Israel Passes Organ Donation Law; Religious Controversy Remains

According to Haaretz, Israel's Knesset last week enacted the country's first law on organ donations. Among other things, it outlaws the brokering of sales of organs. Organ donation has been controversial in Israel because many Orthodox rabbis have insisted that cardiac death, rather than the earlier brain death, defines the end of life under Jewish law. The new bill, however, has garnered support from Sephardi rabbinical leaders and those from the National Religious movement. Under the new law, a committee made up of rabbis, doctors and ethicists will be created to set guidelines and authorize doctors who will certify brain death. While Sephardi leaders (represented by the Shas Party) agree that new technology permits brain death to be used as the measure of the end of life, the Ashkenazi United Torah Judaism party led by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv objects. YNet News reported that in ultra-Orthodox areas of Jerusalem, large posters opposing the new law charged that declaring a person dead on the basis of brain death amounts to murder. The paper says the posters reflect the views of "two of the most prominent rabbis belonging to the Lithuanian non-Hasidic ultra-Orthodox Jewish community." [Thanks to Religion and State in Israel for the lead.]

EEOC Prevails In Religious Discrimination Claim Against Aldi's

In EEOC v. Aldi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25206 (WD PA, March 28, 2008), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit in a Pennsylvania federal district court against Aldi, Inc. on behalf of former employee Kimberly Bloom who was fired from her position as a cashier after she refused for religious reasons to work on Sundays. Bloom describes herself as "a Christian, Protestant, and a Born Again Christian." Aldi had offered Bloom time off to attend religious services on Sunday, but Bloom insisted that her religious beliefs included spending all of Sunday with her family. It also offered her rotation and voluntary shift swapping. The court rejected Aldi's motion to dismiss, finding that the accommodations it offered were inadequate and that Aldi's failed to establish that reasonable accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship. The court found that genuine issues of fact remain as to Bloom's claims of retaliation and claims for punitive damages.

Developer Counterclaims For $10M Against Missouri Baptist Convention

Associated Baptist Press yesterday reported on the latest installment in a complex lawsuit between the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) and Missouri land developer William Jester. Windmere Baptist Conference Center is one of five institutions that broke away from MBC in 2000 and 2001. In a separate lawsuit, MBC is attempting to reassert control. (See prior posting.) MBC has filed suit against Jester’s Windermere Development Company to prevent it, pending the outcome of the separate lawsuit, from buying Windmere property as part of Windmere's debt restructuring and expansion plan. Now Jester has filed a counterclaim against MBC, alleging defamation and interference with business relationships. He says that he has lost $10 million in business because of MBC's actions warning prospective lenders against financing development of the property. Jester says inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims in MBC's in-house newsletter The Pathway impugned his business and financial capabilities.

Court Upholds Texas Sports League's Exclusion of Christian School

In Texas, a Christian school has lost its bid to become a member of the state's intescholastic league for public schools. Cornerstone Christian Schools applied for membership in University Interscholastic League (UIL) after the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) refused in 2006 to renew its membership because of violations of the league's recruiting rules. In Cornerstone Christian Schools v. University Interscholastic League, (WD TX, April 1, 2008) [full text of opinion, Part 1, Part 2, Order], a Texas federal district court in a lengthy opinion upheld UIL's refusal to permit Cornerstone to apply for membership. As interpreted by UIL, its rules disqualified Christian Cornerstone once the school had been excluded from TAPPS for recruiting violations. The court agreed with UIL's interpretation of its rule, describing Cornerstone's attempt to read the rule otherwise as "semantically and ecclesiastically akin to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."

The court's conclusion was signaled by its its initial description of Cornerstone's allegations: "Having successfully created an athletic powerhouse no longer welcomed by other Christian schools, Cornerstone incongruously invokes the power of the federal government to have its earthly desires accomplished."

Moving to plaintiffs' various constitutional assertions, the court held that only the parents and students who were plaintiffs, and not Cornerstone itself, had standing to raise the claims being asserted. The court went on to hold that UIL's membership rule is no more than a de minimis burden on plaintiffs' right to educate their child and on their free exercise of religion. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge to the rule, finding that it bears a rational relationship to the state's interest in reducing unfair competition in extracurricular activities. Yesterday's San Antonio Express News reported on the decision.

British Tribunal Considering Muslim Hair Stylist's Discrimination Claim

This Is London today reports on an interesting religious discmination case being heard by the Central London Employment Tribunal. Sarah Desrosiers runs Wedge, a hair salon that specializes in "an alternative form of hairdressing, which is ultra-modern and may be described as urban, edgy and funky." Derosiers wants her employees to wear the type of hair styles the salon offers. Now Derosiers is being sued by a Muslim woman, Bushra Noah, who was turned down for a stylist's position because she covers her hair with a headscarf for religious reasons. Desrosiers says she was not discriminating on racial or religious grounds; she would object to any kind of head covering worn by an employee.

High Schooler Sues To Challenge Art Project Limits

In Madison, Wisconsin, a Tomah High School senior (identified as A.P.) last Friday filed a federal lawsuit challenging a school policy that prohibits art class projects from depicting "violence, blood, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs." In an art class assignment involving drawing of a landscape, A.P. included a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of peace." Teacher Julie Millin, asked him to remove the Bible reference because other students were making remarks about it. When A.P. refused, she gave him a zero on the project, showing him the class policy. A.P. responded by tearing up the policy statement in front of the teacher. She ejected him from class and he later received two detentions for tearing up the policy. In a later incident, A.P.'s metals arts teacher rejected his idea to build a chain-mail cross because it was religious.

The complaint in A.P. v. Tomah Area School District, (WD WI, filed 3/28/2008), alleges that the school policy and its enforcement against A.P. violates A.P.'s First and 14th Amendment rights. It says that other artwork with religious themes are displayed throughout the school and argues that "per se censorship of religious speech in assignments does not represent a legitimate pedagogical interest." A release yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund contains links to copies of A.P.' drawing and to drawings of demonic images created by other students in the class. Yesterday's Racine (WI) Journal Times reports on the case

German Court Says Muslim Student Must Have In-School Place For Prayer

Yesterday's Deutsche Welle reports that educators in Germany are hotly debating a March 10 decision by a Berlin administrative court which held that Diesterweg Upper School must provide a 14-year-old Muslim student with a place for his daily prayers. Relying on the protection of freedom of religion in Germany's Basic Law (Art. 4), the judge in expedited proceedings said that the prayers had to take place outside of class time, but space on school grounds needed to be made available. Judgments in expedited proceedings are temporary pending a full court hearing. No full hearing date has yet been scheduled. Educators opposed to the ruling say that it conflicts with German law that keep public institutions religiously neutral.

Death of Children After Prayer Alone Raises Homicide Prosecution Issues

Should parents who elect faith healing rather than traditional medical treatment for a child be criminally responsible if the child dies? That is the question posed in two recent cases. In Clackamas County, Oregon, parents Carl and Raylene Worthington have been indicted by a grand jury in the death of their 15-month old daughter last March. She suffered from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, both of which could have responded to antibiotics. Her parents, members of the Followers of Christ church, yesterday plead not guilty to charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. Their religious beliefs prevented them from seeking out traditional medical care for their daughter. In 1999 Oregon changed its law, repealing the former religious exemptions from child abuse and homicide statutes. Yesterday's Oregonian and today's London Guardian report on the case.

Meanwhile Marathon County, Wisconsin, District Attorney Jill Falstad is deciding whether to file criminal charges against the parents of 11-year old Madeline Neumann who died from a diabetic reaction. Yesterday's Green Bay Press Gazette reports that her parents, Leilani and Dale Neumann, prayed for her recovery from a diabetic reaction rather than getting her medical help. Prosecution may be difficult because Wisconsin law specifically exempts from punishment parents who treat their children "through prayer alone in lieu of medical or surgical treatment." [Thanks to Rev. Jeanene Hammers for the lead to part of this posting.]

Facial Challenge By Christian High School To UC's Admissions Policy Rejected

Last week, a California federal district court handed down an initial decision in Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, (CD CA, March 28, 2008). In the case, Calvary Chapel Christian School, 5 of its students and an association of Christian schools challenged the admissions policy of the University of California on free speech, free exercise, establishment clause and equal protection grounds. Plaintiffs brought both facial and "as applied" challenges. At issue was UC's decision not to approve certain high school courses in science, social science and history offered by Christian schools. This precluded applicants for admission from using these to show their proficiency in various subject areas.

The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting their claims that UC rejects courses solely because they are taught from a religious viewpoint. The court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's facial challenges. This leaves for trial the "as applied" challenges, including questions of the reasonableness of UC's decisions to denial approval for specific religious school courses. The University's press release describes the court's holding in its 49-page opinion as follows:

UC moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that that its review policies and the position statements are constitutional exercises of the University’s right to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission. The Court agreed, holding that the University has a legitimate interest in evaluating the adequacy of high school courses to prepare students for study at UC; that its process for doing so is reasonable; that the University’s academic standards are also reasonable and do not discriminate against religion; that the position statements are a reasonable application of those academic standards; and that the University accommodates religious school students in various ways.

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Ed Brayton for the lead via Religionlaw listserv.]

Court Says No Standing To Challenge State Funds For Faith-Based Agency

In Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., (WD KY, March 31, 2008), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a lawsuit by Kentucky state taxpayers claiming that the state violated the Establishment Clause by providing funding to Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC). The state pays KBHC to provide services to children placed in its care as wards of the state. Plaintiffs alleged that KBHC filled staff positions in accordance with religious tenets and sought to instill Christian values and teachings in youths in its programs. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court relied on two recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. It held that Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno requires the application of federal standing doctrines to state taxpayer lawsuits, including those brought under the Establishment Clause. It then held that because KBHC receives funds through contracts with state agencies rather than through legislative action, under Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation plaintiffs lack taxpayer standing. Yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the case which was originally filed in 2000 and included religious discrimination claims against KBHC which were subsequently dismissed by the court.

Most of Church's RLUIPA and Constitutional Claims Will Go To Trial

Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado, (D CO, March 31, 2008), involves a challenge to the denial of a church's application for a special use permit so it could expand its facilities. The church claimed that the denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as well as various provisions of the US. and Colorado constitutions. The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on most of plaintiff's 16 claims, finding that there are genuine issues of material fact that need to go to trial. However the court did rule for defendant on three matters. It dismissed plaintiff's facial Free Exercise challenge to the Boulder County Land Use Code, its retaliation claim and the portion of its RLUIPA claim that alleged unequal treatment with public schools that were exempt from county land use controls. The U.S. Justice Department had intervened in the case on behalf of plaintiff Rocky Mountain Christian Church. The Becket Fund which has assisted the church in its land use battle, issued a release praising yesterday's decision

Kentucky Court Permanently Enjoins 10 Commandments Display

In ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County, Kentucky, (WD KY, March 28, 2008), a Kentucky federal district court permanently enjoined a display of the Ten Commandments as part of a Foundations of American Law and Government Display in the Grayson County (KY) Courthouse. This follows up on a preliminary injunction issued in 2002, after which the County removed the 10 Commandments from the display, but re-hung on the wall the empty frame in which they had appeared. In granting the permanent injunction, the court first held that county residents who are users of the courthouse and taxpayers, as well as the ACLU, have standing. It then concluded that the display violates the Establishment Clause because the Grayson County Fiscal Court had a predominately religious purpose in approving the display and a reasonable person would conclude it had the effect of endorsing religion.

In a press release issued Sunday, the ACLU of Kentucky praised the decision saying it is not the business of government to endorse religious beliefs. Today's Louisville Courier-Journal, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal is planned. It quoted Rev. Chester Shartzer who originally requested that the county install the display. He complained that the court's decision was "not fair to the children" because it removed part of "our heritage" from the display.

Supreme Court Grants Review In "7 Aphorisms" Monument Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, (Case No. 07-665). (Order list.) In the case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Summum was entitled to erect a "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in a city park that already features a number of other displays, including a 10 Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The 10th Circuit denied en banc review of the case by a 6-6 vote. (See prior posting.) AP reports that the main issue that the Supreme Court will decide is whether placing donated monuments in a government-owned park creates a public forum or whether the government retains authority to select which monuments to display. The petition for certiorari, explaining the issues presented more fully, is available online. A Reuters report also has background information. The court took no action on a cert petition in a companion case, Duchesne City v. Summum, (Case No. 07-690). That case poses more complicated factual issues. (See prior posting.) The petition for cert in that case suggests that the Court might hold the case pending disposition of the Pleasant Grove case.

UPDATE: Links to all the briefs relating to the cert petition are available at Scotus Blog. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Turkey's Constitutional Court Will Hear Case Charging AKP With Anti-Secularism

The AP reports that Turkey's Constitutional Court today voted unanimously to hear a case that has been filed against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) accusing it of undermining the secular principles enshrined in Turkey's Constitution. (See prior posting.) Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, the chief prosecutor of the High Court of Appeals, filed the lawsuit, asking the Constitutional Court to ban the AKP and bar 71 people, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Dedogan and President Abdullah Gul, from politics for five years. Even if the suit succeeds, Gul could remain president because the post is technically a non-political one. Reuters says that the European Union is concerned that Turkey's constitution permits submission to a court of these kinds of issues that are normally settled through elections. The case could eventually lead the European Commission to recommend suspending the accession negotiations with Turkey.

UPDATE: The New Anatolian on Tuesday published excerpts from the lengthy indictment filed against AKP.

Another Televangelist Responds To Sen. Grassley's Information Request

As previously reported, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley whose Senate committee has oversight authority over administration of the tax laws, has asked six televangelists who preach the "prosperity gospel" for financial information. Today's Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that another of Grassley's targets, Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, has agreed to cooperate. Grassley has threatened to formally subpoena information from those who do not cooperate by today. Two churches still refuse to furnish any documents. Melissa Rogers continues to cover this story in detail on her blog.

Canadian City Seeks Injunction Against Preacher Who Feeds Homeless In Parks

A trial court in Calgary, Alberta today will hear the city's request for an injunction against Rev. Art Pawlowski whose Street Church Ministry feeds the homeless and preaches to them in local parks. The Calgary Sun reports that the city has previously ticketed Pawlowski 50 times for preaching to up to 500 homeless people in downtown Calgary's Triangle Park. However the court consistently refuses to rule in the cases charging offenses such as illegal use of an amplifier and disturbing the peace. Pawlowski asserts free speech and religious freedom defenses.

New Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Hate in the Classroom: Free Expression, Holocaust Denial, and Liberal Education, (American Journal of Education, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 215-241, February 2008).


• Russell Powell, Theology in Public Reason and Legal Discourse: A Case for the Preferential Option for the Poor, (March 20, 2008).


• Carl H. Esbeck, What the Hein Decision Can Tell Us about the Roberts Court and the Establishment Clause, (Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 78, No. 2, Forthcoming).


• Nicholas A. Mirkay, Is it 'Charitable' to Discriminate?: The Necessary Transformation of Section 501(C)(3) into the Gold Standard for Charities, (Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2007, July 3, 2007).


• Nicholas A. Mirkay, Losing Our Religion: Reevaluating the 501(C)(3) Exemption of Religious Organizations that Discriminate, (Widener Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 08-35, March 24, 2008).


• Sue Irion, The [Un]Constitutionality of the NLRA's Religious Accommodation Provision, (Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2008).


• Dayna Bowen Matthew, Race, Religion, and Informed Consent -- Lessons from Social Science, (Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2008).


• David L. Gregory, Not the Bishops' Finest Hour: Economic Justice, with Cerberus Unchained?, (St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0119, March 2008).

From SmartCILP:

• David K. DeWolf, Book Review (Reviewing Stephen Mansfield, Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America.and What's Happened Since), 85 Denver University Law Review 443-461 (2007).


• Randy Lee, A Rose By Any Other Word Would Smell As Sweet", But Would It Still Be Treasured: The Mislabeling and Misunderstanding of Parents and Grandparents in American Policy, 15 Elder Law Journal 607-631 (2007).


• Mark Strasser, Preaching, Fundraising and the Constitution: On Proselytizing and the First Amendment, 85 Denver University Law Review 405-441 (2007).

Recent Books:

• David Gushee, The Future of Faith in American Politics: the Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, (Baylor University Press, 2008).


• Eleanor Abdella Doumato & Gregory Starrett (eds.), Teaching Islam: Textbooks and Religion in the Middle East, (Viva Books New Delhi, 2008), reviewed in Pakistan Daily Times.


• Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, (Princeton University Press, 2008), reviewed in Middle East Online.
• George Weigel, Against the Grain, (Crossroad Publishing Co., 2008).

Paper Publishes Interview With Geert Wilders

Der Spiegel today carries an interview with right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders whose video attacking the Quran has provoked widespread negative reaction. (See prior posting.) He says: "For me, Islam is a vision of a society that defines all forms of interpersonal behavior -- from inheritance to criminal law. This ideology endangers our values. I hate it, I don't hate Muslims."

Two Cases Say Muslim Inmates Are Entitled To Halal Meals

Two recent cases have broken new ground by granting Muslim prison inmates the right to receive Halal meals, rather than relegating them to receiving only the prison's vegetarian diet. In Hudson v. Dennehy, (D MA, March 5, 2008), a Massachusetts federal district court held that refusal by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide a daily Halal menu to Muslim inmates violates RLUIPA. It found that the alternative vegetarian diet is not an adequate substitute. It also held that Muslim prisoners in the Special Management Unit must be permitted access to Jum'ah services through closed-circuit television. However the court upheld the DOC's policy of banning prayer rugs and instead furnishing Muslim inmates with prayer towels. Friday's Boston Business Journal reported on the decision, saying that it "marked the first time a U.S. court decided that Muslim inmates have a right to daily Halal meals and prayer services."

A week later in Perez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, (SDNY, March 12, 2008), a New York federal district judge approved a settlement (full text) under which any Muslim inmate may now request and must receive Halal meals containing meat as frequently as Jewish prisoners receive kosher meat meals (currently 4 times per week). Friday's New York Law Journal reported on the case. Quoting one of the pro bono lawyers who filed the lawsuit, it reports that the settlement represents a "significant departure from current case law with respect to Muslim inmates' equal protection rights to receive Halal meals containing Halal meat, as opposed to a vegetarian diet, which up until this case was arguably the constitutionally reasonable alternative meal plan."

Three Indicted on Misdemeanor Charges For Taking Turban From Head of Sikh Man

In Yoncalla, Oregon last week, a state grand jury indicted three men accused of taking a turban off the head of a Sikh truck driver. The grand jury concluded that the defendants should be charged with third-degree theft and misdemeanor harassment. The AP reports, however, that the grand jury refused to indict defendants on the felony charge of intimidation. That crime requires that an assault be committed due to the perception of a person's race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Assault victim Ranjit Singh was also distressed that the value of his turban became relevant to the appropriate theft charge. Oregon statutes (ORS Sec. 164.043) define theft in the third degree as involving property with a value under $50. Singh says his turban is priceless.