Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Russian Musem Officials Being Prosecuted For Religiously Offensive Art Show
Australian State Imposes Rules For World Youth Day Conduct
Report Supports British Faith Schools
Odone's report has been attacked by the British Humanist Association and by Ekklesia. (Ekklesia release.)Faith schools have been wrongly attacked for the wrong reasons. Political positioning has led the Minister of Education to denounce these schools. In so doing, he was stoking and validating a smear campaign, orchestrated by a strident secularist lobby, that has long plagued this sector....
The schools do not cream-skim pupils. The intake of Christian schools reflects a broader ethnic range than comprehensive schools in the same area. Faith schools do not turn away children in care..... The schools are not divisive.... Faith schools are not misogynist. Girls who attend Muslim schools are more than twice as likely to go on to higher education than those who attend secular state or independent
schools.Faith schools do not charge parents for places.... The schools do not create a ghetto mentality.... Faith schools do not teach Creationism in science classes.... Faith schools have an excellent academic record, serve their local communities, and ground their students in a religious as well as the national identity....
[F]or low-income parents, these schools represent the only way their children can be taught the faith that their own family holds dear....For Muslims in particular, faith schools offer a bridge between their religious community and the wider secular society. For Muslim girls, they are the route out of a forced marriage, or their parents’ kitchen, and into higher education.... Quite simply, we need more, not fewer, faith schools.
Dutch Will Not Prosecute Wilders For Anti-Muslim Film and Statements
CBC News reports on the Prosecution Service's statement.The fact that statements are hurtful and offensive to a large number of Muslims does not necessarily mean that such statements are punishable. It is true that some statements insult Muslims, but these were made in the context of public debate, which means that the statements are no longer of a punishable nature....
Criticism of religion is not covered by the prohibition of discrimination, unless this criticism includes insulting conclusions about the adherents of the religion concerned.... [T]he Public Prosecution Service arrives at the opinion that neither the film Fitna nor Mr Wilders’s statements incite hatred against Muslims.
Epsicopal Bishop Urges Separation of Civil and Religious Marriage
Texas Sheriff Apologizes For Staff's Religiously Insensitive E-Mails
Monday, June 30, 2008
Employer's Proposed Accommodation Found Inadequate In Title VII Case
Legal Peyote For Ceremonial Purposes Is Becoming Hard To Find
President's Radio Address Focuses On Faith-Based Initiative
Putting hope in people's hearts is the mission of our Nation's faith-based and community groups, so my Administration decided to treat them as trusted partners. We held these groups to high standards and insisted on demonstrable results. And they have delivered on those expectations.
Through their partnerships with the government, these organizations have helped reduce the number of chronically homeless by nearly 12 percent -- getting more than 20,000 Americans off the streets. They have helped match nearly 90,000 children of prisoners with adult mentors. And they have helped provide services such as job placement for thousands of former inmates. Faith-based and community groups have also had a powerful impact overseas.
Russia's Supreme Court Holds Sunday School Need Not Get State License
Recently Available Prisoner Free Exercise Cases
In Lombardo v. Holanchock, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48753 (SD NY, June 25, 2008), a New York federal district court held that it was reasonable for the defendants to believe that their challenged action was related to a legitimate penological interest. They had restricted a civilly committed offender's participation in one co-ed religious service.
In Maier v. Maurinac, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48273 (D MT, June 24, 2008), a Montana federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that a prisoner be permitted to proceed with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims (as well as his ADA claim). However his harassment and due process claims were dismissed.
In Barnes v. Missoula County Detention Facility, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48271 (D MT, June 24, 2008), a Montana federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that a Muslim prisoner's free exercise claim be dismissed, with leave to amend. Plaintiff needed to name as defendants the officials who allegedly denied his requests for a no-pork diet, a prayer rug, a kufi and a Qur'an.
In Christiansen v. Adams, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47766 (SD IL, June 20, 2008), an Illinois federal district court set aside a prior default judgment against defendant in a case in which a prisoner claimed that officials interfered with his free exercise of religion. Plaintiff claimed officials failed to provide him with a diet and hygiene items that are free of animal products, forced him to attend programs that promoted Christianity and denied him space and time for his prayer and fasting rituals. Defendant originally failed to respond because when served, he no longer was employed by the Department of Corrections and thought that the state Attorney General's office would handle his defense.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Colorado Catholic Bishop Bans Clergy From Giving Political Contributions
Court Says Religious Handbilling In Park Must Be Permitted
Moderate Muslims In India Worry About Growing Radicalism
Report Says Many Prisoners Claim To Be Jewish To Get Kosher Food
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Origins of "Obama Is A Muslim" Rumor Are Traced
Trial Court Upholds Constitutionality of Virginia's "Division Statute"
In a companion 14-page letter opinion, the court ruled on five other interpretive issues under the Division Statute, concluding that the court's role was merely to determine whether the congregational vote was "fairly taken", and not to consider other factors. It distinguished cases involving the withdrawal of a single congregation from an hierarchical church where there was not a "division" within the church. In an order accompanying the two letter opinions, the court asked for further briefs from the parties on certain remaining procedural issues.
Reports on the court's decision were published by the Washington Post and Episcopal News Service. (See prior related posting.)
US House Passes Resolution Supporting Gospel Music Heritage Month
Texas High Court Says Exorcism Claims Entangle Court in Religious Dispute
Chief Justice Jefferson in a dissent joined by Justice Green and in party by Justice Johnson said:We do not mean to imply that "under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity," commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents.... Moreover, religious practices that threaten the public’s health, safety, or general welfare cannot be tolerated as protected religious belief.... But religious practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside the church are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church....
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits courts from deciding issues of religious doctrine. Here, the psychological effect of church belief in demons and the appropriateness of its belief in "laying hands" are at issue. Because providing a remedy for the very real, but religiously motivated emotional distress in this case would require us to take sides in what is essentially a religious controversy, we cannot resolve that dispute.
After today, a tortfeasor need merely allege a religious motive to deprive a Texas court of jurisdiction to compensate his fellow congregant for emotional damages. This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name.Justice Green also filed a separate dissent as did Justice Johnson. Today's Austin American-Statesman reports on the decision.