Faith-Based Restriction Prevents Volunteer From Being Hired In Federally Funded Program

A Seattle Times article earlier this week personalizes the controversy over whether faith-based social service agencies may use religious criteria in hiring employees in federally funded programs. World Relief's U.S. activities, under contract with the State Department, resettle refugees from all cultural and religious backgrounds. The organization receives up to 70% of its funding from government sources. Saad Mohammad Ali worked for six months as a volunteer with World Relief in Seattle, Washington, helping resettle Iraqi refugees. However, when Ali, a Muslim who came to the U.S. from Iraq two years ago, applied for a job with Wold Relief as a case worker, he was told that the organization only hires Christians. While the agency's agreements with the State Department prohibit it from proselytizing, it says its hiring policy allows it to preserve its core identity and values. Also, employees say they often pray during staff meetings, and non-Christians might feel uncomfortable with that practice. Ali says he finds the policy to be in conflict with everything he has learned about the U.S.

Texas State Board Rejects Teaching About Establishment Clause

The Texas State Board of Education is meeting this week to debate the social studies standards for Texas schools. (Dallas Morning News.) In a surprise decision yesterday, the Board defeated by a 10-5 party line vote a proposal by Democratic member Mavis Knight that government classes teach about the Establishment Clause. Her proposal called for students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." Republicans on the Board said that Knight's proposal was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Founder's intent and was a half-truth that would play down the importance of religion to the Founders. (Dallas Morning News.) Fox News reports that the final vote on this proposal and others will come in May after they are all posted for public comment.

UPDATE: On Friday, the Texas State Board of Education voted 11-4 to approve a new social studies curriculum which, according to the New York Times, "will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light." Among the numerous changes, Thomas Jefferson was dropped from the list of those who inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Added to the list of those to be mentioned are St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. The curriculum standards will now be published in the state register for 30 days of public comment. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Indiana Valedictorian Sues To Stop Graduation Prayer

The valedictorian at Greenwood High School in suburban Indianapolis, Indiana has sued to enjoin a planned prayer at this year's graduation ceremonies. Because of his class rank, plaintiff Eric Workman will likely be speaking at commencement. The complaint (full text) in Workman v. Greenwood Community School Corporation, (SD IN, filed 3/11/2010), alleges that again this year the school followed its practice of scheduling graduation prayer after conducting a vote by students. A preprinted ballot handed out at a school assembly contained questions on this and other issues. Workman argues that the school has subjected religious practice to majority vote in violation of the First Amendment. Yesterday's Indianapolis Star reported on the lawsuit that was filed on the student's behalf by the ACLU of Indiana.

State Department's 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Released

The U.S. State Department yesterday released its 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, covering conditions in 194 countries around the world. Among the issues of religious freedom highlighted in the report's Introduction are China's tightening controls on independent Muslim religious leaders, sectarian attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia, increasing anti-Semitism in Europe and South America, and discrimination against Muslims in some European countries. Jurist reports on the release.

Divided 9th Circuit Upholds Pledge Against Establishment Clause Challenge

In a 2-1 decision in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, (9th Cir., March 11, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld against an Establishment Clause challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, including its reference to God, and the statutorily authorized practice in the Rio Linda (CA) School District of teachers leading students in the pledge each day. Students are permitted to refrain from participating in the recitation. The majority, in a 60 -page opinion by Judge Bea (joined by Judge Nelson), said:

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase "one Nation under God" does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity

Accordingly, we hold that California’s statute requiring school districts to begin the school day with an "appropriate patriotic exercise" does not violate the Establishment Clause even though it permits teachers to lead students in recitation of the Pledge.

In 2002, the 9th Circuit in another case invalidated on Establishment Clause grounds a different school's pledge-recitation policy. Ultimately that holding was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on standing grounds. In reaction to the 9th Circuit's opinion, Congress reenacted the Pledge with findings detailing secular reasons for it. (P.L. 107-293). The majority pointed to this history to distinguish its earlier holding.

Judge Reinhardt filed a strongly-worded 133-page dissent. He said in part:

[N]o judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one.... Nor could any judge ... seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

It is equally clear that no judge ... could legitimately rely on a 2002 "reaffirmation" to justify the incorporation of the words "under God" into the Pledge ... as if the finite act in 1954 of transforming a purely secular patriotic pledge into a vehicle to promote religion, and to indoctrinate public schoolchildren with a belief in God, had never occurred.... In doing so [in 1954], we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church. The majority does so again today, sadly, by twisting, distorting, and misrepresenting the law, as well as the issues that are before us.

Today’s majority opinion will undoubtedly be celebrated, at least publicly, by almost all political figures, and by many citizens as well, without regard for the constitutional principles it violates and without regard for the judicial precedents it defies and distorts.... [T]o the joy or relief ... of the two members of the majority, this court’s willingness to abandon its constitutional responsibilities will be praised as patriotic and may even burnish the court's reputation among those who believe that it adheres too strictly to the dictates of the Constitution or that it values excessively the mandate of the Bill of Rights.

If a majority of the populace comes to believe in a patriotism that requires the abdication of judicial responsibility, if it comes to accept that we can only honor our nation by ignoring its basic values, if it comes to embrace a practice of bringing together the many by forfeiting the rights of the few, then we clearly will have imposed an untenable burden not only on our nation in general but on the judiciary in particular.... I do not doubt that many Americans feel bound together by their faith in God, but whatever beliefs may be shared by a majority of our citizens, it is respect for the rights of minorities and for the Constitution itself that must bind us all.

CNN reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

9th Circuit Rejects Challenge To "In God We Trust" On Coins and Currency

In Newdow v. Lefevre, (9th Cir., March 11, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the inscription of "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. It relied on a 1970 decision by the 9th Circuit that held the motto is patriotic or ceremonial, not theological or ritualistic. The court also rejected a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court rejected on standing grounds plaintiff Michael Newdow's broader claim that the mere adoption of "In God We Trust" as the national motto was unconstitutional. Judge Reinhardt concurred only in the result.

Lawsuit Challenges Zoning Refusal For Bible Camp

Three brothers who have been refused zoning approval to build a year-round Bible camp and conference center that would serve youths with medical disabilities in the summers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the refusal. The complaint (full text) in Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc. v. Town of Woodboro, Wisconsin, (WD WI, filed 3/10/2010), alleges that the refusal to allow the camp on plaintiffs' Squash Lake property violates RLUIPA, the ADA, and constitutional equal protection and free exercise protections. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the town of Woodboro discriminates against missionary, outreach and evangelical religious exercise carried out by Bible camps. Yesterday's Rhinelander (WI) Daily News reported on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Art Jaros for the lead.]

Cert. Filed In Dispute Over Display of Kindergartener's "Jesus" Poster

On Wednesday, a petition for certiorari (full text) in Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case, the 2nd Circuit dismissed a viewpoint discrimination lawsuit brought by parents who charged that a kindergarten teacher and a principal displayed their son's poster on environmental issues only after folding under a picture of Jesus on the poster so it was not visible. The court concluded that plaintiffs in their action for injunctive and declaratory relief had not shown a likelihood of future censorship or an official policy of regularly violating students' free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Egypt's Sheik Tantawi, Head of Al Azhar, Dies

According to the New York Times, Egypt's chief religious official, Sheik Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, died yesterday during a visit to Saudi Arabia. He was 81. As head of Egypt's most prestigious center of Islamic learning, Al Azhar, Tantawi held sway over government policy on which books and films should be banned. He worked with President Hosni Mubarak's government to enforce moderate interpretations of Islam, and was sometimes criticized for giving religious legitimacy to the government. Last year he banned female students at Al Azhar from wearing full face veils. (See prior posting.) Tantawi strongly condemned the 9-11 attacks and the 2005 London subway attacks. (See prior posting.) Tantawi's willingness to interact with Israelis made him a controversial figure.

Virginia Governor Backs Equal Employment Opportunity for LGBT

Less than a week after Virgina's attorney general told public colleges in the state that they may not ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression (see prior posting), Virgina Governor Robert McDonnell has taken a somewhat different view. He issued Executive Directive 1 (2010) prohibiting employment discrimination by cabinet members or executive branch agencies. It reads in part:

The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, discrimination against enumerated classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited.

The Culpepper (VA) Star Exponent reports on developments. The Directive expands on an earlier equal opportunity memo signed by McDonnell that did not explicitly mention sexual orientation. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Irish Pubs Want Good Friday Exemption For Rugby Viewers

Yesterday's London Mail reports that Ireland's ban on the sale of alcohol on Good Friday is creating significant problems for rugby fans. The much anticipated Munster v. Leinster match is scheduled for Good Friday, and while alcohol can be sold inside the stadium, that does not satisfy those who plan to watch the match in their local pubs. The Vintners Federation of Ireland is seeking a six-hour exemption for all licensed pubs in the Limerick city area. Pub owners believe that they may have to file a lawsuit to get the exemption.

Mandatory Premise Registration Violates Free Exercise Rights of Amish Farmer

In State of Wisconsin v. Miller, (WI Cir. Ct., March 10, 2010), a Wisconsin trial court held that the state's livestock premise registration requirements impose an impermissible burden on the religious beliefs of an Old Order Amish farmer who was cited for failure to comply with the registration provisions. Premise registration violated several Amish beliefs, including requirements they remain isolated from the modern world, that they rely on God not the government, and that they avoid the "Mark of the Beast." Relying on the free exercise protections of the Wisconsin Constitution, the court held that the state failed to establish that its interest in animal health cannot be met by alternative means that are less restrictive of farmer Emanuel Miller's free exercise of religion. The court concluded that alternative voluntary record keeping of the purchase, sale and transfer of animals is actually a more reliable alternative than mandatory premise registration. Tuesday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports on the decision, indicating that the state will probably file an appeal.

Canadian Advocate For Religious Use of Cannabis Profiled

Cannabis Culture yesterday carried a long article about Canadian Chris Bennett who has filed a lawsuit in Canadian federal courts seeking an order to compel the Minister of Justice to issue an exemption from Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for religious use of cannabis. Alternatively the suit seeks a declaration that the ban on possession and production of marijuana is unconstitutional under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sec. 2, religious freedoms; Sec. 7, liberty and security of the person; and Sec. 15, guaranteeing equality and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religious belief).

Church's Misrepresentations Do Not Get Former Employee Unemployment Benefits

In Irvine v. St. John's Lutheran Church of Mound, (MN Ct. App., March 9, 2010), a Minnesota appellate court held that a former business administrator of a church was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits even though the church's employment handbook indicated the church paid unemployment taxes and implied that employees would receive unemployment benefits if they lost their job through no fault of their own. Under Minnesota's statutes, church employees are eligible for unemployment benefits only if the church elects coverage. Here the church did not elect coverage. Incorrect representations to employees regarding coverage are not binding on the state. [Thanks to Chris Duckworth for the lead.]

Religious Land Use Disputes Continue To Arise: Michigan Church, Connecticut Chabad House

Zoning disputes involving religious institutions continue to arise around the country. Here are two recent ones. In Benton Township, Michigan, the Overflow Church wants to move its religious services and community outreach programs into a former Sears store that was donated to the church by the building's owner. Tuesday's Benton Harbor- St. Joseph Herald-Palladium reports on the Planning Commission hearing at which the church asked for a special use permit to allow it to operate in the commercial-zoned area. The owner of nearby Orchard Mall opposes the church's plans, saying the proposed use is not compatible with the mall and adjacent properties. Separately the mall owner is suing the church arguing that a 1978 operating agreement with Sears requires the property to be used for retail purposes.

Meanwhile, in Hartford, Connecticut, a Jewish group, Chabad Chevra, has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that its free exercise, speech, association, equal protection and due process rights and its rights under RLUIPA have been violated by the city's refusal to allow it to use a building it purchased as a Chabad House for religious worship, educational and university student activities and as a residence for its rabbi. The property had previously been used by a Baptist organization, and before that by a Catholic group, for religious purposes. The complaint (full text) in Chabad Chevra LLC v. City of Hartford, Connecticut, (D CT, filed 3/8/2010), charges that the city is burdening plaintiff's religious exercise, favoring nonreligious institutions over religious ones, and in particular is discriminating against proposed university student religious use of the premises. It claims that the city's action is based in large part on "anti-Hasidic animus." Courthouse News reported on the case yesterday. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Faith-Based Advisory Council Report Released

The White House today released the final version of the report of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (See prior related posting.) The report is titled A New Era of Partnerships. It contains recommendations from each of the six task forces. (Note: The draft made available last month by the Washington Post was not the full report, but only the recommendations of the task force on reform of the faith-based office. See prior posting.)

Britain's Supreme Court Denies Christian Marriage Registrar Permission To Appeal

According to Pink News, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on Monday refused permission to appeal the decision in Ladele v. London Borough of Islington. In the case the Court of Appeals of England and Wales agreed with Britain's Employment Appeals Tribunal that a Christian marriage registrar was not subjected to illegal discrimination when she was disciplined and threatened with dismissal for refusing on religious grounds to register same-sex civil partnerships. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court said the case did not raise legal issues of "general public importance." Ladele is now considering whether to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Court Rejects Religious Defense To Marijuana Use

In Georgetown, Colorado, a state court judge has rejected Trevor Douglas' free exercise claims and has found him guilty of possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia, as well as driving an unregistered vehicle. He was assessed a $450 fine and ordered to perform 15 hours of community service. AP reported yesterday that the court found Douglas' beliefs do not rise to the level of a religion. Denver Channel 7 News says that Douglas is a member of the THC (The Hawaii Cannabis) Ministry and the Church of Universal Sacraments. Douglas says: "The religious use of cannabis is mandated by my god, just as wine and bread are used by Christians or peyote used by Indians." He plans to appeal his conviction.

Suit Argues Letter Cursing Police Officer Was Protected Religious Speech

A federal lawsuit filed on Monday claims that Pennsylvania state police and the police department of Media Borough (PA) have a practice of unlawfully prosecuting citizens for protected speech using Pennsylvania’s terroristic threats, harassment, and disorderly conduct statutes. The complaint (full text) in Damato v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (ED PA, file 3/8/2010), contains these interesting allegations:

On October 11, 2008, the Plaintiff received a traffic citation issued by Officer Matthew Bellucci, of the Media Borough Police Department. Thereafter, on October 18, 2008, Officer Bellucci received a letter at his home stating the following: "You will get what's coming to you. God is just, and you will be punished. Fuck you! You are an asshole! A fucking asshole!"

... On or about October 24, 2008 Trooper Gerard B. McShea prepared a sworn Affidavit of Probable Cause causing a criminal summons to be issued against Plaintiff, charging Plaintiff of the crimes of Terroristic Threats, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2706(a)(1) and Harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2709(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2709(a)(6) as a result of mailing the aforementioned letter....

The communication directed to Officer Bellucci was expressing a religious opinion that "You will get what is coming to you. God is just and you will be punished." Such opinion is not a threat, but rather protected religious speech identifying God’s righteousness and willingness to punish.

Plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment, damages and lawyer's fees. Yesterday's Delaware County (PA) Daily Times reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Parochial School Teacher of Secular Subjects Covered By ADA

In EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, (6th Cir., March 9, 2010), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that parochial school teachers who teach primarily secular subjects are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. They are not "ministerial employees" who are excepted from coverage. Only teachers who teach primarily religious subjects or who have a central role in the spiritual or pastoral mission of the church are covered by the ministerial exception. The fact that plaintiff led some religious activities during the day, and that she had the title of commissioned minister do not make her primary duties religious in nature. [Thanks to both Steven H. Sholk and Derek Gaubatz for the lead.]