Washington's Red Mass Is Sunday As Supreme Court Opens Its Term

This Sunday, as the Supreme Court's term is about to open, Washington's 56th annual Red Mass will be held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle. Several justices traditionally attend, along with congressional leaders, diplomats, cabinet secretaries, and sometimes the President. CNN reports that the Red Mass dates back centuries and brings together government leaders involved in the law. Critics, however, say this improperly gives the Catholic Church a special way to lecture the justices.

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says that Washington's Red Mass was begun after several Supreme Court decisions were handed down that troubled the Church. The Mass is sponsored by the John Carroll Society, a lay Catholic group of legal professionals. Jane Roberts, wife of the chief justice, is an officer of the Society. Currently six of the Justices on the Court are Catholic. Justices of other faiths are invited to the Mass as well, and some, like Justice Breyer (who is Jewish), attend. However Justice Ginsburg, has stopped going because of the subject matter of the sermons. Church officials deny using the Mass to lobby the Court. Last year, 5 Justices attended. (See prior posting.)

New Hampshire Federal Court Rejects Challenge To Pledge of Allegiance

In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District, (D NH, Sept. 30, 2009), a New Hampshire federal district court dismissed a constitutional challenge to the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms. Atheist and agnostic parents and students raised Establishment Clause, free exercise, equal protection and due process claims. Perhaps the most interesting part of the court's opinion was its lengthy Establishment Clause analysis. In concluding that the New Hampshire statute mandating recitation of the pledge in classrooms, but making student participation voluntary, passed the Lemon test, the court said in part:

the Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious prayer, nor is it a "nonsectarian prayer" .... and its recitation in schools does not constitute a "religious exercise." The Pledge does not thank God. It does not ask God for a blessing, or for guidance. It does not address God in any way.... Rather, the Pledge, in content and function, is a civic patriotic statement.... Peer or social pressure to participate in a school exercise not of a religious character does not implicate the Establishment Clause, and as a civic or patriotic exercise, the statute is clear in making participation completely voluntary....

The words "under God" undeniably come from the vocabulary of religion, or, at the least, reflect a theistic orientation, but no more so than the benign deism reflected in the national trust in God declared on our currency, or in ceremonial intercessions to "save this Honorable Court" .... It may well be that some, perhaps many, people required to employ U.S. currency, or socially pressured to stand during civic ceremonies, feel offended by what seems to them an imposition of theistic doctrine. But the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or prayer. It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and historic references to a God.....

When Congress added the words "under God," to the Pledge in 1954, its actual intent probably had far more to do with politics than religion — more to do with currying favor with the electorate than with an Almighty. (God, if God exists, is probably not so easily fooled.) In the intervening half century since the words were added, rote repetition has, as Justice Brennan observed, removed any significant religious content embodied in the words, if there ever was significant religious (as opposed to political) content embodied in those words. Today, the words remain religious words, but plainly fall comfortably within the category of historic artifacts — reflecting a benign or ceremonial civic deism that presents no threat to the fundamental values protected by the Establishment Clause.

Lodi City Council Changes Policy, But Keeps Prayer

After months of contentious debate, late Wednesday night the Lodi, California City Council voted unanimously to change its policy on invocations, but not to do away with prayer. According to yesterday's Lodi News-Sentinel, under the new policy the invocation will be delivered before the Council meeting is formally called to order. Leaders of all faiths, including ones whose places of worship are outside of the city, will be invited to deliver an uncensored invocation. Persons who are not religious can give a "Call to Civic Responsibility" instead of a prayer. Some 500 people attended the special Council meeting on Wednesday and the mayor had received 1,451 e-mails on the topic. (See prior related posting.)

Parties Settle In Lesbian's Suit Against California Clinic

Last year in North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior Court, (CA Sup. Ct., Aug. 18, 2008), the California Supreme Court held unanimously that a medical clinic's physicians are prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act from discriminating against patients on the basis of sexual orientation. The holding came in a lawsuit by an unmarried lesbian patient. Two Christian doctors at the clinic refused on religious grounds to give her artificial insemination. As the case headed for trial on remand, North County (CA) Times yesterday reported that the parties have now settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of money in a settlement described as mutually agreeable.

NY Jewish Schools Get No Child Left Behind Tutors For First Time

The Jewish Press reported yesterday that for the first time, some 14,000 young students from 50 yeshivas in New York City will be able to access tutoring services paid for by the No Child Left Behind Act's Title I program. The tutors offer students help with reading, writing and arithmetic. Eventually up to 50,000 yeshiva students could participate. Until two weeks ago, union contracts kept New York City teachers from accommodating the yeshivas' longer school day. However new arrangements will now permit yeshivas to use third party vendors for tutoring under the program. [Thanks to Vos Iz Neis for the lead.]

Many Pakistani Mosques and Madressahs Face Shut Off Of Electricity

In Pakistan, the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) notified the Ministry of Religious Affairs earlier this month that over 1,600 mosques and madressahs have not paid their electric bills. They owe the equivalent of $1.49 million (US). According to Pakistan's The News today, KESC will be sending a final one-week notice to delinquent customers and then will be shutting off their power. Numerous notices have previously been sent out, but have been ignored. Most of the religious institutions have their own revenue generating sources, such as shops and markets, that should generate funds to cover the bills. The Ministry of Religious Affairs told KESC that the Ministry is not responsible for the religious institutions.

Texas State Fair Is Not State Actor In Barring Religious Literature Distribution

In Rundus v. City of Dallas, (ND TX, Sept. 16, 2009), a Texas federal district court rejected a claim brought by a Christian evangelist seeking damages for the refusal by the State Fair of Texas to allow him to pass out religious literature on sidewalks inside the fairgrounds. State Fair rules required plaintiff to pay a fee to rent a booth if he wished to hand out literature inside the fairgrounds. His lawsuit claimed the Fair's literature distribution policy violated his 1st Amendment right to express his religious beliefs. The State Fair of Texas is a private non-profit corporation that holds the fair each year at the city-owned Fairgrounds. The court held that the State Fair did not become a state actor by reason of its relationship with the city of Dallas. According to the court, there was "no evidence that the City was involved, much less 'pervasively entwined,' with any aspect of the Literature Distribution Restriction." Therefore plaintiff had failed to show the "state action" necessary for a recovery. And while the city was a state actor, its conduct did not give rise to any liability. (See prior related posting.) The Dallas Observer News Blog reported on the case yesterday.

Israeli Court Says Chinese Pressured University On Falun Gong Exhibit

In Israel, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled yesterday that Tel Aviv University improperly closed down an exhibit of artwork by Falun Gong members last year because of economic and political pressure from the Chinese Embassy. According to Haaretz, the court concluded that the Dean of Students gave into pressure in order to protect campus funding by the Chinese Embassy of scholarships for students who study in China, a campus Confucius Center where students can study Chinese, and conferences on Buddhism and Chinese philosophy. The two-week exhibit opened on March 3, 2008, but was shut down after only four days. The court ordered the university to host the exhibit for another full week during the upcoming semester, and to pay the two plaintiffs-- student organizers of the exhibit-- NIS 45,000 ($12,000 US) in litigation costs.

Court Rejects Tony Alamo's Free Exercise Defense In Suit By Former Followers

A federal district court yesterday rejected a free exercise defense raised by evangelist Tony Alamo in a lawsuit against him by two of his former followers who alleged Alamo withheld food from them for prolonged times, ordered their severe and sometimes public beatings, and verbally abused them during the beatings. In Ondrisek v. Hoffman, (WD AR, Sept. 30, 2009), the court said:

Alamo states that the beatings alleged in the Complaint were merely spankings, which are required by the Bible. Thus, he argues that his alleged conduct in ordering these beatings is protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.... The principle of religious liberty does not give one the liberty to physically attack others.... While an individual’s beliefs that he can beat and falsely imprison Plaintiffs and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon them is protected by the First Amendment, acting on these beliefs is reasonably prohibited by Arkansas law.

The Pine Bluff (AR) Commercial reported on the decision yesterday.

Christian Group Sues Challenging Maine's Interpretation of Its Charitable Licensing Law

In June, the Charitable Solicitations section of Maine's Office of Licensing & Registration imposed a civil penalty of $3000 on the Christian Action Network, finding that it had violated 9 MRS Sec. 5013 by using Governor John Baldacci's name in a letter soliciting contributions without the Governor's consent. (CAN Release.) The solicitation letter complained that some of Maine's public schools were promoting Islam by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Koran and that some schools provide a prayer room for Muslims. It urged recipients of the letter to contact the Governor to complain.

10 MRS Sec. 8003(5) allows the agency to impose a civil penalty of up to $1500 for each violation of law. Apparently the state, as a condition to granting a renewal of CAN's license as a charitable organization, also required it to admit both that the Governor did not give his consent and that CAN's "correspondence contained an inflammatory anti-Muslim message." Yesterday, Liberty Counsel announced that CAN had filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Maine challenging an interpretation of the state statute that prohibits any mention of the Governor in a charitable solicitation without consent. The suit also claims that CAN's free speech was infringed by "censoring" of its anti-Muslim message.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Christian Action Network v. State of Maine, (D ME, filed 9/28/2009). The Bangor Daily News has more coverage and a link to the text of CAN's mailing.

2nd Circuit: Ministerial Exception Bars Rabbi's Suit Against Her Former Temple

In Friedlander v. Port Jewish Center, (2d Cir., Sept. 30, 2009), the 2nd Circuit agreed that a New York federal district court lacked jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim by a rabbi against her former congregation. (See prior posting.) The Court of Appeals found that the "ministerial exception" doctrine applies. That doctrine bars civil courts from interfering with the autonomy of religious institutions over ecclesiastical affairs. The Court said:

review of Freidlander’s claims ... would require scrutiny of whether she should have ... read more extensively from the Torah at certain services, prepared students for their Bar or Bat Mitzvah more adequately, performed certain pastoral services ... or followed the Temple’s funeral service policies. A reviewing court would also be required to assess whether any failures rose to the level of "gross misconduct or willful neglect of duty".... [S]uch review would involve impermissible judicial inquiry into religious matters.

[Thanks to Y.Y. Landa for the lead.]

Prosecutors Seek To Offer Unusual Religious Analysis In Competency Trial

A federal judge in Utah is being asked to permit rather unusual testimony about religious beliefs in the third competency hearing for Brian David Mitchell who has been charged with the 2002 kidnapping in Salt Lake City, Utah of then 14-year old Elizabeth Smart. (Background). According to KSL-TV yesterday, prosecutors want a professor who is an expert in the analysis of scripture, and an investigator of the Ervil LeBaron polygamy cult decades ago, to testify to show that Mitchell's religious writings do not show that he is delusional and mentally ill. Mitchell wrote a book of scripture, "The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah," in which he suggests he has powers greater than God's. Psychiatric experts used that to show he was incompetent to stand trial. Now the prosecution wants to call their witnesses to show that Mitchell's religious writings were coherent when viewed in the proper cultural context. They resemble views in Ervil LeBaron's "Book of the New Covenant" in which he justified over two dozen killings in biblical language.

Amicus Brief Raises Opposition To UN Convention

Two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Graham v. Florida and Sulivan v. Florida, appear to have become vehicles for those filing amicus briefs to duel over the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child which conservative Christian groups fear the U.S. Senate may ratify. They claim the Convention would infringe parental rights. (See prior posting.) An amicus brief filed by Amnesty International (joined by 14 other groups) in the two cases involving life sentences without parole imposed on juveniles urges the court to apply the prohibitions of the Convention as a matter of customary international law. Yesterday, according to a press release from Parentalrights.org, 16 members of the U.S. House filed an amicus brief arguing that the Convention is not binding on the United States. Previously some twenty religious groups representing various faith traditions filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing life imprisonment without parole on juvenile offenders contravenes fundamental religious values.

High School Cheerleaders Cannot Carry Religious Banners On Field

Yesterday's Chattanooga (TN) Times Free Press reports on a new variation of the dispute over mixing of religion and high school football. In Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, since 2003 Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders have displayed religious banners that the football players crash through at the beginning of games. The banners urge fans and players to "commit to the Lord" and "take courage and do it." After a complaint from a local resident, the superintendent [corrected] prohibited the banners, agreeing that the display of Biblical verses on the football field violates the 1st Amendment. This led to a community rally in support of the cheerleaders and strong statements supporting them from Fort Oglethorpe Mayor Ronnie Cobb who said: "If it's offensive to anyone, let them go watch another football game. Nobody's forced to come there and nobody’s forced to read the signs." Meanwhile, an area outside the stadium has been set aside so the signs can be displayed there. Several of the players, upset by the ruling, protested by holding a team prayer after they took the field last week.

An attorney for the Christian Law Association has been advising those upset with the school's ruling on at least two alternative routes, according to Chattanoogan.com. Barbara J. Weller says that while the students may not continue to put Bible verses on the banners they have been making officially for the games, they can make other banners with Bible verses on them, as long as they make the banners at home and bring them to the games on their own, without the school's approval, permission or participation. She also says that the school should not be able to prohibit banners that merely used the words, "Power, Love, Self Discipline" without reference to the Bible verse that includes them.

UPDATE: At an Oct. 13 meeting, the Catoosa County School Board upheld the superintendent's ruling. (ABP).

Supporters of Sectarian Prayer Threaten Billboards Exposing Council Votes

Around the country, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been challenging city councils that open their meetings with sectarian prayers, and city councils have been forced to consider whether to change their policies. Few of the debates have been as contentious as that in Lodi, California (see prior posting) where a vote will be taken tonight. Yesterday's Lodi News-Sentinel reports that in advance of the vote, Council has received a letter from Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the founder of the Colorado-based "Pray In Jesus Name Project," threatening that if council eliminates invocations or requires them to be non-sectarian, he will purchase billboards on Interstate 5 and Highway 99 for one year listing each council member as "Against Jesus" or "For Jesus." Councilman Bob Johnson described as Klingenschmitt's threat as "blackmail" and "petty thuggery."

Court Rejects Copyright Suit Claiming Infringement In Use of Judas Iscariot Trial

In Porto v. Guirgis, (SDNY, Sept. 28, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected a claim by author Michael Porto (also known as "Guy Michaels") that Guirgis' play "The Last Days of Judas Iscariot" violates the copyrights for Porto's novel "Judas on Appeal." Both works involved a fictional trial of Judas Iscariot in which the issue is whether Judas should be admitted to paradise. The novel has the trial before a fictional World Court of Religion held in the Federal Courthouse in New York's Foley Square, while the play has the trial before a fictional judge in Purgatory. The court said:

The trials depicted in the two works are dramatically different in substance, setting, plot, theme, language, and the overall thrust and feel of the works. Stripped of unprotectible elements—such as the biblical characters and biblical story—the works are not substantially similar.

Courthouse News Service reported on the decision yesterday.

German Court Says School Must Provide Prayer Space For Muslim Student

In the first ruling of its kind in Germany, the Berlin administrative court has ruled that Diesterweg High School in Berlin-Wedding must allow a Muslim student known in the litigation as Yunus M. to pray 10 minutes each day in a separate classroom. Deutsche Welle reported yesterday that freedom of religion guarantees required this accommodation which the court saw as not disturbing school operations. Berlin's Education Senate says it fears that the ruling will lead to the creation of "islands of belief" in the schools, and the chairman of Berlin-Wedding's parents' board said she fears that the ruling will further lessen Muslim students' willingness to integrate into the school.

New York Appellate Court Voids Church Election of New Pastor and Trustees

Trustees of Gallilee Pentecostal Church, Inc. v. Williams, (NY App. Div., Sept. 22, 2009), is a case in which plaintiffs sought a declaration as to who are the legal trustees and members of the Gallilee Pentecostal Church in Poughkeepsie, New York. In 1983 when the Church was formed, its articles named six trustees. Despite provisions in the articles and in the New York Religious Corporations Law calling for annual elections, no election of trustees was ever held. Now only two of the original six trustees are alive. In 2006, at the instigation of Frances J. Williams, some 30 people, allegedly members of the church, were notified of a meeting. 17 showed up and purported to elect Williams as pastor and as a trustee, and also purported to elect Barbara Williams-Mahmood as another trustee.

Plaintiffs, who objected to Williams as pastor, sued challenging the validity of the 2006 meeting. The appellate court agreed with their challenge, finding that defendants failed to prove who were church members entitled to vote at the meeting. The court declared that the two remaining original trustees were the only valid trustees. It went on to enjoin Williams and his supporters from exercising any authority or control over church property. [Thanks to Y.Y. Landa for the lead.]

Court Rejects Interlocutory Appeal In Minnesota Charter School Case

In ACLU of Minnesota v. Tarek Ibn Ziyad Acadamy, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88425 (D MN. Sept. 24, 2009), a Minnesota federal district court denied a motion by the sponsor of a controversial charter school to certify an interlocutory appeal of a decision handed down by the court in July. In that decision (see prior posting) the court held that the ACLU had taxpayer standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to funding of the school by the state and that plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded the elements of a "state action" by the sponsor, Islamic Relief. The ACLU charges that the charter school promotes Islam. In denying the motion, the court concluded that there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the issue of taxpayer standing and that questions as to state action are primarily factual ones that do raise appropriate issues for appeal.

British Jewish Schools Implement New Admissions Criteria Ordered By Court

Today's London Guardian reports on changes in admission policy made by Britain's publicly-funded Jewish schools after a Court of Appeal decision in June held that using the traditional Orthodox Jewish definition of who is Jewish amounts to impermissible racial discrimination instead of a permissible religious criterion. (See prior posting.) The article focuses particularly on the Jewish Free School, which it describes as "vast, in size and in reputation", and which was the school involved in the lawsuit. Now Jewish schools have introduced a "point system" to measure religious practice. Attending synagogue twice a month in addition to festivals earns a child three points. Formal Jewish education is worth one point. Voluntary work in a charity is worth one point. JFS requires three points to be considered a priority applicant. Meanwhile synagogues have seen a spike in attendance as families rush to earn points before the admissions deadline passes. The shift to assessing religious practice is consistent with criteria used by publicly-funded Christian and Muslim schools in Britain. The case is on appeal to Britain's new Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]