Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Vatican-Montenegro Sign Agreement On Church-State Relations
AP reports that yesterday the Vatican and the nation of Montenegro signed an agreement guaranteeing the legal status in Montenegro of the Catholic Church and its institutions. The agreement covers the operation of seminaries, and Catholic spiritual assistance in the armed forces, prisons and hospitals. This is the first agreement between the Vatican and a predominately Orthodox country that covers church-state relations.
New Blog Focuses on Abuse By Charity Regulators
A new blog, Charity Regulator Watch, has joined the blogosphere. As reported by the Washington Examiner, the new blog's creator, Mark Fitzgibbons, comes at this new enterprise with a point of view. He believes that state regulators charged with overseeing charities and non-profits often overreach and misuse their power. Explaining his mission, Fitzgibbons says: "charitable solicitation laws divert more than $500 million in donor money each year from its intended purposes." A link to Charity Regulator Watch has been added to the Religion Clause sidebar.
New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage With Lengthy Exemptions For Religious Organizations
Late last night, the New York state Senate voted 33-29 in favor of A8354, the bill passed earlier this month by the state Assembly legalizing same-sex marriage. Then the Assembly and Senate both passed A8520 which expanded the protections for churches, religious organizations and clergy who object to same-sex marriage. Gov. Cuomo immediately signed both bills into law. The New York Times has extensive coverage of the politics behind the governor's successful campaign to obtain passage of the legislation, reporting:
For these groups, notwithstanding any state or local law or regulation, they are not required to provide accommodations, facilities, goods or services for any marriage ceremony. Nor is any member of the clergy required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Refusal to provide facilities or perform a ceremony will not give rise to any civil claim or to any governmental action discriminating against the groups or clergy or imposing a penalty or withholding benefits. The new law also assures religious organizations that provisions in New York's anti-discrimination law that allow them to favor members of their own religion in employment, sales, rental of housing, admission or other preferences and to take other action to promote their religious principles, are still in effect.
The new law does not create exemptions for individuals with religious objections who own private businesses that offer their facilities for weddings to refuse to make them available for same-sex ceremonies.
The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.
But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.
And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.The expanded religious protections were an important factor in obtaining final passage. The protections apply to several categories of organizations and their employees: (1) religious entities, such as churches; (2) "benevolent orders", such as the Knights of Columbus; (3) any non-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation; (4) any employee of these organizations.
For these groups, notwithstanding any state or local law or regulation, they are not required to provide accommodations, facilities, goods or services for any marriage ceremony. Nor is any member of the clergy required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. Refusal to provide facilities or perform a ceremony will not give rise to any civil claim or to any governmental action discriminating against the groups or clergy or imposing a penalty or withholding benefits. The new law also assures religious organizations that provisions in New York's anti-discrimination law that allow them to favor members of their own religion in employment, sales, rental of housing, admission or other preferences and to take other action to promote their religious principles, are still in effect.
The new law does not create exemptions for individuals with religious objections who own private businesses that offer their facilities for weddings to refuse to make them available for same-sex ceremonies.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Amended Gay Marriage Bill With Expanded Religious Exemptions Introduced In New York
The Wall Street Journal reports that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and lawmakers introduced an amended version of the same-sex marriage bill (full text) into the state legislature today. The new version expands protections for religious organizations and clergy that object to same-sex marriage. Backers hope this will be enough to convince at least one more member of the state Senate to vote in favor of the bill and thereby secure its passage. The prior version of the bill, already passed by the state Assembly, had somewhat less comprehensive exemptions in it, and Senate Republicans had been seeking this expansion. (See prior posting.)
Israel's High Court Recognizes Civil Marriage By Proxy
Israel's High Court of Justice this week recognized a new route for Israeli's to enter a civil marriage. Generally marriages in Israel must be performed by religious authorities, though individuals may travel abroad for a civil marriage which will then be recognized in Israel. For Jewish Israelis, this has meant that the Orthodox rabbinate controls marriage in the country. Haaretz reports that the High Court has now approved the marriages of 14 couples who were married by proxy in El Salvador without ever leaving Israel. Most of the marriages involved one partner who was a foreign worker or tourist who were concerned that they could not obtain re-entry if they left the country. The Salvadoran procedure requires elaborate documentation and the hiring of two proxies to stand-in for the parties in El Salvador and two witnesses. Up to now, the only non-religious alternative available inside Israel has been civil union where both parties to the marriage have no religious affiliation. (See prior posting.)
Court Says Abused Plaintiffs Can Seek Punitive Damages Against Jesuit Order
In Doe v. Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus, (Cook Co. IL Cir. Ct., June 22, 2011), an Illinois state trial court judge has allowed three plaintiffs who claim they were sexually abused by now-defrocked Jesuit priest Donald McGuire to file an amended complaint seeking punitive damages against the priest's Jesuit order. The court reviewed The court wrote:
There can be no question that a religious organization can be found liable for punitive damages, if it has recklessly permitted an unfit employee or agent to sexually abuse minors with knowledge of his propensity to do so....
The court accepts that the Jesuits are a religious order with a rich history of service to the faithful.... However, the leaders of the Chicago Province fell far short of this ideal. Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial which would support an award of punitive damages.SF Weekly reports on the decision.
Minister of Cannabis Church Sentenced To Prison On Drug Charges
In Franklin County, Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Robert Henry, a member of of the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry, was sentenced from 6 1/2 to 13 years in prison for directing marijuana growing from jail in 2010 when he was serving another sentence for drug violations. This time Henry was also fined $50,500 and ordered to go through a drug treatment program. Chambersburg (PA) Public Opinion reports that Henry claims he is being persecuted because of his religious beliefs.
Oregon Federal Judge Confirmed Over Objections To His Church-State Views
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 64-35, confirmed the nomination of Michael Simon as federal district judge for the district of Oregon. As reported by the Oregonian, Simon was originally nominated in 2010 and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However the full Senate never voted on the nomination. President Obama renominated Simon this year and he was again approved by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 14-4. The opposing votes were all from Republicans. Simon is a cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School, worked for the Justice Department and then joined a Portland law firm. However Republican opposition to his nomination stemmed from Simon's long association with the ACLU. Here, from the debate in the Congressional Record, are excerpts from Senator Charles Grassley's speech on the Senate floor that focused in large part on Simon's church-state views:
Throughout his career, Mr. Simon has advocated on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon as a pro bono attorney. But his involvement in the ACLU goes beyond mere representation of a client. Mr. Simon has been a member of the ACLU of Oregon since 1986. He is an active member of their Lawyers’ Committee and served as a board member from 1997 to the year 2004, the vice president for legislation 1997 to 1998, and vice president for litigation from 2000 to 2004....
The ACLU does hold very liberal views, and Mr. Simon has been the voice for those views. For example, Mr. Simon wrote a letter to the Tillamook County Courthouse in Oregon expressing the ACLU’s concern with religious Christmas signs and decorations. The letter encouraged the county to repeal its resolution that deemed the county a ‘‘Merry Christmas County.’’
On issue after issue, Mr. Simon refused to disassociate himself from legal and policy positions held by the ACLU,that are far outside the mainstream. This includes the legalization of drugs, the unconstitutionality of the death penalty, the unconstitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU’s opposition to tax exemptions for churches and extreme views regarding separation of church and state.....
Mr. Simon appears to demand an absolute wall of separation between church and state, as opposed to the U.S. Government promoting a specific religion. He has argued against religious displays on public land, against religious visitors to schools, against a coach praying with his football players. I assume that means even if you’re praying that they don’t get injured. Mr. Simon has argued that it is unconstitutional under the establishment clause to teach intelligent design in public school science classes.
British Schools Stop Teaching Religious Education As They Emphasize Ebacc Subjects
The Guardian reports today that a poll by the National Association of Religious Education Teachers shows that 25% of state secondary schools and 31% of state elementary schools in Britain are no longer teaching religious education, even though the law requires them to do so. Offerings religious education have dropped off since schools have begun to be graded on student achievement in five English Baccalaureate (Ebacc) subjects: English; math; science; history or geography; and foreign language. (See prior related posting.)
Geert Wilders Acquitted of Defaming and Inciting Hatred Against Muslims
Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders was acquitted by an Amsterdam court yesterday of charges of group defamation against Muslims, and incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims based on their religion and race. Radio Netherlands reports on the verdict. At issue were statements made by Wilders on websites, Internet forums, Dutch newspapers and his film Fitna. (See prior posting.) An English translation of the court's press release on the case presents more details on the verdict. The court held that criticism of a religion is permissible. It went on to conclude that certain statements that might be seen as incitement to discrimination nevertheless are allowed "because of the context of the public debate" in which Wilders spoke "as a politician." At the time the statements were made, problems of a multicultural society and immigration were being discussed. Wilders statements "raised public problems" and "do not cross criminal legal boundaries." Prosecutors had previously attempted to dismiss the charges on free speech grounds, but an appeals court ordered the prosecution to move ahead. (See prior posting.) Now lawyers for those who filed complaints against Wilders are considering taking the case to the United Nations Human Rights Council or to the European Court.
In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Wilders reacts to his acquittal, saying in part:
In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Wilders reacts to his acquittal, saying in part:
Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years. The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
DC Circuit Upholds Ban On Anti-Abortion Chalking Protest In Front of White House
In Mahoney v. Doe, (DC Cir., June 21, 2011), a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the constitutionality of D.C.'s Defacement Statute that, among other things, prohibits writing or drawing on public property without the consent of the person in charge of the property. Plaintiffs were denied permission to carry out an anti-abortion sidewalk chalk demonstration in front of the White House. The court rejected both overbreadth and "as applied" free expression challenges. Focusing on the "as applied" challenge, the court said :
deface government property." (See prior related posting.)
[T]he Defacement Statute is content neutral, and substantially justified by the District’s esthetic interest in combating ...the defacement of public property. Because the District did not curtail Mahoney’s means of expression altogether, and allowed him to protest in front of the White House in other ways, the Defacement Statute is not unconstitutional as applied.The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that enforcing the statute against them violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because their protest was religiously motivated. The court quoted prior precednt that held:
to make religious motivation the critical focus is . . . to read out of RFRA the condition that only substantial burdens on theexercise of religion trigger the compelling interest requirement.Judge Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion, declaring: "No one has a First Amendment right to
deface government property." (See prior related posting.)
French Fashion Designer On Trial For Anti-Semitic Tirade
AP reported yesterday that the trial of former Dior fashion designer John Galliano began yesterday. Galliano is charged with hurling anti-Semitic and racist remarks at strangers on two different occasions in a Paris cafe. French prosecutors are asking that Galliano be fined the equivalent of $14,400(US). Galliano says he remembers nothing of what he allegedly said. He was in the throes of serious alcohol and drug addiction at the time. (See prior related posting.)
Canadian Soccer Organization Says 15-Year Old Referee Cannot Wear Hijab
In Canada, Quebec's Soccer Federation has told a 15-year old Muslim girl that she cannot continue her summer job as a soccer game referee wearing her hijab (head scarf). Canadian Press reported yesterday that teenager Sarah Benkirane hopes to convince the Canadian Soccer Federation to put pressure on its Quebec affiliate. The Quebec Federation says it is merely applying FIFA rules that bar officials from displaying personal, religious or commercial messages.
Lawsuit Challenges San Francisco Circumcision Ballot Measure
A lawsuit was filed in state court in California yesterday challenging the San Francisco ballot measure that seeks to ban circumcision. The Los Angeles Jewish Journal reports that, while much attention has been directed to religious freedom concerns, this suit is based on a California Business and Professions Code, Sec. 460 which provides:
UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco v. Arntz, (CA Super. Ct., filed 6/22/2011).
No city, county, or city and county shall prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the state under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include two Jewish community organizations, three Jewish families, one Muslim family and two doctors. They allege that it would be misleading to include the proposal on the ballot if the city lacks the power to enact it.
UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco v. Arntz, (CA Super. Ct., filed 6/22/2011).
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Atheists Complain Over Renaming of Brooklyn Street As "Seven In Heaven"
Monday's Brooklyn Paper reports that American Atheists has complained over the renaming of a portion of a Brooklyn, New York street to honor seven firefighters who were among those killed at the Twin Towers on 9-11. The new street sign in honor of the men reads "Seven In Heaven Way." American Atheist spokesman David Silverman said: "It’s improper for the city to endorse the view that heaven exists. It links Christianity and heroism." Community Board 6 member Tom Miskel responded: "Almost every religion has some form of heaven. It’s not just specific to Christianity."
Australian Judge Acquits Woman Who Could Not Be Identified Because She Wore Burqa
A new debate over women wearing the burqa has broken out in Australia after a district court judge on Monday reversed a magistrate's conviction of a woman for filing a false police report. Carnita Matthew was charged after a police video proved false a claim that police tried to tear her burqa off her face when she was stopped for a random traffic breath test and then cited for improper display of her license plates. The judge reversed the conviction because the woman who filed the police report was wearing a burqa at the time and the court concluded that it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was Ms. Matthew. He was also unconvinced that the woman filing the report knew it was false. Australia's Telegraph, reporting on the case, says that Matthew has a long history of traffic tickets and non-payment of traffic fines. The government is considering a new requirement that anyone giving a report to police furnish a fingerprint along with their signature. The government is waiting for the judge's full written opinion before deciding whether to appeal.
Groups Urge Obama To End Religious Hiring By Faith-Based Government Contractors
A group of 52 national organizations yesterday sent a letter (full text) to President Obama urging him to rescind an executive order issued in 2002 by President George W. Bush that allows religious organizations which contract with the government to nevertheless use religious criteria in their hiring. According to a press release from Americans United, yesterday was chosen as the day to send the letter because it was the 70th anniversary of the country's first executive order barring discrimination by federal government contractors. That order, issued by Franklin Roosevelt, prohibited employment discrimination by defense contractors on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]
Argentina Court Says Title "Rabbi" Cannot Appear Next To Candidate's Name On Ballot
In Buenos Aires, Argentina, a court has ruled that a rabbi who is heading the PRO party's list of candidates for city legislature may not use the title "Rabbi" next to his name on the ballot. Bergman was picked by Mayor Mauricio Macri to head the party list. Haaraetz reported Monday that even though Rabbi Sergio Bergman, a prominent leader of Argentina's Jewish community, is best known to the public as Rabbi Bergman, the court held that the title "rabbi" has a positive connotation and thus cannot appear next to Bergman's name as it is presented to voters.
Lawsuits Challenge County School Voucher Program
Two lawsuits were filed yesterday challenging on state constitutional and statutory grounds a pilot school voucher program enacted by the Douglas County, Colorado, Board of Education. At issue is a program that will provide up to 500 students now enrolled in the county's public schools scholarships to attend approved Private School Partners. Of the schools approved for the program so far, 14 of 19 are sectarian religious schools. The first of the two lawsuits (press release) was filed by the ACLU and Americans United. The complaint (full text) in LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education, (CO Dist. Ct., filed 6/21/11), alleges that the Choice Scholarship Plan violates numerous provisions of the Colorado constitution dealing with education and religious neutrality, as well as the state's Public School Finance Act. A second similar lawsuit was filed by Taxpayers for Public Education, an organization of Colorado parents and taxpayers. (Press release). Education News Colorado reports on the lawsuits.
Court Upholds Constitutionality of RLUIPA Land Use Provisions
In Chabad Lubavitch of Lichtfield County, Inc. v. Borough of Lichtfield, Connecticut, (D CT, June 20, 2011), a Connecticut federal district court upheld the constitutionality of several of the land use provisions of RLUIPA. This holding allowed Chabad to move ahead with its RLUIPA challenge to Lichtfield's denial of its application to restore and add onto a Victorian building located in an historic district. (See prior posting.) However the court held that Chabad's rabbi (as opposed to the organization) lacked standing to pursue a RLUIPA claim because he had no property interest in the building separate from Chabad's.
In discussing the constitutionality of RLUIPA, the court held that any substantial burden on Chabad's free exercise here would necessarily burden interstate commerce because of the building construction involved. It also concluded that RLUIPA does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it singles out religion for protection against unequal treatment. [Thanks to Eric Treene for the lead.]
In discussing the constitutionality of RLUIPA, the court held that any substantial burden on Chabad's free exercise here would necessarily burden interstate commerce because of the building construction involved. It also concluded that RLUIPA does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it singles out religion for protection against unequal treatment. [Thanks to Eric Treene for the lead.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)