Courthouse Holding Facility Found To Be Outside of RLUIPA Coverage

In Khatib v. County of Orange, (CD CA, March 26, 2008), a Muslim woman sued after she was ordered not to wear her hijab (traditional headscarf) in a state courthouse holding facility, and was not permitted to cover her head in the courtroom. In what was apparently a question of first impression, a California federal district court concluded that a courthouse holding facility is not an institution covered by the protections of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court said: "The factors needed to create the atmosphere of stability inside jails and prisons that allows for exercise of religious freedoms without 'undermin[ing] . . . security, discipline, and order . . .' are utterly absent from courthouse holding facilities."

In other aspects of the case, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed with her First Amendment claim against the county, but dismissed the claim against two individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiff was also permitted to proceed with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's claim seeking an injunction was dismissed because she was not in immediate threat of again being asked to remove her hijab. The Los Angeles Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported on the court's decision.

British Hindu Monks Threaten To Sue RSPCA Over Cow's Death

In Britain, six monks from Europe's largest Hindu Temple, Bhaktivedanta Manor, threatening to sue have served what is essentially a demand letter on Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. According to yesterday's BBC News, the monks say that last December while they were at prayer, an RSPCA veterinarian euthanized an ailing cow being cared for at the Temple. Cows are sacred to those of the Hindu faith. The monks' letter demands that the RSPCA admit responsibility for trespass. RSPCA says it entered the property accompanied by the police who were carrying a valid warrant.

National Day of Prayer Task Force Criticized For Lack of Inclusiveness

The National Day of Prayer Task Force is excluding Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, and even moderate evangelical Christians from taking lead roles in its events, according to a posting Thursday by Jews On First. In a message from Task Force Chair Shirley Dobson, those applying to become coordinators for this year's May 1 activities are asked to fill out an application "to determine your personal and spiritual qualifications for this service". The application itself says that the Task Force is organizing prayer events "conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values." It then asks applicants to indicate they agree with a Statement of Belief that says that the Bible "is the inerrant Word of The Living God" and that the applicant believes "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation...." A Policy Statement from the task force says that "People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs."

The Task Force claims only that it is "a privately funded organization whose purpose it is to encourage participation on the National Day of Prayer." However its website highlights official Presidential and Gubernatorial Proclamations marking the National Day of Prayer, and points out that the day was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of Congress. Last year the Task Force Chair played a leading role in the White House National Day of Prayer ceremony, but the White House added other participants to emphasize the inter-religious nature of the event.

Original Web Host Pulls Much-Criticized Anti-Islam Video

Wired reports that on Friday, the video-hosting website LiveLeak took down the controversial anti-Islamic video Fitna from its website, replacing it with a statement reading in part: "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature.... LiveLeak has been left with no choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net...." As previously reported, the video, produced by right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, was posted by LiveLeak on Thursday along with its own statement defending free speech. The video, however, remains available on line from a number of servers, including Google Video and YouTube.

Meanwhile, according to the AP yesterday, artist Kurt Westergaard, whose controversial cartoon of Muhammad was used in the video, complained that Wilders had violated his copyright by taking the cartoon out of its original context. Condemnations of the video came from governments of Iran, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Singapore, Slovenia and Jordan as well as from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. (Radio Netherlands Worldwide). Dutch Muslims were mild in their reactions to the video, as they waited for a court ruling, now promised for April 7, in which the Dutch Islamic Federation seeks to ban the video and obtain a court-ordered apology from Wilders. The Sunday Pakistan Daily Times says that Dutch businesses have threatened to sue Wilders if his video leads to a boycott of Dutch goods.

Legal Maneuvers In Russia Undercut Pastor's Suit Against Orthodox Bishop

Forum 18 this week reported on the latest in a series of legal maneuvers against a United Methodist church in the western Russian city of Smolensk. The saga apparently began when the Methodist church put up on its website information about the planned opening in September of a Missionary College. As reported by Forum 18 in February, at that point the local Russian Orthodox Bishop, Ignati (Punin) of Vyazma, asked the Regional Public Prosecutor "to take the measures necessary in this situation to defend the inhabitants of our city, particularly youth, from this pseudo-religious organisation." In response local police officials began investigating the church and demanded that it remove the website information about the missionary college. Feeling intimidated, the church's pastor, Aleksandr Vtorov, filed suit on behalf of the church for moral damages against Bishop Ignati in Smolensk's Industrial District Court. Now, in the latest moves, the Smolensk Regional Court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office, has dissolved the Methodist congregation as a legal entity. The grounds for the dissolution were apparently that the church was conducting a brief Sunday school, attended by 4 children, without having a license to be an educational institution. This is a novel interpretation of the law. The dissolution does not totally ban the church, but it does prevent the pastor's suit against Bishop Ignati from going forward.

Anti-Semitic Incidents In U.S. Continue To Drop

The Anti-Defamation League last week released an updated Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in the United States for 2007. The data shows a 6% decline from 2006, reflecting the continuing drop in incidents over the past three years. The Audit includes both criminal and non-criminal acts of harassment and intimidation, including distribution of hate propaganda, threats and slurs. Data is obtained from official crime statistics as well as from informal reports made to ADL. Forty states and the District of Columbia are included in this year's figures.

Court Rejects Collateral Estoppel In Suit On Portrayal of Hindus In Textbooks

In California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. California Department of Education, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23687 (ED CA, March 25, 2008), plaintiff (CAPEEM) alleges that the California State Board of Education violated the rights of its members by the process used in 2005-2006 to adopt public school history-social science textbooks. It also claims the 6th-grade textbooks that were chosen present Hinduism in a derogatory and unequal manner. In this decision, a California federal district court rejected defendant's motion for summary judgment. The State Board of Education argued that the identical claims were already adjudicated in a state court suit brought by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF). The district court held, however, that CAPEEM is not in privity with HAF for res judicata/collateral estoppel purposes, nor was its interests adequately represented in the state litigation to which it was not a party. (See prior related posting.)

Christian Converts In Egypt Face New Hurdles To Recognition

As reported last month, Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court held that twelve individuals who had converted to Islam and then back to Christianity were entitled to have their birth certificates and government identity papers reflect that they are Christian. However now, according to Journal Chretien, those individuals and others are facing new hurdles. Judge Muhammad Husseini, who in another case has ruled against the right of a Muslim to leave his religion, has asked Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of Egypt's civil law that grants citizens the right to convert. He argues that the law conflicts with Chap. One, Art. 2 of Egypt's Constitution that says Islamic jurisprudence is the main source of legislation.

Meanwhile Egypt’s Civil Status Department has turned down the request of one of the 12 successful plaintiffs in last month's litigation for new identity documents. In that case, the court ordered that new documents must carry the designation "Christian, previously proclaimed Islam as his/her religion." Officials say their computer system only permits them to enter one word on the religion line in the identity document.

UN Human Rights Council Calls for End To Religious Defamation

According to yesterday's International Herald Tribune, the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed, by a vote of 21-10, a resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions that was proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference [full text, word doc]. The resolution, expresses concern over "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations,"and urges countries "to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence."

Meanwhile, a group of 31 human rights, civil rights and press organizations called on the Human Rights Council to reject another amendment offered by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The resolution would require the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to "report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination." The statement by the concerned organizations argues: "The role of the Special Rapporteur is not to look at abusive expression, but to consider and monitor abusive limits on expression." (IFEX Press Release, 3/28).

EEOC's Claim of Discrimination Against Muslim Employee Is Settled

The Belleville News-Democrat yesterday reported that a suburban St. Louis company has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the EEOC on behalf of a Muslim woman. Mariam Soultan, former employee of Client Services, Inc., claims she was fired because she refused to remove her religious headscarf. The compay has agreed to pay $65,000 in damages and to revise its dress code.

Indy Star Employees Lose Religious Discrimination Claims

In Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., (SD IN, March 27, 2008), an Indiana federal district court rejected religious discrimination claims brought by two editorial employees against the publisher of the Indianapolis Star newspaper. Plaintiffs alleged that the newspaper's president and vice president conspired to force them out of their jobs because the executives disagreed with plaintiffs' religious opposition to homosexuality. Plaintiffs also claimed that the Star has more generally attempted to eliminate Christians from its workforce. The court found, however, that the newspaper had other legitimate non-pretextual reasons to take action against plaintiffs. [Thanks to Sarah Pulliam for the lead.]

Wilders' Anti-Quran Video Is Posted On Video Hosting Website

As reported yesterday by CNN and the Washington Post, right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders' 16-minute video attacking the Quarn and Islam has found an Internet host. LiveLeak.com has posted the 16 minute film titled "Fitna" in English and Dutch versions. The first 9 minutes counterpose verses from the Quran with graphic scenes of terrorism, violence and murder seemingly inspired by the Quranic language. The remainder of the video pursues the theme "Netherlands under the spell of Islam." Near the end of the video, Islamic ideology is compared with Nazism and Communism. The final frame shows the notorious cartoon of Muhammad in a turban in the shape of a bomb-- with the bomb exploding.

LiveLeak also posted its own statement explaining its decision to host the video on free speech grounds. It invited opponents to respond and promised equal exposure for the responses so long as they comply with law and LiveLeak rules. It has already posted, along with the Wilders' video, one from Radio Netherlands Worldwide giving a counter view. It is titled "About Fitna, the Netherlands and Wilders." Arsalan Iftikhar, a contributor to Islamica Magazine, said he doubted that the Wilders' video would trigger violence. However the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as European officials, have warned that the video's release could spark protests. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: Reuters this morning reports that Dutch Muslim organizations have reacted with restraint to the Wilders video. They have appealed for calm and plan to open mosques to the public today in a move to reduce tensions. Yesterday Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende spoke live on television in both Dutch and English saying that he rejected Wilders' views. The Washington Times quotes Leiden University Professor Maurits Berger who said that the video was not as shocking as expected. It did not show a page being torn from the Quran-- but only the sound of a phone book page being torn with a suggestion that Muslims themselves should tear out hateful pages from the Quran.

Florida Senate Committee Approves Bill Allowing Anti-Evolution Theories In Class

The Tampa Tribune reports that opponents of Florida's recently adopted science education standards took their first step in the legislature yesterday to counter the State Board of Education guidelines that specifically call for the teaching of evolution. (See prior posting.) The Senate Education Committee, by a vote of 4-1, approved S. 2962, Sen. Ronda Storms "Academic Freedom" bill that would permit public school teachers to "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins." It would also prohibit penalizing students for holding particular views on evolution. The bill now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

9th Circuit Upholds 10 Commandments Display

In Card v. City of Everett, (9th Cir., March 26, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a 10 Commandments monument on the grounds of the Everett, Washington city hall. The monument was presented to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1959. Judge Wardlaw, writing for the court, pointed out that the context surrounding this display is similar to that in the display that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry:

this monument bears a prominent inscription showing that it was donated to the City by a private organization. As in Van Orden, this serves to send a message to viewers that, while the monument sits on public land, it did not sprout from the minds of City officials and was not funded from City coffers.

Judge Fernandez, agreeing that the result was controlled by Van Orden, concurred in a short, but interesting, opinion that reads in part:

I applaud Judge Wardlaw’s scholarly and heroic attempt to create a new world of useful principle out of the Supreme Court’s dark materials. Alas, even my redoubtable colleague cannot accomplish that. The still stalking Lemon test and the other tests and factors, which have floated to the top of this chaotic ocean from time to time in order to answer specific questions, are so indefinite and unhelpful that Establishment Clause jurisprudence has not become more fathomable. Would that courts required neutrality in the area of religion and nothing more or less.

Reuters yesterday reported on the decision. [Thanks to Robert H. Thomas for the lead.]

Floridians Will Vote On Repeal of Blaine Amendment In November

The AP reports that yesterday Florida's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission voted 17-7 to place before the voters in November a constitutional amendment that would repeal the state's Blaine Amendment. More specifically, the TBRC's resolution (full text) proposes to delete from Article I, Sec. 3 of Florida's Constitution the following language:

No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

It also would add the following sentence: "Individuals or entities may not be barred from participating in public programs because of religion." The proposed amendment is fueled by a 2004 Florida appellate court decision that relied on the"no aid" clause to strike down a state voucher program for parents of children in failing schools known as the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission postponed action on a second proposed constitutional amendment that would permit the creation of voucher programs despite the state constitution's provision requiring a uniform system of free public schools. That provision was relied upon by Florida's Supreme Court in 2006 to strike down the state's Opportunity Scholarship Program without reaching the "no aid" question. (See prior related posting.)

California Court Grants Rehearing In Home School Case

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reports that California's Second District Court of Appeal has granted a rehearing in In re Rachel L., a case that rejected a claim by parents that they have a First Amendment free exercise right to home school their children. (See prior posting.) Under the court's original ruling, home school parents must file to be a small, private school and hire a credentialed tutor. (See prior posting.) In the case, the parents argued unsuccessfully that they are in compliance with state law because a private religious academy considers the children enrolled in its independent study program and visits them four times per year.

UPDATE: In an expanded order, the Second District Court of Appeals has asked the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, the Los Angeles school district, the California Teachers Association and the Los Angeles teachers' union to all express their opinions on homeschooling as the court reconsiders its decision. (World Net Daily, 3/27).

British Prime Minister Backs Off Proposed Repeal of Act of Settlement

Today's London Telegraph reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is having second thoughts about a proposal he intended to make-- repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement. The ancient law requires the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England and prohibits the monarch from embracing Catholicism or marrying a Catholic. Originally intended to entrench the concept of constitutional monarchy, the law is now seen as an insult to Catholics. It is reported that the Queen had given her approval to repeal of the law, but then experts found that the legal issues were more complicated than they first appeared. The monarch is also the head of the Anglican Church, a position that could not be held by a Catholic monarch. So repeal would likely lead to disestablishment of the Church of England. Also the 16 Commonwealth countries would have to agree, since the Queen is also formally head of state of those nations. The 1707 Act of Union would also need to be amended and special legislation on the rights of the House of Windsor would be required.

Texas Board of Education Poised To Adopt Bible Course Curriculum Standards

The Austin (TX) American-Statesman reports that the Texas State Board of Education could give preliminary approval as early as this week to new standards for elective high school courses on the Old and New Testaments' Impact on History and Literature of Western Civilization. The proposed curriculum requirements (full text) provide that the purpose of any such course is to: "teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy." The course is also intended to familiarize students with the contents, history and literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or of the New Testament. It should also examine their influence on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and culture.

The new standards implement 2007 legislation authorizing such courses. (See prior posting.) Critics however say the Board of Education's proposals are similar to those in place before the new law under which a number of Texas districts were already offering Bible courses. They say guidelines should focus more on First Amendment concerns. SMU professor Mark Chancey found that 22 out of 25 Bible courses offered in Texas public schools in 2005-2006 likely violated the First Amendment based on criteria in various federal court rulings.

UPDATE: On Friday, by a vote of 13-2, the Texas State Board of Education approved the guidelines for high school Bible courses. However it put off adopting more specific curriculum content requirements until the Texas Attorney General rules whether the courses must be offered by all high schools. (Dallas Morning News.)

Court Says Dissident Church's Property Belongs To Long Island Episcopal Diocese

Episcopal News Service reported yesterday that a Queens County, New York trial court has ruled that the property of the breakaway St. James' Episcopal Church in Elmhurst is held in trust for the Diocese of Long Island. In 2005, a majority of St. James' members voted to affiliate with the more conservative Anglican Church in America. The breakaway members had sued claiming entitlement to Church property because the parish was created by the Church of England before the Episcopal Church came into existence. The court ruled, however, that St. James became an Episcopal parish after the American Revolution.

Court Rejects First Amendment Defense To Title VII and Defamation Claims

In Ogugua v. Archdiocese of Omaha, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23193 (D NE, March 24, 2008), a Nebraska federal district court rejected First Amendment defenses and permitted a Catholic assistant pastor to proceed with a Title VII claim against the Archdiocese of Omaha, and defamation claims against the Archdiocese as well as the pastor and archbishop involved. Ernest Ogugua claimed that he was reassigned to another church because of his race, his national origin, and his refusal to submit to sexual harassment by a supervisor. Distinguishing an earlier 8th Circuit decision, the court concluded that it would not dismiss Ogugua's Title VII claim on jurisdictional grounds, but instead permit him to file an answer in order to determine whether it can adjudicate the claim without entangling the court in matters of religion. It did dismiss the claim against his supervisors since they were not his employer for Title VII purposes.

After Ogugua was transferred, the archbishop sent an e-mail to parishioners stating that Ogugua was reassigned due to "serious concerns" that arose. The court here also rejected a First Amendment defense and permitted Ogugua to proceed with his defamation claim against all the defendants. Nothing in the e-mail indicated that the concerns with which Ogugua was charged were ecclesiastical in nature.