New Catholic, Evangelical Declaration Reaffirms Pro-Life, Traditional Marriage Agenda

This afternoon, a coalition of 149 pro-life, Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders signed the 4700-word Manhattan Declaration, pledging to defend their pro-life views and their opposition to same-sex marriage. (LifeNews.) The Declaration says in part:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

.... We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths.... Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Today's New York Times reporting on the Declaration says that the document, written by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, "is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the [Bush] administration.... They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage." [Thanks to Ira "Chip" Lupu for the lead.]

Award By Rabbinical Court Vacated Over Limit on Party's Choice of Attorney

In Kahan v. Rosner, (NY Sup. Ct., Nov. 16, 2009), a New York trial court vacated an arbitration award in a dispute between siblings over property originally owned by their father. The award was issued by a Rabbinical Court which refused to permit one of the parties to be represented by the attorney of his choice. The parties had signed a waiver providing that they would use only Rabbinical counsel acceptable to the Rabbinical court. However the state civil court held that the right to have an attorney at an arbitration proceeding is unwaivable, and the Rabbinical court had given no reason why the objecting party could not be represented by the attorney ("toayn") he had selected. [Thanks to Y.Y. Landa for the lead.]

Ban On Transfer of Funds To Iraq Does Not Infringe Charity's Free Exercise

In United States v. Islamic American Relief Agency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541 (WD MO, Nov. 18, 2009), a Missouri federal district court rejected defendants' argument that their indictment for illegally transferring funds to Iraq violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Defendants were charged under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations. Defendants contend that, along with IARA's donors, they "shared the common purpose of fulfilling the obligations of all Muslim's of zakat" --the duty to give charity to the destitute. The court concluded that even if the restrictions imposed a substantial burden on defendants' free exercise, the government had a compelling interest in imposing the restrictions and use the least restrictive means of accomplishing them.

Individual Congregations Seek To Intervene In Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese Case

Virtue Online reported yesterday that 47 parishes and missions of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (TX) have filed an Original Plea in Intervention (full text) in the lawsuit between The Episcopal Church and the break-away Diocese of Fort Worth. The intervenors seek a declaratory judgment that "in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, the title to the real property being occupied and subject to the control of Intervening Congregations is held by the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth in trust for the use and benefit of each Intervening Congregation." (See prior related posting.)

Groups Challenge Use of Church for Graduation Ceremonies

The ACLU and Americans United are threatening to file a lawsuit to stop Enfield, Connecticut high schools from holding their graduation ceremonies in Bloomfield, Connecticut's First Cathedral. (Press release.) The letter (full text) says in part:

We ... understand that when the Board first approved using the Cathedral for graduations, it was told that the religious items in the Cathedral would be covered for graduations. In fact, this never occurred; indeed, ... religious symbolism is inherent in virtually every aspect of the Cathedral, and so secularizing the facility for school events would not appear to be possible....

[T]hat the Enfield Schools may have secular reasons for using the Cathedral (such as the price or the physical amenities of the facility) does not render such use constitutional. The Establishment Clause not only prohibits conduct that has a religious purpose, but also conduct that has a religious effect, such as religious coercion, endorsement, or delegation.... Second, the placement of a disclaimer on school graduation programs cannot cure the constitutional violations. A disclaimer does nothing to prevent or remedy coercive imposition of religion upon students and family members at a graduation ceremony, as we have here.

The ACLU filed a similar objection in 2006 when the use of the Cathedral began. (See prior posting.)

Defendant Sentenced For Cyber Attack On Scientology Websites

According to a press release yesterday from the Church of Scientology, a New Jersey federal district court has sentenced Dmitriy Guzner for his part in a cyber attack on Scientology websites last January. Nineteen year old Guzner who, in May, plead guilty to one count of computer hacking, was given a sentence of 366 days in prison, 2 years probation and ordered to pay restitution of $37,500. Guzner carried out the distributed denial of service attack along with other members of the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous.

University Settles With Woman Fired For Being A Witch

In Lincoln, Nebraska, a woman, identified only as Jane Doe, has settled an employment discrimination lawsuit she filed against the University of Nebraska. The woman alleges that she was removed as director of a youth program when the University discovered that she was a witch. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Lincoln (NE) Journal-Star reports that the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission had found reasonable cause to believe that religious discrimination had occurred. Plaintiff settled for $40,000, of which $10,000 will go for attorneys' fees.

Appeal Filed Seeking Acceptance of D.C. Marriage Initiative Petition

Having lost in their attempt to obtain a referendum (see prior posting), opponents of Washington, D.C.'s new law recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere filed an initiative petition in September. The Marriage Initiative would provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in D.C. In an order issued on Tuesday, In Re: Marriage Initiative of 2009, (DC Bd. Elec. & Ethics, Nov. 17, 2009), the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that because the initiative would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, under D.C.'s Initiative, Referendum and Recall Procedures Act it was required to reject the initiative petition.

Yesterday, several proponents of the initiative filed suit seeking court review of the Election Board's ruling. The complaint (full text) in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., filed 11/18/2009), challenges the restriction in D.C. law that precludes using the initiative for any measure that would authorize discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Act. It also argues that the Initiative does not violate the HRA. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release announcing that the appeal had been filed.

Groups Will Portray Nativity Scene On Supreme Court Sidewalk

Two groups, Faith and Action and the Christian Defense Coalition , plan this morning to temporarily display a live Nativity Scene on the public sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Christian Newswire reports that the display is part of Operation Nativity and the Nativity Project which promote manager scenes on both public and private property.

Malaysia Authorities Charge Progressive Muslim Cleric

In Malaysia, Islamic authorities have charged a popular progressive Muslim preacher with conducting a religious lecture in the state of Selangor without authorization from the state's Islamic department. AP reported yesterday that Asri Zainul Abidin plead not guilty in a Sharia court. He charges selective prosecution. Abidin has criticized the country's Islamic authorities' increasingly hard line bans on behavior seen as immoral, and has said that Malaysia's senior clerics should not be followed blindly.

Deputy Proposes Change In Russia's National Anthem to Remove Reference To God

Interfax reported yesterday that a member of the Russian State Duma representing the Communist Party has introduced a bill to change one line in the Russian Federation's national anthem. Deputy Boris Kashin wants to change "You, Our one Native land, protected by God!" to "You, Our one Native land, protected by us!" An explanatory note to the proposal says that since a substantial part of the Russian population does not believe in God, the current anthem does not correspond to their beliefs.

Israel's High Court Denies Rehearing In Grant of Kosher Certification To Messianic

Arutz Sheva reported yesterday that Israel Supreme Court Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch has denied a rehearing in a case in which the court held that the Rabbinate in the city of Ashdod may not impose enhanced supervision requirements in granting a kashrut certificate (kosher certification) to a bakery owned by a Messianic Jew. The Chief Rabbinate Council were concerned that the owner, because of her beliefs, could not be trusted to keep her bakery kosher. (See prior posting.) Beinisch ruled that the question of whether the owner was trustworthy needed to be determined by civil law standards, not religious law. The director of Yad L'Achim, an Israeli group that opposes missionary activities, said he would seek a change in legislation. He continued: "Otherwise, missionaries, armed with official kashrut certifications, will be able to entice religious people into their waiting arms."

Think-Tank Charges U.S. Conservatives With Using African Clergy In LGBT Battles

Political Research Associates, a Massachusetts-based progressive think tank, yesterday released a 42-page report titled Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches and Homophobia. The report focuses primarily on developments in Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria. Here are a few excerpts from the Executive Summary:

U.S. conservatives have successfully recruited a significant number of prominent African religious leaders to a campaign seeking to restrict the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The flagship issue ... is the ordination of LGBT clergy by mainline Protestant denominations-- particularly the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches-- in the United States....

As a direct result of this campaign, homophobia is on the rise in Africa-- from increased incidents of violence to antigay legislation that carries the death penalty....

[O]ne of the main organizations promoting homophobia in both Africa and the United States over the last decade is the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a well-funded neoconservative think tank that opposed the African liberation struggles. In Africa, IRD and other U.S. conservatives present mainline denominations' commitments to human rights as imperialistic attempts to manipulate Africans into accepting homosexuality-- which they characterize as a purely western phenomenon. For IRD, this campaign is part of a long-term, deliberate, and successful strategy to weaken and split U.S. mainline denominations, block their powerful progressive social witness promoting social and economic justice, and promote political and social conservatism in the United States. Using African leaders as a wedge in the U.S. conflicts is only its latest and perhaps most effective tactic.

Additional background is also available from PRA's website. Ekklesia carries an article on PRA's new report.

EEOC Says TSA Failed To Accommodate Rastafarian's Dreadlocks

In a decision last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that the Transportation Security Administration violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it failed to accommodate the need of a Rastafarian baggage screener at Boston's Logan Airport to wear long hair. TSA reprimanded the employee and threatened to exclude him from promotions or dismiss him for violating TSA grooming standards. In Brissot v. Napolitano, (EEOC, Nov. 12, 2009), an Administrative Judge in an interim decision concluded that the TSA failed to make a good faith effort to find ways to permit the employee to continue to wear his long dreadlocks as required by his religious beliefs. An ACLU press release says that a hearing on the amount of damages to be awarded in the case will be held in February 2010.

Cloture Voted On Hamilton's Nomination For 7th Circuit

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted 70-29 to invoke cloture and thus end debate on the nomination of Indiana federal district judge David Hamilton to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (See prior related posting.) As reported by the Christian Science Monitor, opponents raised a number of issues, including Hamilton's short stint after college with ACORN and a decision he wrote invalidating Indiana's informed consent abortion law that would have required two trips to a clinic to obtain an abortion. However, the greatest focus by opponents were Hamilton's two related 2005 decisions holding that the Indiana House of Representatives, in opening its sessions with sectarian prayer, violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior postings 1, 2.)

The most strident criticisms accused Hamilton of "prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah." (Red State blog.) That charge grew out of language in Hamilton's second opinion explaining the scope of the injunction. It specifically banned sectarian prayer, including Christian prayer that uses the name of "Christ." Hamilton emphasized that the only sectarian prayers that seem to have been offered in the Indiana House were Christian ones. Non-sectarian prayer, addressing God more generically, is permitted. Hamilton wrote:

The Arabic word "Allah" is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

The Senate is scheduled to take its final vote on Hamilton's nomination today.

UPDATE: On Thursday the Senate gave final approval to Hamilton's nomination by a vote of 59-39.

Appellate Court Will Consider Procedural Dispute In Ft. Worth Episcopal Diocese Case

As previously reported, the dispute between two groups, both claiming to be the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, led to a lawsuit in the Texas courts. One of the groups is a break away group that affiliated with the more conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The other, seeking an order that it still owns the Diocese property, represents members still loyal to the The Episcopal Church (TEC). The initial issue was framed as a challenge to the right of TEC lawyers to claim to represent the Diocese of Fort Worth. (See prior posting.) After the trial judge refused to grant a motion by the break away group to disqualify the TEC attorneys, the break away group filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the state Court of Appeals-- essentially an appeal of the trial judge's refusal to grant their motion (full text of petition and brief.) In In re Franklin Salazar, (TX Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2009), the Court of Appeals ordered trial court proceeding stayed while the appellate court considers the mandamus petition. A press release by the break away Fort Worth diocese discusses the court's latest move. [Thanks to Virtue Online for the lead.]

Student Sues School After Refusal To Permit Participation In Pro-Life Day

A Bridgeton, New Jersey high school student has sued the school board and high school officials alleging that they censored religious, pro-life speech at school on Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. Yesterday the AP reported on the lawsuit in which the student alleged that school officials refused her request to participate in the nationally-sponsored day. She wanted to hand out leaflets, remain silent except when called on in class, and wear a red armband with the word "LIFE" written on it. The complaint (full text) in C.H. v. Bridgeton Board of Education, (D NJ, filed 11/13/2009), alleges that school officials told the high schooler that her request was denied because nothing religious is permitted at public schools. It claims that the school's policies and practices violate various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments. After the suit was filed, school superintendent Vic Gilson said that the student's request was denied because the armband would violate the school's strict dress code and because a school policy required prior approval of any literature distributed by students or staff.

Former Editor Sues Washington Times For Religious Discrimination

On Tuesday, Richard Miniter, former editorial page editor of the Washington Times filed a complaint with the EEOC charging the Times with religious discrimination against him, as well as discrimination on the basis of disability and age. According to yesterday's Washington Post, Miniter claims that he was essentially "coerced" into attending a Unification Church religious ceremony that ended with a mass wedding conducted by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Miniter, an Episcopalian, says he was made to feel that there was no choice but to attend if he wanted to keep his job. The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church, but is editorially independent of it. The EEOC filing follows a major shake-up of executive personnel at the Times.

British Tribunal Grants Asylum To Afghan Convert To Christianity

In NM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [Word.doc], (Asylum & Immigration Tribunal, Nov. 13, 2009), a British immigration tribunal, in an appeal from a decision by the Home Department, granted asylum to an Afghan national who had come to Britain aboard a hijacked airliner in 2000 and subsequently converted from Islam to Christianity in Britain. The Tribunal concluded that if the appellant returned to Afghanistan and his conversion became known, he would likely face arrest and ultimately punishment before a Sharia court. The Tribunal pointed out that Christianity can only be practiced secretly in Afghanistan, and it is unlikely appellant would be able to make contact with other Christians there without placing himself in great risk. This led to the conclusion that "appellant’s return to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of persecution and would subject him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR." Today's London Daily Mail reports on the decision that it calls a "landmark case."

Supreme Court Orders Yesterday In Two Cases of Interest

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in McComb v. Crehan, (Docket No. 08-1566, Nov. 16, 2009) (Order List.) In the case, the 9th Circuit upheld the action of Clark County, Nevada school officials in cutting off the microphone at high school graduation ceremonies when the class valedictorian departed from her approved speech and began reading from a version that contained religious and Biblical references. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the Court's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Also yesterday in Holy See v. Doe, (Docket No. 09-1, Nov. 16, 2009) (Order List), the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on whether certiorari should be granted. In the case, the 9th Circuit held that the Vatican is not shielded by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from a respondeat superior claim against it by a victim of a priest's sexual abuse. (See prior posting.) SCOTUS Blog discusses the Court's action.