Wednesday, June 03, 2009

British Tribunal Says Catholic Adoption Agency Policy Violates Equality Act

In Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v. Charity Commission for England and Wales, (Charity Trib., June 1, 2009), Britain's Charity Tribunal has held that a Catholic adoption agency is violating the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 by refusing to furnish adoption services to same-sex couples. (Here are links to earlier rulings in the case.) A temporary exemption for Catholic agencies from the 2007 regulations expired in December 2008. The current case involved Catholic Care, an agency that has had particular success with "hard to place" children. Today's London Telegraph reports:
The Tribunal's ruling leaves leading charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) facing a deep religious impasse and creates a fundamental conflict between the tenets of the Catholic Church and the law of the land. If the charity now sticks to Church policy and continues to follow its "heterosexuals only" policy it could lose its charity status and public funding. It might also face discrimination claims by same-sex couples it has turned away in the past.
(See prior related posting.)

Obama Issues LGBT Pride Month Proclamation

Baptist Press reports that many evangelicals are unhappy that President Barack Obama on Monday issued a Proclamation (full text) proclaiming June 2009 as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." The proclamation notes that this year is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, a clash with New York police that is generally seen as the start of the gay rights movement. The Proclamation says in part that: "LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society." It lists a number of pro-LGBT initiatives undertaken by the Administration. Yesterday's Windy City Times says that both sides are unhappy with the Proclamation. Gay rights activists says the Administration has not done enough to further equal rights. This is not the first time a President has issued this sort of Proclamation. Bill Clinton issued gay pride proclamations in 1999 and 2000.

Ireland Will Seek More Victim Compensation From Catholic Orders

After last month's release in Ireland of a massive report on child sexual abuse over decades at Catholic institutions (see prior posting), the Irish government says that it will seek a larger share of the 1.2 billion Euros that will ultimately be paid to victims from the 18 religious orders named in the report. Today's Irish Times says that the the 127 million Euros payment agreed to by the Education Ministry in 2002 was based on the view that any abuse was intermittent. The new report shows that it was endemic. Child rights advocates say the amounts awarded to victims by a redress board have been too small and have been inconsistent.

UPDATE: The June 5 Irish Times reports that the 18 religious orders which were party to the 2002 compensation agreement with the Irish government have agreed to an audit of their assets in connection with negotiations over their contributing additional amounts to compensate abuse victims.

Court Refuses To Enjoin Graduation In Church Building

Yesterday in Does v. Elmbrook Joint Common School District No. 21, (ED WI, June 2, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to bar two Wisconsin high schools from holding their graduation ceremonies in a church building. Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the judge's oral decision which concluded that using the church would not be viewed by most as an endorsement of the church's beliefs. He said:"A ceremony in a church does not necessarily constitute a church ceremony." The order denying the injunction indicated that a written opinion would follow.

A release by Americans United, which brought the lawsuit, said that at previous graduation ceremonies held in Elmbrook Church, a suburban Milwaukee mega-church, students were awarded their degrees under a 20-foot tall cross. Also the church teaches that non-Christians, such as plaintiffs, will suffer eternal torment in Hell. AU says that there are 11 secular venues in the area that could have been used for graduation. TMJ4 News says this is likely the last year the church will be used for graduation because new gymnasiums in the two high schools will be available by next year. (See prior related posting.)

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

3rd Circuit Says School Can Bar Bible Reading At Kindergarten "Show and Tell"

In Busch v. Marple Newton School District, (3d Cir., June 1, 2009), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a Pennsylvania elementary school's restriction that barred a kindergartner's mother from reading aloud from the Bible as part of a "show and tell" activity in her son's classroom. The teacher assigned each student an "All About Me" week, part of which involved a parent visiting the class and leading students in an activity or story. Donna Busch wanted to read from the Bible because it was her son Wesley's favorite book. Donna claimed that the school's refusal violated her free speech and equal protection rights, as well as the establishment clauses, under both the U.S. and state constitutions. The majority said in part:
Restrictions on speech during a school's organized, curricular activities are within the school's legitimate area of control because they help create the structured environment in which the school imparts basic social, behavioral, and academic lessons.... Principal Cook disallowed a reading from holy scripture because he believed it proselytized a specific religious point of view.
Judge Barry wrote a concurrence, saying:
children of kindergarten age are simply too young and the responsibilities of their teachers too special to elevate to a constitutional dispute cognizable in federal court any disagreement over what a child can and cannot say and can and cannot do and what a classmate can and cannot be subjected to by that child or his or her champion.
Judge Hardiman dissented as to plaintiff's free speech claim, arguing that the school had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination:
Clearly, "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings."... It does not follow, however, that the state may regulate one's viewpoint merely because speech occurs in a schoolhouse — especially when the facts of the case demonstrate that the speech is
personal to the student and/or his parent rather than the school's speech. The majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable. But that goal, however admirable, does not allow the
government to offer a student and his parents the opportunity to express something about themselves, except what is most important to them.
Yesterday's San Jose (CA) Mercury News reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Oregon Passes Bill To Require Reasonable Religious Accommodation For Employees

Yesterday's Mid-Willamette Valley (OR) Statesman Journal reports that Oregon's legislature has passed and is about to transmit to the governor SB 786, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act. The new law requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices and observances. The employer need not make accommodations that impose undue hardship, i.e. that create significant difficulty or expense. The bill focuses particularly on employees' right to use vacation or leave for religious observances and their right to wear religious clothing on the job. However, under the bill, public school teachers may be barred from wearing religious clothing in the classroom. [Thanks to Don Byrd for the lead.]

Liberty Counsel Files IRS Complaint Against Americans United

Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed an 11-page letter, along with another 11 pages of exhibits, (full text) with the IRS seeking to have it investigate Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Liberty Counsel press release.) Pointing to AU's recent complaint to the IRS about Liberty University (see prior posting), the letter asks the IRS to:
(1) enjoin AU from continuing its intolerable waste of tax dollars through its barrage of unwarranted IRS complaints and subsequent investigations; (2) enjoin AU from continuing its abusive attacks and selective harassment of conservative churches, groups and related organizations; (3) enjoin AU from continuing its campaign of misrepresentation to the public of the political climate in relation to the conservative church and related groups; and (4) investigate the partisan pattern of filing complaints and the partisan activities of AU to determine whether such abuses represent illegal activities that jeopardize its current tax-exempt 501(c)(3) incorporation.
In a release yesterday, Americans United called to complaint "a desperate diversionary tactic" by Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty Counsel. AU executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn says "Falwell knows full well that Americans United is rigorously non-partisan." Last year, a Houston area Pastors Council filed a similar complaint against Americans United. (See prior posting.)

Former Alabama C.J. Roy Moore Announces For Governor's Race

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore yesterday announced that he is running for Governor of Alabama in the 2010 election. AP says that the announcement came on the first day that candidates can begin to raise money for the 2010 election. Moore is best known for his fight over a granite monument of the Ten Commandments that he put up in the lobby of the state judicial building. His refusal to remove the monument as ordered by a federal court led to his removal as Chief Justice in 2003. Moore ran for governor in 2006, but lost the Republican primary. He will face at least 4 others this time in the primary. Speaking to 150 supporters in Montgomery, Moore said: "Out of Washington comes a dangerous new message that we are not a Christian nation. Indeed, I refute that." He has also launched a campaign website that features a statement from Dr. James Dobson who calls Moore "a man of courage and strong Christian character."

Lawyer In Case Praises Sotomayor's 1993 "Menorah" Decision

In yesterday's Jerusalem Post, lawyer Nathan Lewin describes the case he won in White Plains, New York in 1993, representing a Chabad rabbi who wished to display a large menorah during Hanukkah at one of the city's two major parks. The decision in Flamer v. City of White Plains,(SDNY, 1993), has become the center of attention as one of the major religion decisions written by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor when she was a federal district judge. As Lewin recounts, the primary opposition to the menorah were other Jewish organizations and more liberal local rabbis who generally press for strict church-state separation. The mayor and city council were responding to that pressure. So Chabad sued, and Sotomayor ruled in its favor, following precedent in the 6th and 11th Circuit, while distinguishing a 1989 case decided by her own 2nd Circuit that went the other way. Lewin comments:
That court of appeals [the 2nd Circuit] had jurisdiction to review and reverse any decision the neophyte Judge Sotomayor might render in the White Plains case. The safest course for her was to hide behind the 1989 ruling and send Chabad packing. Instead, she took our constitutional claim seriously and authored a lengthy and detailed opinion reviewing Supreme Court precedents. She accurately described the Vermont decision issued by her superiors as "somewhat confusing" and distinguished it away. Citing a line of Supreme Court decisions that had had upheld speech with religious content and found it no less worthy of constitutional protection than secular speech, she upheld the right of a private party to deliver a religious message in a "public forum." The opinion was persuasive enough that White Plains decided not to appeal, and the Chabad menora is now a White Plains institution.

Monday, June 01, 2009

USCIRF Asks Obama To Raise Religious Freedom Issues In Saudi Arabia, Egypt

This Thursday, President Obama will be in Egypt. From Cairo, he will deliver a major speech reaching out to the Muslim world. (Wall Street Journal.) Last week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom sent letters (full text) to the President urging him to use the speech to stress the importance of protecting religious rights of minority religions in Muslim countries. A second letter asks President Obama to use his bilateral visits to Saudi Arabia and Egypt to raise a range of concerns about religious freedom and related human rights directly with King Abdullah and President Mubarak. The White House May 29 press briefing discusses the President's itinerary in the Middle East and Europe.

Tiller Murder May Impact Sotomayor Hearings

Some anti-abortion leaders fear that the murder of Dr. George Tiller at his church yesterday will impact hearings on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. AP reports that activists fear backlash to the killing will stifle anti-abortion viewpoints being expressed in the questioning of Sotomayor by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most anti-abortion leaders quickly issued statements condemning the murder. However the reaction (full text) of activist Terry Randall, founder of Operation Rescue, was more mixed. He said in part:
George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.... Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

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:
From Bepress:

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

Sunday, May 31, 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.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

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.