Muslim Serviceman May Sue Army Over Its Autopsy of Infant

The AP reported yesterday that a Muslim soldier and his wife, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, may join a pending lawsuit challenging the military's respect for religious diversity. Pfc. Eli Agee and his wife, Mackenzie, are upset that authorities insisted on performing an autopsy on their infant son who died May 3, likely from sudden infant death syndrome. Muslim beliefs prohibit autopsies. The Army expedited the autopsy so the child could be buried within 24 hours as required by Muslim law. However the parents later learned that some of the child's vital organs had been removed and would be sent later for burial. Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said there has been a consistent pattern of anti-Islamic prejudice in the Army.

New Developments In FLDS Child Custody Cases

Legal developments continue in Texas in the FLDS child custody cases. (See prior posting.) Three FLDS fathers who are in monogamous marriages to women who are of legal age filed habeas corpus petitions in a court in San Antonio seeking return of their children. Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that James Dockstader, Rulon Keate and LeLand Keate argue that their wives have the same rights to procreate and raise a family as does any other citizen, and the fact that one of their neighbors became pregnant as a minor does not justify removing their children.

Meanwhile, according to today's Dallas Morning News, Texas Child Protective Services has drafted guidelines for "service plans" that parents will need to develop in order to regain custody of their children. CPS has set out 10 goals and 14 tasks that should be included. The guidelines question any form of communal living, require residential buildings to be open for unannounced visits by CPS workers, and mandate that the names of everyone in the home must be given to CPS. The guidelines also call for job training, schooling for children and knowing how to access community resources.

Split 9th Circuit Rejects En Banc Review In Sunrise Rock Cross Case

Yesterday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an amended opinion in Buono v. Kempthorne, (9th Cir., May 14, 2008), eliminating one footnote, but otherwise reaffirming its holding finding Establishment Clause problems with Congress' transfer of the Sunrise Rock Cross in the Mojave Preserve war memorial to the VFW. (See prior posting.) The deleted footnote had indicated disagreement with a 7th Circuit case on land transfers undertaken to end Establishment Clause problems.

After the panel refused to grant a rehearing, the full court also refused to grant an en banc rehearing. However, in a long opinion, five judges dissented from the denial en banc review. The dissent argues that there is no evidence that the government will maintain or support the Sunrise Rock Cross after its transfer, and says that the VFW should not be required to sacrifice its private rights in the Sunrise Rock land in order to cure an Establishment Clause violation by the government. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.][Corrected].

New York Town Transfers Enforcement of Building Codes Against Amish to State

In the face of possible lawsuits by the Amish community over building code enforcement against them, the town board of Conewango, New York yesterday voted to opt out of code enforcement and turn enforcement over to state authorities. Thus any lawsuits will be filed against the state and not against the town. Yesterday's Jamestown (NY) Post-Journal reports that the Amish have concerns about both some of the substantive code requirements and about the mandate to furnish workers compensation insurance to those hired to help with the construction.

Court Concludes Paratrooper Is Entitled To Conscientious Objector Status

In Barnes v. Green, (D AK, May 13, 2008), an Alaska federal magistrate judge concluded that an Army paratrooper's request for conscientious objector status be granted. The court rejected the Army's contention that Michael Barnes was not sincere in his claim that he was a conscientious objector, saying:

Much is made of the fact that Barnes did not attend church services in Iraq. While [this] ... might hold sway if there were other facts showing a sudden and convenient getting of religion, surely the Army agrees that it is not its province to suggest there is a proper way to be a Christian, or for that matter, to lay claim to or practice any other form of religion....

The fact that Barnes’ thought processes may not have been "mature" is of no moment. One need not be a St. Augustine or a St. Thomas Aquinas to qualify as CO, indeed conscientious objection has no necessary relation to intellectual sophistication....

The evidence is overwhelming that Barnes – a motivated infantryman –is a person who takes his religious beliefs seriously, and there is strong evidence that his decision was motivated by those beliefs.... True, the timing of Barnes’ decision is suspect. But that alone cannot be the basis for denying his application....

Instead of remanding the case to the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board, the court concluded that Barnes' petition for habeas corpus and mandamus should be granted and the Army should be ordered to grant Barnes an honorable discharge. The Army has until tomorrow to appeal the magistrate's findings. Yesterday's London Guardian reports on the decision.

UPDATE: the May 24 Anchorage Daily News reports that the Army has appealed the magistrate's decision to federal district Judge John Sedwick.

Massachusetts Agrees That Non-Jewish Prisoner Gets Kosher Diet

Yesterday, the U.S. 1st Circuit court of Appeals dismissed as moot the case of Guzzi v. Thompson, (1st Cir., May 14, 2008). A release by the Becket Fund explains that the dismissal comes after Massachusetts prison authorities agreed to allow a prisoner who requested kosher food for religious reasons to have access to it even though the prisoner is not Jewish. The Becket Fund had argued to the 1st Circuit that "governments should not be deciding whether a religious belief is orthodox."

No Summary Judgment In Colorado Episcopal Church Property Dispute

In Grace Church & St. Stevens v. Bishop and Diocese of Colorado, (CO Dist. Ct., May 13, 2008), a Colorado state trial court judge rejected summary judgment for either side in a counterclaim arising out of a lawsuit over ownership of an historic church building in downtown Colorado Springs. An article on Virtue Online sets out the background of the case. In May 2007, by a vote of 93% in favor, Grace Church and St. Stephen's voted to move its affiliation to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. After the congregation sued asking a judge to declare that Colorado's Episcopal Diocese no longer owns the assets of the parish, the Diocese filed a counterclaim against vestry members. They in turn asserted a defense based on immunity of non-profit directors. At issue is whether the corporation that is plaintiff ever formally owned the property at issue. The court indicated that in Colorado, church property disputes are resolved through neutral analysis, but that no neutral analysis can be undertaken until the relevant facts are known. (See prior related posting.)

Website Says Grassley's Investigation of Televangelists Reflects Religious Bias

Yesterday's Des Moines (IA) Register reports that a sophisticated website has been set up to attack the investigation of six "prosperity gospel" televangelists by Sen. Charles Grassley. (See prior posting.) The Believers Stand United website is sponsored by one of the groups under investigation-- Kenneth Copeland Ministries. The website argues that Grassley is "only targeting those Pentecostal-Charismatic churches who preach the 'Word of Faith' message and not any other churches.... It appears the inquiry is aimed at publicly questioning the religious beliefs of the targeted churches, their ministers, and their members while ignoring televangelists of other denominations. This violates the fundamental tenet of the First Amendment that the government should not single out any religion because of its beliefs. It also raises the question of religious bias against the Pentecostals and Charismatics who now number almost 70,000,000 Americans...."

Court Dismisses Free Exercise Challenge To Civil Commitment After Marijuana Charge

In Simmons v. Seal, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38355 (ND CA, April 24, 2008), plaintiff brought a federal civil rights action challenging his commitment to Napa State Hospital after he was arrested for marijuana possession and found incompetent to stand trial. Plaintiff alleged that his commitment violated his free exercise of religion because he is a member of the ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari Inc. and uses marijuana for religious purposes. Subsequently plaintiff was released on his own recognizance. The court dismissed plaintiff's claim without prejudice, holding that before he can bring a claim for damages under 42 USC Sec. 1983, he must first exhaust all available state court remedies and then seek habeas corpus relief in federal court. Only if he is successful in a challenge to his confinement in one of these proceedings may he proceed with his damage claim.

Texas Welfare Workers Criticized For Treatment of FLDS Children

Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune says that mental health professionals who were employed to care for the FLDS women and children after the April raid on their Eldorado, Texas ranch are critical of Texas Child Protective Services. Statements given by staff members to the board of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center say that the treatment of the women and children, and the conditions under which they were held, were harsh and unnecessary. The Tribune article has links to the full statements of the mental health workers regarding conditions in the shelter in which the women and chilren were held pending placement of the children in foster care. Melissa Rogers has additional coverage of the allegations on her blog.

Preachers' Suit Against Mississippi City Settled

The Alliance Defense fund announced Monday that a settlement has been reached in Wallace v. City of Wiggins, a federal lawsuit against the city of Wiggins, Mississippi and various of its officials on behalf of two Christian preachers who were threatened with arrest for carrying signs and engaging in religious speech on a public sidewalk using a microphone and amplification system. (See prior posting.) The settlement allows the the preachers, Shannon Wallace and Wesley Sewell, to preach on public sidewalks so long as no city ordinances are violated.

Muslim Woman's Suit Against Judge Dismissed On Procedural Grounds

In Detroit, Michigan on Monday, a federal district judge invoked unusual procedural grounds to dismiss a free exercise claim brought by a Muslim woman against a Michigan small claims court judge. Small Claims Judge Paul Paruk last October dismissed Ginnnah Muhammad's suit against a car rental company when Muhammad refused to remove her niqab (full face veil) before she testified. Muhammad then sued in federal court alleging that she was denied her free exercise rights and access to the courts because of her religion. (See prior posting.)

In Muhammad v. Paruk, (ED MI, May 12, 2008), the federal court relied primarily on language in the Declaratory Judgment Act giving it discretion on whether or not to issue a declaratory judgment. The court said:

[I]f Paruk has a valid, neutral and generally applicable policy of requiring witnesses to keep their faces visible while giving testimony, that policy would not violate Muhammad’s right to free exercise of her religion. Determining if Paruk has such a policy and, if he does, deciding whether it is valid, neutral and generally applicable would necessitate a detailed examination of how Paruk manages his court room as a state court judge. Conducting this type of review as a federal judge would undoubtably increase friction in the relationship between our state and federal courts.... [R]espect for the relationship between our state and federal courts weighs heavily against exercising jurisdiction over Muhammad’s declaratory judgment action for violation of her right to free exercise of her religion....

To establish a ... denial of access to the courts claim... could require me to determine whether Muhammad’s state court claim was "non-frivolous" ... and to review
whether Judge Paruk’s actions frustrated Muhammad’s litigation. This kind of review also threatens to increase the tension between our state and federal courts and weighs against exercising jurisdiction over Muhammad’s declaratory judgment action for denial of access to the courts.

The AP yesterday reported on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for posting the opinion.]

Indian Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To French Action Against Sikhs

India's Supreme Court has dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a claim brought by a Sikh organization, Singh Legal Foundation, challenging France's law that prohibits Sikhs from wearing turbans or other religious symbols in public places in France. Apparently the suit is directed at the French ban on religious symbols in public schools. (See prior posting.) Bombay News.net reported yesterday that the suit before India's Supreme Court claimed that it was the duty of the Indian government to protect the fundamental rights of Indian Sikhs living abroad. The court ruled, however, that the issue could only be raised in French courts, or in the international or EU courts. Also the court pointed out that the Indian government has already raised the issue with France through diplomatic channels.

9th Circuit Upholds School Dress Policy Against Speech and Religion Challenges

In Jacobs v. Clark County School District, (9th Cir., May 12, 2008), the U.S. 9the Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a challenge to a Nevada school district's school uniform policy that precluded plaintiffs from wearing T-shirts with printed messages on them. At least one time this involved sanctions for wearing a T-shirt displaying a religious message. The majority found that the uniform policy was both viewpoint- and content-neutral, and need satisfy only an intermediate scrutiny standard. Here the policy furthered important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of speech, and leaves open alternative channels of communication. The opinion also rejected the argument that the dress code compelled students to express a view in favor of uniformity. The majority additionally rejected plaintiff's free exercise of religion claim, finding that the uniform code was a neutral rule of general applicability.

Judge Thomas dissented arguing that the regulation was not viewpoint neutral since it permitted T-shirts with slogans supporting the school. He also argued that the government's purpose in imposing the uniform rule was not substantial enough to outweigh students' speech rights. Today's Las Vegas Review Journal reports on the decision.

Virginia County Will Offer Bible In History Course

Earlier this month, the Craig County, Virginia, School Board approved an elective high school course titled "The Bible in History and Literature." OurValley.org reports on the discussion of the proposal at the May 6 board meeting. Several students attending the meeting supported it, even though in 2005 a similar class was dropped for lack of student interest. Board member Dawna McDowell abstained from voting on the ground that there had not been enough time to inform the community about the proposal.

Cert Denied In O'Hare Expansion Challenge By Church

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in St. John's United Church v. Chicago, IL, (Docket No. 07-1127) (Order List). In the case, the 7th Circuit had rejected a challenge to Chicago's use of eminent domain to take a church cemetery as part of the city's expansion of O'Hare Airport. The 7th Circuit found no free exercise violation in Illinois' amendment of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act to exclude from its provisions Chicago’s actions in relocating cemeteries in the O’Hare project. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Chicago Tribune reports that two other challenges to the taking of the cemetery are still pending in the courts, including a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim that is on appeal to the 7th Circuit.

Group Charges SFO Targets Sikhs For Turban Searches

The Sikh Coalition says that San Francisco's International Airport is profiling Sikhs for searches. According to yesterday's Contra Costa Times, the group charges that since a Transportation Safety Authority policy change last October (see prior posting), screeners in San Francisco are now routinely searching tubans of Sikh travelers. Apparently San Franciso airport security personnel are interpreting the policy regarding search of turbans differently than are security workers at other airports. As a result, some Sikhs now choolse alternative airports in the area for their flights.

Archbishop Tells Kansas Governor Not To Take Communion

Last Friday's Kansas City Star reports that Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City has told Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius that she should stop taking communion until she repudiates her support for abortion rights. In a column in The Leaven, the official newspaper of the Kansas City Diocese, Naumann indicated that his latest concern was the governor's April 21 veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act passed by the Kansas legislature. He wrote:

Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas.... I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

Louisiana School Has Seniors Vote On Graduation Prayer

Sunday's Shreveport Times reports that for the second year in a row, Ouachita Parish High School has had its graduating seniors vote on whether or not they wish to include a prayer as part of their graduation ceremony. By a nearly unanimous vote, the seniors opted for prayer. The school board says that its policy is consistent with with a statement issued in 2003 by the Department of Education in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. DOE's letter and guidance say that any school receiving funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act must certify in writing that it has no policy that prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally protected prayer in public schools. The ACLU disagrees with the school board's approach.

Algerian Court Fines Christian Convert For Carrying Unauthorized Religious Books

Compass Direct News reports that last Tuesday a court in Djilfa, Algeria imposed a fine of 300 Euros and a one year suspended prison sentence on a 33-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity who was charged with printing, storing and distributing illegal religious material. Charges were filed against the defendant after he was stopped at a police roadblock, and authorities found a Bible and several religious study texts in his luggage. He was also carrying a computer printer. Apparently during defendant's 5-day detention, authorities tried to convince him to convert back to Islam. Since January, at least five Christians from Tiaret have been detained or tried for their religious activities.