Italian Town Fines Muslim Woman For Wearing Burqa At Post Office

Last Friday, outside the post office in a suburb of the northern Italian town of Novara, police imposed a 500 Euro fine on a 26-year old Muslim woman who, with her husband, was on her way to the local mosque for prayer services. Today's London Times reports that Tunisian-born Amel Marmouri, wearing a burqa, was charged with violating a local ordinance prohibiting clothing that prevents police from immediately identifying the wearer inside a public building, school or hospital. This is the first time the anti-terrorist ordinance, adopted in January, has been enforced. Marmouri's husband said he would respect the ordinance, but would be forced to confine his wife at home because the Qur'an prohibits her face from being seen by other men. However the head of Italy's Islamic Community and Organizations Union said that his organization is against veils of any kind and for freedom of women.

Meanwhile, AP reports that Germany's Interior Minister Thomas De Maziere this week said he sees no need for a ban on the burqa in his country.

Lawsuit Challenges Prayers Referencing Jesus At City Council Meetings

The Contra Costa (CA) Times reports that a lawsuit was filed yesterday in state court in California seeking to enjoin Lancaster (CA) City Council sessions from including any prayer that invokes the name of Jesus. The lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court comes three weeks after Lancaster residents, by a vote of more than 3-1, approved a Nonbinding Measure that calls for City Council to continue its present prayer policy. (See prior posting.) One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Shelley Rubin, chair of the Jewish Defense League.

Parents, Teachers, Students Seek To Bar School Board From Enforcing Consent Decree

Last May, the Santa Rosa County, Florida School Board agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it by the ACLU challenging various religious practices in the school system. Under the consent decree, prayers are not to be delivered at school events; schools are not to sponsor religious baccalaureate services; school events are not to be held at religious venues where reasonable alternatives exist; and school personnel may not promote their personal religious beliefs to students in class or in conjunction with school events. (See prior posting.) In a case currently on appeal, a Christian teachers' organization tried unsuccessfully to intervene to challenge the settlement. (See prior posting.) Now opponents of the settlement have taken a new approach. A large group of parents, teachers, staff, students, former students, and community residents, in a lawsuit filed by Liberty Counsel, seek to enjoin the school board and superintendent from enforcing the settlement.

In Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, Florida, (ND FL, filed 5/4/2010), the 308-paragraph complaint (full text) alleges that enforcement of the consent decree infringes First Amendment protections of speech, association, and free exercise of religion, violates the establishment clause and denies plaintiffs equal protection of the law. The complaint also asserts that the consent decree can no longer be enforced because plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, having graduated from high school, lack standing. They can no longer be injured by any conduct of the defendants. In a press release, Liberty Counsel summarizes the lengthy charges in the complaint as follows:

[P]rotected religious expression, such as voluntary, student-initiated prayers or off-the-clock religious discussion among adults, has been criminalized. Students can no longer say "God Bless," teachers must hide in closets to pray, parents cannot communicate frankly with teachers, volunteers cannot answer any questions regarding religion, Christian groups cannot rent school facilities for private religious functions benefiting students, and pastors are dictated how they can and cannot seat their audiences at private, religious baccalaureate services held inside their own houses of worship.

Initially, Liberty Counsel offered free consultation to the school district, but the school district decided instead to shake hands with the ACLU, pay the ACLU $200,000 in legal fees, and voluntarily enter into the Consent Decree that obliterates religious freedom and makes a mockery of the First Amendment.

Court Says Dependency Finding Did Not Infringe Parents' Free Exercise Rights

In In re Z.S., (OH Ct. App., May 3, 2010), an Ohio appellate court rejected the claim that parents' free exercise rights and their right to control the education of their six children were infringed by a Juvenile Court's determination that the children were neglected and dependent. The children, three of whom are autistic, were placed in temporary custody of the state. Reviewing the evidence, the court said:

Mrs. Siefker's beliefs, known only to her, were constantly changing and often carried the appearance of being pre-textual in order to keep the children confined to her home and under her exclusive control. While she steadfastly professed to believe in the existence of God and Jesus Christ and that the original King James version of the Bible was true, the "tenets" or "rules" of her faith were always in flux, rarely remaining the same from day-to-day. For instance, one day something was not sinful, the next day it was. Thus, it is difficult to determine what is truly held because it could change the next day, the next week, or the next month. Moreover, more than one person ... opined that these beliefs were intertwined with Mrs. Siefker's mental condition, particularly her OCD and anxiety issues. This renders it nearly impossible to discern whether a particular position she has is based on her religious beliefs, her mental condition(s), or a combination of the two. Further, Mr. Siefker seems to follow whatever belief his wife has, rather than forming his own belief system. Thus, determining whether he truly holds these beliefs is also difficult, if not impossible.

Nominal Damages Awarded In "Day of Truth" T-Shirt Case

An Illinois federal district court last week issued yet another decision in the long running litigation against a suburban Chicago school district over its attempt to prevent two Christian students from wearing a T-shirt carrying the slogan "Be Happy, Not Gay" as their participation in "Day of Truth," an event set up to counter the LGBT "Day of Silence" event. In 2008, the 7th Circuit granted a preliminary injunction limited to allowing student Alexander Nuxoll to wear the T-shirt for that year's event. (See prior posting.) Now in Zamecnik v. Indian Prarie School District, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42748 (ND IL, April 29, 2010), an Illinois federal district court awarded nominal damages of $25 to Nuxoll and Heidi Zamecnik, a former student, for violation of their free expression rights. The court concluded that school officials had not shown that plaintiffs' wearing of their T-shirts caused a substantial disruption of the educational process. The court also concluded that Nuxoll is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from preventing displays such as the T-shirt message. However, the court said Nuxoll must submit proposed language for the injunctive order to prevent school rules from being overbroad, and ordered the parties to meet to discuss settling the remaining issues in the case.

Pastors Convicted of Tax Evasion Despite "Love Offering" Defense

In Charlotte, North Carolina yesterday, a federal jury convicted husband and wife co-pastors of the Greater Salem City of God Church on numerous counts of tax evasion and fraud. WCNC News reported yesterday on the convictions of Anthony and Harriet Jinwright, following their 4-week trial for failing to report some $1.8 million in income. In closing arguments, Anthony Jinwright's lawyers argued that the government was punishing Jinwright for following the traditional church practice of accepting gifts of "love offerings." Attorney Ed Hinson told the jurors: "The kingdom of God is not run on generally accepted accounting principles. Thank God. If it were, we'd all be in trouble." Prosecutors said the case did not involve an attack on the Jinwrights' religious practices.

Title VII Religious Institution Exemption Not Applicable To Harassment Claim

In Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherines, Inc., (D MD, April 30, 2010), a Maryland federal district court held that the exclusion in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that permits religious institutions to use religious criteria in their hiring does not prevent a suit under Title VII for religious harassment or for retaliation stemming from opposition to the harassment. In the court's language:

[W]hile 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a) may give religious institutions carte blanche in considering religion in deciding whom to employ, promote, or terminate, it does not follow that it gives them free rein to harass an individual once hired, even on religious grounds.

The lawsuit was filed by a nursing assistant who was a member of the Church of the Brethren and who was employed at a Catholic nursing center. She alleges that her Director created a hostile work environment by repeated complaints about her religiously-motivated long skirts and head covering.

Challenge To Town Council Invocations Moves To Britain

The challenge to prayers prior to city council meetings, quite common in the U.S., has now made its way to Britain. Today's London Daily Mail reports that the National Secular Society (NSS) is filing a test suit against the Bideford Town Council, in North Devon. The suit claims that opening town council sessions with Christian prayer violates Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights that protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A Daily Mail survey of 181 large town councils in England and Wales shows that 118 start their sessions with prayer-- almost all with Christian prayer. However the nature and formality of the invocations vary widely. The City of London opens its session with merely a 3-word Latin invocation--Domine Dirige Nos - meaning 'Lord guide us'. Commenting on the new lawsuit, the executive director of NSS suggested that if Bideford Town Council members want to pray, they should do so in another room before the council meeting begins. Some religious groups characterize the lawsuit as an attack on Britain's Christian heritage by "aggressive atheists."

9th Circuit Says RLUIPA Does Not Cover Court House Holding Cell

In Khatib v. County of Orange, (9th Cir., May 3, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that a court house holding cell is not covered by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. A majority, therefore, upheld the dismissal of a RLUIPA lawsuit filed by a Muslim woman who, on two occasions in a single day when the court was dealing with her probation violation, was required to remove her hijab (headscarf) for security reasons. Examining the legislative history of RLUIPA, the majority concluded that the court's holding area is neither "a jail, prison or other correctional facility," nor a pre-trial detention facility. Judge Kozinski dissented, beginning his 8-page opinion as follows:

Freud is reported to have said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And a facility used for holding prisoners prior to trial is a pretrial detention facility. [RLUIPA] ... covers ... pretrial detention facilities. Souhair Khatib was held in a facility where prisoners are routinely detained awaiting trial and other court appearances. She was therefore held in a facility covered by RLUIPA and is entitled to its protections. This pretty much sums up the case for me. Everything below is unnecessary and you could easily skip it.

Yesterday's San Francisco Appeal reports on the decision.

French Court Orders Facebook To Remove Page That Is Insulting To Bishop

Last week, BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law Reporter [subscription required] reported on a decision by a French court ordering Facebook to take down a page that the court found violated the privacy of a French bishop. It was also ordered to ensure that the page was not reposted. Facebook apparently failed to appear in the case, and had no attorney present at the hearing. In Hervé G. v. Facebook France, (TGI Paris, April 13, 2010) [full text in French from BNA, subscription required], the Paris First Instance Court also ordered Facebook France to identify the authors of the page and pay 2000 Euros in damages to Catholic Bishop Herve Giraud of Soissons. The offending page, titled "Courir nu dans une église en poursuivant l'évêque" (Running naked in a church after the bishop), was said by the court to incite hate and violence against Catholics. It included references to pedophilia. Facebook France says that the page is the responsibility of the U.S.-based Facebook.com.

Cert. Denied In Boy Scouts Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Boy Scouts of America v. Barnes-Wallace, (Docket No. 08-1222, May 3, 2010). (Order List). The long -running case challenged the constitutionality of San Diego's leasing of city property at nominal rents to the Boy Scouts. (See prior posting.) The challenge turned on the scout's exclusion of atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals as members or volunteers and its requirement that members affirm a belief in God. Challengers claimed the Scouts are a religious organization. (See prior posting.) Presumably the Court's long delay in deciding whether to grant review of the 9th Circuit decision stemmed from the fact that the decision in Salazar v. Buono, a case also involving an Establishment Clause challenge to governmental leasing of property to a private organization, might have resolved the issue here. (See prior posting.) However ultimately the recent fragmented disposition in Salazar (see prior posting) gave little guidance on the question posed by the lease to the Boy Scouts. AP reports on the denial of cert.

Mennonite Service Agency Added To List of Conscientious Objector Alternatives

Last month, the Selective Service System added one additional alternative for conscientious objectors if the draft should ever be reinstated. According to the Army's website, on April 20 the Selective Service System signed the first new Alternative Service Employer Network agreement in 25 years. It added Mennonite Voluntary Service, an agency of the Mennonite Church USA, to the list of civilian alternative service choices for CO's. [Thanks to God and Country blog for the lead.]

Defrocked Orthodox Priest Did Not Show Malice In Allegedly False Statements

In Kondratick v Orthodox Church in America, (Nassau Co. Sup. Ct., April 14, 2010), a New York trial court refused to grant summary judgment to a former high-ranking priest in the Orthodox Church in America who, after an investigation by the Church's Spiritual Court, was removed from the priesthood because of his alleged role in a church financial scandal. Plaintiff alleged a Church spokesman Rev. Andrew Jarmus defamed him when Jarmus was apparently misquoted by the press as saying that plaintiff was "solely responsible" for the financial scandal involving millions of dollars. Plaintiff claims that Jarmus was guilty of malicious conduct because he never issued a clarification or retraction of statements attributed to him. The court held that plaintiff had not made an adequate prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment.

British Street Preacher Charged Under Public Order Act For Anti-Gay Statement

The London Telegraph reported yesterday on the arrest of a Baptist street preacher by British police in Workington, Cumbria for violating Britain's Public Order Act. According to Preacher Dale McAlpine, after he told a passing shopper that homosexuality violated the word of God he was approached by a police community support officer who introduced himself as the LGBT liaison officer for the Cumbria police. McAlpine told him: "It's still a sin." McAlpine then began a 20 minute sermon condemning drunkenness and adultery, during which three regular police officers arrested him. He was later charged under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Public Order Act that outlaw use of language which the person intends, or is aware may be, abusive or insulting. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Recent Articles and Film of Interest

From SSRN:

• Daphne Barak-Erez, Law and Religion Under the Status Quo Model: Between Past Compromises and Constant Change, (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 2495-2507, 2009).
• R. Randall Kelso, Modern Moral Reasoning and Emerging Trends in Constitutional and Other Rights Decisionmaking Around the World, (April 1, 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• M. Mohsin Alam, Constructing Secularism: Separating 'Religion' and 'State' Under the Indian Constitution, [Abstract], 11 Australian Journal of Asian Law 29-55 (2009).
• Mark A. Levine, The Modern Crusade: An Investigation of the International Conflict Between Church and State, 40 California Western International Law Journal 33-54 (2009).

Recent Films:

• Reed Cowin, 8: The Mormon Proposition, reviewed in the Washington Post.

Court Enjoins Planned Student Prayer At High School Graduation

On Friday, an Indiana federal district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the planned student-led prayer at suburban Indianapolis' Greenwood High School's upcoming graduation. The school conducts a student ballot at an assembly in which students vote on whether to have a fellow student deliver a non-denominational prayer at graduation. This year's valedictorian sued challenging the practice. (See prior posting.) In Workman v. Greenwood Community School Corp., (SD IN, April 30, 2010), the court said in part:

Under the circumstances of this case, were a prayer to be permitted at the upcoming Greenwood graduation ceremony, it likely would be perceived "as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration."... The offering of prayer at a high school graduation does not, by itself, violate the Establishment Clause. If, however, "the 'degree of school involvement makes it clear that the [graduation] prayers bear ‘the imprint of the state,' then a constitutional violation has occurred." ... The policy in place at Greenwood purposefully encourages the delivery of a majority-sanctioned prayer at a "regularly scheduled, school-sponsored function conducted on school property." ... That policy therefore violates the Constitution as an establishment of religion.

Reporting on the decision, yesterday's Indianapolis Star quotes school officials who say they will not appeal the decision and will not hold votes or attempt to hold graduation prayers in future years.

Kenyan Churches Will Oppose New Draft Constitution

In Kenya, churches have decided to spearhead a campaign against approval of the country's new draft constitution which will be the subject of a referendum in the near future. Jurist reports that the draft (full text) was approved by Kenya's Parliament on April 1. Two issues have been at the center of the debate. One is the provision for Muslim Kadhis Courts (Secs. 169-170). The second is the provision on abortions (Sec. 26) which provides: "Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law."

The Standard reported last week that the Episcopal Council of the Catholic Church of Kenya, the National Council of Churches of Kenya and the Anglican Church of Kenya have all decided to oppose adoption of the Constitution, despite the popularity of the draft in the country. Angencia Angola Press reports that some Kenyan churches (but apparently not the Anglican Church (Sunday Nation))will use tithes and Sunday offerings to fund the "vote no" campaign. However some Anglican bishops support the constitution. Today's Sunday Nation editorially criticizes the U.S.-based American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian group, which reportedly will fund a campaign to defeat the constitution.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Smith v. Goord, (2d Cir., April 27, 2010), the 2nd Circuit remanded with instructions that plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint that prison staff members violated his free exercise rights when they failed to provide him with an alternative method of tuberculosis testing consistent with his religious beliefs instead of placing him in confinement.

In United States v. Lafley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41445 (D MT, April 28, 2010), a Montana federal district court refused to modify defendant's conditions of supervised release to permit him to possess marijuana for religious or medical purposes.

In Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41522 (ED CA, April 27, 2010), Wiccan prisoners challenged a California regulations that provided full time prison chaplains for five specified faiths, but only part-time or volunteer chaplains for others. A California federal magistrate judge

In Jotunbane v. Sedillo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41360 (D NM, April 20, 2010), a New Mexico federal district court held that RLUIPA does not authorize prisoner claims of any sort against state officials in their personal capacities nor does it authorize claims for monetary damages (as opposed to other kinds of relief) against individuals in their official capacities.

In Robinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42154 (ED NY, March 24, 2010), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that a Jewish prisoner be permitted to proceed with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when a corrections officer burst into prison Jewish High Holy Day services, told participants they were over, had members of the congregation handcuffed, and took plaintiff who was leading the services into the elevator and physically assaulted him. An excessive force claim was dismissed because of improper defendants being named.

In Flett v. Vail, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40725 (ED WA, April 26, 2010), a Washington federal court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40749, Feb. 24, 2010) allowing a Native American inmate to move ahead with his RLUIPA complaint challenging a regulation that denied him access to an eagle bone whistle used in certain religious ceremonies.

In Gjevukaj v. Lowe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40781 (MD PA, April 26, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claim that he was denied Halal-compliant meals. It upheld the policy of removing inmates from the Common Fare diet when they consumed commissary items that did not comply with their religious requirements.

In Lagervall v. Garringer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40730 (ED WA, April 26, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40733, April 9, 2010) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's RLUIPA claim that his rights were infringed when a kufi mailed to him from a supplier was rejected because he had not paid for it from his personal funds.

In Hoeft v. Allen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40054 (WD WI, April 23, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected free exercise and RLUIPA claims by a former inmate whose drawing of a swastika was confiscated from his cell.

Army Hospital Emblem Challenged Because of Religious Content

AP reported Thursday that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has protested to the Army over the religious symbol and motto on the emblem of Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado. The central feature of the emblem is a cross with a pointed base, said to be an emblem of mercy and a symbol from the Middle Ages when pilgrims carried this type of cross to mark a campsite. The emblem also carries the Latin motto "Pro deo et humanitate," which means "For God and humanity." MMRF head Mikey Weinstein says: "This continues to add more fodder to the argument that we are Crusaders. It's exactly what fundamentalist Muslims want." The Army will review the MMRF complaint.

Meanwhile, God and Country blog carries an extensive response to the MMRF complaint, picturing numerous other Army emblems that carry imagery from a wide variety of religious traditions.

President Issues 2010 National Day of Prayer Proclamation

Despite the questions of legality raised by a recent federal district court opinion (see prior posting), yesterday President Obama issued a Proclamation, (full text) designating May 6 as this year's National Day of Prayer. The Proclamation reads in part:

Prayer has been a sustaining way for many Americans of diverse faiths to express their most cherished beliefs, and thus we have long deemed it fitting and proper to publicly recognize the importance of prayer on this day across the Nation....

I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.