Hispanic Congregation Sues Illinois City In Zoning Dispute

According to a Christian News Wire press release, a Hispanic congregation has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Burbank, Illinois in a dispute over its attempt to use a historic, but now-deteriorating, former restaurant building as a church. Rios de Agua Viva alleges statutory as well as 1st and 14th Amendment violations, claiming that the city is maliciously attempting to change the zoning code to undercut the church's contractual arrangement to occupy the former Old Barn Restaurant. The church contends that the city is violating RLUIPA by requiring it to apply for a special use permit, but not imposing similar requirements on non-religious assembly uses.

Atlanta Suburb Challenged On Use of Mega-Church for Graduation Ceremonies

An Atlanta (GA) suburb-- Cherokee County-- is facing objections from Americans United for Separation of Church and State to the county school district's practice of holding its graduation ceremonies in a local mega-church. The First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Georgia seats 5,000 people and charges the school board only $2,000 for use of the building. According to today's Atlanta Journal Constitution, a comparable secular venue would cost up to $40,000 to rent. Using the school's own gym would limit the number of people who could attend. On Thursday, the Cherokee School Board voted to table a motion on the graduation site so that the three new incoming school board members can take part in the decision. Americans United says that it plans to make similar requests of other metro Atlanta school boards.

Record Clergy Abuse Award Includes Liability On Parish

The New York Times reports that last Wednesday a jury in Delaware decided on the largest compensatory damage award yet in a clergy sexual abuse case-- $30 million to a man who was abused more than 100 times by a Catholic priest.  Also, unlike most other clergy abuse cases, the jury decided that a portion of the damages-- $3 million-- is to be paid by St. Elizabeth parish in Wilmington where the abuse occurred in the 1960's.  In most cases, damages are awarded against the diocese or religious order, not the parish. However the Wilmington Catholic Diocese has filed for bankruptcy (see prior posting) and therefore there is a stay on all litigation against it. On Monday the jury will hear testimony on punitive damages. [Thanks to Pew Sitter for the lead.]

White House Hosts Kosher Hanukkah Reception; National Menorah Lit On Ellipse

Last night President Obama and the First Lady hosted a Hanukkah party in the East Room of the White House. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that some 500 people attended, including Rabbi Capers C. Funnye, Jr. who is Michelle Obama's cousin. Among others attending were the three Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justices-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. In remarks (full text; video of remarks) the President said:

[A]s we prepare to light another candle on the menorah, let us remember the sacrifices that others have made so that we may all be free. Let us pray for the members of our military who guard that freedom every day, and who may be spending this holiday far away from home. Let us also think of those for whom these candles represent not just a triumph of the past, but also hope for the future -- the men, women and children of all faiths who still suffer under tyranny and oppression.

The White House program also included a tribute to Jewish-American composers by the U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra.  The menu for the evening-- reported in elaborate detail by the White House-- included this information about the strict level of kosher supervision involved: "All meats are Glatt Kosher--Chassidishe Shechitah. All baked goods are Pas Yisroel. All wines are Mevushal. All foods have been prepared Lemihadrin with a Mashgiach Temidi."

On Wednesday evening, the National Menorah was lit on the Ellipse near the White House in a ceremony that included performances by violinist Itzhak Perlman and the U.S. Navy Band.  WTOP News reported that participants braved a cold wind as the first candle was lit with help from Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew, the highest ranking Jewish member of the President's cabinet. The National Christmas Tree will join the Menorah on the Ellipse on Dec. 9.

Summary Judgment Denied In Refusal To Hire Creationist As Observatory Director

In Gaskell v. University of Kentucky, (ED KY, Nov. 23, 2010), a Kentucky federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side in a Title VII employment discrimination case brought by an astronomer who applied, but was rejected, for a position at the University of Kentucky as director of the University's new astronomical observatory.  Martin Gaskell, who was highly qualified for the position, was not hired after the search committee discovered links on Gaskell's personal website to lecture notes reflecting his creationist views. His personal website was linked to his University web page. Gaskell claims the University violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by using religion as a motivating factor in refusing to hire him. The University of Kentucky argues, on the other hand, that it did not consider his religion, but only his public comments about evolution which could impair his ability to serve effectively as Observatory Director. For example, one faculty member was concerned that hiring Gaskell for a position involving public outreach could create unwanted publicity particularly since the University is only 70 miles away from a controversial creationism museum. The case is covered by BNA Daily Labor Report (subscription required). [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Utah Supreme Court Hears Arguments On FLDS Bishops Intervention In UEP Reformation Proceedings

The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in In re: United Effort Plan Trust.  The appeal involves the attempt by two bishops of the FLDS Church to intervene in proceedings in which a state trial court is reforming the terms of a trust that holds land of FLDS members. The trial court refused to permit intervention, saying that potential beneficiaries of charitable trusts have no right to make claims on the trusts. (See prior posting.) AP reports that the bishops' case is complicated by the fact that two weeks ago the trial court allowed the Corporation of the President-- the legal entity that constitutes the FLDS Church-- limited status to present its views in the case.  However the bishops argue that only they are charged with tending to the temporal needs of FLDS members.

8th Circuit: Religion Did Not Influence Trial Judge's Sentencing of Evangelist

In United States v. Hoffman, (8th Cir., Dec. 2, 2010), the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and 175 year sentence imposed on evangelist Tony Alamo for Mann Act violations. (See prior posting.) The court rejected Alamo's argument that his sentence was improperly influenced by religious factors.  In sentencing Alamo, the trial judge said: "Mr. Alamo, one day you will face a higher and greater judge than me. May he have mercy on your soul."  The Court of Appeals concluded, however: "Nothing suggests that the district court's personal view of religion in any way influenced an aspect of Hoffman's sentence."  It said that because religion pervaded the entire trial of the evangelist on charges of taking underage girls across state lines for the purpose of sex, "it is ... not surprising that religion might have been mentioned at sentencing." The Washington Post yesterday reported on the decision.

Kyrgyz City Will Monitor Muslim Clerics

In Kyrgyzstan, the city council in Osh has set up a new commission made up of religious leaders and law enforcement officials to monitor Islamic clerics in the city.  Central Asia Newswire yesterday quoted a source who said: "The decision has been prompted by clerics' frequent and not always positive interference in social and political developments, including the June tragic riots and failed terrorist attacks." Friday prayers will be permitted only at a few mosques in the city.

Supporters of Prop 8 Seek Recusal of 9th Circuit Judge

As the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moves to hear arguments next week in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, supporters of Prop 8 have filed papers seeking to have one of the judges on the appellate panel disqualify himself.  AP reports that in a filing with the court, appellants say that Judge Stephen Reinhardt's impartiality is open to question. The judge's wife, Ramona Ripston, is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8.  Also the ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of plaintiffs who are challenging the law. Reinhardt has recused himself in past cases involving the Southern California ACLU.  In August a federal district court held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: The Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that on Thursday, Judge Reinhardt refused to disqualify himself from hearing the case, saying: "I will be able to rule impartially in this appeal, and I will do so." Backers of Prop 8 will not challenge that ruling. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Illinois Passes Civil Union Bill

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Illinois legislature yesterday gave final approval to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Gov. Pat Quinn has pledged to sign the bill which passed the House on Tuesday by a vote of 61-52-2 and the Senate on Wednesday by a vote of 32-24-1.  The statute provides for the state to license civil unions between either same-sex or opposite-sex couples and confirms that "a party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses...." (Sec. 20).  It also provides (Sec. 15) that:

Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.

When signed by the governor, Illinois will become the sixth state to recognize civil unions.

Egyptian Court Reinstates Order Directing Coptic Church To Allow Remarriages

In Egypt on Tuesday, the State Council's Administrative Court rejected a challenge by the Coptic Church to the court's ruling last May that ordered the Church to allow divorced men to remarry even though the remarriage was not permitted under Coptic Christian religious law. Coptic doctrine allows men to remarry only in cases of adultery or a marriage that was based on deceit. The Court said that family formation is a constitutional right and takes precedence. (See prior posting.) In July, Egypt's Constitutional Court suspended the judgment so that the Church could challenge it. (See prior posting.) In Tuesday's ruling, according to Bikya Masr, the court reinstated its earlier ruling.

Kentucky Gives Tax Incentives To New Noah's Ark Theme Park

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear announced yesterday that, subject to approval by the state Tourism Development Finance Authority, the state will grant tax incentives that could total more than $37 million to developers of a new theme park, Ark Encounter. The park's centerpiece will be a 500 foot long replica of Noah's Ark, and will also feature an ancient walled city, a petting zoo, live animal shows featuring giraffes and elephants and a replica of the biblical Tower of Babel. The day-to-day operation of the park will be handled by Answers in Genesis, the group that operates the successful Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.  Mike Zorvath, co-founder of Answers in Genesis ministry says the mission of the new park is to dispel doubts that Noah could have fit two animals of every kind on his ark. The Lexington (KY) Leader-Herald reports that the Governor at a news conference yesterday rejected church-state concerns about the state subsidies, saying that the law does not allow the state to discriminate against a non-profit business on the basis of subject matter.  According to AP, Bershear said: "There's nothing even remotely unconstitutional about a for-profit organization coming in and investing $150 million to create jobs in Kentucky and bring tourism to Kentucky."  The park is expected to create 900 full- and part-time jobs and have an annual impact of over $200 million on the state's economy. It is expected to attract 1.6 million visitors in its first year. The site for the new park is apparently an area in Grant County south of Williamstown.

Workers Comp Denial Did Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Lippert v. Lumpkin, (OH App, Nov. 29, 2010), an Ohio appellate court rejected an employee's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when the state denied him unemployment compensation benefits after he was terminated for refusing to work at the employer's site rather than from home on Sundays. The court observed:

appellant offers no evidence addressing the sincerity of his beliefs or describing how the work schedule infringes upon his constitutional right to freely engage in his religion, other than stating that he irregularly attends church on Sunday. There is no evidence in the record describing the tenets of appellant's religion, the sincerity of his religious beliefs, whether Sunday church service is integral to his religious practices, or if no alternative means of worship are available such as services only being offered during his working hours on Sunday.... Moreover, there is no indication that appellant informed [his employer] that the new schedule would interfere with his religious practices.

As Hanukkah Begins, Palestinians Deny Jewish Origins of Western Wall; U.S. Responds

Tonight begins the eight-day Jewish festival of Hanukkah which commemorates the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Maccabees in 165 BCE. Last week, leading up to the holiday, the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information published as an official paper a study claiming that the Western Wall is part of Al-Aksa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif, rejecting Jewish claims to the site that Jews revere as the remains of the wall that surrounded the original Temple courtyard.  According to the Jerusalem Post, the PA paper claims that Al- Buraq Wall (as the Western Wall is known to Muslims) is property of the Waqf and is owned by an Algerian- Moroccan Muslim family. The study claims: "This wall was never part of the so-called Temple Mount, but Muslim tolerance allowed the Jews to stand in front of it and weep over its destruction."

In a U.S. State Department press briefing yesterday (full text), Assistant Secretary William J. Crowley said:

[R]egarding a claim by a senior Palestinian official that the Western Wall is an Islamic Waqf, we strongly condemn these comments and fully reject them as factually incorrect, insensitive, and highly provocative. We have repeatedly raised with the Palestinian Authority leadership the need to consistently combat all forms of delegitimization of Israel, including denying historic Jewish connections to the land. As the United States has long maintained, the status of Jerusalem must be resolved in final status negotiations between the parties. We recognize that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue to Israelis and Palestinians, to Jews, to Muslims, and to Christians everywhere. We believe it is possible to reach an outcome that both realizes the aspirations of all parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its stature for the future.

Virginia Federal District Court Rejects Constitutional Challenges To Obama Health Care Law

Yesterday in Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner, (WD VA, Nov. 30, 2010), a Virginia federal district court rejected a broad range of constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (the Obama health care reform bill). In addition to broadly upholding the statute as a valid exercise of Congress' commerce clause power, Judge Norman K. Moon, in a 54-page opinion, also rejected free exercise and establishment clause challenges by various of the plaintiffs. On the commerce clause issue, the court wrote:

I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals's decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.... [and] that the terms of health coverage offered by employers to their employees have substantial effects cumulatively on interstate commerce.

The court went on to reject Establishment Clause challenges to the Act's religious conscience exemption and its health care sharing ministry exemption. Both were seen as permissible religious accommodations. It also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Act requires them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs against facilitating, subsidizing, easing, funding, or supporting abortions.  The court said:

[Plaintiffs] fail to allege how any payments required under the Act ... would be used to fund abortion. Indeed, the Act contains strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Reuters reports on the decision. In a post by Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President, the White House reacted, saying: "In the weeks ahead, there will be additional court cases examining this matter and the health reform law. We can’t predict the outcome of each case, but we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in court and continue to deliver the benefits of reform to the American people."

Liberty Counsel, representing plaintiffs, issued a release saying that an appeal will be filed. Judge Moon's decision comes less than a week after the New York Times speculated in a lengthy article that another Virginia federal district court judge, Judge Henry E. Hudson,  in a separate case-- a challenge filed by the state of Virginia-- is likely to find the statute unconstitutional.

Final Approval Given In Settlement of Charges Against Ohio Science Teacher

The final chapter in the litigation involving Mt. Vernon, Ohio suspended middle school science teacher John Freshwater seems to have been written last week.  The Mount Vernon News reported yesterday that the Licking County Probate Court has approved on behalf of student Zachary Dennis a previously reported federal court settlement agreement under which Freshwater agreed to pay $300,000 to parents Stephen and Jennifer Dennis, another $150,000 for an annuity for student Zachary Dennis and $25,000 for legal fees.  The lawsuit grew out of widely-publicized charges that Freshwater taught creationism or intelligent design in class, told his class that anyone who is gay is a sinner, improperly used an electrostatic device to put a cross on the arm of a student, was excessively involved in the school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes and was insubordinate in failing to remove religious materials when ordered to do so by his principal. (See prior posting.) Originally school officials had also been sued, but it settled in 2009. (See prior posting.) A counter suit by Freshwater against the school board was dropped in October. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to National Center for Science Education for the lead.]

Michigan Officials File No Charges In Unusual Qur'an Burning Case

Sunday's Lansing (MI) State Journal carries an interesting article about prosecutors who decided not to file charges in an unusual Qur'an burning case. A 46-year old East Lansing, Michigan resident who was merely scraping by economically went out on the eve of this year's 9-11 anniversary, riding his mountain bike, and got drunk.  He says his wife doesn't allow him to get drunk in the house.  He carried with him a copy of the Qur'an. After he stopped 5 or 6 times for beer, he went down by railroad tracks, ripped pages out of the Qur'an and burned them. Then he rode by the local Islamic Center on his bike and tossed the burnt pages on the sidewalk. He bragged about what he did on Facebook, using as his profile picture one of the controversial Muhammad Danish cartoons. He turned himself in to police at his wife's urging, telling them that he was still "pissed off" about 9-11 and wanted to make a statement of disrespect.

East Lansing prides itself on being a diverse community However ultimately authorities decided not to file charges since the man-- still not identified publicly-- did not damage anyone else's property. He made no physical contact with anyone and the Qur'an he burned was his own. The only possible charges were ethnic intimidation (unclear on these facts) or littering (which would trivialize the incident). Charging the man would make his identity public for the first time. Lansing's assistant city attorney said he was also affected by the fact that police received e-mails from extremists on both sides. He asked: "Do we really want to endanger this person's life for a littering charge?" The local Islamic community has reluctantly accepted the prosecutors' decision. [Thanks to Ken Braithwaite for the lead.]

Pentagon's DADT Report Includes Consideration of Moral and Religious Objections

Today the Defense Department released its Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Overall the report concluded that "when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer ..., the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low."  The Report gives significant attention to moral and religious objections to repeal. The Executive Summary of those concerns reports:

In the course of our review, we heard a large number of Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay.  Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.  The views expressed to us in these terms cannot be downplayed or dismissed.  Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains.  Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists among the chaplain corps.  A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.

However, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions—including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis.  The other reality is that policies regarding Service members’ individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist, and we believe they are adequate.  Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.

Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal.  Those regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care for all.  Existing regulations state that chaplains “will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”  At the same time, regulations state that “Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command.”

Extensive additional discussion of religious objections  is found at pp. 134- 136 of the Report and in the Findings from the Qualitative Research Tasks, pp. 2, 15, 22-23, 71-72, 125-26, 135-37.  The Report along with additional supporting material is available at a special DOD web page devoted to DADT. The New York Times reports generally on today's developments.

Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Oklahoma Anti-Shariah Amendments

Yesterday an Oklahoma federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Oklahoma State Board of Elections from certifying the election results for State Question 755-- the state constitutional amendment that would prevent Oklahoma courts from considering international law or Shariah law. (See prior posting.)  In Awad v. Ziriax, (WD OK, Nov. 29, 2010), the court found that plaintiff, a Muslim, has standing to challenge the amendment because he has suffered injury in fact:

Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth a personal stake in this action by alleging that he lives in Oklahoma, is a Muslim, that the amendment conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his religious beliefs.... [I]t would be incomprehensible if, as plaintiff alleges, Oklahoma could condemn the religion of its Muslim citizens, yet one of those citizens could not defend himself in court against his government’s preferment of other religious views.

Second, plaintiff claims that his First Amendment rights will be violated by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed. 

The court went on to find that plaintiff's facial challenge to the amendment is ripe for review.  Finally the court concluded that plaintiff had made a strong showing of the likelihood of success on his Establishment Clause claim:

While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice of law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations and cultures, regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any, the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia Law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith....

Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiff has made a strong showing that the amendment will foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Because, as set forth above, Sharia Law is not “law” but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown that to comply with the amendment, Oklahoma courts will be faced with determining the content of Sharia Law, and, thus, the content of plaintiff’s religious doctrines.

The Oklahoman reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On Tuesday, the Oklahoma State Election Board voted to appeal the district court's ruling. (Fox News 11/30).

Indian Court Says Census Information On Religion of Public Figures Is Confidential

In India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court yesterday ruled that the 2005 Right to Information Act does not authorize disclosure of the religion that an individual listed on his or her census form. Law et al News reports that  the case grew out of a request by an individual for information about the religion listed by United Progressive Alliance Party leader Sonia Gandhi and her family members. Section 15 of the Census Act of 1948 protects the confidentiality of census records. The court held that the later Right to Information Act did not change that protection because the RTI Act excludes from disclosure information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The court rejected the argument that disclosure of information about the religion of leaders of the nation is in the public interest.