New Australian Prime Minister Says She Will Not Pretend Religious Beliefs For Votes

In Australia last week, the governing Labor Party changed its leaders, naming Julia Gillard as Prime Minister-- the first woman to hold that post. (Huffington Post). Gillard is expected to call elections for as early as August. (news.com.au). The Australian today reports on a refreshing honesty by Gillard in responding to views about her religious beliefs. When asked during a radio interview how she would attract Christian voters and whether she believes in God, she responded:

I'm not a religious person. I was brought up in the Baptist Church but during my adult life I've, you know, found a different path. I'm of course a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they're not my beliefs. I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel. And for people of faith the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine. I think it's not the right thing....

For, you know, people of faith what I would say to them is I grew up in a Christian Church, a Christian background, a Baptist Church, I won prizes for catechism for being able to remember Bible verses. I am steeped in that tradition but I've made decisions in my adult life about my own views.... What I can say to Australians broadly of course is that I believe you can be a person of strong principle and values from a variety of perspectives. And I've outlined mine to you.

Advocacy Groups React To CLS v. Martinez

Many advocacy groups and interested parties have issued statements on yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Here is a sampling:

• ACLU
• Alliance Defense Fund
• American Center for Law & Justice
• American Jewish Committee
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• Baptist Joint Committee
• Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Christian Legal Society
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Hastings College of Law
• Interfaith Alliance
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations

Citizens Link suggests that the decision may have limited impact because few if any other schools have an "all-comers" rule for student groups. Most have a rule that bars discrimination on specified grounds, such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. The majority avoided passing on the constitutionality of this sort of rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education also reviews reactions to the decision.

Report Released on Canadian Zoning Laws and Religious Freedom

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada announced yesterday the release of a report titled Zoned Out: Religious Freedom in the Municipality. The report outlines the protections for religious freedom in Canada and focuses on municipal zoning laws that may violate the religious freedom of congregations seeking to relocate.

Cert. Denied In Abuse Suit Against Vatican

The Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Holy See v. Doe, (Docket No. 90-1). (Order List.) In the case, a Seattle man is attempting to hold the Vatican liable for abuse by a priest in the 1960's. The 9th Circuit held that plaintiff could proceed against the Vatican on a respondeat superior theory under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's tortious act exception. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the Supreme Court's refusal to review which allows the lawsuit to move to trial, AP quoted plaintiff's attorney who hopes now to be able to depose Vatican officials.

Supreme Court Upholds Hastings Law School's All-Comers Policy for Registered Student Organizations

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a 5-4 decision upheld the non-discrimination policy of Hastings College of Law that requires registered student organizations to allow any student to participate. The policy was challenged by the Christian Legal Society which requires members to sign a Statement of Faith and abide by it, so that non-Christians and those who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" are excluded. Registered student organizations get the advantage of being able to meet on school premises, and of communicating with its member through sending e-mails to the student body and through other official forums.

In Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, (Sup. Ct., June 28, 2010), CLS argued that all-comers rule violates its rights to free speech, expressive association and free exercise of religion. The majority ruled only on the "all comers" rule that the parties specified applied in their stipulation of facts. It refused to pass on the question of whether the narrower non-discrimination policy as written that prohibits discrimination only on specified bases, including religion and sexual orientation, is unconstitutional because it targets beliefs based on religion or having to do with particular kinds of sexual behavior.

The majority in an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, held that Hastings' policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to a limited public forum for registered student organizations. She summarized:

The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.

Responding to concerns about a takeover of a group by opponents who wish to sabotage it, Justice Ginsburg wrote that membership or leadership positions can be conditioned on "requirements designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise."

Justices Stevens and Kennedy filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Stevens argued that even as written, the non-discrimination policy is constitutional. Justice Kennedy emphasized the informal learning that is furthered through student interaction by the all-comers policy.

Justice Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissent argued that the Court should focus on the non-discrimination policy as written, since that was the policy originally invoked to deny CLS registration. That policy, the dissent argues, amounts to viewpoint discrimination since only religious groups are required to admit students who do not share their views. Political groups or groups formed around other causes can limit membership. The dissent goes on to argue that even limiting the analysis to the broader all-comers rule, the policy is unconstitutional. It was adopted as a pretext to suppress a particular viewpoint and it is not reasonable in light of the purposes of the student organization policy which is promoting diversity among student organizations.

Pakistan Monitoring Major Websites For Sacrilegious Content

According to Salon, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority under order from the Ministry of Information Technology is monitoring seven major websites for sacrilegious content. The sites being monitored are: Yahoo, Google, MSN, Hotmail, YouTube, Amazon and Bing. It will block links on these sites to offensive content. It is also completely blocking access to 17 other less well-known websites, including islamexposed.blogspot.com. The action was taken in response to an order by a court in the city of Bahawalpur, and follows a court-ordered temporary ban on access to Facebook last month. (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Brian Michael McCall, Consulting the Architect when Problems Arise – The Divine Law, (June 24, 2010).
• Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tort. Cardozo Law Review, UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 10-14 (2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Kyle Persaud, A Permit to Practice Religion for Some But Not for Others: How the Federal Government Violates Religious Freedom When It Grants Eagle Feathers Only to Indian Tribe Members, 36 Ohio Northern University Law Review 115-138 (2010).

Belgian Police Search of Cathedral and Church Offices Condemned

Yesterday, according to Zenit, Pope Benedict XVI in a letter to Belgian Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard condemned the methods used last Thursday by Belgian police in searching the headquarters of the Archdiocese of Malines-Brussels in a sexual abuse investigation. As described by Zenit:

The police arrived at 10:30 Thursday morning to the headquarters of the Archdiocese of Malines-Brussels, where the bishops of Belgium were meeting for their monthly meeting. The authorities detained the bishops at the headquarters for nine hours as they searched the offices and the Cathedral of Malines.

At that time they drilled holes in the two graves of cardinals Jozef Ernest Van Roey and Leon Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, located in the crypt of the cathedral, and then sent cameras down in search of hidden documents.

In addition to the headquarters of the archbishopric of Brussels, the authorities seized some 500 confidential files In Leuven, Belgium, from the office of Peter Adriaensses, president of the commission for the treatment of sexual abuses. The home of former archbishop of Malines-Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, was also searched.

Compromise Lets Israel's High Court Release School Parents From Jail

In Israel, a compromise has led to the release from jail of the fathers of 35 girls enrolled in the Beit Ya'acov school in the town of Emmanuel. As previously reported, Israel's High Court ruled that a group of parents of the Slonim Hasidic sect would be imprisoned for two weeks for contempt if they did not obey the court's previous order to send their girls back to a school where they study together with Sephardi girls. Ultimately only the father's were jailed. According to today's Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, under the compromise all the girls will spend this week's last three days of the school year together hearing lectures about unity. Everyone agrees that this satisfies the Court's order. Then over the summer, the parties will meet to work out a more permanent solution. The Jerusalem Post says that the agreement calls for the right of Ashkenazi Hasidic parents to establish a new school next year. The haredi community calls the compromise a victory by religious forces over the state's secular institutions. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Gunn v. Kentucky Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60530 (WD KY, June 18, 2010), a Kentucky federal district court rejected an inmate's equal protection, free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of his treatment by the prison chaplain. Plaintiff was required to sit in an assigned seat in the chapel because of his security status, and on one occasion was escorted out and not allowed to return to services after they had begun.

In Jackson v. Raemisch, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61130 (WD WI, June 21, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate formerly employed in the prison's food service area where inmates were not permitted to pray. The court held that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief to allow prayer was mooted because he no longer works for food services. Defendants were granted qualified immunity as to plaintiff's claim for damages under the First Amendment. Plaintiff's equal protection claim was dismissed for lack of evidence. However he was permitted to pursue a claim for retaliation.

In Jones v. McFadden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61559 (ED CA, May 27, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that breakfast pastries served to inmates during a lock down contained pork products. The court held that mere negligence in checking the ingredients before serving them to Muslim inmates did not support a free exercise claim. A conscious or intentional act is required.

In Smith v. Marshall, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61323 (CD CA, June 21, 2010), a California federal district court adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61371, May 11, 2010) and dismissed a complaint by a Muslim prisoner that he was denied prayer oil purchased for him by a third party because he had met his limit for receiving packages, and in buying prayer oil himself (which was allowed) he was required to pay use tax.

In Allen v. Weimer, 2010 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 458, (KS Ct. App., June 18, 2010), a Kansas appellate court held that an inmate who was dismissed from his prison job with a private employer could not validly claim violation of his religious rights when he untruthfully represented that he could work 8-hour days, even though he knew his religious call out was during that 8-hour period.

In Johnson v. Delaunay, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62038 (SD NY, June 18, 2010), a New York federal district court upheld a Department of Corrections policy that permits an inmate to participate in a religion's programs only if the individual is registered in the Department of Corrections database as belonging to that religion. It also rejected damage claims on sovereign immunity grounds.

In Cooper v. Evans, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61998 (SD IL, May 28, 2010), an Illinois federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss an inmate's claims that he was denied a lacto-ovo diet required by his Buddhist religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

In Raheem v. Miller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62230 (WD OK, June 23, 2010), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted the recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62148, May 14, 2010) and permitted an inmate to proceed with some of his RLUIPA claims based on denial of a kosher/halal diet. However the court dismissed his claim seeking damages for emotional distress.

In Amaker v. Goord, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62350 (WD NY, June 23, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62349, March 25, 2010) and found that the New York Department of Corrections violated RLUIPA when it allowed Rastafarians to wear dreadlocks, but did not permit them to be worn by members of other religious groups. Prison officials argued that wearing of dreadlocks by plaintiffs who were members of Nation of Islam was not required by their religious faith. The court concluded however that officials may not impose restrictions based on governmental assessments of the validity to a religious denomination of a particular practice.

Religious Limits On Arbitrators Invalidated By British Appellate Court

In Jivraj v. Hashwani, (EWCA, June 22, 2010), Britain's Court of Appeal held that Britain's Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 invalidate a provision in a private commercial arbitration provision requiring that arbitrators are to be drawn from members of a particular religious community. The agreement provided that "All arbitrators shall be respected members of the Ismaili community and holders of high office within the community." The trial court had held that arbitrators were not in an employment relationship and thus were not covered by the non-discrimination regulations. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that so long as the relationship grew out of a contract, it was covered. Lexology reports on the decision.

Britain To Appoint Its First Catholic Woman As Ambassador to the Vatican

London's Sunday Telegraph today reports that Britain's coalition government will reach out to Catholics through a high profile appointment for Britain's next ambassador to the Vatican. The Foreign Secretary has endorsed naming former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who would be the first Roman Catholic woman to hold the position. No Catholic held the ambassadorial position before 2006, when the current British ambassador to the Vatican, Francis Campbell, was appointed. Widdecombe, who is fluent in Latin, is an outspoken defender of the Church's traditional teachings. She converted to Catholicism in 1993 after the Church of England voted to ordain women priests. The nomination must be sent to the Vatican for final approval, and will be announced formally later this summer. The current ambassador will resign after the Pope's visit to Britain in September.

DC Circuit: Researchers Have Standing To Challenge Change In Stem Cell Grant Policy

In Sherley v. Sebelius, (DC Cir., June 25, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, reversing the trial court, held that two doctors who specialize in adult stem cell research have "competitor standing" to challenge the Obama administration's lifting of limitations on NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research. Plaintiffs are injured because they will now find the application process for stem cell research more comeptitive, and will need to invest more time and resources to craft successful grant applications. The court did not pass on the merits of the claim that the new NIH Guidelines are in violation of Congressional limits on the use of Department of Health and Human Services funds to support research that will harm or destroy human embryos. The district court had denied standing to all plaintiffs, including the Christian Medical Association and a Christian adoption agency. (See prior posting.) Reuters reports on the decision. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release on the decision, as did Advocates International.

$1.15M Settlement Reached In Church Zoning Case

Alliance Defense Fund announced Friday that a $1.15 million settlement had been reached in St. Benedict Center v. Town of Richmond, a suit in New Hampshire state court in which a conservative Catholic religious organization brought constitutional and RLUIPA challenges to various zoning rulings restricting its building of a chapel and religious school. (Full text of complaint.) In October, the court granted summary judgment to St Benedict holding that the requirement that a house of worship obtain a special zoning exception is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and that various conditions imposed on St Benedict's site plan violate the "substantial burden" provisions of RLUIPA. However the court held that individual members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal had absolute judicial immunity for their actions, despite allegations that the Planning Board chairman was motivated by his disagreement with St. Benedict's teachings on abortion, homosexual behavior, pornography and divorce. (Full text of decision.) (See prior posting.)

In April, the parties submitted a proposed settlement, but nearby landowners intervened to object to the settlement. The court ordered the town's Board of Selectmen to confer with town zoning bodies on the matter. Now, apparently after such consultation, a settlement has been reached. In addition to payment of damages and attorneys fees, the town has agreed to a separate settlement that makes completion of the Church and school building possible.

Pagan Group Is Suing To Obtain Property Tax Exemption

Today's Greene County (NY) Daily Mail reports on the long-running controversy between a Pagan sect and the town of Catskill over whether an historic inn owned by the sect is entitled to a tax exemption. The Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, a 501(c)(3) religious organization, purchased the former Central House in 2002. It uses it as a convent to house priestesses, as well as hosting public events and providing temporary housing and other services to the needy. The Maetreum was granted a tax exemption in 2006, but it was taken away a year later because of a split in the group. Apparently the town now argues that the property should be classified as an inn or lodge, whie the Maetreum insists that it is a religious retreat center for pagans. The Maetreum filed suit in state court last year to regain its tax exemption, and an initial hearing was held last December. Currently discovery is ongoing.

Concerns of Britain's Office for Judicial Complaints Over Judge's Comments Are Disclosed

Britain's National Secular Society (NSS) reports today that a press release earlier this month by Britain's Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) clearing part-time judge Cheri Booth (wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair) of charges of judicial misconduct omitted concerns that OJC had about her conduct. In sentencing a Muslim man in an assault case, Booth said she was imposing a suspended sentence because he is a religious person. An OJC statement said that Booth's comments did not constitute judicial misconduct and that no disciplinary action is necessary. (See prior posting.) However, a letter to NSS, the group which originally filed the complaint against Booth, said: "The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have expressed some concern about the impact Recorder Booth [sic] comments may have had on the public perception of the judiciary and the sentencing process. All judges must, of course, be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues of equality and diversity so as not to create the impression that some individuals can expect more leniency than others." It also disclosed that Booth would receive "informal advice from a senior judge."

Court Says Hawaii Church's Challenge To Cannabis Laws Is Not Ripe

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61844 (D HI, June 22, 2010), an Hawaii federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a pre-enforcement challenge to federal drug laws by a church that uses cannabis in its religious ceremonies and by its spiritual leader. In the amended complaint involved in the case, plaintiffs allege that the church's 250 members fear criminal prosecution for cultivating, consuming, possessing, and distributing cannabis. However, according to the court, plaintiffs allege neither a concrete plan to violate federal drug laws nor a specific threat of law enforcement against them. The complaint also failed to describe in sufficient detail plaintiffs' use of cannabis, how they acquire it and their future intent. Plaintiffs also sought return or compensation for $7000 worth of cannabis seized from FedEx in transit to plaintiffs. The court concluded that plaintiffs' tort claims for theft and conversion are barred by sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause. However the court left open for further proceedings claims under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act for return of the cannabis or compensation. (See prior related posting.)

Secularists Begin Billboard Campaign Objecting To "Under God" in Pledge

The North Carolina Secular Association this week, in time for Independence Day, launched a billboard ad campaign objecting to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yesterday's Christian Post carries a photo of the billboard that appears throughout the state. It superimposes the phrase "One Nation Indivisible" (leaving out "under God") on an American flag. One of the billboards is on Charlotte's Billy Graham Highway. Similar campaigns have been undertaken in other states. (My Fox Tampa Bay).

New Focus On Elena Kagan's Religious Liberty and Church-State Views

As hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court approach, more focus is now being given to her views on religious liberty and church-state separation. Brookings Institution fellow Melissa Rogers suggests that Kagan may be more sympathetic to free exercise claims than is Justice Stevens whom she is replacing.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee raising concerns about Kagan's "views on the critical relationship between religious liberty claims and civil rights laws" and about "her position on core Establishment Clause values, such as the principle that the government may not fund 'pervasively sectarian' organizations." (Press release, full text of letter).

Several Jewish groups have weighed in on the Kagan nomination. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations wrote to to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that "Kagan has demonstrated a reassuring appreciation for the rights guaranteed by the Free-Exercise clause and a growing respect for a balanced approach to the Establishment Clause which allows for appropriate government support for the work of religious organizations." (Press release, full text of letter). The Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism wrote members of the Judiciary Committee recommending a number of questions that should be asked of Kagan. They cover not just church-state matters, but also issues such as the death penalty, corporate election contributions, abortion, gay marriage, environmental laws and Presidential powers. (Full text of letter). The Rabbinical Alliance of America (representing 850 right wing Orthodox rabbis) issued a strong statement denouncing the Kagan nomination, releasing it through Christian Newswire.

The Secular Coalition for America issued a statement opposing the Kagan nomination "until she makes her support for church-state separation much more clear and emphatic." It also sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with suggested questions for Kagan.

Meanwhile, US News & World Report says that one of the key issues that Republican Judiciary Committee members will raise with Kagan is her praise in 2006 for activist Israeli Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak. In presenting Barak with an award at Harvard Law School, Kagan called him "my judicial hero."

The Judiciary Committee hearings begin on Monday, June 28. The Committee has extensive materials on the nomination posted on its website. The hearings will also be webcast through the Committees website.

Hindu American Leader Writes On Political Candidates From Dharma Faiths

An op-ed by Aseem Shulka, co-founder of the Hindu American Foundation, published Wednesday by the Washington Post, laments the fact that the two best known Indian-American political figures, both with backgrounds in Dharma faiths, emphasize their Christianity. Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, who grew up in a Hindu family, converted to Catholicism while in High School. Nikki Haley, winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary in South Carolina this week, who at one time melded her Sikh heritage with her husband's Methodist faith, has increasingly emphasized her evangelical Christian beliefs. Shulka writes:

Jindal and Haley, as brilliant and dynamic trailblazers, have thrown open the doors to political office, laying waste to minefields of ethnic slurs and perverse allegations that naysayers put in their way. Race is not an impediment to high office, and that is something to celebrate, no doubt. But in their public remonstrations of their parent's faiths, Jindal and Haley tell well over three million Hindu and Sikh Americans that their time has not yet come as people of faith. And in their absolute denial of their religious heritage, they deny something far greater: a society that privileges pluralism, that no one religion has the monopoly on Truth, and that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Pagans, agnostics and atheists may invest differently towards the afterlife, but can live in this life with all of the humanity, generosity and yes, frailty of any of those that presume to lead our states or nation today.