Suit Charges Car Dealership With Employment Discrimination Against Sikh

A lawsuit filed in a New Jersey state court yesterday alleges that a Little Falls (NJ) Lexus dealership refused to hire plaintiff, a Sikh, because he was not willing to shave his religiously-mandated beard. The refusal came after plaintiff completed a two-day training course for potential sales employees. The complaint (full text) in Kherha v. Tri-County Lexus, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 2/25/2010), alleges that the dealership engaged in religious discrimination and that its refusal to accommodate plaintiff's religious practice violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJSA Sec. 10:5-1 et. seq.). A press release today from the Sikh Coalition announced the filing of the lawsuit.

New Policy on Comments on Religion Clause Blog

Beginning with this morning's posts, I am turning off the Comment function on new postings on Religion Clause. In recent months, comments have largely become a lengthy colloquy between a small number of readers. While their views are robust, it has become an exchange that is so extensive that it calls for those readers to create their own forum for their debate rather than imposing me as an intermediary. I continue to invite readers who find factual errors in any posting, or who are personally involved in any of the matters discussed, to e-mail me about them.

Suit On Religious Use of Cannabis Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16123 (D HI, Feb. 23, 2010), an Hawaii federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a church and its founder can grow, possess and distribute cannabis free from federal drug crime prosecution. Plaintiffs claimed that cannabis is used in their religion. The court found that the complaint does not allege any threat that the church or any of its members will be prosecuted for drug related offenses. The court also cautioned the attorney in the case about advising his client to submit an affidavit admitting to a possible drug crime, saying that the attorney may have a conflict in giving this advice because the declaratory judgment sought would benefit another of his clients.

Malaysian Professor Discusses Controversy Over Christians Using "Allah" For God

The American Muslim on Wednesday published an interview with Prof. Chandra Muzaffar, Malaysia's best known public intellectual, on the controversy over Christians in Malaysia using the term "Allah" for God in their Malay language publications. While saying there is nothing in Islam that prohibits the practice, he urged understanding of the fear by Malays that they are being turned into an economically subordinate community in their native country. He added:

I have been pushing for the setting up of a National Consultative Council for Religious Harmony, as an official body or mechanism to promote dialogue between the different religious communities in Malaysia. Such a council can deal with issues like this ongoing controversy.... Lamentably, the muftis of the different states in Malaysia have consistently opposed the setting up such a council, on the specious grounds that it would mean Islam being treated at par with the other religions although Islam is the religion of the Malaysian Constitution.

Court Says School Can Insist Valedictorian Remove Religious References From Talk

A Montana trial court this week upheld the action of Butte High School officials in refusing to let one of the class' ten valedictorians speak at her 2008 graduation when she refused to remove religious references from her remarks. Yesterday's Billings Gazette reports that officials asked Renee Griffith to replace the words "Christ and his joy" with "my faith" and "from God with a passionate love for him" with the words "derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind." The court concluded that the school board policy barring religious references in graduation speeches is a policy applied even handedly to all students in order to maintain the religious neutrality required by the Establishment Clause. Griffith's attorney plans to appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that Griffith was not going to be speaking on the school's behalf, but wanted to express her own personal beliefs.

White House Official To Meet With Secular Coalition Members

This morning, Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement along with representatives from the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services are scheduled to meet with the Secular Coalition for America. According to McClatchy Newspapers, some 60 individuals from the Coalition's ten member groups will be at the meeting being held at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. The President is not expected to make an appearance. Attendees want to raise three issues with administration officials: child medical neglect, proselytizing in the military and faith-based initiatives.

Court Finds No Meeting of the Minds on "Mahr"

In Obaidi v. Qayoum, (WA App., Feb. 23, 2010), a Washington state appellate court refused to enforce a mahr-- a prenuptial agreement based on Islamic law that provides an immediate and long-term dowry to the wife. When the couple's marriage was dissolved after 13 months, the wife claimed she was entitled to $20,000 under the terms of the mahr. However the court concluded, applying neutral principles of contract law, that the parties had not entered a valid agreement. The court said in part:

A valid contract requires a meeting of the minds on the essential terms.... Mr. Qayoum was not told that he would be required to participate in a ceremony that would include the signing of a mahr until 15 minutes before he signed the mahr. Here Mr. Qayoum was unaware of the terms of the agreement until they were explained to him by an uncle after the mahr had been signed. The negotiations preceding the execution of the agreement were conducted in Farsi. Also, the document was written in Farsi which Mr. Qayoum does not read, write, or speak.... Because Mr. Qayoum could not speak, write, or read Farsi, there was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of the mahr agreement. In addition, the court indicated that the agreement was influenced by duress.

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Finnish Court Imposes Damages on Parents for Son's Circumcision Without Anesthetic

A district court in Helsinki, Finland has imposed damages of 1500 Euros on an Orthodox Jewish couple who had their son ritually circumcised by a British Chabad rabbi who is a recognized mohel in Britain. The damages are payable to their son for pain and suffering. London's Jewish Chronicle reported yesterday on the proceedings brought by the Helsinki prosecutor who wanted the court to rule that only physicians could perform circumcisions. However instead the court found the parents guilty of conspiracy to commit bodily harm because the procedure was performed without use of an anesthetic-- a common practice because of complications with anesthetic creams or injections. The case was instituted after the parents took the child to Helsinki University Hospital because of excessive bleeding. The boy was treated by Dr. Harry Lindahl, a well-known campaigner against circumcision. Despite the victory, the prosecutor is expected to appeal because the court did not prohibit non-physicians from performing circumcisions. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Maryland AG Says Same-Sex Marriages From Other States May Be Recognized

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has issued a 55-page Attorney General's Opinion concluding that same-sex marriages validly entered in other states may be recognized in Maryland. The opinion (94 Op. Att'y. Gen. 3, Feb. 23, 2010) says in part:

While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.

Three Catholic Archbishops of Maryland issued a joint statement (full text) criticizing the ruling. Today's Baltimore Sun reports on developments.

Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures Over Use of Statue In Film

AFP reports that the Catholic archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is suing Columbia Pictures for unauthorized use of its famous Christ the Redeemer statue in the motion picture 2012. The disaster movie shows the famous landmark being destroyed by a giant wave in a worldwide apocalypse. The archdiocese holds the copyright on the famous Paul Landowski statute that overlooks the city until is expires in 2032. Usually the archdiocese grants permission for movie producers to use the statute, but it refused to do so in pre-production negotiations. Columbia Pictures used the statute anyway. Negotiations to settle the lawsuit have been under way since December, a month after the movie was released. The Archdiocese wants Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense.

Murder Trial of Cult Members Under Way In Baltimore

The Baltimore Sun in two articles is reporting on the murder trial of a religious cult leader who convinced another cult member to starve her 16-month old child to death because he was likely possessed by an evil spirit. Two other cult members are also on trial for their parts in the death. The three defendants have refused lawyers and are representing themselves. Toni Sloan (also known as Queen Antoinette), the leader of 1 Mind Ministries, convinced Ria Ramkissoon that her son Javon should be deprived of food when he refused to answer "amen" after a prayer. Ramkisson believed that her own mother and stepfather had offered Javon up to the devil. Ramkissoon is not a defendant in this trial. She has already plead guilty to child abuse resulting in death. She will likely receive a 20-year suspended sentence, inpatient counseling and five years' probation. Her sentencing has been postponed pending her testimony in the current trial that opened on Monday.

Tony Perkins' Invitation To Speak At Military Prayer Luncheon Rescinded Over Stand on Gays

CBN News reported yesterday that the Andrews Air Force Base chaplain's office has withdrawn its previous invitation to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon scheduled at Andrews on Feb. 25. The move came after Perkins spoke out strongly against President Obama's call to end the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. A letter to Perkins said his past statements are "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander in Chief." Perkins, an ordained minister and Marine corps veteran, reacted strongly, saying:

I am very concerned ... that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct. Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions?

Negligent Supervision Claims Against Archdiocese Dismissed on 1st Amendment Grounds

In two decisions handed down on Tuesday, Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and Nicholson v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, (MO Ct. App., Feb. 23, 2010), a Missouri state appellate court held it is bound by Missouri Supreme Court holdings on whether the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars courts from adjudicating the reasonableness of a church's supervision of a cleric. In both cases, the trial court dismissed negligent supervision claims against the Archdiocese growing out of sexual abuse of minors over 50 years ago by a now deceased priest. The court of appeals affirmed, quoting the Missouri Supreme Court's 1997 opinion in Gibson v. Brewer:

adjudicating the reasonableness of a church's supervision of a cleric—what the church 'should know'—requires inquiry into religious doctrine. . . . [T]his would create an excessive entanglement, inhibit religion, and result in the endorsement of one model of supervision.

The court of appeals held that different 1st Amendment interpretations by federal district and appellate courts and courts in other states do not take precedence.

Florida Federal Court Rejects Jurisdiction In Church Homeless Shelter Challenge

In Westgate Tabernacle v. Palm Beach County, (SD FL, Feb. 18, 2010), a Florida federal district court dismissed claims by a West Palm Beach church that its federal and state constitutional rights were violated by Palm Beach County's zoning enforcement efforts against its use of its church building as a homeless shelter. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine precludes a federal district court from reviewing a prior judgment of a state court where the federal issues involved could have been raised in that state proceeding. Here a Florida Court of Appeals had previously rejected a similar challenge to the county's requirement that Westgate Tabernacle apply for a conditional use permit. (See prior posting.) Tuesday's Palm Beach Post reported on the federal court dismissal.

Employee Loses Sabbath Accommodation Claim

In Waltzer v. Triumph Apparel Corp., (SD NY, Feb. 18, 2010), a New York federal district court rejected claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and under the New York City Human Rights Law by a former employee of an apparel manufacturer who wanted to leave work early on Friday afternoons to accommodate her observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Employee Marilyn Waltzer had two residences, a small apartment in New Jersey and a condo in Pennsylvania. She insisted on leaving work on Fridays as early as 1:00 while her employer insisted she work until 3:00 or 4:00. Waltzer's supervisor was unaware that Waltzer was commuting to Pennsylvania instead of New Jersey for the Sabbath. The court concluded that Waltzer had not shown religious discrimination because in months when sundown came early she was offered the opportunity to leave in time to get to her New Jersey apartment, or alternatively to work part time on Fridays. Waltzer concealed that she was commuting to Pennsylvania and instead told her employer she needed the earlier time off to go to the kosher butcher and prepare herself mentally for the Sabbath. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Church Classification for Capitol Hill Townhouse Questioned

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post report on a letter (full text) sent yesterday to the Internal Revenue Service by a group of Ohio mainline Protestant clergy. The signers, members of Clergy VOICE, question the tax-exempt status of the C Street Center which owns a town house on Capitol Hill that provides inexpensive lodging and meals for conservative Christian members of Congress. The letter argues that the C Street Center does not qualify as a church under IRS regulations.

Apparently there is a close relationship between the Center and the Fellowship Foundation that sponsors the National Prayer Breakfast. J. Robert Hunter, a member of the Fellowship, said that "there are religious services all the time" at the C Street Center. He added it is also "a safe place where politicians who are tempted by lust would hold each other accountable." The Center has received notoriety because at least four politicians involved in extra-marital affairs have lived at or used the Center-- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, and Mississippi Representative Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Jr. Last year D.C. tax authorities classified the Center as 66% taxable. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Wall of Separation for the leads.]

Court Upholds Application of Noise Ordinance To Church

In Christian Methodist Episcopal Church v. Rizzo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15246 (D SC, Feb. 18, 2010), a South Carolina federal district court rejected a church's free exercise challenge to the enforcement of a town's noise ordinance against it. Atlantic Beach, South Carolina police ticketed the CME Mission Church for broadcasting its religious services into the surrounding neighborhood by means of a loud speaker system, after complaints by surrounding businesses and residents. The court rejected CME's contention that it was exempt from the noise ordinance and found that police had not acted improperly in entering the church during a service to address the noise violations. CME failed to prove either intent to suppress religious practices or discriminatory enforcement.

Report Urges More US Religious Engagement In Foreign Policy

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs yesterday released a task force report titled Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy. The 32-member task force includes former government officials, religious leaders, heads of international organizations, and scholars. Here is an excerpt from the Foreword to the 109-page report:

Religion has been rapidly increasing as a factor in world affairs, for good and for ill, for the past two decades. Yet the U.S. government still tends to view it primarily through the lens of counterterrorism policy. The success of American diplomacy in the next decade will not simply be measured by government-to-government contacts, but also by its ability to connect with the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world whose identity is defined by religion. Religious communities are central players in the counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, development assistance, the promotion of human rights, stewardship of the environment, and the pursuit of peace in troubled parts of the world, but the United States lacks the capacity and framework to engage them.

The report includes a dissent and response among task force members on whether the Establishment Clause imposes restrictions on the way the U.S. pursues engagement with religious communities abroad.

The report is already controversial. Writing in the Washington Post, author Susan Jacoby says: "I have rarely read a document filled with more destructive premises and recommendations...." US Catholic says that the task force co-chairs and others involved in the report were scheduled to discuss its findings yesterday with Joshua Dubois, director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

European Human Rights Court Says Turkey Violated Rights In Conviction For Clothing

The European Court of Human Rights yesterday held that Turkey violated Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it convicted members of a religious group known as Aczimendi tarikatÿ for the clothing they wore. According to the Court's press release on the decision:

In October 1996 they met in Ankara for a religious ceremony held at the Kocatepe mosque. They toured the streets of the city while wearing the distinctive dress of their group, which evoked that of the leading prophets and was made up of a turban, "salvar" (baggy "harem" trousers), a tunic and a stick. Following various incidents on the same day, they were arrested and placed in police custody.

In the context of proceedings brought against them for breach of the anti-terrorism legislation, they appeared before the State Security Court in January 1997, dressed in accordance with their group's dress code.

Following that hearing, proceedings were brought against them and they were convicted for a breach both of the law on the wearing of headgear and of the rules on the wearing of certain garments, specifically religious garments, in public other than for religious ceremonies.

The full opinion in Affaire Ahmet Arslan v. Turquie, (ECHR, Feb. 23, 2010), is available in French.

Oregon Senate Agrees With House That Teachers Can Wear Religious Garb

According to the Oregonian, yesterday by a vote of 21-9 Oregon's state Senate approved House Bill 3686 repealing an 87-year old ban on teachers wearing religious dress in the classroom. Beginning in the 2011-12 school year, teachers will be allowed to wear head coverings or other clothing in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs. The state House of Representatives has already passed the bill, but it now goes back to the House because of two changes in wording made by the Senate. Opponents of the bill argued that a classroom should be a religiously neutral environment. (OPB News.) The new law (Sec. 659A.033(5)) does not require schools to accommodate religious garb if it "would would constrain the legal obligation of a school district, education service district or public charter school to: (a) Maintain religious neutrality in the school environment; or (b) Refrain from endorsing religion." [Thanks to Steven Green via Religionlaw for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Feb. 23, the House by a vote of 48-7, with 5 not voting, repassed the bill with the Senate amendments in it. It now goes to the governor for his signature. The Oregonian reports on the final vote, and the questions about the bill raised by even some who voted for it. Opponents predicted the bill will lead to numerous lawsuits.