Controversial Religious Themed License Plates Being Considered In Florida

Saturday's St. Petersburg Times reports on the controversial debate and vote in Florida's legislature over adding two specialty plates with religious themes to the more than 100 license plates already available in the state. According to a report by the ADL, on Friday the Florida Senate added amendments providing for:

The "I Believe" plate which prominently displays a cross over a stained glass window, and directs annual license fees to Faith In Teach[ing], Inc., a religious organization, and

The "Trinity" plate which prominently displays a picture of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns with arms spread.

Fees from the Trinity plate will support the Toomey Foundation for the Natural Sciences. (Trinity plate amendment). The final Senate vote on SB 642 may come as early as today. Opposition by the ADL and ACLU has apparently led to withdrawal of similar proposals for a Trinity plate in the pending House version of the bill. [Thanks to both Scott Mange and Steve Sheinberg for leads.]

CAIR Calls For Florida GOP Leader To Step Down Over Sponsorship of Anti-Islam Event

The Florida Security Council, a private group dedicated to educating the public about the dangers of radical Islam, is sponsoring a "Free Speech Summit" tonight featuring controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders and his anti-Islamic video Fitna. (See prior posting.) State Rep. Adam Hasner, Republican majority leader in the Florida House of Representatives, is listed as one of 24 "coalition partners" with the Council. Yesterday the Council on American Islamic Relations called on GOP leaders in Florida to demand that Hasner step down from his state leadership position because of his connection with "a gathering at which the faith of millions of Americans is denigrated and their rights denied." The Summit, originally scheduled for the Delray Beach Marriott, has been relocated. The new location is available only by e-mailing the Florida Security Council.

Berlin Rejects Referendum For Optional Religion Classes In Schools

In Germany's capital of Berlin, voters yesterday rejected a referendum that would have given school children an option to take a religion course in place of the mandatory ethics classes that are now offered. Supporters hoped such classes would prevent the rise of Muslim radicalism. AFP reported yesterday that 51.3% of those voting opposed the measure. However, turnout was so low-- 14.2% of all voters-- that even a higher percentage of those voting would not have passed the measure. The current ethics course was introduced after a 2005 "honor killing" in Berlin's Muslim community. Supporters hoped it would foster common values and integration of children from different backgrounds. Most other German cities however permit an option of religion classes with children of different faiths taught separately. The referendum would have imposed that option in Berlin as well.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Seth Barrett Tillman, Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact And Fiction: A Response to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture and Essay, (Jan. 27, 2009).
• Paolo G. Carozza & Daniel Philpott, The Catholic Church, Human Rights and Democracy: Convergence and Conflict with the Modern State, (in The Cross, the Crescent and the Ballot Box: Catholic and Islamic Dialogue on the Rule of Law and International Democracy Promotion, Peter Schraeder, ed., Forthcoming; Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 09-15).
• Cynthia Koploy, Free Exorcise Clause? Whether Exorcism Can Survive America's "New Neutrality", (Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Kenneth W. Starr, Our Libertarian Court: Bong Hits and the Enduring Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian Colloquy, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2008).
• Linda C. McClain, Red Versus Blue (and Purple) States and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: From Values Polarization to Common Ground?, (University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, Vol. 77, p. 416, 2008).
• Melissa E. Murray, Marriage Rights and Parental Rights: Parents, the State, and Proposition 8, (Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Forthcoming).
• Cosmin Dariescu & Nadia Cerasela Dariescu, Rabbinical Chancery in Romania - An Alternative to the State Organized Courts in Solving Family Litigations?, (International Society of Family Law: Regional Conference in Israel, June 7-9, 2009).
• Ann Laquer Estin, Unofficial Family Law, (February 1, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Abeer Ghazi Jarrar, Combating a Religious Radical Ideology v. Suppressing Islamic Opposition: Jordan’s Approach to Counterterrorism, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).
• Sigit Ardianto, From Secularism into Modified Pluralism: Comprehensive Application of John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness Theory in Defining State and Religion Relationship, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Geoffrey C. Hazard, Not the City of God: The Multiplicity of Wrongs and Rules, 42 Akron Law Review 1-11 (2009).

Recent Books:

• Jon A. Shields, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, (Princeton University Press, 2009), reviewed by the New York Times.
• ABA Section of State and Local Government Law, RLUIPA Reader: Religious Land Uses, Zoning and the Courts, (Michael S. Giaimo & Lora A. Lucero, eds.) (April 2009).

San Diego Settles RLUIPA Lawsuit Brought By Church

Yesterday's North County Times reports that a settlement has been reached in a RLUIPA lawsuit brought in 2007 against the city of San Diego (CA) by Grace Church of North County, a non-denominational congregation. The Church had applied for a 10-year conditional use permit to occupy space in a Rancho Bernardo industrial park. The Rancho Bernardo Planning Board refused the request as inconsistent with the community plan for the site. On appeal, the San Diego Planning Commission granted a 5-year permit. Grace Church sued, arguing that the industrial park already has another church and a synagogue in it. Under the settlement, the Church will receive $950,000 in damages and a permit to occupy its space for another 10 years.

Church Sues To Obtain Use of Park For Bible Group Picnics

On Thursday, a Catholic Church in Pensacola, Florida sued city officials to challenge their exclusion from a downtown park of a weekly picnic held by a Bible study group from the Church. The Church members share their food with anyone who happens to be in the park, and then go to the Church nearby for formal Bible study. Originally the Church was told that the park was designated a "non-event park," and subsequently the Church was told use of the park required a permit and payment of a fee under regulations supposedly designed to protect the park's grass. The federal court complaint in St. Faustina Old Catholic Church v. City of Pensacola, (ND FL, filed 4/23/2009) (full text), alleges that the city's policy violates the Church's speech, association, free exercise , due process and equal protection rights protected by the U.S. Constitution as well as Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alliance Defense Fund announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Seymore v. Joslyn, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32545 (ND NY, April 14, 2009), a New York federal district judge rejected a prisoner's claim that a corrections officer retaliated against him for being a Muslim by suggesting that plaintiff fantasizes about having a homosexual relationship with a male corrections employee.

In Eagle v. Gilbert, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32976 (ED MI, April 17, 2009), a Michigan federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that an inmate's lawsuit alleging he was prevented from attending Sunday religious services in prison be dismissed. The magistrate's conclusion was based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in complaining that he was assigned to a Sunday morning work detail that interfered with Protestant services.

In Wakefield v. Indermill, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32909 (ED CA, April 6, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, a lawsuit brought by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate against a Protestant prison chaplain. The court said plaintiff had not adequately alleged that defendant's refusal to provide him with weekly holy communion and foot washing deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to practice his faith or substantially burdened his free exercise.

In Mello v. Martinez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32878 (ED CA, April 6, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims. Plaintiff alleged that two corrections officers destroyed his religious artifacts that are essential to most of his Native American religious ceremonies.

In Zargary v. City of New York, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33240 (SD NY, April 20, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected a free exercise claim by an Orthodox Jewish woman who objected to being required to briefly remove her headscarf, worn for religious reasons, while her identification photo was taken upon admission to a state correctional facility.

In Kuperman v. Comm'r, New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33701(D NH, April 20, 2009), a New Hampshire federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33702 (April 7, 2009)) to permit an Orthodox Jewish inmate to proceed with his free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims. At issue was the decision of prison authorities to deny plaintiff a waiver to grow his beard for religious reasons longer than one-quarter inch. However claims against certain of the defendants were dismissed.

In Nyholm v. Pryce, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34223 (D NJ, April 20, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was prohibited from attending religious services during his confinement in administrative segregation.

In Scott v. Tilton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34533 (ED CA, April 7, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint an inmate's claim that prison authorities destroyed or donated four religious cassettes that were sent to him, instead of allowing him to retrieve them.

School Board Grants Uniform Exemption On Religious Grounds For 2nd Grader

The Irving, Texas school board this week, by a vote of 6-1, reversed the decision of an elementary school principal and granted a mother's request that her 7-year old daughter be allowed to wear her shirt untucked for religious reasons. Thursday's Dallas Morning News reported that Dyker Neyland says her second grader needs to wear her shirt tail out to comply with the Biblical requirement for modest dress found in 1 Timothy 2:9. The school's rule is part of its dress requirement for students. Before the vote, Neyland told the Board that she thought she was "being persecuted for being a Christian." [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Attempt Is Being Made To Re-Create Aryan Nations Headquarters In Idaho

Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that two men in Cour d'Alene, Idaho are attempting to re-create a headquarters for the white separatist, anti-Semitic group, Aryan Nations, there. Apparently the election of Barack Obama is the catalyst for the new try which so far seems to have little support. The first Aryan Nations group that had been headquartered in Cour d'Alene was put out of business after the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2000 obtained a $6.3 million judgment against it on behalf of two residents who were shot by the group's security guards. Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler was forced to declare bankruptcy. Later the group's compound was leveled and turned into a peace park. Aryan Nations was an outgrowth of the Christian Identity movement, and the Idaho group still calls itself "Church of Jesus Christ Christian" on its website.

DC Circuit Again Says GITMO Detainees Not Covered By RFRA

In Rasul v. Myers, (DC Cir., April 24, 2009), the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier holding that Guantanamo detainees cannot bring an action under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to challenge alleged religious harassment at GITMO. The detainees alleged abuses such as denial of a Qu'ran and prayer mats, throwing a copy of the Qur'an into a toilet and forced shaving of their beards. The U.S. Supreme Court had remanded the case to the 9th Circuit for reconsideration in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent. (See prior posting.) Now, in a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit concludes that non-resident aliens are not protected "persons" under RFRA. Judge Brown, writing a concurring opinion, took a different approach. She concludes that a literal application of RFRA's language would cover plaintiffs, but that this was clearly inconsistent with Congress' broader intent in enacting RFRA. She rejected the narrow definition of "person" put forward by the majority, but wrote:

Accepting plaintiffs' argument that RFRA imports the entire Free Exercise Clause edifice into the military detention context would revolutionize the treatment of captured combatants in a way Congress did not contemplate. In drafting RFRA, Congress was not focused on how to accommodate the important values of religious toleration in the military detention setting. If Congress had focused specifically on this challenge, it would undoubtedly have struck a different balance: somewhere between making government officials' wallets available to every detainee not afforded the full panoply of free exercise rights and declaring those in our custody are not "persons." It would not have created a RFRA-like damage remedy, but it likely would have prohibited, subject to appropriate exceptions, unnecessarily degrading acts of religious humiliation. It would have sought to deter such acts not by compensating the victims, but by punishing the perpetrators or through other administrative measures….

In 2000, when Congress amended RFRA, jihad was not a prominent part of our vocabulary and prolonged military detentions of alleged enemy combatants were not part of our consciousness. They are now. Congress should revisit RFRA with these circumstances in mind.

CNN yesterday reported on the decision.

Islamic Parties Lose Support In Indonesian Parliamentary Election

According to a front-page article in today's New York Times, in Indonesian parliamentary elections held earlier this month, Islamic parties that focused on religious issues suffered a drop in support. They received 26% of the vote, compared to 38% in 2004. Though official results are not yet out, polling and partial results show backing for secular parties, even as the historically moderate Muslims in Indonesia are growing more attached to Islam in their private lives.

Group Announces Campaign To Encourage Graduation Prayer

Now that graduation season is upon us, Liberty Counsel this week announced its annual "Friend or Foe" Graduation Prayer Campaign. It says it is "seeking to educate and, if necessary, litigate to ensure that prayer and religious viewpoints are not suppressed during public school graduation ceremonies." It is distributing its legal memorandum on the issue, suggesting student messages, student or outside speakers selected by religion-neutral criteria, or privately-sponsored graduation ceremonies as techniques that can be used, though most of them do not insure that the speaker will present a prayer.

Lawsuit Filed Over Control of Ft. Worth Episcopal Diocese

The controversy between two groups, both claiming to be the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth (TX) (see prior posting), has not surprisingly now found its way into court. The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reported this week on a lawsuit filed by the reorganized diocese that remains loyal to the Episcopal Church USA against a break-away group that has affiliated with the more conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The complaint (full text) filed in Tarrant County District Court last week seeks a declaration that plaintiffs are the proper authorities entitled to control and use Diocese property, including the name, seal and other intellectual property of the Diocese. It asks the court to order defendants to vacate the Diocese's real property and seeks an accounting. It also asks for recognition of trustees elected by plaintiff as the proper trustees of the Diocesan Corporation.

Suit Charges Texas AG's Office With Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reports that earlier this month the former appellate section chief in the Texas Attorney General's Child Support Division filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the AG's office. She claims that Good Friday gets preferential treatment over Jewish holidays. Texas Government Code §662.003(c) and 662.006 provide that state employees may take a paid day off for Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur or Good Friday, (defined as "optional holidays") but must give up a state holiday during the same fiscal year to make up for it. Plaintiff Rhonda Pressley claims that the AG's office permits employees to take Good Friday afternoon-- but not Jewish holidays-- off without making the time up on another holiday. Her complaint alleges that she was terminated either because she complained to the EEOC about this religious discrimination and/or because she complained that her supervisor favored male employees. The AG's office says that Pressley was terminated for unprofessional conduct.

Iowa Recorders Are Told They Must Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

According to yesterday's Gay & Lesbian Times, now that the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the state (see prior posting), Victoria Hutton of the Iowa Department of Public Health has notified all 99 county recorders that they must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some of the recorders have religious objections to doing so. Meanwhile yesterday's Des Moines Register reports that Iowa magistrate Francis Honrath has decided he will stop performing all marriage ceremonies. A number of other judges and court officials are expected to take similar stands.

Malaysia Will Bar Conversion of Children Where One Spouse Changes Religion

Islam Online reports that the government of Malaysia yesterday decided that civil marriage laws and other laws should be amended to require that children be raised in the religion that both their parents shared at the time of their marriage. If one spouse converts after the marriage, he or she will not have the right to have the children converted as well. To the extent this will require changes in Islamic law, the issue will be brought to the attention of the Sultans who are in charge of religious affairs. The issue has come up in a recent high profile case in which a Hindu husband converted to Islam and then apparently converted the children as well without the consent of his still-Hindu wife. The wife is suing for custody of the children.

UPDATE: Reaction to the government's decision has been swift. Friday's Malaysia's Star reports that the High Court in Ipoh handed down an initial ruling in the case of the Hindu wife that triggered much of the concern. The court granted M. Indira Gandhi interim custody of her three children and an injunction preventing her husband from entering their home.

Meanwhile, a debate on the constitutionality of the government's decision began. Friday's Bernama reports that the director of the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia says the proposal is inconsistent with Article 12(4) of the Constitution that provides: "the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian." He emphasizes that the Constitutional language refers to "parent" in the singular. On the other side, Malaysia Today argues that the government's position is constitutional, pointing out that the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution on interpretive principles provides that "words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular."

UPDATE 2: On May 6, PTI reported that a High Court judge granted an interim stay of the order that gave Ghandhi interim custody of her children. The husband claimed the civil court lacks jurisdiction and that he has a custody order issued by a Shariah court. The husband has been evading service of the civil court's interim custody order, and a motion to hold him in contempt is pending.

Nomination of Creationist As Texas Board of Education Chair Is In Trouble

Texas State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy was elevated from board member to his chairmanship position as an interim appointment by Gov. Rick Perry in the summer of 2007. Now, finally, the Texas Senate is holding hearings on whether to ratify his nomination to the chairmanship. (Eye on Williamson). The Austin Statesman reports that McLeroy faced "searing questioning" by the Senate Nominations Committee on Wednesday. Sen. Eliot Shapleigh says that McLeroy has used his chairmanship to promote his religious views on issues such as Bible course curriculum, language arts instruction and science standards.

The Houston Chronicle reports that McLeroy, a dentist, admits he is a "young earth Creationist" who believes the earth is about 6000 year old. However McLeroy says he has not pushed his viewpoints into educational policy and that the recently adopted science curriculum standards were not religious. (See prior posting.) McLeroy needs 21 votes from the 31-member Texas Senate for confirmation. It is unclear whether he will be able to get that amount of support. Nominations Chairman Mike Jackson said he will not move ahead on the Senate floor with the nomination if it looks like it would not pass. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Connecticut Law Implements Same-Sex Marriage Ruling With Exemptions For Religious Organziations

Yesterday Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed S.B. No. 899, a bill to implement the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision validating same-sex marriages. (AP). The bill also recognizes same-sex civil unions from other states and merges Connecticut civil unions into marriages. On Wednesday, the Senate and House both adopted amendments granting extensive religious exemptions. Those exemptions provide:

[A] religious organization ... or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization ..., shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request for [them]... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith....

... The marriage laws of this state shall not ... shall not require a fraternal benefit society ... which is operated, supervised or controlled by ... a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state.

Nothing in this act shall be deemed or construed to affect the manner in which a religious organization may provide adoption, foster care or social services if such religious organization does not receive state or federal funds for that specific program or purpose.

The bill also provides that no member of the clergy shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion and no church shall be required to participate in solemnizing a marriage in violation of its religious beliefs.

Yesterday's edition of The Edge reports on the amendments adopted Wednesday. Yesterday's Hartford Courant, reporting on the bill, points out that the state legislature rejected broader proposals that would have exempted objecting individuals and businesses from having to provide services in connection with same-sex marriages.

Judge Refuses To Enjoin Installation of New Pastor of Prestigious NY Church

The New York Times reported yesterday that a New York state trial judge effectively denied a motion for a temporary injunction sought by dissidents to prevent the installation of Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton as Senior Pastor of the historic Riverside Church on Manhattan's upper West side. Judge Lewis Bart Stone adjourned the case until late May, well after the installation of Rev. Braxton scheduled for Sunday. A group of congregants are concerned about the size of Braxton's compensation package and his more conservative style of religious practice. In the past, Riverside Church has been a center of social activism. The judge urged the parties to reach a settlement of their disputes.

Report Urges Changes To Protect Against Improper Searches of Muslims Returning to US

Earlier this week, Muslim Advocates issued a report titled Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning Home. Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the 52-page report:

Law-abiding Muslim, Arab and South Asian Americans returning home after overseas travel have experienced widespread, systematic and profound privacy intrusions by federal agents at the nation’s borders and airports. U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") Customs & Border Protection ("CBP") agents have questioned individuals about their political beliefs, religious practices, and charities they support. Agents have also sought to review and copy business cards, credit cards, and data on laptops, digital cameras and cell phones. These interrogations and searches are taking place without evidence or even suspicion that the travelers have engaged in wrongdoing.

These experiences and others chronicled in this report suggest that law-abiding Americans are being systematically selected by CBP agents for searches and interrogations on the basis of race, religion, and national origin. Far from serving legitimate aims, such profiling undermines security, wasting scarce government resources and generating mountains of false leads, as well as eroding trust between law enforcement authorities and the public....

Muslim Advocates proposes a series of discrete policy revisions that would restore constitutional protections eroded by the status quo border security apparatus and allow ample authority for the government to conduct legitimate activities to protect our nation’s security. They include steps that both the executive branch and Congress can take to better protect our nation’s border and our rights.

Farhana Khera, Executive Director of Muslim Advocates, wrote about the report Wednesday on the Washington Post's Faith Divide blog.