Key Christian Conservative Defeated In Texas Board of Education Primary

The Christian Post and the Baptist Standard report that in Tuesday's Texas Republican Party primary, State Board of Education member Don McLeroy lost to challenger Thomas Ratliff by fewer than 900 votes. The ousted McLeroy was an outspoken Christian conservative who has doubts about the theory of evolution. He has supported added emphasis in social studies courses on the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States. In a debate about evolution, he supported a proposal that science teachers encourage students to address the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Different language was ultimately adopted. (See prior related posting.) According to the AP, winner Ratliff is considered a moderate. The 15-member board currently has 7 social conservatives who sometimes win on issues by picking up one or two other swing votes. Meanwhile conservative member Ken Mercer won his primary race. In the race for the seat of retiring conservative Cynthia Dunbar, conservative candidate Brian Russell will be in an April runoff with educator Marsha Farney. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Public Housing Authority Says No More On-Site Church Services

According to yesterday's Dallas News, the Dallas (TX) Housing Authority has ordered a halt to Sunday morning worship services in one of the public housing complexes it administers. For the past 14 years, Lake Highlands United Methodist Church has brought Sunday services to elderly residents of Audelia Manor. Now, however, MaryAnn Russ, Dallas Housing Authority CEO, says the worship services violate the DHA's contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as church-state separation principles. She says that worship services amount to agency endorsement of religion. New Housing Authority agreements with religious social service groups prohibit them from holding worship services in public housing units. However a HUD spokesman in Washington says that the Fair Housing Act does not prohibit religious activity in common areas of public housing as long the activity does not result in unequal treatment of residents.

UPDATE: The Dallas News reports that on Thursday, the Dallas Housing Authority reversed its decision. Religious services at Audelia Manor will resume on Sunday.

Bristish Airport Refuses Boarding To Muslim Women Who Rejected Body Scan

At Britain's Manchester Airport, two Muslim women have become the first passengers to be banned from boarding their flight because they refused to undergo a full body scan using an expensive new X-ray system. According to yesterday's London Express, one of the women objected on religious grounds and the other on medical grounds. The women, who had been randomly selected for scanning, had tickets to fly to Islamabad, Pakistan. An airport spokesman said: "These ladies were not in traditional Muslim dress and while they were not happy about being refused permission to fly there was no anger. They accepted the decision and did not complain." The privacy group Big Brother Watch offered to represent the women if they want to challenge the airport's actions in court.

Suit Challenges State Civil Rights Agency Jurisdiction Over Small Religiously-Motivated Group

A press release yesterday from the Thomas More Society announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court challenging the authority of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) over the Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society (FACES), a group of nine families who home-school their children. FACES was created to provide social occasions at which home-schooled children can interact in a religious context with one another. Problems arose when one mother whose daughter suffered from a serious food allergy insisted that her child have a special diet at a FACES banquet. FACES leaders believed that a home-prepared meal would be better, and refused the mother's request. The mother then filed a civil rights charge claiming that the refusal to accommodate her daughter amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability. The new lawsuit charges that the ICRC's assertion of jurisdiction over this kind of small voluntary association formed for religious purposes violates members' rights to freely associate in exercising and expressing their religious beliefs, protected by the Indiana and U.S. constitutions.

Cert. Denied In Establishment Challenge To Religious Displays In Postal Unit

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sincerely Yours, Inc. v. Cooper, (Docket No. 09-608, 3/1/2010). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that religious displays by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church in the Contract Postal Unit it operates along side its ministry and outreach efforts in a store front facility in Manchester, Connecticut violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) AP yesterday reported on the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case.

Evangelical Group Wins Compromise In Settlement of Suit Over Tax Exemption

Kenneth Copeland Ministries on Monday announced the settlement of a lawsuit it had filed against Tarrant County (TX) Appraisal District challenging the denial of a tax exemption (see prior posting) for a $3.6 million jet owned by the evangelical religious group. BNA Daily Report for Executives (3/3/2010) [subscription required] gives further details. At issue was the county's requirement that the application for an exemption include the names, positions and salaries of all the organization's employees-- some 600 in total. KCM, which separately had been resisting Congressional demands for more financial information, refused to furnish the data arguing that it was protecting the privacy rights of its employees and the more general privacy rights of churches. In its view, only the Internal Revenue Service has authority to obtain this type of information from non-profits.

In the settlement in Eagle Mountain International Church Inc. v. Tarrant Appraisal District, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. 342-235701-09, agreed judgment entered 2/16/10, the county agreed to have KCM's employment records reviewed by a CPA who specializes in religious organizations. The county accepted as sufficient a report from the CPA that KCM's employee compesation was reasonable, without the underlying data going to the government.

European Court Grand Chamber Will Review Its Decision Banning Crucifixes In Italian Classrooms

The European Court of Human Rights announced yesterday that its 17-judge Grand Chamber will review a controversial decision handed down in November by a 7-judge panel in Lautsi v. Italy. The panel decision held that crucifixes in public school classrooms in Italy violate the European Convention on Human Rights' protections of thought, conscience and religion and the right of parents to educate their children according to their convictions. (See prior posting.) Business Week reported on the Court's decision to review the case.

High School Teacher Suspended Over Banning Wiccan Altar In Shop Class

A high school industrial arts teacher in Guthrie Center, Iowa has ben placed on paid leave pending the school's consultation with its attorney in an unusual dispute regarding student religious expression in class assignments. Yesterday's Des Moines Register reports that teacher Dale Halferty told a student that he could not build a Wiccan altar in shop class. While he could build a table that he could later use as part of an altar, Halferty told the student that he needed to keep all religious materials at home. However the student kept returning with a book on witchcraft. Halferty says he does not want any religious symbols in the shop, and previously told another student he could not build a cross in class. Almost 70 students have signed a petition saying they do not want witchcraft practiced in school. Halferty agreed, saying: "It scares me. I'm a Christian. This witchcraft stuff - it's terrible for our kids. It takes kids away from what they know, and leads them to a dark and violent life. We spend millions of tax dollars trying to save kids from that." Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, says that students have the right to express their religious viewpoints within the context of a class assignment.

D.C. Catholic Charities Ends New Spousal Benefits To Avoid Recognizing Same-Sex Partners

Following up on their pledge to be in compliance with D.C. same-sex marriage law that takes effect today, Catholic Charities of Washington has stopped offering benefits to spouses of new employees. This avoids charges that the organization is illegally discriminating on the basis of marital status were it to refuse to recognize same-sex partners. CNS and Beliefnet report that the change will not affect employees whose spouses are currently covered. A letter to Catholic Charities employees from its CEO said: "We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith." While Catholic Charities CEO Edward J. Orzechowski says that the new D.C. statute requires that same-sex couples receive the same spousal benefits as heterosexual couples, in fact that requirement seems to stem from the anti-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Law that prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status.

Chief Justice Refuses To Stay Effectiveness of D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Law

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has refused to grant a stay to prevent the District of Columbia’s Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act from taking effect today. In an in chambers opinion in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, (Sup. Ct., March 2, 2010), the Chief Justice said that it has been the practice of the Court to defer to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern. Congress has chosen not to override the D.C. statute, and petitioners can raise many of the same arguments in their pending litigation attempting to get an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law that permits same-sex marriage. AP reports on the decision, saying that while couples may apply for licenses beginning today, there is a 3-day waiting period before they get the licenses and can actually be married. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Plaintiffs Have Standing To Challenge Day of Prayer, But Not Prayer Proclamations

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, (WD WI, March 2, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court ruled on the standing of Freedom from Religion Foundation and some of its members in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer statute (36 USC 119) and the issuance of prayer proclamations by the President. (See prior posting.) In addition to the President, Shirley Dobson, chairperson of the National Day of Prayer Task Force was also named as a defendant. The court held:

Although the answer is not free from doubt, I conclude that, under the unique circumstances of this case, plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer statute. The primary injury plaintiffs allege is the feeling of unwelcomeness and exclusion they experience as nonreligious persons because of what they view as a message from the government that it favors Americans who pray. That injury is intangible, but it is no less concrete than the injuries in the many cases in which courts have recognized the standing of persons subjected to unwelcome religious speech. The only difference between those cases and this one is that plaintiffs have not come into physical or visual contact with a religious display. However, that difference has little significance in a case like this one involving a national message intended to reach all Americans.

... With respect to plaintiffs' challenge to "prayer proclamations" issued by the President (other than one required by § 119), none of the plaintiffs has read or heard such a proclamation except when they expressly sought one out. Such a self-inflicted "injury" cannot establish standing. With respect to defendant Dobson, plaintiffs have failed completely to show that any of her actions has injured them.

Alliance Defense Fund issued a release on the decision.

Tennessee School District Settles Suit Challenging Religious Practices In Schools

The Cheatham County (TN) Board of Education voted Monday night to approve a settlement in a lawsuit alleging a pattern of religious activities in the county schools. (See prior posting.) The settlement order (full text) in Doe v. Cheatham County Board of Education, (MD TN, filed 11/16/2009), was announced in a press release by the ACLU of Tennessee that filed the lawsuit. Under the agreement, among other things school officials will not participate in or permit non-student third parties to offer prayers in conjunction with school events; will prevent non-student third parties (including the Gideons) from distributing Bibles during instructional time or at school events; will make a good faith effort not to hold school events at religious venues; will not knowingly let teachers promote personal religious beliefs to students during class or at school events; teachers will not cite sacred text as authority for historical or scientific fact to students in classes, or display religious symbols in class unless there is a pedagogical reason for doing so; and school teachers will not put religious beliefs or references to a deity on their school web pages.

British Sikhs Challenge 2011 Census Form

Britain's Sikh Federation is considering filing a lawsuit against the UK government's Office of National Statistics over the form it plans to use for the 2011 census. According to yesterday's Sikh Times, the government intends to list Sikhs as a choice in the voluntary portion of the form that asks about religious affiliation. The Sikh group insists that Sikh should also be a choice in the compulsory portion of the form that asks about ethnicity. They say that otherwise this will continue the under count of Sikhs that occurred ten years ago, reducing the amount of government services to which they are entitled.

Church Zoning Decision Remanded for Further Findings

In Arnold v. Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Board of Adjustment, (KY Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2010), a Kentucky appellate court in a second appeal in a church zoning case sent back for additional proceedings a county zoning authority's decision to grant Versailles United Methodist Church a conditional use permit for construction of a church building, school building, gymnasium and parking lot. The court held that again the County Board of Adjustment had not made adequate findings to justify its conclusions. It also directed the Board to make appropriate findings under RLUIPA instead of the conclusory statements that appeared in its original decision.

Ohio Supreme Court Will Decide If Church Can Sponsor Charter School

The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to review a case in which a church claims that a decision of the Ohio Department of Education denying its application to sponsor a charter school ("community school") violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Ohio (Art. 1, Sec. 2) constitutions and as well as the free exercise clause of the Ohio Constitution (Art. 1, Sc. 7). The denial was based on Ohio Rev. Code 3314.015(B)(3) that requires a sponsor to be an "education-oriented institution." According to yesterday's Columbus Dispatch, Brookwood Presbyterian Church in Columbus runs an educational program for 64 children with autism. It currently operates under the umbrella of another approved charter school, but that school is now threatened with closure. An Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed the church's challenge on the ground that the Department of Education's decision to deny a community school application is unappealable. Brookwood Presbyterian Church v. Ohio Department of Education, (OH Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009). The full text of all the pleadings, briefs and court orders filed in the case in the Ohio Supreme Court are available online. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Teacher Wins Right To Display Classroom Banners With Religious References

In Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, (SD CA, Feb. 25, 2010), a California federal district court held that high school teacher Bradley Johnson's rights were violated when school officials told him to take down two 7-foot wide banners he had placed on his classroom wall. One displayed quotes such as "God Bless America" and "In God We Trust." The other quoted from the Declaration of Independence, with the term "Creator" in the quote in all capital letters. The school permits teachers to create their own displays in their classrooms, so long as the displays are not disruptive. Other teachers had posted items such as a Tibetan prayer flag, posters of Mahatma Gandhi, the Dali Lama and Malcolm X, as well as posters with views on a wide variety of other issues. Johnson's posters had hung in his classroom without objection for 20 years.

The court concluded that the school had created a limited public forum for teachers to express their views on their classroom walls, and that officials had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in squelching Johnson's speech. Establishment Clause concerns were unjustified since, according to the court, there is no realistic danger that an observer would think the school district was endorsing a particular religion. Moreover, the court concluded that by permitting Buddhist, Hindu, and anti-religious speech by some teachers while silencing the Judeo-Christian speech of Johnson, the school violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the "no preference" clause of the California Constitution. The court ordered school officials to immediately permit Johnson to redisplay the two banners at issue, and also awarded Johnson nominal damages. AP yesterday reported on the decision, and the Thomas More Law Center that represented Johnson issued a release on the decision, including photos of the disputed banners. (See prior related posting.)

Settlement Reached In Texas Prayer Garden Challenge

The San Antonio (TX) Express News reported yesterday that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit attempting to prevent The Coming King Foundation from placing a 77-foot tall cross in their Kerrville, Texas subdivision. The cross is part of a 23-acre prayer garden., and will overlook Interstate 10. Neighbors say that subdivision deeds limit lots to residential use, but the Foundation argued that the deed restrictions are invalid because the 12-lot subdivision plot was not approved by county commissioners. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, the garden will be constructed, but a privacy wall will be put up. Also access and parking from a subdivision street will be limited, and defendants will pay $25,000 toward plaintiff's legal fees.

Cert. Denied In Property Dispute Involving Break Away Episcopal Parish

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in St. Luke's of the Mountains v. Episcopal Church, (Docket No. 09-708, March 1, 2010). (Order List.) In the case below, decided by a California appellate court under the name Huber v. Jackson, the court applied the "neutral principles" of law doctrine, concluding that the Episcopal Church and its Diocese of Los Angeles are the owners of the property of St. Luke's parish in La Crescenta, California. The congregants of St. Luke's voted in 2006 to break away from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the more conservative Anglican Church of Uganda. (See prior posting.) The California Supreme Court refused review in the case (2009 Cal. LEXIS 9850, Sept. 17, 2009). The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles issued a statement yesterday thanking the Supreme Court for its clarity in refusing review. Episcopal News Service reports on the Supreme Court's refusal to review the state appellate court's ruling. [Thanks to John W. Chilton for the lead.]

Private Rabbinic Court In Israel Is At Center of a Controversy

Last week Haaretz carried a long article about the little known group of private rabbinic courts in Israel known as Badatz, an acronym for Court of Justice or Righteous Court. The article focuses on the court branch located in Bnei Brak, a city east of Tel Aviv in which strictly observant Orthodox Jews (Haredi) and important Haredi rabbis live. Unlike the government-run rabbinical courts that deal only with family and personal status matters, Badatz deals with a wide variety of civil disputes. The parties must agree to submit their disputes to Badatz, but the rabbinic court can place pressure on members of the Haredi community who do not do so by issuing a "writ of refusal" which essentially calls for others to ostracise the individual who will not submit to the court's jurisdiction. Badatz has come into the news because of a lawsuit filed in the civil court system against several of the rabbinic judges (dayanim) on Badatz. [This paragraph has been corrected thans to an e-mail from Jack Levey.] As reported by Haaretz:

Rabbi Zvi Bialostosky, a building contractor, his son Chaim and the son's partner, Eliezer Friedman, were involved in a lengthy dispute with people who bought an apartment from them in Bnei Brak. The case was heard by Badatz Bnei Brak, until at a certain point Bialostosky and the other plaintiffs sued the dayanim in Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court.... Late last year, the contractors filed no fewer than 11 requests for various legal proceedings against the religious judges, in the process crossing a Haredi red line by taking their case to the state secular court system and, worse, suing dayanim. The result was an offensive of unprecedented ferocity by the Haredi leadership against two private individuals.

A letter signed by ... spiritual leaders of the Haredi world asserts that Bialostosky and Friedman "lifted a hand against God and His Torah" and are liable to cause "the destruction of the religion."

The contractors requested and were granted a restraining order against threats and harassment, after complaining to the civil court that the Badatz rulings constituted "harassment" and "libel." The dayanim retorted that such allegations were groundless and added that Bialostosky is "a quarrelsome individual who is involved in numberless disputes and litigations."

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Oklahoma 10 Commandments Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Haskell County Board of Commissioners v. Green, (Docket No. 09-531, March 1, 2010). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a display of a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of the county courthouse in Stigler, Oklahoma, violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Court's refusal to grant review. [Thanks to both Bob Ritter and Scott Mange for the lead.]