New Jersey Officials Say Sign On Supposed Monestary Violates Zoning Rules

Today's Woodbridge Sentinel reports that Middletown Township, New Jersey officials are in a somewhat strange battle with Archimandrite Ephraem Bertolette, who claims to be a bishop of the Greek Orthodox Church. However the chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey says that Metropolitan Ephraem is not affiliated with it. Ephraem claims that his home is a monastery, and has been fighting for four years to get a tax exemption for it. In a new dispute, township officials have ordered Ephraem to take down a large sign he has recently placed in front of his home declaring to to be a monastery. Officials say that the sign violates zoning rules. Ephraem claims that taking down the sign would violate his religious beliefs, citing among other things, a verse from Proverbs: "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set up."

Turkey's Supreme Court Says Patriarch Should Not Use Title "Ecumenical"

According to Today's Zaman, on Wednesday the 4th Chamber of Turkey's Supreme Court of Appeals approved the acquittal of Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I and other officials who were charged with "barring others from worship" after the Patriarch stripped a Bulgarian Orthodox Church priest, Konstantin Kostoff, of his title. The court rejected the priest's claim that his removal violated his freedom of religion. Of more interest inside Turkey, however, was another comment that the Supreme Court of Appeals made in its opinion. The Patriarch is known by the title "Ecumenical Patriarch". The court said, however, that he has no legal right to use the title "Ecumenical"-- which means universal. Reflecting the long-held view of the government of turkey, it said that such title amounts to a special privilege that conflicts with the country's constitutional principle of equality. A Greek Foreign Ministry spokesman disagreed with the court's comments, saying that the title is based on "international treaties, the sacred regulations of Orthodoxy, on history and Church tradition".

Mennonite Farmer Excused From ID Number Mandate In Settlement of Lawsuit

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture officials have quickly settled a lawsuit filed by a Mennonite farmer who had religious objections to the requirement that he obtain a federal identification number in order to continue to ship his ducks to markets in New York. (See prior posting.) A settlement stipulation filed in court on Wednesday in Landis v. Wolff provides that James Landis will not be required to obtain a federal premise identification number in order to participate in the Avian Influenza Monitored Flock Program. Alliance Defense Fund announced the settlement in a press release yesterday.

Employment Discrimination Suits Proliferate Recently

An unusually large number of religious discrimination in employment cases have made the news in the past day or two. The EEOC has filed suit against Vonage Holdings Corp., alleging that it refused to accommodate the religious needs of an Orthodox Jewish employee, Mikhail Rozenberg, when it refused to permit him to miss parts of a six-week training session in order to observe religious holidays, and refused to offer him positions that would not require him to work on Saturdays. (AP) The EEOC has also filed suit against Merrill Lynch & Co. alleging that it failed to promote, and eventually fired analyst Majid Borumand because hew was Muslim and Iranian. (Wall Street Journal).

In suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota, Chris Lind, employed by Prior Lake High School as a hallway and parking lot supervisor claims that his firing violated his religious freedom by firing him for talking with students about their sexual orientation, including the Biblical view of homosexuality. The school board says that Lind was disciplined for failing to separate his role as supervisor from that of friend of students. Lind has threatened to sue. (Minneapolis Star Tribune).

Finally, in Springfield, Missouri, pharmacist Todd Campbell has filed suit against Nitelines USA and Fort Leonard Wood after he was fired from his job as a hospital pharmacist for refusing to provide proof that he had been vaccinated. Campbell argues that he is exempt from vaccination requirements because of his religion, which he says is "Hebrew". (AP)

Germany Excludes Scientologist Tom Cruise's Moviemakers From Military Bases

BBC News this morning reports that German officials have banned the makers of a new movie about Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg's 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler from filming at military sites. The German defense ministry's reason is that the film's star, Tom Cruise, has "publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult". Germany believes that Scientology is a commercial enterprise, not a religion, and that its activities pose a threat to "the free democratic order".

Hindu Chaplain To Deliver Invocation In U.S. Senate

Mangalorean reports that for the first time in history, on July 12, the U.S. Senate will open with a Hindu prayer. Rajan Zed, Director of Public Affairs and Interfaith Relations of Hindu Temple of Northern Nevada, has been invited to give the opening invocation that day.

Poway High School T-Shirt Case Gets More Procedurally Complex

Harper v. Poway School District, a case that can only be described as a procedural morass, became even more complex on Friday as the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion asking a California federal district court to reconsider its previous rejection of a challenge to the hate behavior policy of Poway (CA) High School. (ADF Press Release.) The motion comes in the case of Kelsie Harper, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow her it intervene at the Supreme court level in a similar challenge brought by her brother, Tyler-- a challenge that was dismissed as moot because Tyler had graduated. The motion in Kelsie's case argues that the district court rejected Kelsie Harper's claims in reliance on the 9th Circuit opinion that was vacated as moot by the Supreme Court. At issue in the case is whether the school can prohibit Christian students, who object to homosexuality on Biblical grounds, from wearing T-shirts opposing the gay rights Day of Silence.

Supreme Court Upholds Student Speech Restrictions On Narrow Grounds

The U.S. Supreme Court today, in a case generating five separate written opinions, decided that Juneau, Alaska school officials did not violate a student's free speech rights when they confiscated a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" that the student displayed at the at the Olympic Torch Relay through town. School officials approved and supervised student attendance at the event which took place during school hours In Morse v. Frederick, (S.Ct., June 25, 2007), Chief Justice Roberts opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, held that "schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use".

Justice Thomas' concurring opinion argued that the Tinker case-- the basis for protection of the speech rights of school students-- should be overruled. Justices Alito and Kennedy joined the majority opinion "on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'"

Justice Breyer argued that the Court should not have gotten to the merits, but should have merely held that defendants' had qualified immunity from plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. CNN among others reports on today's decision.

Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. Stevens wrote: "I agree with the Court that the principal should not beheld liable for pulling down Frederick’s banner.... I would hold, however, that the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech 'reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,' ... cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs."

The narrow grounds on which the Court decided the case is unlikely to make it a case which has substantial implications for student religious speech-- a concern that some had expressed as the case was pending.

US Supreme Court Holds Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge White House Faith-Based Initiative Expenditures

This morning in a 5-4 decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, (S.Ct., June 25, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court held that taxpayers lack standing to challenge expenditures and activities of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, distinguishing the facts from those in the seminal taxpayer standing case, Flast v. Cohen. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito. Justices Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, urged that Flast be overruled. Justice Souter wrote the dissent. SCOTUS Blog, as usual, had the first report on the decision. Here are more details:

The plurality opinion was written by Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. Here are excerpts from the Court's syllabus of that opinion:

The link between congressional action and constitutional violation that supported taxpayer standing in Flast is missing here. Respondents neither challenge any specific congressional action or appropriation nor ask the Court to invalidate any congressional enactment or legislatively created program as unconstitutional. That is because the expenditures at issue were not made pursuant to any Act of Congress, but under general appropriations to the Executive Branch to fund day-to-day activities. These appropriations did not expressly authorize, direct, or even mention the expenditures in question, which resulted from executive discretion, not congressional action. The Court has never found taxpayer standing under such circumstances....

Respondents argue to no avail that distinguishing between money spent pursuant to congressional mandate and expenditures made in the course of executive discretion is arbitrary because the injury to taxpayers in both situations is the same as that targeted by the Establishment Clause and Flast-- the expenditure for the support of religion of funds exacted from taxpayers. But Flast focused on congressional action, and the invitation to extend its holding to encompass discretionary Executive Branch expenditures must be declined....

Taking the Circuit’s zero-marginal-cost test literally-- i.e., that any marginal cost greater than zero suffices-- taxpayers might well have standing to challenge some (and perhaps many) speeches by Government officials. At a minimum, that approach would create difficult and uncomfortable line-drawing problems.

Justice Kennedy also wrote a separate concurrence in which he said: "It must be remembered that, even where parties have no standing to sue, members of the Legislative and Executive Branches are not excused from making constitutional determinations in the regular course of their duties. Government officials must make a conscious decision to obey the Constitution whether or not their acts can be challenged in a court of law and then must conform their actions to these principled determinations."

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred. Here are excerpts from the syllabus of that concurrence:

A taxpayer’s purely psychological disapproval that his funds are being spent in an allegedly unlawful manner is never sufficiently concrete and particularized to support Article III standing.... Although overruling precedents is a serious undertaking, stare decisis should not prevent the Court from doing so here. Flast was inconsistent with the cases that came before it and undervalued the separation-of-powers function of standing. Its lack of a logical theoretical underpinning has rendered the Court’s taxpayer-standing doctrine so incomprehensible that appellate judges do not know what to make of it. The case has engendered no reliance interests. Few cases less warrant stare decisis effect. It is past time to overturn Flast.

Justice Souter wrote a dissent in which Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer joined. They said, in part:

Here, the controlling, plurality opinion declares that Flast does not apply, but a search of that opinion for a suggestion that these taxpayers have any less stake in the outcome than the taxpayers in Flast will come up empty: the plurality makes no such finding, nor could it. Instead, the controlling opinion closes the door on these taxpayers because the Executive Branch, and not the Legislative Branch, caused their injury. I see no basis for this distinction in either logic or precedent....

Religious Leaders In NY Gay Pride Parade Criticize Mayor

Christian, Jewish and Buddhist religious groups marched near the head of this year's gay pride parade in New York City on Sunday according to the AP. Two clergy who served as grand marshals criticized Mayor Michael Bloomberg's decision to join in the parade's march only after it passed St. Patrick's Cathedral. Today's New York Sun quotes Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum and Rev. Troy Perry who criticized the mayor for not marching the full length of the parade route-- a practice he began in 2002 "in order to avoid some of the disrespectful acts that have taken place" as the parade passed St. Patrick's. Bloomberg walked beside New York's first openly gay City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn. Many other elected officials, including Senator Charles Schumer, also marched in the parade.

Australian Hate Speech Case Settled

In Australia, a long-running case in which Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was invoked against two Christian ministers for their criticism of Muslims has been settled. Today's Daily Telegraph reports that Catch The Fire Ministries leader Danny Nalliah and the Islamic Council of Victoria settled the case that had been remanded to the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal by the Court of Appeals. (See prior posting.) After mediation, the parties issued a joint statement of goodwill, recognizing the dignity and worth of all individuals, but upholding the right to "robustly debate" and criticize the religion of others.

Employees of Israel's Conversion Authority Threaten To Strike

Yesterday's Jerusalem Post reports that administrative employees in the government's Conversion Authority are taking steps to authorize a strike over the chaotic working conditions that prevail in the agency. Disputes between two rabbinic factions in the Authority have slowed down the work of the agency which is responsible for performing conversions of Israelis who wish to become Jewish. Some 50 new Ethiopian immigrants who are candidates for conversion staged a protest march on Sunday to call attention to the unresponsiveness and the bureaucratic hurdles they are encountering. (Jerusalem Post.) There are also thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who immigrated to Israel under the Law of Return, but who are not Jewish under halacha (Jewish law). Many of them are also awaiting conversion.

New Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:
Daniel O. Conkle, The Establishment Clause and Religious Expression in Governmental Settings: Four Variables in Search of a Standard , (West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2007).

From SmartCILP:
Richard L. Kaplan, Honoring Our Parents: Applying the Biblical Imperative In the Context of Long-Term Care, 21 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 493-515 (2007).

Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 837-891 (2007).

Selected Papers from the Terrence J. Murphy Institute Conference. Public Policy, Prudential Judgment and the Catholic Social Tradition. Articles by Charles M. A. Clark, R. Mary Hayden Lemmons, Robert K. Vischer and Andrew Yuengert. 4 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 1-86 (2006).

New Book:
Peter Irons, God on Trial: Dispatches from America's Religious Battlefields (Viking, May 2007), reviewed by AP.

EEOC Sues On Behalf Of Sikh Employee

The Sikh Coalition reports that last Thursday the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on behalf of Sukhvir Kaur, a Sikh woman, against National Wholesale Liquidators, charging religious, gender and national origin discrimination. An April press release by the Coalition provides background on the case in which, among other things, Kaur's manager told her that Sikh employees are "thieves", and retaliated against her for rebuffing his advances.

Romney's Mormon Faith Continues to Be An Issue In Campaign

The Mormon religious faith of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney continues to be an issue. The AP reported yesterday that Sen. John McCain's campaign has apologized to Romney for comments made by a McCain volunteer in April at a meeting of Iowa Republicans. McCain's Warren County, Iowa, chairman, Chad Workman, apparently questioned whether Mormons are Christians and said that the Mormon Church supports Hamas. In response to a question, he also compared Mormon women to the Taliban. At a Salt Lake City fundraiser yesterday, Romney complained that rival campaign attacks on his religious beliefs are too frequent. (AP). (See prior related posting.) Meanwhile, The Politico reports that Utah lawyer Ryan Bell has set up a blog to "counter the ever more frequent misinformation being published in the political sphere about the LDS church and its beliefs."

Muslim Girl's Soccer Team Rejected From League Because of Hijab

Scotland on Sunday reports that a ruling by the International Football Association Board prohibiting Muslim women players from wearing a hijab (headscarf) has been applied to prevent competitive play by the Ansar Women's team from the east end of Glasgow. A majority of the girls on the team wear a hijab. The ruling apparently prevents the promising team from being admitted to the Scottish Women's Football Association. (See prior related posting.)

Obama Addresses Church Group-- Says Faith Has Been Hijacked

The New York Times reports that Sen. Barak Obama, a Democratic presidential hopeful, yesterday addressed the United Church of Christ -- the denomination to which he belongs-- at its General Synod on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Obama said that religion has a role to play in American politics, but that now "faith got hijacked" and is "being used to drive us apart". A video of Obama's full address is available from the UCC's website. [Corrected. Thanks to Donald C. Clark, Jr. for details.]

UPDATE: Former Reagan White House aide Jeffrey Lord, writing in Monday's issue of The American Spectator, takes the UCC to task, claiming that Obama's speech crossed the line of permissible political activity by non-profit groups. His strongly worded critique argues that Obama's long-scheduled appearance should have been cancelled after he became a candidate in the Democratic presidential race.

UPDATE: Rev. Barry Lynn, Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says that Obama's appearance should not be seen as creating problems under the Tax Code. He says that Obama's reference to his Presidential bid did not turn his appearance into an endorsement from UCC.

Pastor's Trial Delayed Until MN Supreme Court Rules On Clergy Sex Statute

In Winona, Minnesota last Thursday, the criminal trial of Rev. Donald Dean Budd was postponed until the Minnesota Supreme Court hands down its ruling on the constitutionality of the state's statute that criminalizes sexual conduct between a member of the clergy and someone receiving spiritual or religious advice from the minister. Friday's Winona Daily News reports that Budd has been charged with 10 counts of criminal sexual conduct for his relations with a woman he was counseling. On April 10, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments in Minnesota v. Bussman (case summary), challenging Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. l(ii) on vagueness and Establishment Clause grounds.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jones v. Richwine, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44800 (SD IN, June 18, 2007), an Indiana federal district court rejected a free exercise claim by a maximum security inmate who was not permitted to attend group church services, but was permitted to meet individually with a chaplain or minister.

In Smith v. McDonough, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44577 (MD FL, June 20, 2007), a Florida federal district court dismissed as frivolous a free exercise challenge to grooming regulations of the Florida Department of Corrections. The challenge was filed by an inmate who claimed to be a practicing Rastafarian whose religious beliefs require him to wear a beard and long hair.

In McCree v. Pocock, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44594 (ND GA, June 19, 2007), a Muslim prisoner claimed that his rights under RLUIPA were violated when prison officials refused to permit him to transfer between pods on Fridays in order to participate in Jumu'ah prayers. A Georgia federal district court refused to grant summary judgment for either party, holding that "a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the Defendant has engaged in the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling government interest in the safety and security of its facility. If the Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that Jumu'ah requires an Imam or at least two other Muslims, the Defendant must prove that its policy of prohibiting the transfer of Muslims on Fridays and refusing to place the Plaintiff in a housing unit with at least two other Muslims is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest."

In Singleton v. Morales, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13931 (9th Cir., June 11, 2007), the 9th Circuit in a brief opinion affirmed a district court decision rejecting a Muslim prisoner's free exercise claim because the prisoner "did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his Koran was so damaged that he was prevented from practicing his religion." The prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on another claim-- that his Koran had been confiscated. (See prior related posting.)

In Washington v. Fannon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42860 (ED CA, June 13, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge recommended rejection of a free exercise claim by a Muslim prisoner who claimed he was prevented from participating in the Ramadan fast when officers removed food from his Ramadan food tray. The only evidence in the record involved failure to receive a cup of coleslaw on one occasion.

Court Invalidates Selective Religious Exemptions In Ohio's Public Employee Law

In Katter v. Ohio Employment Relations Board, (SD OH, June 21, 2007), an Ohio federal district court declared a portion of Ohio’s public employee collective bargaining law unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. Ohio Revised Code 4117.09(C) provides that certain employees who object to union membership on religious grounds may instead contribute an amount equal to union fees to a nonreligious charity. The exemption, however, applies only to members of a bona fide religious body that has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting labor unions. The court held that this favors members of groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists and Amish Mennonites, while it discriminates against individuals such as Carol Katter, a Roman Catholic, whose objections are based on the union’s support for abortion rights. The court issued a declaratory judgment and enjoined the Ohio Employment Relations Board from applying the statute.

In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected arguments that plaintiff lacked standing and that the case was moot because the union had ultimately made accommodations for Katter. The court also recognized that its action does not assure that Katter will be awarded an exemption under Ohio law, but that she may well be entitled to accommodation under Title VII of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act.