Louisiana's Unrestricted Funds To 2 Churches Violates Establishment Clause

In American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana v. Blanco, (ED LA, Oct. 5, 2007), a Louisiana federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from disbursing funds that were appropriated in the state budget bill to two churches without any legislative indication of the purpose for which the funds were being granted. The court said: "The challenged appropriations in this case fall within the core proscription of the Establishment Clause." The court rejected the state's argument that the appropriations were saved from invalidity because an Executive Order issued by the Governor required recipients of earmarked funds to complete a cooperative endeavor agreement describing the public purpose for which the funds will be used. A release by the ACLU praised Judge Vance's decision. (See prior related posting.)

Indonesia's Constitutional Court Upholds Limits On Polygamy

According to Reuters, last Wednesday Indonesia's Constitutional Court upheld the an Indonesian law that limits polygamy to cases in which a first wife is childless, or terminally ill or unable to fulfill her sexual obligations and where that wife gives her consent. (See prior posting.) The court held that the law is consistent with both the country's Constitution and the tenets of Islam (that allows multiple marriages only if all wives are treated fairly).

State Court Refuses To Halt Vote On Pastor

In Nashville, Tennessee today, members of the large Two Rivers Baptist Church will vote during services whether to retain their senior pastor, the Rev. Jerry Sutton. A dissident faction in the church says that Sutton misspent church money on trips and for his daughter's wedding reception. The vote takes place after a Nashville state court judge refused to intervene to stop it, holding that a civil court cannot become involved in determining who should be a church's pastor. According to yesterday's Tennessean, Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman agreed that under the state's non-profit corporation law, critics of the pastor were entitled to obtain a list of church members, but the judge refused to postpone the vote. Critics claim that Sutton is trying to obtain a favorable vote before they get access to church financial records in a pending lawsuit. The court also refused to order the church to stop removing Sutton's opponents from church committees.

UPDATE: Town Hall reports that members of Two Rivers Baptist Church voted 1101- 286 in favor of Jerry Sutton's remaining as the church's pastor.

UN Holds Conference On Interfaith Understanding

On Oct. 4, the United Nations General Assembly convened the first-ever High-Level Dialogue on interfaith and intercultural understanding. GA/10360 and GA/10632 report on the statements and remarks made by dozens of participants from various nations at the 2-day meeting. General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim emphasized the United Nations "crucial role" in fostering respect for other's religions and beliefs, but, he said, "we should also recognize that a crime committed in the name of religion is the greatest crime against religion; and that religion should not be used as a pretext for war". He urged governments to adopt educational curricula that instill the values of peace and tolerance.

Bishop Say Giuliani and Other Pro-Choice Candidates Should Be Denied Communion

Last Wednesday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke said Catholic priests are obligated to refuse communion to Catholic politicians whose positions on abortion contradict Church teachings. Consistent with that position, Burke indicated that he would deny communion to Republican Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Archbishop Burke, who took similar position in 2004 regarding Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, has elaborated on his position in an article titled The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin, published in a recent issue of Periodica de re Canonica. Burke's article seems to urge the U.S. Bishop's Conference to adopt a uniform national position on the matter, instead of leaving the issue to individual bishops as the Conference did in 2004. (LifeNews, Oct. 4.)

Kansas Supreme Court To Consider Judicial Trigger In Funeral Picketing Law

Last March, following the lead of 32 other states, the Kansas legislature enacted a law (SB 244) banning funeral protests. The laws are aimed at the offensive anti-gay picketing of veterans' funerals by a Topeka-based church. (See prior posting.) Unlike other states, however, the Kansas law contains a "judicial trigger". It does not take effect until the state Supreme Court or a federal court rules that it is constitutional. In May the Kansas Attorney General filed suit in the Kansas Supreme Court to obtain a ruling on the law's constitutionality. Earlier this week, the Kansas Supreme court scheduled a hearing in the case, but only on whether the judicial trigger itself is constitutional, and if it is not, on whether it can be severed from the remainder of the statute. (Order in State ex rel. Morrison, Attorney General v. Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, (KS Sup. Ct., t. 3, 2007). The AP reported on the Court's action in the case.

White House Hosts Iftaar Dinner To Mark Ramadan

Last Thursday evening, the White House hosted some 90 guests at its 7th annual Iftaar Dinner to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. (Yahoo News.) In his remarks (full text) in the State Dining Room, President Bush said: "Today, our world is at war with violent extremists who seek to tear the fabric of our society.... We say to them, you don't represent Muslims, you do not represent Islam -- and you will not succeed." Lt. Cmdr. Abuhena Saifulislam, the second Muslim chaplain commissioned in the Navy, gave the blessing before dinner. (American Forces Press Service.) The White House announced that among the invited guests were American Muslim women who had made contributions in science, education, civil society, the arts and culture. Prior to the dinner, the White House website hosted an online interactive forum with Shirin Tahir-Kheli, Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations, answering questions submitted by members of the public regarding the dinner. [Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the lead.]

South African High Court Upholds Hindu-Indian Student's Right to Wear Nose Stud

The Constitutional Court of South Africa yesterday, in KZN MEC of Education v Pillay, (SA Const. Ct., Oct. 5, 2007) held that the Durban Girl’s High School had illegally discriminated against an Indian/ Hindu student by refusing to permit her to wear a nose stud to school. The majority held that the school’s prohibition on wearing jewelry had the potential for indirect discrimination because it permitted some students to express their religious and cultural identity, while denying that right to others. (Court’s Media Summary of decision.) Interpreting South Africa’s Equality Act of 2000, the majority held that generally schools must grant exemptions from dress code requirements for sincerely held religious and cultural practices. However this is not so where the exemption would pose a real possibility of disruption or where a religious or cultural practice is insignificant. Also private schools may have more leeway than public ones in enforcing dress requirements. SABC News reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments On High School Coach Joining Players In Prayer

On Wednesday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Borden v. School District of East Brunswick in which a New Jersey high school is appealing a district court’s ruling that football coach Marcus Borden can participate in student-initiated non-sectarian pre-game prayers offered by football team players. (See prior postings, 1, 2, and full transcript of district court's ruling from the bench.). The AP reports that at oral argument, Judge Theodore A. McKee voiced concern over the rights of players and cheerleaders who did not wish to join in prayer, while Judge Maryanne Trump Barry questioned how the school could enforce a ban on Borden’s bowing his head while his team members prayed. She asked “Are you going to walk around with a ruler?” and “What if he has his head bowed but he says he's not praying?" An article in the Legal Intelligencer reviews the arguments made in the briefs for each side and in the three amicus briefs that were filed. [Thanks to Jack Shattuck for the lead.]

European Parliament Passes Resolution Opposing Teaching of Creationism

On Oct. 4, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved, by a vote of 48-25 (with 3 abstentions), a Resolution (full text) urging its members “to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion”. It likewise urges members “to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.” The National Center for Science Education reports on the resolution and links to the Council’s Explanatory Memorandum on it.

In laying the foundation for its recommendations, the Resolution states, in part:

The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements…. [S]ome advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy… All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude…. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny.

Editorial Examines Tensions Between Free Exercise and Church-State Separation

This week’s Forward carries a fascinating editorial on the relationship between religious freedom and church-state separation. Focusing on the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, celebrated this past Thursday evening and Friday, the editorial reflects the tensions inherent in reconciling the two religion clauses of the First Amendment. It points out that most Jews in America see separation of church and state as a bedrock principle that assures them full and equal status as citizens. Yet despite insistence that the public square be religiously neutral, in many U.S. cities on Simchat Torah synagogues sponsor celebrations on the public streets, dancing and singing while holding Torah scrolls—a practice developed in the Soviet Union in the 1960’s to protest Communist repression.

The editorial recognizes the contradiction inherent in this, and comment that “the lines are never that clear or simple”. It concludes by saying that in the battle to maintain separation of church and state—which must continue to be fought-- Jewish liberals should not demonize conservatives who are trying to bring religion back to the public square, because “the Bible that conservatives seek to post on courthouse walls is the same one the we danced with on our blocked-off streets and avenues this week.” The full editorial is definitely worth reading.

11th Circuit Interprets RLUIPA-- Damage Claims Permitted With Restrictions

In a 53-page decision handed down last Tuesday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on important issues of damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. While ultimately holding that denial of a crystal, a worship spot and a fire pit to a prisoner did not place a substantial burden on his practice of Odinism, in Smith v. Allen, (11th Cir., Oct. 2, 2007), the court held that the RLUIPA authorizes suits for damages. This was apparently the first ruling on the issue by a federal circuit court. However, according to the court, a prisoner plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief are significantly limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act which precludes compensatory damages for solely mental or emotional injury. Also suits for damages may not be brought against officials in their personal capacities, but only in their official capacities—so that they are not liable for damages out of their personal assets.

In another portion of its opinion the court found that plaintiff’s reincarceration revived an injunctive claim that had initially been mooted by his release from prison. The Tuscaloosa News covered the decision which involved a prisoner held in an Alabama correctional institution. [Thanks to Derek Gaubatz for the lead.]

Parishioner Sues Priest Over Disparaging Homily Remarks

In McHenry County, Illinois, a Roman Catholic parishioner has filed a "false light" invasion of privacy lawsuit against Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios and Monsignor Daniel Hermes, both of St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and against the Diocese of Rockford. Angel R. Llavona is asking for $50,000 in damages because of a sermon given by Fr. Rios. The incident began with Llavona left a message on Rios' answering machine telling him that "I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records." After their attempts to meet did not go well, Rios used the next Sunday's masses to play the answering machine message to the entire congregation. Then Rios commented to the congregation: "This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That’s why it is no surprise to me we had the kind of religious education we had. That’s why we didn’t get altar boys. What should we do, should we send him to Hell or to another parish?" The Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL) and the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) both report on the case.

Kentucky District Court Follows Up On 10 Commandments Lawsuits

A Kentucky federal district court has dismissed as moot a lawsuit challenging a 10 Commandments display in a Harlan County school. The student challenging the display no longer attends the school. The court also issued a complex ruling in the lawsuit against McCreary and Pulaski counties over their courthouse displays of the 10 Commandments in a Foundations of American Law exhibit. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court's granting of a preliminary injunction against the displays. Yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal reports that the district court refused to issue a permanent injunction in the case, since the Supreme Court held that in the future, the counties might be able to prove that they had purged themselves of their original religious purpose and were displaying the 10 Commandments only for secular purposes. However, the court also refused to permit the counties to restore the displays, finding that the counties had not yet eliminated their former religious motivation.

UPDATE: The full opinion in the case is now available: ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77338 (ED KY, Sept. 28, 2007).

Court Rejects 1st Amendment Challenge To Sex Offender Treatment

In Schnitzler v. Reisch, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72938 (D SD, Sept. 28, 2007), a south Dakota federal court rejected a claim by a prison inmate that his required participation in a group sex offender program violated his religious beliefs by requiring him to engage in explicit sexual discussions and to view sexual images. The court held that "plaintiff's religious beliefs and the right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment do not prevent him from being required to fully participate in a purely sectarian sex offender treatment program. The government and the public have a 'vital' interest in full and meaningful participation and rehabilitation by convicted sex offenders in such programs." The court also construed plaintiff's complaint as raising a RLUIPA claim and ordered defendants to respond to that allegation.

Las Cruces Case Argued In 10th Circuit

On Monday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Weinbaun v. City of Las Cruces, New Mexico in which plaintiffs are challenging the official symbol of Las Cruces-- three crosses surrounded by a sunburst. The lower court found no Establishment Clause problem with the emblem. (See prior posting.) The Las Cruces Sun News reports that the 10th Circuit arguments focused on whether a reasonable observer would believe the emblem to be an endorsement of religion.

Court Employees Sue To Use Jury Room For Bible Study

In San Diego, California yesterday, two Superior Court employees have filed suit to regain the right to use the court's jury room at lunch time for a Bible study group. Christian Newswire reports that court employees Mindy Barlow and Dalia R. Smith were denied permission to use the jury room or an empty court room, even though the Bible group had been meeting for six years using courthouse facilities. The complaint (full text) in Barlow v. Superior Court of California, (SD CA, Oct. 2, 2007) alleges that various First and 14th Amendment rights of plaintiffs have been infringed. It says defendants have permitted non-religious groups to use court facilities for non-court related events or meetings.

BBC Gives Inside Look At Nigerian Sharia Court

On Monday, BBC News posted a lengthy report on the operation of a Sharia court in the northern Nigerian state of Zamfara-- the first Nigerian state to introduce Islamic law. The report concludes:

Most of the people that I met in Zamfara said they welcomed Sharia. It has cut down drinking and violence, and the court is no longer an intimidating place of wigs and gowns, doing business in a language that they do not understand.

After six weeks in Zamfara, I can see how Judge Isah's court functions well as a small claims court for this rural Islamic society. But my reservations about Sharia remain the same. For me, the sticking points are still the floggings and the amputations, and the undeniably unfair treatment of women in rape and adultery cases.

Court Rejects Summary Judgment In Mosque's Land Use Challenge

In Albanian Associated Fund & Imam Arun Polozani v. Township of Wayne, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73176 (D NJ, Oct. 1, 2007), a New Jersey federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side in a case in which developers of a mosque challenged a Township's attempt to take their property as part of an Open Space Plan. Plaintiffs claimed that the Township's actions violated RLUIPA and the First Amendment. The court held that the manner in which the plaintiffs' property was pursued supports an indication of discriminatory purpose. It also found that a question of fact exists as to whether the Township's actions created a substantial burden on the Mosque and as to whether it violated the nondiscrimination provisions of RLUIPA. Finally the court postponed until any trial the question of whether the protection of open space is a compelling governmental interest.

Irish Hospital Says No Right To Reject Transfusion On Religious Grounds

In Dublin, Ireland, Coombe Women's Hospital is claiming in a court suit that a woman's freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion are not a basis for the woman to decline appropriate medical treatment. Last September, the hospital convinced an Irish court to issue an emergency order permitting it to give a life-saving blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness who had lost blood in childbirth. Now, according to yesterday's RTE News, the Attorney General has been brought in as a defendant in the case. The Hospital claims that it had a duty to protect and safeguard the woman's right to life, and was obliged to protect the family life of the woman and her child and to protect the rights of her child to be nurtured and reared by his mother. The mother, identified only as Ms K, says the transfusion infringed her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to refuse medical treatment.