Court Upholds Rights of Evangelists To Leaflet At Catholic Parish Festival

Teesdale v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, March 17, 2010), is a suit by Garfield Ridge Baptist Church and five of its members who were prevented by police acting as security guards from handing out religious tracts, and from using a megaphone, at a Festival being held (with a city permit) by a Catholic parish on parish grounds and surrounding streets. The court held that it was a violation of plaintiff's clearly established rights to prevent them from leafleting, and that a question of fact remained as to whether preventing them from using a megaphone was reasonable. The court also refused to dismiss the false arrest claim by one of the plaintiffs who was arrested for trespassing. The court however did dismiss plaintiffs equal protection claims and their claims under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Preventing them from distributing literature on one afternoon at one place did not constitute a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Finally the court held that plaintiffs can proceed against the city itself only for equitable relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys issued a press release on the decision.

House Committee Holds Hearing On Outreach To Muslim Communities To Foil Terrorism

On March 17, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security held hearings on Working with Communities to Disrupt Terror Plots. The full text of statements of the Chair and of six witnesses, as well as a video recording of the hearing, is available on the Committee's website. Witnesses focused largely on how to create relationships with American Muslim communities.

Appeal Filed By Intervenors Challenging Consent Decree On Religion In Schools

The Pensacola (FL) News-Journal reports that an appeal has been filed with the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Minor Doe I v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, Florida. In the case, a federal district court in February rejected an attempt by the Christian Educators Association International, representing teachers, to intervene to seek a modification of a consent decree under which the Santa Rosa County school board was enjoined from various activities that promoted religion in school classrooms and at school events. (See prior posting.)

New Head of al-Azhar Appointed In Egypt

Trade Arabia reports that on Friday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak appointed Sheikh
Ahmed El-Tayeb as the head of al-Azhar to succeed Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi who died on March 10. (See prior posting.) Al-Azhar is Egypt's most prestigious institution of Islamic learning, and one of the preeminent centers of Sunni learning in the world. Sheikh El-Tayeb has been head of al-Azhar University since 2003. In a 2004 interview he stressed the importance of teaching about the diversity of the Islamic heritage and of opening channels of communication with European countries. El-Tayeb's new position places him as the leader of the entire al-Azhar, which includes educational institutions throughout Egypt.

Pope Sends Pastoral Letter To Irish Catholics Addressing Clergy Sexual Abuse

Vatican Radio reports that Pope Benedict XVI today sent a Pastor Letter to all Catholics in Ireland apologizing for the sexual abuse of young people by Catholic clergy, and for the way in which the matter was handled by local clergy and religious superiors. Last May, a special government commission released a lengthy report on abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland from 1936 to the present. (See prior posting.) The Pope's letter (full text) charged Irish bishops with "grave errors of judgment" and "failures of leadership." According to BBC News, groups representing victims of abuse have a mixed reaction to the Pope's letter, with some believing that Irish Cardinal Sean Brady should resign because of his reported role in the cover up of abuse charges. Others, however, pointing to the passage in the letter instructing bishops and religious superiors to "cooperate with civil authorities in their area of competence," say this means the Pope believes that those guilty of sexual abuse should face criminal prosecution.

Court Rejects Street Preachers' Challenge To Permit Ordinance

In Bethel v. City of Montgomery, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24949 (MD AL, March 2, 2010), two street preachers challenged the requirement imposed by Montgomery, Alabama that they obtain a permit before preaching on public streets. A federal magistrate judge rejected their facial challenge to the ordinance, concluding it is a neutral time, place and manner restriction that is permissible under the First Amendment. The magistrate judge also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection and Fourth Amendment claims, recommending that the complaint be dismissed.

Suit Over School Rules That Banned Pro-Life T-Shirt Is Settled

Alliance Defense Fund on Wednesday announced the settlement of a lawsuit challenging the policies of a Pennsylvania school district under which a middle school student was told to remove a pro-life T-shirt which carried the message: "Abortion is not Healthcare." (See prior posting.) The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in E.B. v. West Shore School District, (MD PA, filed 3/17/2010), says that the school district has revised it policy on school expression to eliminate a provision that allowed officials to ban expression that seeks to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination or viewpoint. The school district also revised its dress and grooming policy to eliminate a a ban on clothing that creates a hostile educational environment or displays discriminatory bias or animus.

Council Considering Policy on Proclamations for Religious Holidays

In North Miami Beach, Florida, city council's multicultural committee submitted recommendations Tuesday for a council policy on issuing proclamations recognizing religious holidays. Yesterday's Miami Herald reports that under the proposal, council would issue an official proclamation for only one holiday for each religion. The report generated some controversy however because it provides that proclamations should be issued fairly, for holidays of "all legal recognized religions." Committee chairman, Thomas Pinder, says this means no proclamations should be issued for religions considered to be cults or known to practice illegal acts as part of their ceremonies or worship. The report calls for a subcommittee to identify the various religions practiced by North Miami Beach residents, and for it to specify the one main holiday that should be recognized by the council for each of the religions.

Belgian Court Suspends Ban On Islamic Headscarves

Yesterday, Belgium's Council of State suspended a ban on Islamic headscarves that had been imposed on Muslim school girls in the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders. Earth Times reports that the Flanders regional educational council imposed the ban last year after teachers complained that some parents were forcing their daughters to wear the headscarves against their will. In ruling on a challenge to the order, the Council of State said it is not clear whether the educational council had the authority to issue the ban. The Council of State referred to the Constitutional Court the question of whether action by the Flemish Parliament was required before the ban could be imposed.

EEOC Gets Consent Decree In Suit Charging Anti-Semitic Harassment

On Wednesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the filing of a consent decree in a lawsuit against Administaff, a company that provides human resource services for small and medium size businesses. The company will pay $115,000 in damages to settle allegations that two brothers employed by the company were subjected to harsh anti-Semitic harassment by managers and co-workers. For example, one of the brothers was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers in an activity they called "throw the Jew in the dumpster." (See prior posting.) The consent decree also enjoins Administaff from engaging in religious harassment or retaliation. The company will revise its policies, post non-discrimination notices, and train its managers on anti-discrimination laws. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

Episcopal Church Wins Title To Property of Break-Away Connectiuct Parish

A Connecticut trial court ruled this week that the real and personal property of Bishop Seabury Episcopal Church in Groton, Connecticut, belongs to the Diocese of Connecticut and the Episcopal Church. Episcopal Life reports on the March 15 decision. In 2007, the congregation's former rector and some parish members broke away from the Episcopal Church and affiliated with the more conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

Quebec Presses Government-Funded Day Cares To Be Secular

Wednesday's Canadian Jewish News reports on the confusion in the province of Quebec over a new ban on teaching of religion at publicly funded day cares for young children. Pressed by Parti Québécois, Quebec Families Minister Tony Tomassi's issued a statement on March 10 requiring day cares to be secular. He said that 20 day cares in Quebec were known to be including improper religious content. This was followed up by a unanimous National Assembly motion confirming Tomassi's announcement. However, two days later, in a meeting with Jewish community representatives, Tomassi said that so far as he could tell, Jewish day cares are in compliance with the requirement. Tomassi has not made clear whether day cares are merely prohibited from instilling religious beliefs, or whether they are also banned from holding holiday celebrations or having religious symbols in the classroom. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Catholic Bishops, Nuns Split Over Health Care Bill

Groups within the Catholic Church in the United States have taken sharply opposing views on pending health care legislation. Yesterday's Boston Globe called the split between U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and leaders of the major Catholic women's religious orders "a rare public disagreement that will reverberate among the nation's 70 million Catholics." In a statement issued Monday, the Bishops said:

The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions – all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs.

Further, the Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions.... Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

A letter supporting the bill from the heads of women's religious orders representing 59,000 nuns was sent yesterday to all members of Congress. It says in part:

The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.

As the bishops's statement indicates, the Catholic Health Association, representing Catholic hospitals and health care systems, has also urged passage of the current bill in a letter sent to members of the House of Representatives last week.

UPDATE: Taking issue with the letter from the heads of numerous women's religious orders, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious issued a statement on Thursday backing the Bishops' opposition to the pending health care bill. [Thanks to Aaron Cole for the lead.]

Britiain Moves To Strengthen Voice of Faith-Based Groups In Government

In Britain, Communities Secretary John Denham yesterday announced a series of steps to help faith groups have their voices heard by government. The Department of Communities and Local Government has set up a £1 million Faith Leadership in Government Fund. National faith-based organizations are invited to bid for grants to strengthen their capacity to engage and challenge government. A £50,000 Innovation in Faith-Based Social Action Prize has been created to call attention to innovative faith-based projects. Finally the Department has released a 3-page paper countering some of the common myths about faith-based funding. The British Humanist Association released a statement criticizing these developments, arguing that "faith groups already enjoy a privileged voice in the ear of government." [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Senate Defeats Attempt To Reauthorize D.C. School Voucher Program

Yesterday, by a vote of 42-55, the U.S. Senate defeated an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration bill that would have reauthorized the District of Columbia's Opportunity Scholarship program. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. (Congressional Record debate.) Last March, in the budget bill, Congress provided that the Opportunity Scholarship school voucher program would end after the 2009-10 school year, unless reauthorized. (See prior posting.) More than half the students receiving scholarships use their vouchers at religious-- mostly Roman Catholic-- schools. In a press release applauding the Senate vote, American United executive director, Rev. Barry Lynn, said: "Not only has the program failed to boost achievement among its targeted population, it also has forced taxpayers to support religious schools against their will."

Priest's Salary Claim Dismissed As Requiring Interpretation of Canon Law

In Tarasi v. Jugis, (NC Ct. App., March 16, 2010), a North Carolina appellate court dismissed a claim by a Catholic priest that his Bishop violated the state's Wage and Hour Act by refusing to assign him to a congregation or pay him a salary, despite a direction from the Vatican to do so. The instructions from the Vatican called for the Bishop to provide the priest "with an adequate means of livelihood and the appropriate necessities as envisioned in canons 281 § 1 and 384 of the Code of Canon Law, and that which is established by Diocesan Particular law regarding the sustenance of clergy." The court held that the First Amendment precludes it from taking jurisdiction. Determining the amount of compensation to which plaintiff is entitled would require the court to interpret canon law.

Jewish Groups Want Title VI Interpreted To Cover Anti-Semitic Harassment of Students

Thirteen national Jewish organizations yesterday wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan urging the Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to interpret Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment. (Full text of letter.) Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by educational institutions that receive federal funds. However, Title VI does not mention religious discrimination.

In 2004, OCR said Title VI covers discrimination against Jewish students even if they are Caucasian and American born. This is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in the 1987 case of Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb that held Jews could make a racial discrimination claim under a 19th century federal law. Subsequently OCR backed away from that interpretation, contending that it could investigate harassment motivated by a student's perceived Jewish ethnic origin, but not harassment because of a student's Jewish religious beliefs or practices. (See prior posting.) By July 2009, OCR had gone even further and apparently now takes the position that Title VI does not cover any kind of anti-Semitic harassment. In yesterday's letter, the Jewish groups wrote:

We urge you to review OCR's change in policy for enforcing Title VI. To Jewish students, the narrowed policy means that that they must endure a hostile educational environment because the law, while protecting other ethnic and racial groups, offers them no protection—even when intimidation or harassment is directed at them based on ethnic, as opposed to religious, identity. The government's message to campus perpetrators of anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination is that they may continue to do what they are doing, because colleges and universities have no legal obligation to respond to their hateful conduct....

The letter also focused on the issue of when anti-Semitic harassment disguised as anti-Israel expression loses First Amendment protection:

[C]onduct that threatens, harasses or intimidates particular Jewish students to the point that their ability to participate in and benefit from their college experience is impaired should not be deemed unactionable simply because that conduct is couched as "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist." ... [H]arassment or intimidation that holds Jewish students responsible for the acts of other Jews, or of Israel, is better understood as ethnic or "national origin" discrimination than as religious discrimination.

An ADL press release announced the letter. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

British Court Orders Commission To Consider Exemption For Catholic Adoption Agency

In Britain, Catholic Care, a Catholic adoption agency operating in South Yorkshire has won an appeal of a Charity Commission's refusal to grant it an exemption from the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Yesterday's Yorkshire Post reports that a High Court judge sitting in London has ordered the Charity Commission to review its determination. Catholic Care offers specialized adoption services, and is the last of the Catholic adoption agencies in Britain to continue the fight against regulations that would require them to allow adoptions by same-sex couples. Catholic agencies elsewhere in Britain have either stopped offering adoption services or have cut their ties with the Catholic Church in order to continue in business. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Free Exercise Claims of Muslim Parents Against Police Officials Dismissed

In Syed v. Hamady, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23353 (ND IN, March 12, 2010), and Indiana federal district court dismissed claims by a Muslim couple against a police officer and a sheriff who they claimed violated their rights to free exercise of religion, free expression and freedom of assembly. The court also rejected defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims. The free exercise claim grew out of a statement made at a school board meeting by the police officer and others objecting to the fact that plaintiffs' children were given time to pray at school, while non-Muslim children were not. Other claims revolved around publicity of the fact that a van which picked up plaintiffs' children from school on one occasion had license plates that were on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

9th Circuit Defines Ministerial Exception For Employment Cases

In Alcazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, (9th Cir., March 16, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed under the "ministerial exception" doctrine claims by two Catholic seminarians who alleged violations of Washington state's Minimum Wage Law. The two claimed that they were not paid required overtime wages while they served in a placement program as part of their preparation for the priesthood. The Court held that the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment compel a ministerial exception from neutral statutes that interfere with the church-clergy employment relationship. It also announced a test for determining whether an individual is a minister for purpose of the doctrine:

if a person (1) is employed by a religious institution, (2) was chosen for the position based "largely on religious criteria," and (3) performs some religious duties and responsibilities, that person is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception.

[Thanks to Mark Scarberry via Religionlaw for the lead.]