permitted to proceed with various of his First and Fourteenth Amendment and RLUIPA claims asserting that prison officials would not allow him to possess a "Thor's Hammer" pendant, central to his practice of Asatru, even though they allowed inmates of other religions to possess religious medallions. -- UPDATE: On March 15, the court adopted the Magistrate's report and recommendation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18270.

In Rose v. Snyder, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13342 (SD IL, Feb. 27, 2007), an Illinois federal district judge approved the recommendations of Magistrate Judge denying the claims of a Rastafarian prisoner that he should be permitted to wear dreadlocks in violation of prison grooming rules.

In Abdullah v. Frank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13215 (ED WI, Feb. 26, 2007), a Wisconsin federal district court denied a motion for summary judgment by a Sunni Muslim prisoner who claimed that his rights under RLUIPA and the free exercise clause were infringed when he was denied the right to possess a turban/Kifiyyah, a Thawb and a silver ring in order to carry out the practices of his religion. The court found that questions of fact remained as to whether plaintiff's religious practices had been substantially burdened and whether prison officials acted in an intentionally discriminatory manner.

In Judd v. Adams, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14502 (ED CA, Feb. 20, 2007), involved a claim by a prisoner who was an adherent of the Asatru/Odinist faith that he had difficulties in getting permission to keep a Thor's hammer medallion and alter cloth. A California federal Magistrate Judge dismissed the claims, but gave the prisoner the right to file amended complaints as to his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims.

In State of Ohio v. Whitaker, (OH Ct. App., march 2, 2007), an Ohio appellate court vacated the imposition of a 12-month prison sentence on Troy Whitaker, an adherent of a Native American religion, after he violated his community control by being unsuccessfully discharged from an alcohol residential treatment facility. Whhitaker had refused to cut his hair in violation of the program's grooming requirements. The court found that the state had not shown that forcing Whitaker to cut his hair is the least restrictive means to enforce any compelling interest the state has. It also held that Whitaker did not have to prove his Native American heritage to assert his claim.