Dutch Cabinet Will Not Move To Repeal Blasphemy Law

The National Secular Society reported Friday that the Dutch cabinet has decided not to move ahead with its earlier plans to repeal the country's blasphemy law. (See prior posting.) The cabinet now believes that other laws are inadequate after the Netherlands Supreme Court in March overturned the conviction of a man charged with hanging a poster in his window reading: "Stop the tumour that is Islam." The court said criticism of behavior or opinions is not outlawed by the section of the criminal code that bars insulting a group of people because of their religion. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Zachary R. Calo, Catholic Social Thought, Political Liberalism, and the Idea of Human Rights, (May 19, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Steven Goldberg, Does the Wall Still Stand? The Implications of Transhumanism for the Separation of Church and State, (May 22, 2009).
• Steven Goldberg, The Book of Job and the Role of Uncertainty in Religion and Law, (May 27, 2009).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Gordon Butler, The Essence of Human Rights: A Religious Critique, 43 University of Richmond Law Review 1255-1317 (2009).
• Symposium. Is There a Higher Law? Does it Matter?, 36 Pepperdine Law Review 463-665 (Special Issue, 2009).

Church In Zoning Dispute Wants City Held In Contempt of 2006 Order

Friday's Miami Herald reports on a new religious zoning dispute in Hollywood, Florida. In a 2006 settlement of federal court litigation with Chabad Lubavitch, the city was ordered to enact a new Special Exception ordinance for places of worship, with narrow, objective and definite zoning standards to guide city officials. (See prior posting.) It has not yet done so. Now a motion to intervene in that case and to hold the city in contempt has been filed on behalf of St. Gregorio's Orthodox Church of India, which wants to renovate a building in an area zoned for single family homes and use it for church services. The city says St. Gregorio's needs a special permit under the old zoning rules still in effect.

Indian Court Says It Can Decide What Are Basic Tenets of a Religion

In India, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kaur v. State of Punjab, (High Ct. P&H, May 30, 2009), upheld the decision of a Medical College to refuse to admit petitioners under the quota set aside for members of the Sikh minority community because the applicants did not observe a major tenet of the Sikh religion-- keeping their hair unshorn. The school admitted only Sikhs who maintained "Sikhi swarup" (Sikh appearance). The court concluded that it could "enter the religious thicket" to determine how a religion defines its basic tenets. It said in part:

For an issue of religion, an action cannot be bestowed with legitimacy, merely because the action is forward-looking and non-fundamentalist Religion is a package of beliefs or doctrines which all those who adopt the particular religion, are expected to follow. The issue is not of logic, but of faith.... If the tenet concerned is of fundamental importance, it is legitimate for the followers of the faith, to treat the same as unpardonable.... Religion must be perceived as it is, and not as another would like it to be.... Once a Court arrives at the conclusion that a particular aspect of a religion, is fundamental and integral, as per the followers of the faith, it must be given effect to, irrespective of the views expressed on the said issue, based either on science or logic.

The Chandigarh (India) Tribune yesterday reported on the decision.

County Backs Off Controversial Zoning Citation Against Bible-Study Group Meetings

A land use citation issued by the San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use has generated a swirl of protest. As reported last week by the Christian Examiner and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Pastor David Jones and his wife hold weekly Bible study sessions at their home. Around 20 people attend. After complaints about parking congestion, the county told the Jones' that regulations required a permit to use premises for "religious assemblies." An international furor was generated when a report disseminated widely online said that when a county code enforcement officer visited the home on Good Friday, he asked-- apparently to determine if it was a "religious assembly"-- questions about whether the group prays or uses the words "amen" and "praise the Lord." The Western Center for Law & Policy sent a letter (full text) to the county arguing that the Bible study is not a "religious assembly" within the meaning of the zoning regulations, and that the administrative citation violates RLUIPA, the free exercise clause and the Jones' right to peaceably assemble. The county has now backed off, deciding that the meetings are not religious assemblies, which are defined in county regulations as: "religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches." It continues to investigate whether the questions asked by the investigating officer were proper.

Two Employment Discrimination Cases-- One Settled, One Filed

Two cases involving religious discrimination in employment are in the news. On May 28, the EEOC announced the entry of a consent decree in a lawsuit it filed in New Jersey federal district court against the oil company, ConocoPhillips. The company had required Clarence Taylor, a pipe fitter at its refinery, to work a schedule that would cause him to miss his Sunday church services for two months. Taylor is a deacon and lay leader in his church. Under the settlement, ConocoPhillips will revise its equal employment policies and provide training to managers and employees. Taylor will get 5 additional leave days and ConocoPhillips will pay damages and make a contribution to charity that total $20,000.

In Phoenix, Arizona, the ACLU announced Friday that it has filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on behalf of Sinan Fazlovic, a Bosnian Muslim who moved to the United States in 1999. (Full text of complaint.) When Fazlovic accepted a job as a detention officer, he was assured he could continue to wear his beard. However subsequently he was told he would have to shave his beard in order to keep his job, and was denied a religious accommodation. He shaved his beard temporarily, but then regrew it. He was reassigned to a lower paying position and he ultimately resigned. The Phoenix New Times reports on the case. In a statement (full text from Phoenix New Times), the sheriff's office says that its actions were the result of federal OSHA regulations governing the type of face masks authorized for use in jail emergency situations.

Wikipedia Arbitrators Ban Scientology Edits

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which normally invites the public to edit encyclopedia entries, has imposed a ban on editorial input from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology or its affiliates. The Register and OS News report on the decision (full text) handed down by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee on May 28. This is the fourth Scientology related arbitration in four years. Previously anti-Scientology editors have also been banned. The arbitration opinion, handed down May 28, reads in part:

This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.... Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage.... Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organisations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other's self-published material.... Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.

This is apparently the first time that Wikipedia has imposed such a broad organizational ban on editorial contributors.

Connecticut Diocese Sues To Avoid Registration As Lobbyist

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport on Friday filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut's Office of State Ethics seeking to enjoin the Office from taking action to force the Diocese to register with the state as a lobbyist. Catholic Online reports that the state ethics office wrote the Diocese raising questions after the Diocese took part in a rally in March opposing Raised Bill 1098 that would have forced reorganization of financial oversight in Catholic parishes (see prior posting). The state also questioned a posting on the Diocese's website urging its members to oppose another bill relating to same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Jones, (D CT, filed 5/29/2009), contends that the state's action violates the Diocese's constitutional rights of speech and assembly, its free exercise and equal protection rights, and violates the establishment clause. The Diocese also filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Israeli Court Orders American Husband To Grant Wife A Religious Divorce

In Israel, a Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court has for the first time imposed sanctions on a man who is not a citizen of Israel to force him to grant his wife a religious divorce (a "get"). Thursday's Jerusalem Post reported on the case-- a divorce proceeding of an American couple that had been dragging on for six years. The court held that the husband had sufficient contacts with Israel for the court to assert jurisdiction because he had been traveling back and forth between Israel and the U.S. for the past two years. Israeli law was changed three years ago to give Rabbinical Courts jurisdiction over Jews residing in Israel even if they are not citizens. Upon petition of the wife, the court ultimately arrested the husband and banned his leaving the country until he granted his wife the get. The husband relented and agreed to do so after three nights in jail.

10th Circuit Rejects Valedictorian's Challenge To Limits On Her Religious Remarks

In Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38, (10th Cir., May 29, 2009), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional claims brought by a high school valedictorian who delivered remarks at a high school's graduation ceremony encouraging students to accept Jesus Christ. Her short remarks were part of brief speeches by 15 co-valedictorians. Erica Corder had presented a different version of the speech in advance to the principal. She was forced to publicly apologize a few days later in order to receive her diploma. Finding that her remarks were school-sponsored and bore the imprimatur of the school, the court rejected Corder's free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and state statutory challenges. It held that the school was entitled to exercise editorial control over the speech. The decision affirms the district court's dismissal of the case. (See prior posting.) AP yesterday reported on the decision.

Texas Senate Rejects Creationist As Chairman of State Board of Education

The Texas state Senate on Thursday rejected the governor's nomination of Republican Don McLeroy to be chairman of the State Board of Education, according to yesterday's Dallas Morning News. McLeroy is currently serving as chairman under an interim appointment. A two-thirds majority was required to approve the nomination, and the vote was one short--19-11 to confirm. McLeroy-- who believes in creationism and who does not believe global warming is taking place-- has been criticized for trying to promote his religious views on curricular issues. McLeroy denies that he has pressed his views in the consideration of education policy. McLeroy supporter Sen. Steve Ogden accused Democrats of applying a religious test in rejecting the nomination. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Says City Unconstitutionally Applied Law To Restrict Street Preacher

In Netherland v. City of Zachary, Louisiana, (MD LA, May 27, 2009), in a case on remand from the 5th Circuit (see prior posting), a Louisiana federal district court held that a city's disturbing the peace ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to defendant's religious speech. John Netherland was threatened with arrest for his loud preaching, standing on a public easement near the parking lot of the Sidelines Grill yelling at customers. The court held that the city's enforcement against Netherland was content-based and did not reflect a compelling interest. The court also held that the suppression of Netherland's ability to evangelize in a public forum infringed his free exercise rights.

Challenge To National Day of Prayer Survives Dismissal Motion

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, (WD WI, May 26, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. The court said that defendants' arguments are better raised in a summary judgment motion once the record is developed further. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded standing by alleging they were exposed to unwelcome religious speech, and sufficiently pleaded an Establishment Clause violation by alleging that defendants' conduct has the purpose and effect of advancing religion. FFRF yesterday issued a press release on the decision, which includes links to all the pleadings in the case.

6th Circuit Upholds Inclusion of Churches In Detroit's Renovation Funding

In American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, (6th Cir., May 28, 2009), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Establishment Clause (as well as the parallel provision in the Michigan Constitution) was not violated by including churches in a program that used city funds to pay part of the cost of refurbishing downtown buildings and parking lots. The redevelopment program was designed to enhance the visual appearance of the downtown Detroit in preparation for hosting the 2005 Major League Baseball All-Star Game and the 2006 NFL Superbowl. As the court put it: "Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a religion."

The trial court had upheld most of the grants, but invalidated those used for signs and for covering stained-glass windows. (See prior posting.) The 6th Circuit found all the grants valid. The Court of Appeals began its 32-page opinion by finding that plaintiffs had taxpayer standing to bring the lawsuit, distinguishing standing of municipal taxpayers from that of state and federal taxpayers. Moving to the merits, the court held that the Detroit program was neutral and did not have the primary effect of advancing religion. Including churches along with dozens of secular entities would not be seen as an endorsement of their religious views. [Thanks to Brian D. Wassom for the lead.]

Russian Authorities Allow Rescheduling of Matriculation Exams By Jewish Students

The Jewish holiday of Shavuot begins this evening. In Russia, after intervention by President Dmitry Medvedev, the Minister of Education has ruled that Jewish students may postpone their taking of the national matriculation exams which were scheduled for tomorrow in conflict with the holiday. Chabad.org News yesterday reported that in a letter to Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Educational Minister Andrei Aleksandrovitch Forsenko, citing the Russian Constitution, said that students in the Ohr Avner Chabad network of Jewish day schools and Jewish children in public schools can take their exams up to June 17.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Establishment Clause Challenge To AIG Bailout

In Murray v. Geithner, (ED MI, May 26, 2009), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a taxpayer's Establishment Clause challenge to the federal government's expenditure of $40 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to rescue the giant insurance company, AIG. AIG is the market leader in Sharia-compliant financing. The lawsuit argues that use of federal bailout funds to finance "Sharia-based Islamic religious activities" is unconstitutional. Initially the court held that plaintiff has standing to bring the Establishment Clause challenge, relying in large part on the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Bowen v. Kendrick. On the merits of the claim, the court held:

[T]he fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive. "The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant."... In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the ESSA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent.... [A]fter the government acquired a majority interest in AIG... [it] co-sponsored a forum entitled "Islamic Financing 101." These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the Government's involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff's claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

The Thomas More Law Center which filed the lawsuit issued a press release summarizing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Alberta Assembly Set To Pass Parental Rights Provisions

According to yesterday's Edmonton (AB) Journal, after debate extending into the early hours of Wednesday morning, Alberta's Legislative Assembly approved on its second reading Bill 44, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009. The bill, which adds sexual orientation to the province's anti-discrimination law and makes certain other changes, has attracted much attention because of the parental rights provisions that were also added to it. Under these provisions, a school must provide notice to parents whenever a class or program will be dealing primarily and explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation, so the parent can request his or her child be excused from class or not participate. The provision does not apply to merely incidental or indirect references to religion, religious themes, human sexuality or sexual orientation in a course. The bill is expected to pass its third and final reading in the Legislative Assembly today.

Theology Professor Named As US Ambassador To Vatican

Yesterday, the White House announced the names of 12 individuals that President Obama intends to nominate as ambassadors. (Boston Globe.) Included is Miguel H. Díaz as Ambassador to the Holy See. Dr. Díaz is a Professor of Theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota. He previously taught at Barry University, the University of Dayton and the University of Notre Dame, and served as Academic Dean at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Florida. AP reports that Diaz, a Cuban-American, was a member of the Obama campaign's Catholic advisory board. He was also one of 26 Catholics who signed a statement supporting the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services Secretary. Conservative Catholics had criticized Sebelius' support for abortion rights. Yesterday's London Guardian has more on the appointment, on Diaz' reaction to it, and on the reaction of others to his choice. The question of who would be appointed ambassador to the Vatican has been the subject of some contention, as reportedly the Vatican previously rejected three other possibilities. (See prior posting.)

Holy Land Foundation Defendants Sentenced

A Justice Department press release yesterday announced that a Dallas federal district judge has sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of the Muslim charity's leaders who had been found guilty by a federal jury last November on charges of providing material support to Hamas. Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two of the convicted defendants were each sentenced to 65 years in prison. The others were sentenced to 15 and 20 years. The court also reaffirmed the jury's prior verdict that the Foundation and the 5 guilty defendants were liable to forfeit the $12.4 million they had funneled to Hamas. (Background via OMB Watch.) (See prior related posting.)

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Prop 8; Some Gay-rights Activists Question Strategy

The New York Times reports that at a news conference yesterday, David Boies and Theodore Olson-- attorneys best known as opponents in the Bush v. Gore litigation in 2000-- announced that they are jointly representing two couples who have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco challenging California's Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds. The complaint (full text) in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, filed 5/22/2009), asks the court to enter a declaratory judgment and to enjoin enforcement or application of Proposition 8, arguing that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that "California relegates same-sex unions to the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership."

A number of gay rights activists criticized the filing of the lawsuit, arguing that it could backfire strategically. Yesterday's Examiner says these critics fear that the current Supreme Court would rule against the challenge, and that this would then undermine attempts to get state courts to protect gay marriage under state constitutions. These critics point to another case moving through the federal courts challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which they say is a better first step toward getting federal courts to protect same-sex marriage.