Anti-Semitic Handbills Attack Jewish Legislators Who Support Gun Control

Today's Baltimore Sun reports on anti-Semitic handbills available on the website of the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Three of the 39 handbills available from the website attack Jewish legislators-- state and federal-- for their support of firearms regulation. One attacks Maryland state Senator Brian Frosh and Marlyland state Assembly Delegate Samuel Rosenberg, proclaiming "Bagel Brain Jews Want Your Bullets and Your Guns." This flyer has been mailed by someone to homes in Frosh's district. A second flyer aimed at Maryland state Senator Michael Lenett is headlined "A Jew Should Not Support Racism!" and refers readers to a video titled "No Guns for Negroes." A third flyer portrays U.S. Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and Lautenberg in Nazi uniforms. The executive director of JPFO is Aaron Zelman of Hartford, Wisconsin, who says he is Jewish.

EEOC Sues Company On Behalf of Fired Mennonite Baptist Employee

The EEOC announced on Thursday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the Pollard Agency, an Alabama-based security company. The company fired Marian Lawson who had been assigned to a client in Monticello, Ga. Pollard refused to accommodate her request that she be permitted to cover her hair with a scarf in accordance with her Mennonite Baptist beliefs.

Argentine Court Invalidates Marriage of Same-Sex Couple

According to a CNA report this week, a federal judge in Argentina has nullified the same-sex marriage of two men that was performed at Buenos Aires' Civil Registry earlier this month. The court ruled that the marriage was invalid "because of the absence of the institution's structural elements." The court ordered the men to return their marriage license and ruled that any legal effects derived from the marriage ceremony are suspended. The marriage was originally performed after a City Court judge ordered the Civil Registry to provide the couple with a date for their ceremony. (Buenos Aires Herald.)

Court Says Non-Custodial Parent May Share Religion With Child

In D.R.S. v. L.E.K., (LA App., March 10, 2010), a Louisiana state appellate court held that a parent holding court-awarded custody of a child generally may not shield the child from exposure to the non-custodial parent's religious beliefs. The court said:

Though the custodial or domiciliary parent may raise the child in a legitimate religion of his/her own choosing, that parent may not force that religion or religious affiliation upon the noncustodial parent or preclude the noncustodial parent from pursuing his/her own religious affiliation and sharing same with the child provided doing so does not negatively affect the best interests of the child. There is no statutory nor jurisprudential authority to support the trial court's ruling that the custodial or domiciliary parent has the sole authority to mandate "what belief system is presented to the child in . . . any home in which the child visits or resides."

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill Rejecting Cooperation With Feds On Intimidation Investigations

The Oklahoma state Senate earlier this week passed by a vote of 39-6 Senate Bill 1965 [Word doc.] which is designed to prevent Oklahoma law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal agencies that attempt to prosecute individuals under 18 USC Sec. 245 when the state has investigated the crime but has not prosecuted, or has not obtained a conviction under state's intimidation and harassment law. Sec. 245 outlaws intimidation of a person engaged in federally protected activities because of race, religion or national origin. Both a press release from Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell and an article Friday in The Edge says that the bill is designed to prevent cooperation with federal prosecutions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. However that law is codified as 18 USC 249. The provisions passed by the state Senate and sent on the the House on March 10 provide:

law enforcement agencies shall deny access to law enforcement records to any federal agency when such request is made relating to a case handled and completed by a law enforcement agency of this state and the purpose is to attempt to investigate or prosecute the individual or individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 245, except for records of any individuals convicted pursuant to Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and for those records listed in subsection A of this section....

[State law enforcement officials] shall keep their litigation files and investigatory reports confidential upon request of any federal agency when such request is made for the purpose of an attempt to investigate or prosecute an individual or individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 245, except for those records of any individuals convicted pursuant to Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

EEOC Says New York City Discriminated Against Arabic Language School Principal

According to today's New York Times, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has concluded that New York City's Department of Education (DOE) discriminated against the founding principal of a controversial Arabic-language public school when it fired her. The EEOC concluded that DOE discriminated on the basis of race, religion and national origin when it forced Debbie Almontaser, a Muslim of Yemeni descent, to resign as principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. According to the EEOC's letter urging DOE to reach a just resolution of Almontaser's claims, opponents of the dual-language school succeeded in falsely painting Almontaser as a jihadist, instead of as the moderate Muslim that she was. Misleading characterization of remarks by Almontaser in a New York Post article triggered anti-Muslim bias that led to the Department of Education's action. (See prior related posting.) DOE says it did not discriminate against Almontaser, will not reinstate her and will defend against any litigation she brings.

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.]