Supreme Court Denies Review In Pledge of Allegiance Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. United States, (Docket No. 10-1214, cert. denied 6/13/2011) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to New Hampshire's School Patriot Act that requires a time during the school day for voluntary recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (See prior posting). School Law yesterday reported on the denial of cert.

Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee Limits On Local Bias Laws

WSMV-TV reported  on a state court lawsuit filed yesterday challenging a new Tennessee law barring local governments from enacting different anti-discrimination protections than are provided by state law. (See prior posting.) The new law invalidates a Nashville ordinance that goes beyond state law by prohibiting companies doing business with the city from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The state law apparently also invalidates a Nashville school board policy that protected gay and lesbian students against bullying.  Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include three Nashville city council members and a former Belmont University soccer coach who was forced to resign when she disclosed that her same-sex partner was pregnant. The lawsuit claims that the state law violates the constitution's equal protection clause.

Suits Challenge Religious Leaders In Two New York Hasidic Enclaves

AP reported yesterday on lawsuits were filed  by religious dissidents in two New York towns that are essentially Orthodox Jewish Hasidic enclaves.  In a federal court lawsuit, followers of Brooklyn Satmar Rabbi Zalman Teiltelbaum who make up some 40% of the population of Kiryas Joel sued seeking dissolution of the city or alternatively a ban on religious leaders holding city office for 25 years.  Plaintiffs claim that the majority in Kikryas Joel, followers of grand rebbe Aron Teiltelbaum (brother of Zalman), have taken over the village and selectively enforce the village's property tax and zoning laws in a manner to discriminate against plaintiffs. It also alleges voting fraud and intimidation of voters.

In an unrelated state lawsuit, the family of a victim of an arson attack (see prior posting) is seeking $36 million in damages from New Square, New York's grand rebbe David Twersky-- the leader of the town's Skverer Hasidic sect. The suit claims that Twersky directed the arson attack that injured New Square dissident Aron Rottenberg who began attending a different synagogue outside New Square.

Republican Debate Includes Discussion of Church-State Issues and Attitudes Toward Muslims

Last night's CNN debate among 7 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination included an extensive exchange on separation of church and state, and attitudes toward American Muslims. Here is a lengthy excerpt from the full transcript:

[Question from audience:] I'm just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making.

KING: Governor Pawlenty, I want you to take that one first.

PAWLENTY: Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. This is a country that in our founding documents says we're a nation that's founded under God, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator. They're not from our member of Congress. They're not from our county commissioner.

And 39 of the 50 states have in the very early phrases of their constitutions language like Minnesota has in its preamble. It says this, "We the people of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberties," and so the Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: Let's spend a little time talking. Let's spend a little bit of time talking about it.
Senator, let's start with you. Just what role does faith play in your political life? Are there decisions, certain issues where some might you just, let's meet with my advisers, what does my gut say, and others where you might retreat and have a moment of private prayer?

SANTORUM: I'm some who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?

PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral.

But the Constitution addresses this by saying -- literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws -- which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

KING: OK. Great. Let's go down to Josh McElveen, and let's continue the conversation.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew?

CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor -- I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no. 

Republican Presidential Debate Covers Gay Marriage, DADT, Abortion Rights

Last night's CNN debate between 7 Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination included a lengthy exchange on same-sex marriage, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and abortion rights.  Here is the excerpt from the full transcript:

[JOHN] DISTASO:... Congresswoman Bachmann, let's turn to a serious subject.
New Hampshire is one of five states where individuals who happen to be gay can marry legally. This is a question of conflicting interest. I know you're opposed to same-sex marriage.
As president, would you try to overturn -- what influence would you use from the White House to try to overturn these state laws despite your own personal belief that states should handle their own affairs whenever possible and in many circumstances?

BACHMANN: Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states.

I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.

Now, I didn't come from a perfect background. My parents were divorced. And I was raised by a single mother. There's a lot of single families and families with troubled situations. That's why my husband and I have broken hearts for at-risk kids and it's why we took 23 foster children into our home.

DISTASO: What would a President Bachmann do to initiate or facilitate a repeal law on the state level? Anything at all from the White House? Would you come into the state of New Hampshire, for instance, and campaign on behalf of a repeal law?

BACHMANN: I'm running for the presidency of the United States. And I don't see that it's the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

KING: On that point -- on that point, to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's try to quickly go through it. Let me start at this end, we'll just go right through. I'll describe it this way. Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made -- this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state's decision?

CAIN: State's decision.

QUESTION: Yes.

PAWLENTY: I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. I was the co-author of the state -- a law in Minnesota to define it and now we have courts jumping over this.

KING: OK. Let's just go through this.

PAUL: The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.

But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

KING: Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision? ROMNEY: Constitutional.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to (ph) constitutional amendment.

KING: We heard the congresswoman's answer, Senator.

SANTORUM: Constitutional amendment. Look, the constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to -- have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is.

KING: Very quickly?

BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on -- on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

KING: All right, let me ask you another question. The Obama administration is in the process -- and Leon Panetta, who's the new defense secretary, will implement -- essentially, the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" so gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military. I want to ask each of you -- and, again, if we can be quickly, because then we want to get to the voters question -- if you were president -- if you become president of the United States, now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change it, go back to "don't ask/don't tell," or something else?

CAIN: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned "don't ask/don't tell" in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as president. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.

KING: Leave it in place if you inherit the new Obama administration policy or try to overturn it?

PAWLENTY: John, we're a nation in two wars. I think we need to pay deference to our military commanders, particularly our combatant commanders, and in this case, I would take my cues from them as to how this affects the military going forward. I know they expressed concerns -- many of the combatant commanders did -- when this was originally repealed by the Obama administration.

KING: Congressman?

PAUL: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Leave it in place, what you inherit from the Obama administration or overturn it?

ROMNEY: Well, one, we ought to be talking about the economy and jobs. But given the fact you're insistent, the -- the answer is, I believe that "don't ask/don't tell" should have been kept in place until conflict was over.

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as president -- I've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working, it is dangerous, it's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.

KING: Congresswoman?

BACHMANN: I would -- I would keep the "don't ask/don't tell" policy.

KING: So you would -- whatever the Obama administration does now, you would go -- try to go back? You'd try to reverse what they're doing?

BACHMANN: I would, after, again, following much what the speaker just said, I would want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with -- also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has -- had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.

KING: All right. Last word on this issue, Senator?

SANTORUM: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place, as Ron Paul said, that punishes -- that punishes bad behavior.

KING: Let's go back down to the floor here. Jennifer Vaughn has a question.

VAUGHN: Thanks, John.

Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think -- I think an issue should be -- in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their -- at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that's -- that a factor that -- that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I've taken the -- you know, I've not just taken the pledge, I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that's a factor that people should consider when you -- when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and -- and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Governor Romney, let me give you -- take -- take 20 or 30 seconds, if there's a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?

ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I've said as -- as I've been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.

KING: Is there anybody here who believes that that's an issue in the campaign, or is it case closed?

(UNKNOWN): Case closed.

KING: Case closed it is. All right. Let's move on to the questions.
Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We'll give you a few seconds.

PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results -- not just based on words -- I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.

As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.

I'm solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven't just talked about these things; I've done it.

UK Court Faces Prisoner Free Exercise Claim

A prisoner free exercise decision handed down last month by Britain's Administrative Court is interesting as a comparison to the approach under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA routinely taken to such cases in the U.S. In Bashir, R (on the application of) v The Independent Adjudicator , (EWHC Admin., May 3, 2011), a devout Muslim prisoner on the advice of an imam was engaged in a 3-day personal fast in religious preparation for his Court of Appeal appearance when he was asked for a urine sample for a random drug test.  He was convicted of violating prison regulations when he refused to drink enough water to allow him to give a sufficient urine sample for the test.  The court reversed the conviction imposed by the independent adjudicator, holding that under Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights it needed to be determined whether the interference with religion was proportionate to the end pursued. The court concluded:

There was no evidence before the Adjudicator which enabled him to conclude (as apparently he did) that it was proportionate to require all Muslim prisoners engaged in personal fasting to break that fast as and when required to do so for the purposes of providing a MDT sample regardless of the circumstances. In any event some care needs to be taken before a Court accepts at face value assertions of an un-particularised sort that making reasonable adjustments would be too administratively inconvenient or too expensive to be contemplated.

UK Human Rights Blog reported on the decision last week. [Thanks to Peter Griffith for the lead.]

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Thomas Charles Berg, The Story of the School Prayer Decisions: Civil Religion under Assault, (First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett, Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation Press, 2011).
• Zachary R. Calo, Review of Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart, (Modern Age, Forthcoming).
• Aviva Orenstein, Once We Were Slaves, Now We are Free: Legal, Administrative, and Psychosocial Issues Raised by Passover Celebrations in Prison, (Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 195, June 6, 2011).
• Michaek G. Freedman, Prosecuting Terrorism: The Material Support Statute and Muslim Charities, (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1113-1147, 2011).
• Marie A. Failinger, Yick Wo at 125: Four Simple Lessons for the Contemporary Supreme Court, (Michigan Journal of Race and Law, Forthcoming).
• Marie A. Failinger, Islam in the Mind of American Courts: 1800-1960, (Boston College Third World Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Ruth E. Gavison, Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic?, (R. Gavison, Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State, p. 115, 2011).
• Kevin Lee Brady, Religious Sincerity and Imperfection: Can Lapsing Prisoners Recover Under RFRA and RLUIPA?, (University of Chicago Law Review, 2011).
• Ross J. Corbett, Locke's Biblical Critique, (March 3, 2011).
• Nimat H. Barazangi, Why Muslim Women are Re-Interpreting the Qur'an: A Transformative Scholarship Activism, (Sept 16, 2010).
• Nomi Maya Stolzenberg, Righting the Relationship between Race and Religion in Law, (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2011).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Jose Ambrozic, Beyond Public Reason on Energy Justice: Solidarity and Catholic Social Teaching, [Abstract], 21 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 381-398 (2010).
• Jorge O. Elorza, Secularism and the Constitution: Can Government Be Too Secular?, 72 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 53-117 (2010).
• Symposium: The Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care: Legal and Ethical Perspectives. Preface by James W. Devine; articles by Lynn D. Wardle, Kent Greenawalt, Robert K. Vischer, Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, Robin Fretwell Wilson, Richard S. Myers, Jill Morrison, Micole Allekotte and T.A. Cavanaugh. 9 Ave Maria Law Review 1-206 (2010).
• Reviewing Douglas Laycock's Religious Liberty, Volume One: Overviews and History. Book reviews by Thomas C. Berg, Steven D. Smith and Jay Wexler; response by Douglas Laycock. 89 Texas Law Review 901-966 (2011).
• Signs of the Times: The First Amendment and Religious Symbolism. Essays by Peter Irons and Thomas C. Berg; panel discussion with Joseph Thai, moderator; Carl H. Esbeck, Eduardo Penalver, Kevin Theriot, Micheal Salem and Rick Tepker. 63 Oklahoma Law Review 1-100 (2010).
• Symposium. Civil Religion in the United States and Europe. Introduction by Silvio Ferrari; articles by Blandine Chelini-Pont, Pasquale Annicchino, Emmanuel Tawil, Alessandro Ferrari, Andrew Koppelman, Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Frederick Gedicks, David Fontana, Pierre-Henri Prelot, Michael Perry, Marco Ventura, and Talip Kucukcan; afterword by Brett Scharffs. 41 George Washington International Law Review 749-1000 (2010).
• Meir Katz, The State of Blaine: A Closer Look at the Blaine Amendments and Their Modern Application, Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011.
• Luke Goodrich, The Health Care and Conscience Debate, Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011.

Canadian School Board Proposes Elaborate Religious Guidelines

In Canada, Ontario's Hamilton-Wentworth school district has posted for comment an elaborate and interesting 11-page set of guidelines for religious accommodation in the schools. (Full text). Life Site News last week reported, however, that conservative Christian groups are criticizing the guidelines because of the guidelines' definition of what constitutes a protected religious creed:

Creed does not include secular, moral, or ethical beliefs or political convictions. This policy does not extend to religions that incite hatred or violence against other individuals or groups, or to practices and observances that purport to have a religious basis, but which contravene international human rights standards or criminal law.

The head of the local Family Action Council contends that this language: "unjustly discriminates against Christians by re-defining religion to exclude moral beliefs."

Sri Lanka's Promotion of Buddha Statues Interferes With Secular Image of Nation

Sri Lankan diplomats are concerned about the Sri Lankan government's decision to send 26 Buddha statues to Sri Lankan missions overseas.  Today's Sri Lanka Sunday Leader reports that the move, organized by the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment and the Presidential Secretariat last week, interferes with attempts to portray the country internationally as a secular state. The statues were sent to mark the 2,600th Sambuddhathva Jayanthi. Religious ceremonies surrounded the transport of the statues to Colmbo en route to their overseas destinations.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Book, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59338 (ED CA, June 1, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed on qualified immunity and mootness grounds a claim by a Muslim inmate that he was entitled to a halal or kosher meat diet, not merely a religious vegetarian diet.

In Brown v. Department of Correctional Services, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59633 (WD NY, June 2, 2011), a New York federal magistrate judge refused to permit an inmate to amend his complaint to allege discrimination based on the fact that he is an African-American Jew with a disability.

In Garner v. Livingston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59546 (SD TX, May 19, 2011), a Texas federal district court issued a declaratory judgment finding the Texas prison grooming policy a violation of RLUIPA insofar as it prevents a Muslim inmate from wearing a quarter-inch beard. However the court upheld the prison's policy requiring plaintiff to remove his Kufi and make it available for inspection when going to and from religious services.

In Durbin v. Cain, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59853 (MD LA, June 3, 2011), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59895, May 9, 2011), and permitted an inmate to move ahead with claims that he has been denied the right to congregate with members of his Jewish faith and to attend Jewish services at the main prison complex, and that prison officials refuse to recognize Jewish holy days.

In O'Neal v. Bailey, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60331 (CD CA, June 2, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Christian inmate's complaint regarding three occasions on which deputies refused to notify the prison kitchen regarding problems with the vegan meals he was supposed to receive.

In Thomas v. Croft, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60628 (SD OH, June 7, 2011), an Ohio federal magistrate judge rejected claims by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate regarding the refusal by prison authorities to relieve the inmate of a work assignment on one Friday evening.

In Williams v. Wong, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60786 (ED CA, June 6, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge denied a habeas corpus petition, rejecting an inmate's claim that the parole board required him to participate in a faith-based 12-step program.

Azerbaijan Parliament Passes Amendments To Law on Religion

News.az reports that on Friday, Azerbaijan's Parliament passed controversial amendments to the country's Law on Religion.  Islamic religious organizations must now report to the Caucasus Muslims Department, while other religious groups must report to the State Committee for Working with Religious Structures or to the Ministry of Justice. Houses of worship can only operate at the legal address registered with the government, and can operate only after appointment of a clergyman by a religious center or the Caucasus Muslims Department.  According to an earlier report by Forum 18, the new law also raises from 10 to 50 the number of founders required to register a religious organization.

Indonesian Court Sentences 17 In Attack on Christian Churches

In Semarang, Indonesia, four panels of district court judges last week convicted 17 Muslims of destroying public property and assault in connection with sectarian violence that took place last February in the central Java town of Temanggung. (See prior posting.)  AFP reported that 16 of the defendants were sentenced to 5 months in jail and one was sentenced to 4 months after convictions relating to the burning of two Christian churches and the ransacking of a third as a mob of 1500, unhappy with the 5-yearsentence imposed by a court, demanded that a Christian man be sentenced to death for insulting Islam. One of the defendants was found to have sent text messages the day before the Christian man's trial on the order of a local Muslim cleric who apparently planned the attack.. Nine others, including the cleric, will receive verdicts this week.

California Prisons Will Permit Beards For Religious Reasons

The ACLU of Southern California announced earlier this week that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has agreed to amend its grooming policies so that inmates will be allowed to wear beards in accordance with their religious faiths.  The policy change comes in a settlement of a lawsuit filed earlier this year. In Basra v. Cate, (CD CA, filed 2/25/2011) (full text of complaint), the ACLU sued under RLUIPA on behalf of a Sikh prisoner who faced sanctions and exclusion from prison programs because he refused to shave his beard or cut his hair for religious reasons. The U.S. Department of Justice had also filed a parallel lawsuit. (See prior posting.)

Statue of Hindu God In Art Display Provokes Controversy

This week, the city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho announced its newest art-on-loan program. Fifteen sculptures from around the country are on display in the downtown corridor and City Park for one year, or until they are sold if that is sooner. (Photos of sculptures.) While several of the sculptures have religious themes, the sculpture of the Hindu god Ganesha has created controversy according to reports in the Coeru d'Alene Spokesman-Review and KXLY News.  The head of the Kootenai County Constitution Party encouraged a protest yesterday, saying in a website posting titled "Idols come to Cour d'Alene" that the Ganesha sculpture is an "abomination" which was approved by the "godless group of individuals that manage the art of the city."  Meanwhile, a Hindu spokesman applauded the inclusivity that is represented by the Ganesha statue. (Daily India, 6/10).

Article Analyzes Salafi Anti-Christian Actions In Egypt

Today's Wall Street Journal carries a lengthy article titled As Islamists Flex Muscle, Egypt's Christians Despair.  It focuses on recent actions by Salafi militants, including physical attacks on Coptic Christians. It also focuses more broadly on Salafi goals:

Before President Hosni Mubarak was toppled on Feb. 11, the Salafis mostly confined themselves to preaching. Since then, they've entered the political arena, drawing crowds and swaying government decisions. Salafi militants also have blocked roads, burned churches and killed Copts.....

Until recently, fears of an Islamist takeover in Egypt centered on the Muslim Brotherhood, a much better known organization that's trying to project a new image of moderation. While many liberal Egyptians remain deeply suspicious of the Brothers' true intentions, the Brotherhood now says it accepts Copts—the Middle East's largest religious minority—in all government positions, with the possible exception of president.

By contrast, many Salafis believe it is forbidden by Islam for Christians to exercise political power over Muslims in any capacity, such as governors, mayors or ministers.

More Religious Challenges To Official Sports Uniforms Are Raised

In the wake of the disqualification of Iraq’s women’s soccer team by international sports officials because of the team’s insistence on a uniform that meets religious requirements (see prior posting), two more challenges to international sports uniform rules have been mounted. The Atlanta Journal Constitution and CNN reported yesterday that the U.S. Olympic Committee has asked the International Weightlifting Federation to review its rules after a 35-year old Muslim woman, an Atlanta resident, was disqualified from competing in a national competition in Ohio last December. IWF rules require that athletes wear costumes that are collarless and do not cover the elbows or knees.  Weight-lifter Kulsoom Abdullah usually wears loose long pants that extend below her ankles, a long-sleeve fitted shirt with a loose T-shirt over it, and a hijab covering her hair. Modifications create several problems. Judges need to see that the weight lifter's elbows and knees are locked during the lift. They also need to make certain that the individual is not wearing anything on her elbows that would give her a competitive advantage. The IWF technical committee will review the relevant rules on June 26 at a scheduled meeting in Malaysia. It will present a recommendation to the IWF executive board the next day.

Meanwhile, in Israel, an Orthodox Jewish player on the country’s women's national basketball team has been disqualified. FIBA Europe, the governing body for European basketball, says that its rules require that all members of a team be dressed alike. Naama Shafir wears a T-shirt under her jersey in order to comply with Jewish religious rules relating to modesty. AP  and JTA this week report that FIBA has refused to make an exception for Shafir so she can play in a tournament that opens June 18 in Poland. According to Haaretz, an Israeli appeal of the ruling was rejected on technical grounds. Shafir just completed her college studies in the United States, where she led the University of Toledo (Ohio) team to a  Women's NIT championship. (Background.) Officials had no problem with permitting Shafir to wear the modified uniform when playing in the U.S. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State In Israel) for the lead.]

1st Amendment Scholar Prof. Steven Gey Dies

Florida State University College of Law reports that First Amendment scholar, Prof. Steven Gey, died yesterday after a valiant struggle with ALS. (See prior posting.) Gey authored a casebook on Religion and State as well as numerous articles on First Amendment speech and religion issues. (Vita; bibliography; SSRN articles.) A 2007 article in Florida State's alumni magazine describes Gey's love of teaching and of "the discourse of ideas." [Thanks to Brian Sites for the information.]

Idaho City Settles RLUIPA Suit By Church

AP reported Wednesday on the settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit that was filed last month in federal district court in Idaho. No Limits Christian Ministries had sued the city of Mountain Hope (ID) challenging the city's denial to the church of a conditional use permit that would allow it to worship in a vacant building it owned.  The suit claimed that religious groups were specifically excluded under the zoning law while other organizations were not.  The settlement provides that the church's use of its building will be treated as a permitted use under the zoning ordinance. The city's mayor said that he and city council were unaware of RLUIPA.

In Pakistani Province, Christian Finance Minister May Be Barred From Giving Budget Speech

In the Pakistani province of Punjab, the province's chief minister Shahbaz Sharif has created controversy by apparently going along with pressure from a number of members of his Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Party (PML-N) to prevent the Party's current finance minister, a Christian, from delivering the annual budget presentation in the Punjab Assembly. According to yesterday's Sri Lanka Guardian, the controversy involves Kamran Michea, Punjab's minister for the Human Rights who more recently was also appointed finance minister after the PML-N's coalition with the Pakistan Peoples Party broke down.  Michea was elected to the Punjab Assembly in 2002 to fill one of the seats reserved for non-Muslim minorities. However several members of the PML-N say that only a Muslim should deliver the budget speech and are urging the Chief Minister to deliver it this year.  A senior PPP member of the Assembly says his members will walk out if the Chief Minister delivers the speech.

Mississippi High Court: Judge Misused Contempt Powers Against Lawyer Who Refused To Say Pledge

In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Littlejohn, (MS Sup. Ct., June 9, 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the public reprimand and assessment of $100 costs on a chancery court judge for misusing his powers of contempt.  Judge Talmadge Littlejohn ordered attorney Danny Lampley arrested for contempt when Lampley stood quietly and did not join in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance led by the judge.  According to the Clarion (MS) Ledger's report on yesterday's decision,  Lampley was held in jail for almost 5 hours. Judge Littlejohn admitted to the Judicial Performance Commission that his action violated Lampley's 1st Amendment rights and Littlejohn has agreed to change the way in which he leads the Pledge of Allegiance in the future. He will respect the rights of anyone who chooses not to join in the recitation.