Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Federal Appellate Courts Hear Oral Arguments In Two Cases of Interest
The 6th Circuit heard arguments in Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes For Children, Inc. In the case below, a Kentucky federal district court dismissed on standing grounds a state taxpayer's Establishment Clause challenge to Kentucky's payment for placement of children in a home that operates a religious-based program. (See prior posting.) USA Today reported on the oral arguments.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
9th Circuit Hears Arguments In CLS Challenge To Hastings Law School Rules
UPDATE: National Law Journal reports that Judge Kozinski's questioning focused on whether the case was controlled by the court's earlier decision in Truth v. Kent School District-- in which a cert petition has just been filed. (See prior posting.)
DC School Voucher Program Is Effectively Ended By Congress
Yesterday, by a vote of 39-58, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. John ensign to eliminate these restrictions on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Americans United had sent a letter (full text) to every Senator urging them to vote against the Ensign Amendment. It described the voucher program as ineffective in improving student achievement and says the program raises constitutional concerns.
Kazakhstan Court Reduces Sentence of Unification Church Missionary
Dutch Supreme Court Protects Criticism of a Religion From Group Insult Prosecution
Drawing a fine line in an attempt to protect criticism of a religion, the Court said that Article 137c is not violated "even if that happens in such a way that the devotees feel their religious feelings are hurt." Criticism of behavior or opinions is not outlawed. Only a remark "explicitly" aimed at a group distinct from others based on its religion can be a group insult. The Court said that the same definitions will apply in the pending prosecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims and insulting Muslim worshippers. (See prior posting.)
Cert Filed In Case Challenging Non-Recognition of Christian Student Group
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Israeli Traffic Court Says Hebrew Birthday Can Count
New Survey of U.S. Religious Identification Released
California Civil Court Asked To Confirm Bet Din's Ruling On Torah Scrolls
India's Prime Minister Says No Right To Criticize Other Religions
City Hearing on Anti-Discrimination Law Generates Religious Arguments
10th Circuit Refuses Release Pending Appeal of Marijuana Church Founders
Court Says Religious Tattoo Was Relevant In Penalty Phase of Murder Trial
10th Circuit Hears Arguments In Utah Highway Patrol Cross Case
During the argument, the judges expressed concern about whether Utah's policy would prevent troopers' families from displaying the symbols of other religions such as Stars of David.... The court also expressed interest in how this case tests the boundaries of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. Summum set the standard for deciding when permanent monuments are government speech, and when they are private speech. Two of the three judges in the original Summum panel are hearing this appeal, and the lawyer for Summum is also the lawyer for American Atheists.The appellate brief filed by American Atheists, Inc. is available on Westlaw at 2008 WL 3285457. Westlaw also links to all the other briefs filed in the case. The brief filed for the Utah Highway Patrol Association, and several amicus briefs supporting their position, are linked from this ADF press release.
Saudi Court Sentences Elderly Widow To Prison and Lashes For Meeting With Men
Monday, March 09, 2009
President Reverses Policy on Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
The President added some assurances:[I]n recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.Reactions from religious groups, which came quickly after news of plans for today's Executive Order became known on Friday, varied. The Interfaith Alliance called the decision "good news for science and religion," saying that "the ban instituted by President Bush was based on the views of a select group of faiths rather then on sound science." JTA reports that Jewish groups also praised Obama's decision, focusing on the importance in Judaism of saving lives. The Vatican on the other hand strongly condemned the policy reversal. The International Herald Tribune quotes from an article in Saturday's L'Osservatore Romano which called embryonic stem cell research "deeply immoral." The Family Research Council issued a statement on Friday calling the move by the President "yet another deadly executive order."
UPDATE: The White House List of Attendees at the President's signing of the Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum includes seven religious leaders: (1) Maureen Shea, Episcopal Church USA Director of Government Relations; (2) James Winkler, United Methodist Church Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society; (3) Rabbi Steve Gutow, Jewish Council for Public Affairs; (4) Rev. Welton Gaddy, Interfaith Alliance; (5) Nancy Ratzan, National Council of Jewish Women; (6) Nathan Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations; (7) Rabbi David Saperstein, Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.
Former Catholic Schools Try To Still Teach Values As Public Charter Schools
Connecticut Bill Would Reform Financial Management of Catholic Parishes
UPDATE: The Meriden (CT) Record and The Hour reported Tuesday that the bill has been withdrawn from consideration for this legislative session while constitutional issues surrounding laws currently governing religious groups are reviewed. Tuesday's scheduled hearing on the bill was cancelled.This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop.... This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.
UPDATE 2: Here is the full text of a letter sent by 12 prominent law professors challenging the constitutionality of the bill before it was withdrawn.
Catholic Group Says Austalian Abortion Law Violates International Treaty
Melbourne's The Age yesterday reports that Catholic Health Australia is calling on the federal Attorney General to declare the provision in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. An interpretive Comment (Par. 3) to the Covenant provides that "No one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief." Attorney-General Robert McClelland so far has refused to take any action, but some senators from his own party are calling on him to reconsider.If a woman requests a registered health practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion for that woman, and the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion, the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.