The challenged song is not a sacred example of a choral music used to instruct students in music theory and appreciation. It is a modern, American county music song overtly espousing a specific religious viewpoint and attacking of those who do not share in the same belief. Additionally, the song degrades the doctrine of governmental separation and neutrality towards the promotion of religious ideologies.The preliminary injunction was entered even though the school had withdrawn the song from this year’s assembly. Today's St. Augustine (FL) Record reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Preliminary Injunction Granted In Challenge To Grade School Religious Music
Macedoia's Constitutional Court Strikes Down Religious Instruction In Grade Schools
FLDS Defendants Challenge Search Warrants Used In Ranch Raid
[T]he authorities used a hoax phone call as an excuse for staging a massively intrusive raid upon a disfavored religious group…. Under the guise of looking for a man they knew was not there and a child that did not exist, the Texas authorities conducted a general search to see what they could find.Today's Deseret News and San Angelo (TX) Standard-Times report on the motions.
Identities of Those Rejected As Ambassador To Vatican Disclosed [Corrected]
Cuba Withholds Visas From USCIRF Delegation
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Public School Courses From Kabbalah Center Draw Criticism
School Board Grants Grooming Exemption For Native American High Schooler
Tangipahoa Parish School Board Adopts Minor Changes In Policy On Invocations
The changes made at last Thursday's meeting-- largely at the urging of ADF-- provide that congregations can request to be added to the Board's list of potential invitees to deliver an invocation, and in case of a question about whether the religious organization is bona fide, the Board will rely on the IRS list of exempt organizations. The amendments also provide that students or others called on to deliver the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem or the preamble to the Constitution at a Board meeting are not required to attend the invocation. Students will be introduced after the invocation and the call to order of the meeting to prevent pressure on them to attend board-sponsored prayers.
Tajikistan Islamic Leader Resigns From Parliament In Protest of Religion Law
Vermont's Gay Marriage Law Contains Strong Religious Exemptions
Statutory provisions on who may solemnize marriages were amended to include this provision:
[18 VAA Sec. 5144(b): ] This section does not require a member of the clergy ... to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.The provisions of Vermont's Banking and Insurance law relating to Fraternal Benefit Societies was amended to include the following:
[8 VSA Sec. 4501(b):] The civil marriage laws shall not be construed to affect the ability of a society to determine the admission of its members ... or to determine the scope of beneficiaries..., and shall not require a society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the society’s free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States or by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont.Finally, the law amended Vermont's provisions banning discrimination in public accommodations to include the following:
[9 VSA Sec. 4502(l):] Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
This subsection shall not be construed to limit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization from selectively providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to some individuals with respect to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage but not to others.
Court Upholds Jury's RLUIPA Verdict and Constitutionality of RLUIPA
In a companion decision issued the same day, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30614, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring approval of the church's 2004 special use application. However the court refused to issue an injunction barring the county from imposing any further substantial burden on the church's religious exercise, finding that an injunction merely broadly ordering obedience to the law is impermissible. (See prior related postings 1, 2.)
Roy Moore Likely To Run For Alabama Governor
Pakistan's President Signs Approval of Islamic Law In Swat Valley Area
Health Care Facility Settles Suit Alleging Shaving of Sikh Man
Lebanese Begin To Use New Right To Have Religion Removed From ID's
Monday, April 13, 2009
Organization of Islamic Conference Creates New Human Rights Commission
Sikh Group Wants Army To Accommodate Turbans, Unshorn Hair and Beards
Murder Suspect's Husband Criticizes Police For Bareheaded Mugshot
Modified EU Draft Directive on Discrimination Raises Concerns
Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases
In Babcock v. Clarke, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26896 (ED WA, March 31, 2009), a Washington federal district court rejected plaintiff's free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims. Plaintiff objected to authorities' refusal to permit her to attend school programming using her religious name that she adopted in 1993 and that, she says, was mandated by God when she was studying both Wicca and Noahide. Plaintiff asserts that forcing her to use her committed name is "incongruous of her religious beliefs, and debilitating her by undoing years of psycho-therapy for transsexualism."
In Mitchell v. Wiley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26945 (D CO, March 31, 2009), a Colorado federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation and dismissed an inmate's objections to prison rules that grant access only to publications that come directly from the publisher or approved vendors, as well as policies that restrict inmate access to publications considered inmate-to-inmate correspondence, and an alleged ban on congregational prayer of two or more Muslim prisoners. Plaintiff had argued that the policies violated his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA. Among the publications sought by plaintiff was a Muslim newspaper, "The Final Call."
In Jones v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26736 (D SC, March 30, 2009), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation and rejected defendant's objections to an inmate educational program, finding that plaintiff's amended complaint did not adequately allege Establishment Clause, RLUIPA or Sourth Carolina Religious Freedom Act claims.
In Sweeper v. Taylor, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27318 (ND NY, March 27, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected an inmate's free exercise claim, finding that he was not disciplined for praying with 6 other inmates during Ramadan, but instead for refusing to obey an order.
In Gallagher v. Shelton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27778 (D KS, March 31, 2009), a Kansas federal district court rejected free exercise and equal treatment claims by a Jewish inmate who claimed his requests for accommodation and religious items for specific Jewish holidays were denied or honored after the fact, and that he was subjected to an antisemitic comment and prejudicial treatment because of his religion.
In Horacek v. Derrick, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27605 (ED MI, March 30, 2009), a Michigan federal district court permitted plaintiff, who was a Jewish pre-trial detainee, to move ahead with a claim that he was not adquately provided with kosher food. However the court rejected plaintiff's objections to the requirement that he not wear a yarmulke outside of his cell.