Kansas Supreme Court Refuses To Halt Voter-Initiated Grand Jury

Yesterday in Tiller v. Corrigan, (KS Sup. Ct., Nov. 29, 2007), the Kansas Supreme Court lifted its previously-granted temporary stay of grand jury proceedings convened to investigate whether Wichita abortion provider George Tiller violated Kansas law by performing late-term abortions. The grand jury was empaneled, at the behest of a coalition of anti-abortion groups, under an unusual Kansas statute that allows a grand jury to be convened upon petition of just over 2% of a county's voters. (See prior posting.) Tiller sought a writ of mandamus from the state Supreme Court to halt the proceedings, claiming they amount to harassment. Without further explanation, the Supreme Court said that "petitioner has not established entitlement to the relief sought...." In a release posted on its website, Operation Rescue hailed the decision as "a victory for the rule of law, for the people of Kansas, and for the late-term pre-born babies that laws have been enacted to protect."

UPDATE: The Kansas City Star reported on Thursday that because of this decision, no appeal will be filed to challenge empaneling of a similar grand jury in Johnson County to investigate Planned Parenthood's activities there.

Canada's High Court Will Review Case On Religious Exemption From License Photos

The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday agreed that it would hear an appeal in Province of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, a case raising the question of whether Alberta can refuse to issue drivers' licenses to Hutterites who refuse on religious grounds to have their photographs on their licenses. In May, a lower court held that the refusal violated the Hutterites freedom of religion protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (See prior posting.) Today's Alberta Sun reports on the Supreme Court's action, quoting provincial officials who emphasize the security concerns that led to requiring photos.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Challenge to Wrongful Conviction Recovery Limits

North Carolina law (N.C. Gen Stat. Sec. 148-82) provides that a person who was convicted of a felony and then granted a pardon of innocence by the governor may bring a claim against the state for the pecuniary loss suffered by reason of the person's erroneous conviction and imprisonment. In Ross v. State of North Carolina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87067 (ED NC, Feb. 1, 2007)-- a case decided some months ago but just recently made available on LEXIS-- a North Carolina federal district court rejected a claim that conditioning compensation on the receipt of a pardon violates the Free Exercise clause.

Convicted murderer Daniel Ross had his conviction overturned because of faulty instructions to the jury on burden of proof. The state decided not to retry him. Ross then sought compensation for his wrongful imprisonment, but was denied it because he had not received a gubernatorial pardon. Ross then brought suit, alleging among other things, that conditioning the availability of damages on receipt of a gubernatorial pardon requires him to violate "a cardinal principle of his religious faith". He says he believes that "only the Almighty God . . . is responsible for granting grace or mercy as a covenant to His heirs." The court also rejected Ross' equal protection and 8th and 13th Amendment challenges.

Court Rejects Daughter's Relgious Objections To Autopsy On Father

Thomas Arthur is on death row in Alabama. Originally his execution was scheduled for September. At that time, his daughter brought a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent an autopsy from being performed on his body after his death. The court denied the daughter's motion for a temporary injunction. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the Governor of Alabama granted a 45-day stay of execution for Arthur, while Alabama changed its lethal injection protocol. After additional legal challenges, Arthur's execution date is now set for December 6. (AP). Earlier this week, in Stone v. Allen, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87132 (SD AL, Nov. 27, 2007), an Alabama federal district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the suit seeking to prevent an autopsy on Arthur. The court held that there is no legal support for the claim that Arthur's daughter has a constitutional right to block an autopsy on her father merely because it conflicts with her religious beliefs.

Judge Says 14-Year Old Can Refuse Transfusion; Boy Dies

In Seattle, Washington on Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled that a 14-year old boy was mature enough to decide to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds. A few hours later, Dennis Lindberg, a Jehovah's Witness who suffered from leukemia, died. The AP reports that doctors believed there was a 70% chance that a transfusion which would permit additional chemotherapy could have led to survival for five years. Lindberg's aunt had custody of him, and Lindberg's birth parents, who attended the hearing, believe that the boy was unduly influenced by his Jehovah's Witness aunt in making his decision. However they did not appeal after doctors said the boy had already likely suffered brain damage.

Free Exercise Challenge To Administration of Maine's Welfare Laws Rejected

In Lightfootlane v. Maine Department of Human Services, (D ME, Nov. 26, 2007), a Maine federal district judge accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge to dismiss a challenge to Maine's administration of its General Assistance program. The court held that plaintiff, who operates a statewide Homeless Crisis Hotline, lacks standing to bring her challenge. It also rejected her claim that her free exercise of religion was infringed when the state's misapplication of law caused her to have to work harder to help her clients. The magistrate found unconvincing plaintiff's argument that "It is a religious doctrine of most religions 'to do good works'. Not merely to 'attempt' to do good works."

Spokane Police Chaplaincy Changes Insignia In Response To Lawsuit

Responding to a lawsuit filed last year, Spokane Washington's police department is changing the insignia worn by its chaplains. KXLY News yesterday reported that the lawsuit challenged the use of a cross as part of the insignia, as well as the department's requirement that chaplains adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethic. The city has agreed to remove the cross, and to permit non-religious individuals who otherwise qualify to become chaplains. Chaplains, however, will still be permitted to wear a cross or other religious symbol on their lapel. The chaplains are funded by donations from police officers.

Venezuela's Chavez Clashes With Church Over Constitutional Amendments

Today's Miami Herald reports on a clash between Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and the Catholic Church in Venezuela. Church officials have said proposed constitutional provisions that are to be voted on in a referendum this Sunday are "morally unacceptable". The proposals dramatically increase presidential powers. Chavez has threatened reprisals, including possible imprisonment, against Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino. However church officials are standing firm in their opposition.

Veterans Challenge VA Hospital's Policy Change On Chapel Furnishings

In Fayetteville, NC, two veterans, with the help of the Rutherford Institute, are challenging a local hospital's interpretation of VA regulations regarding hospital chapels. Today's Fayetteville Observer reports that until earlier this year, the chapel at Fayetteville's Veterans Affairs Medical Center had a cross and Bible on permanent display, which were removed only when other faiths used the chapel for services. However earlier this year, hospital officials decided that VA regulations requiring that chapels be kept open for meditation and prayer for all faiths meant that the Bible and cross need to be removed when Christian religious services are not in progress in order to keep the chapel religiously neutral. Two veterans, Joseph Kinney and Laud Pitt Jr., argue that the chapel should be kept as a Christian place of worship and that the hospital should open a separate meditation room for use by members of other faiths. They say that the hospital is suppressing Christians' freedom of religion in removing the Bible and cross.

Amish Object To NY Town's Proposal That Builders Have Insurance

In Locke, New York, town officials are considering an ordinance that would require contractors seeking building permits to demonstrate proof that they have liability insurance to protect against homeowners from being sued when a worker is injured on the job. However, according to yesterday's Syracuse Post-Standard, the proposal is raising objections from Amish families who have recently moved to the area and whose religious beliefs preclude their acquiring insurance. Last week's Post-Standard carried a long article on the tensions that have arisen as eleven Old Order Amish families have moved to areas in Cayuga County, New York. Locke had already been insisting contractors seeking building permits have insurance when it was discovered that there was no legal basis for the requirement. Locke also requires proof that contractors have worker's compensation, a requirement that Amish likewise reject.

Saudi Religious Police Acquitted In Death of Suspect

AFP reports that yesterday, a court in Saudi Arabia acquitted two members of the Saudi religious police (Muttawa) who had been charged in the death of 28-year old Suleiman Al-Huraisi. As described in the US Dept. of State Religious Freedom Report 2007, in May 2007, members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice raided Al-Huraisi's home and arrested him, along with others, on suspicion of alcohol production. They beat Al-Huraisi, who later fell unconscious and died. The Commission's lawyer yesterday said defendants were acquitted because it was not demonstrated conclusively that Al-Huraisi's death was caused by the beating he received from religious police. A confusing fight during the raid left the possibility that Al-Huraisi was killed by a blow from a family member resisting the religious police. (See prior related posting.)

Developments In Sudan's Arrest of British School Teacher On Charges of Insulting Islam [UPDATED]

Yesterday's Khaleej Times reports that British school teacher Gillian Gibbons will be formally charged by a Sudanese court today with insulting the religious beliefs of Muslims by having her class name a teddy bear "Mohammed". (See prior posting.) ThisIsLondon today says that Gibbons technically faces three separate charges-- insulting Islam, inciting religious hatred and contempt for religious beliefs - each of which carries a maximum penalty of 40 lashes and a year in jail. However, she will likely be tried only on one of the charges. The prosecutor said she will get a swift and fair trial. As Gibbons was brought to court this morning, security was tight out of fear that militants might attempt to kidnap her.

The case has turned into a full-blown diplomatic incident as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband summoned Sudan's ambassador for urgent talks. (Australia's Herald Sun, 11/29). The AP reports that Sudan's top clerical leaders, known as the Assembly of the Ulemas, issued a statement on Wednesday calling the incident part of a broader Western plot against Muslims, and comparing it to insults against the Prophet Muhammad by author Salman Rushdie. Future develoopments may turn on how imams deal with the case in their messages at Friday prayers this week. The Muslim Council of Britain said it was "appalled" at the actions of Sudan.

Today's Times of London says that British diplomats are trying to prevent the incident from interfering with peace making efforts in Darfur. A possible compromise would be for Gibbons-- who has already spent four days in jail-- to be tried, but then expelled from the country, or pardoned, instead of being punished. The Times describes Unity High School-- the school at which Gibbons taught-- as "an exclusive British-run school favoured by the Sudanese elite."

UPDATE: AP reports that on Thursday in Sudan, teacher Gillian Gibbons was convicted of insulting Islam, and sentenced to 15 days in prison, to be followed by deportation. The quick verdict after a 7-hour trial appeared to be designed to end the case before Friday prayers and the possible incitement of worshipers over the matter. (Times of London.) A senior government official told the AP that clerics had been ordered not to deliver inflammatory sermons about the case on Friday.

UPDATE: BBC News on Thursday carries an article discussing differing views among Muslims about assigning the name Muhammad to pets and toys.

UPDATE: CNN reported on Tuesday that Gillian Gibbons arrived back in London and said her experience should not deter peoople from visiting Sudan which she said was an "extremely beautiful place."

Buddhist Priest Offers Invocation At Pennsylvania Senate Session

On Tuesday, for the first time ever the invocation opening the session of the Pennsylvania Senate was delivered by a Buddhist priest. Yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says that the Senate is attempting to show that it has diverse religious leaders offer opening prayers, in an effort to persuade Americans United for Separation of Church and State not to file suit challenging its prayer policy. In the past, most of the invocations were offered by Protestant, Catholic or Jewish clergy.

Wisconsin Bill Would Restore Name of State Christmas Tree

A committee of the Wisconsin legislature held a hearing yesterday on a proposal to rename the holiday tree that is put up each year in the state Capitol. The Assembly State Affairs Committee is considering a bill to rename the tree the Wisconsin State Christmas Tree. (Wheeler News Service, 11/26). According to yesterday's Green Bay Press Gazette, bill sponsor Rep. Marlin Schneider at the hearing decried the political correctness that led the state in 1985 to change the name from Christmas tree to holiday tree. Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation opposed the proposed change.

Religion Clause Nominated In Best 100 By ABA

Editors of the ABA Journal today announced they have selected Religion Clause as one of the top 100 best "blawgs" by lawyers, for lawyers. An icon on this page's sidebar allows you to narrow the selections down even more by voting for the best blog in each of a dozen categories. Religion Clause is among ten blogs in the ABA's category "Black Letter Law". Voting ends January 2.

Texas Court Rejects Plea To Bar Autopsies of Two Muslim Men

In Fort Worth, Texas, a judge yesterday refused to stop an autopsy on two men killed in a traffic accident on Sunday night, despite pleas from their families that the autopsies violated the Muslim beliefs of the deceased. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports today that state District Judge Bob McGrath denied a TRO after the medical examiner and district attorney's office said that state law mandates the autopsies in order to determine the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt. Assistant District Attorney Ann Diamond said that the medical examiner would perform as limited an autopsy as possible.

British Humanists' Report Criticizes Faith-Based Services In UK

The British Humanist Association today announced the release of a new report titled Quality and Equality: Human Rights, Public Services and Religious Organisations (full text) (Executive Summary). The report focuses on BHA's concern about the increasing use of religious organizations in Britain to supply social services under contract with the government. In its press release, BHA described its conclusions:

The report’s findings demonstrate that there is no evidence that religious organisations offer any distinctive benefits to the supply and provision of public services and actually that the Government’s clear policy objective of expanding the role of religious organisations within the public services runs the risk of lowering standards, increasing inequalities, introducing ‘parallel services’ and damaging social cohesion.

The research warns of the dangers of discrimination against staff not protected by Employment Equality Regulations pertaining to religion or belief or sexual orientation because of the exemptions that religious organisations have from equality legislation, and of potential barriers to accessing public services for the general public.

Insurance Company Sued Under Fair Housing Act On "FaithGuard" Policy

In Ohio, the National Fair Housing Alliance has filed a religious discrimination suit against GuideOne Mutual Insurance Co. alleging that its "FaithGuard" homeowners' insurance policies violate the federal Fair Housing Act. The complaint (full text) in National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Co., (ND OH, filed 11.26/07), points to provisions in the policies that waive the insurance deductible if there is a loss to personal property while it held by the insured's church; a provision that pays church tithes or donations up to $750 if the insured suffers loss of income from certain accidental injuries; and the policy's doubling medical limits for an injury incurred at an activity hosted at the home of the insured on behalf of the insured's church. The complaint says that these benefits are not available to individuals who suffer losses while engaged in similar non-religious activities. The suit also alleges that GuideOne offers preferential treatment for Christians in its marketing and advertising. A fact sheet on the case is also available.

Yesterday's Akron Beacon Journal , reporting on the case, quotes GuideOne that says its product is ''available to everyone — whether they attend church or not and without regard to religion or denomination. No one has ever been denied the product based on church membership or attendance. There are no religion-related underwriting eligibility guidelines to obtain the product, and the company does not consider whether someone is a churchgoer before issuing a policy."

3rd Circuit Interprets RLUIPA's "Equal Terms" Provision

Yesterday the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a lengthy opinion interpreting the anti-discrimination provision of RLUIPA. The section prohibits land use regulations that treat religious institutions "on less than equal terms" than nonreligious ones. In The Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, (3d Cir., Nov. 27, 2007), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held that Long Branch, NJ did not violate the section when under a redevelopment plan it excluded churches and religious assemblies from an area zoned for entertainment and recreation.

The court held that the "equal terms" provision does not require a church to show that a "substantial burden" has been been placed on its religious exercise. However, it does require plaintiff to show that it was treated less well than a secular organization that has a similar negative impact on the aims of the challenged land-use regulation. Churches are not similarly situated because New Jersey law prohibits the issuance of a liquor license to establishments located within 200 feet of a church. The court also rejected plaintiff Lighthouse's claim under the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause, finding that its exclusion from a small area of the city did not burden its religious exercise, and that the redevelopment plan was a neutral regulation of general applicability. The court did however permit an award of damages under RLUPA for previous injury caused by a now-superseded zoning ordinance.

Judge Jordan, dissenting in part, argued that the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA is violated when a zoning ordinance categorically excludes churches from an area where secular assemblies are permitted, without the church being required show that it is similarly situated in regard to the regulation's purpose. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to How Appealing via Alliance Alert for the lead.]

City Council In Michigan Rejects Opening Prayer Policy

In Davison, Michigan, city council on Monday night defeated a proposal to open each meeting with a prayer. Yesterday's Flint Journal reports that the idea, proposed by Davison's new mayor, Fred "Mac" Fortner, was defeated by a 3-2 vote after Council member Joy Murray raised church-state objections. She apparently assumed that the proposal envisioned a consistently Christian invocation. Murray said she could support a moment of silence or a rotating schedule of prayers from many different religions.