Malaysian Appellate Court Says Status As Muslim Up To Syariah Court

According to Bernama, Malaysia's Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that only the Syariah Court has jurisdiction to determine whether someone is Muslim.  The ruling came in an appeal of a 2005 lower court decision refusing to turn the body of former army commando and famed Mt. Everest climber M. Moorthy over to his Hindu wife for burial. (See prior posting.) The Kuala Lumpur Islamic Affairs Religious Council obtained an ex-parte order from the Syariah Court stating that Moorthy had embraced Islam prior to his death and it buried him in a Muslim cemetery. The Court of Appeal said that Moorthy's widow can apply to the Syariah Court to have the ex parte order set aside.  The widow's attorney said he would file for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

US Soldiers Pressured To Attend Commanding General's Religious Concerts

Talk To Action reported Thursday on a series of Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts at Fort Eustice and Fort Lee, both Army bases in Virginia. Supposedly attendance is voluntary, but soldiers feel pressured to attend. It is reported that in May an NCO put group of soliders at Ft. Eustice on lockdown and required them to do maintenance work for opting out of attendance. Maj. Gen. James E. Chambers began the concert series which was supposed to have performers from different religious traditions. However all the concerts have featured evangelical Christina performers, who also read from the Bible and gave Christian testimony between songs. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is looking into the cost of the concerts that featured nationally known Christian artists. [Thanks to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for the lead via Scott Mange.]

Evangelist Franklin Graham Says President Obama Was Born A Muslim But Has Now Accepted Jesus Christ

In a rather surprising interview (video) with CNN's John King yesterday, a leading Christian evangelist, Franklin Graham, made these comments on President Obama's religious beliefs (excerpts as reported by ABC News):

I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name.

Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said.

Time's Cover Story Asks Whether US Is Islamophobic

The cover of this week's Time magazine features the question: "Is America Islamophobic?" The lead story, abridged online, observes in part:

Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.

Accompanying the lead article is "A Brief History of Intolerance in America" and a video titled "Inside the Park51 Mosque" in which Muslims in Lower Manhattan discuss how Islam is viewed in the U.S.

FLDS Wants Utah High Court To Stay Trustee's Action On UEP Trust

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that members of the FLDS church filed a petition with the Utah Supreme Court yesterday asking it to stay, pending its decision in the matter, all but the most necessary acts regarding the United Effort Plan Trust which is being reformed under trial court supervision. The UEP trust holds almost all the property in the twin FLDS towns of Hilldale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona. At issue is a July 27 order by trial court judge Denise Lindberg that gives acts of the court-appointed fiduciary managing the trust the force of court orders. A trial court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 21 on a final subdivision plat for the land filed by trustee Bruce Wisan that will move land from communal to individual ownership. The FLDS petition to the Utah Supreme Court urges in part: "The fiduciary has made it clear that he intends to force FLDS members to take back in their own names what they have given to the Lord, even though their faith prevents them from doing so and requires that they honor their consecration. This is nothing short of a government-imposed religious test." (See prior related posting.)

Pew Poll Shows More Americans Think Obama Is Muslim

Yesterday the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a new poll on Religion, Politics and the President. The finding making the most headlines (ABC News) is that a growing number of Americans incorrectly believe that President Obama is Muslim. 18% of those responding say Obama is a Muslim (up from 11% in March); 34% say Obama is a Christian; and 43% say they don't know.

The Press Gaggle aboard Air Force One yesterday (full text) included a lengthy exchange between reporters and Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton about this part of the poll. Here is a portion of the exchange:

Q The Pew poll came out today and there’s some numbers on there that are interesting -- one showing that the number of Americans who believe that the President is Muslim has gone up, while the number of Americans who believe the President is Christian has gone down. What do you guys make of that?

MR. BURTON: Well, I think ... for most Americans, ... what they’re focused on is ... important issues like what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, what’s going on in the economy, what are we doing to create jobs -- all these different issues.

And so the President is obviously a -- is Christian. He prays every day. He communicates with his religious advisor every single day. There’s a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis. And his faith is very important to him, but it’s not something that is a topic of conversation every single day.

The poll also covered other aspects of religion and politics. 52% of the respondents said that churches should keep out of politics, while 43% say that houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues. 61% say it is important that members of Congress have strong religious beliefs. Only 46% of White Evangelical Protestants in the poll saw the Republican Party as friendly to religion. Republicans have made gains among all religious groups except for Hispanic Catholics.

City Incurs High Legal Fees Battling Hindu Woman Over Assessment To Remove Tree

WLS-AM 890 reported yesterday that the city of Evanston, Illinois has incurred some $40,000 in legal fees seeking to collect a $635 special assessment against Padma Rao who refused to pay on religious grounds.  The assessment involved an alley paving project, and required the removal of a tree that stood near Rao's condominium.  Rao and her mother say that removal of the tree violates principles of their Hindu religion which bars the needless killing of any living thing and prohibits Hindus from participating or acquiescing in needless killings. Rao has consistently lost in the courts and now may face the condo being auctioned off at a tax sale.

Muslim Disney Employee Files EEOC Complaint Over Wearing Hijab

The Orange County (CA) Register reported on Wednesday that a Muslim employee at a cafe in a Disneyland resort hotel has filed a compliant with the EEOC charging discrimination. Imane Boudlal says she was sent home four times for attempting to wear a hijab in her work as a hostess at Storytellers Cafe in Disney's Grand Californian Hotel.  Disney, which has a strict dress code, says it offered Boudlal a behind-the-scenes job temporarily while an accommodation was worked out, but she refused.  Boudlal says she wrote Disney requesting permission to wear the headscarf, but received no response. So she filed her discrimination complaint and held a press conference to call attention to the issue. Disney says the hotel union with which it is in a contract battle is using this issue to distract attention from the real issues faced by their members.

Court Refuses To Issue Preliminary Injunction Against University's Speaker Rules

In McGlone v. Bell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84578 (MD TN, Aug. 16, 2010), a Tennessee federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by a Christian evangelist challenging Tennessee Technological University's policy on outside speakers' use of campus facilities.  The policy requires application 14-business days in advance by outside speakers or groups that want to use campus facilities to speak or hand out literature. The court held:

The campus use policy is content-neutral, and it specifically permits individuals and groups to express religious messages on campus. ... [It] is not vague and it does not place unbridled discretion in TTU officials to restrict speech. Rather, the policy places explicit limitations on the discretion that may be exercised by those charged with approving or denying applications for registration. The policy specifies nine (9) circumstances under which an application for registration may be denied. These specified circumstances constitute reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and the policy is narrowly tailored to serve the significant governmental interests of TTU in promoting the orderly conduct of activities on campus and preventing the interruption of the university's normal educational mission. The policy also leaves open ample alternative channels of communication....

By ignoring the application requirement entirely, the plaintiff precluded campus officials from considering, in light of the policy's requirements, the plaintiff's desire to speak, to display signs, and to distribute literature on the TTU campus. Thus, the plaintiff has not shown that the campus use policy was applied to him, and he has not suffered any concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent resulting directly from the application of the policy to him.... The plaintiff's failure to show a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent undercuts his facial constitutional challenge as well.

The court also dismissed on qualified immunity grounds claims against University officials in their individual capacities.

New York's Ban On Sunday Service of Process Only Applies If Service Interrupts Person's Sabbath

New York's General Business Law, Sec. 11, prohibits service of process in civil cases on Sundays. However in Carbon Capital Management, LLC v American Express Co., (Sup. Ct. NY Nassau, July 29, 2010), a New York trial court upheld the validity of service on Sunday on the concierge in defendant's apartment builiding. The court said that the section is designed to avoid interrupting a person on that individual's day of rest. The court continued:

Where the process server delivers the summons on Sunday to a person ... in defendant's household, it may be assumed that their Sabbath day has been interrupted to the same extent as that of the defendant. However, where the person ... is the concierge in a multiple dwelling, it is clear that the concierge's Sabbath is not being interrupted.... If defendant did not want to be disturbed with legal matters on Sunday, he had simply to instruct his concierge to hold any summonses or other documents which might be delivered.

... Were this court to construe § 11 as prohibiting service of process on Sunday, regardless of whether the repose or religious liberty of defendant or anyone in his household was effected, the statute might well run afoul of the establishment clause. Finding a service void under such circumstances could be seen as declaring Sunday to be the official day of rest, regardless of whether it was so observed by the defendant. To avoid "constitutional doubts," the court must reject this construction of the statute...

Last Catholic Adoption Agency In Britain Loses Attempt To Operate Without Placements To Same-Sex Couples

Today's London Telegraph reports that the last Catholic adoption agency operating in Britain has lost its attempt to continue to operate while refusing to place children with same-sex couples. Since the Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations came into effect (see prior posting), eleven Catholic adoption agencies have either closed down or severed their ties with the church. Catholic Care was the last hold out and had hoped to obtain an exemption. Britain's Charity Commission, ruling in a case that was on remand after an earlier appeal to the High Court (see prior posting), held that the Catholic agency did not have strong enough reasons to justify the request that it be allowed to limit its services. In its decision (full text) dated July 21, but only published today, the Charity Commission said that it "recognises the valuable work carried out by the charity and regrets that the charity consider that, if it is unable to discriminate, it will have to close its adoption service." Catholic Care says it will now seek to register as an adoption support agency to serve adoptees who are seeking information about their background and also to support parents already approved by the agency. The Charity Commission today also issued a release summarizing its decision.

10th Circuit Says Utah Highway Patrol Cross Memorials Violate Establishment Clause

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, (10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2010), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Utah Highway Patrol Association violated the Establishment Clause when it put up on public land some 13 crosses, each 12 feet high, as memorials to Utah Highway Patrol members who were killed in the line of duty. The court concluded that the Christian crosses,as permanent displays on government land, were government speech, even though the UHPA, a private group, retained ownership of the memorials. The court went on to find that the memorials violated the Lemon test because "the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity."  The court said:

We agree that a reasonable observer would recognize these memorial crosses as symbols of death. However, we do not agree that this nullifies their religious sectarian content because a memorial cross is not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian symbol of death that signifies or memorializes the death of a Christian....

The court also was unpersuaded by the argument that a reasonable observer would not see the crosses as an endorsement of Christianity because a majority of Utahans are Mormons and do not revere the cross as a symbol of their faith. (See prior related posting.) Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor reported on the decision.

Australian Judge Says Witness Cannot Wear Niqab

In a widely followed case in Perth, Australia (see prior posting), a District Court judge has ruled that a female witness may not testify wearing a niqab. However the court will consult with the woman's attorneys about other ways to accommodate her concerns about modesty. The defendant in the case, the former director of the Muslim Ladies College, is charged with stealing public funds by artificially inflating the number of students at his school.  He argued that the jury needs to be able to see the face of the witness, identified only as Tasneem, to assess her credibility. WA Today reports today that after the decision, Tasneem issued a lengthy statement which read in part:

I appreciate my request to wear my niqab in court has stirred much public debate, however, I would emphasise that this was not a demand, I merely asked to dress as I normally would in front of people I do not know.....  Like many Australians I believe in God and for me wearing the niqab serves as a constant reminder that I am accountable for my actions. I respect that other women who share my religion do not share this particular belief and that interpretations surrounding Islamic dress standards do differ. Therefore I understand this can be confusing for non-Muslims as they witness varying degrees of cover and I accept the full cover I choose to wear can be confronting to some.... I regret that this case has ignited the debate as to whether the burqa should be banned in Australia. This would be a step backward for Australia and would only further widen the division between Muslim and non-Muslim Australians.

Maryland Farms Cater To Muslim Immigrants For Slaughter of Goats

Today's Washington Post reports on the booming business-- especially before Ramadan and other feasts-- of farmers in Maryland who sells goats to Muslim immigrants who want to slaughter them in accordance with their own Halal traditions. The federal Meat Inspection Act permits this, so long as the customer buys the animal alive and slaughters it without help from the farmer. Many customers buy a goat and instead of slaughtering it on the farm, take it home for slaughter in their bathtub or garage. However some new modern slaughter houses also cater to Muslims wishing to kill their own animals.

Federal Circuit Says "Church" Satus Under Internal Revenue Code Requires Regular Communal Worship

In Foundation of Human Understanding v. United States, (Fed. Cir., Aug. 16, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Foundation of Human Understanding, while retaining its 501(c)(3) non-profit status, did not qualify as a "church" for purposes of Sec. 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code.  The court held that in order to meet the definition of a church, a religious organization must show that it has a body of believers who assemble regularly for communal worship. Seminars across the country do not satisfy this test. The Foundation's radio and Internet ministry also were not enough to meet the associational test: "The fact that all the listeners simultaneously received the Foundation’s message over the radio or the Internet does not mean that those members associated with each other and worshiped communally." Failure to meet the definition of a church can subject a non-profit organization to the private foundation rules of IRC Sec. 509. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's National Law Journal reported on the decision. [Thanks to Joel Sogol via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Bosnian Parliament To Consider Ban On Niqab

A release from the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) published yesterday in BikyaMasr reports that the Central Parliament in Bosnia is about to consider a bill to ban Muslim women from wearing the full face veil in public.  The proposed law, which would fine women 50 Euros for violations, bans clothing that prevents identification.  The bill was initially put forward by the Bosnian Serb party of Independent Social Democrats in April and had been scheduled for debate in July.  That debate was postponed to Sept. 1 when a veiled female human rights activist attended the July session of Parliament as an observer. Opponents are campaigning against the bill, using the slogan: "Our Niqab, Our Choice, Our Right." IHRC argues that the proposed ban violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Senate Follows House In Adopting Resolution On Religous Minorities In Iraq

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday issued a release applauding the U.S. Senate's Aug. 5 adoption of S. Res. 322, expressing concern about the plight of religious minorities in Iraq. The House of Representatives adopted a similar resolution, H.Res. 944, last February.

Establishment Clause Challenge To Illinois Capital Appropriations Bill Fails

In Sherman v. Quinn, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83313 (CD IL, Aug. 16, 2010), an Illinois federal district court has dismissed both facial and as-applied Establishment Clause challenges to Illinois 2009 capital appropriations bill.  Activist Rob Sherman had sought to enjoin appropriations to 176 groups. (See prior posting). After dismissing some of the claims on 11th Amendment grounds, the court held that plaintiff lacks taxpayer standing to mount a broad facial challenge to the legislature's appropriation of $2.23 billion for the governor to distribute to community-based human services providers. Plaintiff argued merely that the law might be administered unconstitutionally. The court rejected plaintiff's as-applied challenge to 176 specific line items because no funds have yet been expended. Finally the court rejected plaintiff's facial challenge to those line items, finding that they meet the Lemon test for secular purpose and effect and no excessive entanglement. The court concluded: "If, after the money in these provisions has been disbursed, Plaintiff discovers that something potentially unconstitutional is underfoot, he may raise an as-applied challenge to the provisions."

Dearborn, MI High School Football Coaches Accommodate Ramadan

At Dearborn, Michigan's Fordson High School, where 95% of the football team's players are Muslim, coach Walter Zaban has made some unusual changes to the practice schedule to accommodate the Ramadan fasting by his players. The Detroit News reported last week that most of last week's practices began at 11:00 p.m. so coaches and players could eat and drink and complete their meals about an hour before starting their practice. At Dearborn High School, where a smaller percentage of players are Muslim, practices have been rescheduled to run from 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Some of the players say they do not fast on actual game days, and make that up by fasting extra days after the end of Ramadan.

Missouri Federal District Court Strikes Down MO Funeral Picketing Law

In Phelps-Roper v. Koster, (WD MO, Aug. 16, 2010), a Missouri federal district court ruled that Missouri's statutes barring protests near a funeral are unconstitutional. Missouri enacted two versions of the statute-- the narrower version to take effect if the broader version is declared unconstitutional. The court concluded that both versions violated the free speech rights of members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picket funerals of U.S. soldiers carrying signs opposing homosexuality and other conduct the picketers deem sinful. The court rejected the argument that all the signs carried by Westboro members are unprotected "fighting words." AT least some of the messages are entitled to First Amendment protection. The court concluded that the state law is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The outcome in this case was signaled by a 2007 decision of the Eight Circuit in the same case holding that plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction because she had demonstrated a fair chance of succeeding on the merits of her claim. (See prior posting.) AP reports on Monday's decision.