Afghans Protest Inadvertent Military Burning of Qur'ans

Furious demonstrations broke out in Afghanistan yesterday as reports circulated of NATO troops at Bagram Air Base setting fire to bags containing copies of the Qur'an and books of Qur'anic interpretation.  The New York Times and CNN report in depth on the events. On Monday night, a dump truck escorted by a military vehicle drove up to a landfill at Bagram and began unloading bags of books into a pit for incineration.  Afghans working at the site saw what was happening and objected. The soldiers drew back, but two bags already thrown into the pit had begun to burn, and they were pulled out by Afghans with half-burned Qur'ans in them.  The books came from the Detention Facility in Parwan which houses insurgents captured by Americans in raids.  ISAF Commander General John R. Allen said: "We are thoroughly investigating the incident and we are taking steps to ensure this does not ever happen again. I assure you … I promise you … this was NOT intentional in any way."  One official said that the materials were removed from a library at Parwan because of "extremist inscriptions" communicated on them. Secretary of Defense Leon Pantetta also apologized, while ISAF announced that coalition personnel will be trained in proper handling of religious materials by March 3. At the White House daily press briefing (full text), press secretary Jay Carney said in part:

This was a deeply unfortunate incident that does not reflect the great respect our military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people.  Our military leaders have apologized, as I mentioned, for these unintentional actions, and ISAF is undertaking an investigation to understand what happened and to ensure that steps are taken so that incidents like this do not happen again.

UPDATE: CNN reports Wednesday that at least 5 people have been killed and 20 wounded as police respond to protests in Parwan and Nangarhar provinces. The U.S. embassy in Kabul is in lock down for a second day. Americans were asked to avoid the area near Camp Phoenix (near Kabul International Airport) where violent demonstrations were also taking place.

Two New Challenges To Obama's Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Filed

Two more lawsuits, brought by religiously-affiliated universities, were filed yesterday to challenge the constitutionality of the Obama administration mandate that requires contraceptive services to be covered by most health insurance policies.  A press release from the Becket Fund reports that a suit was filed in federal court yesterday by Florida’s Ave Maria University.  The complaint (full text) in Ave Maria University v. Sebelius, (MD FL, filed 2/21/2012), claims that enforcing the mandate against Ave Maria would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the free exercise, free speech and establishment clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: Ave Maria's president is Jim Towey, former director of George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives. The Daily Caller reports on Towey's conference call with reporters announcing the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Presbyterian-affiliated Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania filed a similar lawsuit.  The complaint (full text) in Geneva College v. Sebelius, (WD PA, filed 2/21/2012) indicates that Geneva College's objections are limited to being required to cover contraceptives (such as Plan B and ella) that it considers to be abortifacients. However its lawsuit seeks a broad order barring application of the mandate in a way that substantially burdens anyone's religious beliefs.  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Groups Urge Candidates Not To Use Religion Inappropriately

Fourteen religious groups-- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh-- today urged political candidates to avoid inappropriate emphasis on religious belief in the upcoming campaign season. (Press release.) In a document titled Religion in Political Campaigns -- An Interfaith Statement of Principles, drafted by the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Interfaith Alliance, the 14 groups said:

Candidates for public office ... should feel comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters, commenting about their own religious beliefs, explaining, if they wish to do so, how those beliefs shape their policy perspectives, and how they would balance the principles of their faith with their obligation to defend the Constitution if the two ever came into conflict. There is a point, however, where an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours.  Appealing to voters along religious lines is divisive. It is contrary to the American ideal of including all Americans in the political process, regardless of whether they are members of large and powerful religious groups, religious minorities, or subscribe to no faith tradition.

[Thanks to Michael Lieberman and to Jeff Huett for the lead.] 

FBI Removes Inaccurate Training Material On Muslims

The Detroit Free Press reported yesterday that the FBI has removed some 700 documents and 300 presentations that stereotyped Islam or were factually inaccurate. The action came after complaints from Muslim and Arab-American groups. The FBI plans to announce in the near future its procedures for vetting training material for accuracy. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

British Employment Appeal Tribunal Holds Sikh Priest Must Be Paid Minimum Wage

In Singh v. Members of the Management Committee of the Bristol Sikh Temple, (EAT, Feb. 14, 2012), Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a former Priest at a Sikh Temple was a "worker" within section 54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.  This entitled him to the minimum wage, and not merely the amounts he had been receiving from contributions by members of the congregation. Reporting on the decision, today's London Mail says: "The decision means religious organisations, charities and groups which depend on voluntary help are at risk of having to pay a salary to thousands of people they believed were giving their help free."

Greek Orthodox Patriarch Meets With Commission Drafting Turkey's New Constitution

Hurriyet Daily News reported yesterday that in Turkey, Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew made an historic closed-door presentation to the Constitution Conciliation Commission which is drafting a new constitution for Turkey. The Patriarch said that this was "the first official invitation to non-Muslim minorities in Republican history." In an 18-page paper that he left with the Commission, the Patriarch called for equal treatment for non-Muslim minorities, including an equal share of public funds for religious services and education. Another member of the Patriarch's delegation urged the Commission to make reference in the new constitution to the 1924 Lausanne Treaty that  guarantees the rights of Turkey’s Greek Orthodox, Jewish and Armenian communities. He also urged the Commission to specifically define "hate crimes". The head of the Syriac Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation also met with the Commission.

State Bills Challenge Federal Mandate On Contraceptive Coverage

AP reports today that bills have recently been introduced into state legislatures in Idaho, Missouri and Arizona that would allow insurance companies or businesses, religious or secular, to refuse to cover contraception, abortion and sterilization in their health insurance policies if they have moral objections to offering the coverage. The bills attempt to challenge the Obama administration's recent mandate regarding coverage of contraceptive services by health care plans. It is likely that the federal government would sue to block effectiveness of the state laws if they pass.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Melissa Crouch, Indonesia's Blasphemy Law: Bleak Outlook for Minority Religions, (Asia Pacific Bulletin (East-West Center), No. 146, Jan. 26, 2012).
• Ryan Max Rowberry and John Khalil, A Brief History of Coptic Personal Status Law, (Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 81, 2010).
• Ioana Cismas, Introductory Note to the Statute of the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission, (International Legal Materials, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 1148-1160, 2011).
• Katherine Jacob, Divine Diversion: Divine Retribution as Dispute Resolution and the Norman Invasion of Ireland, (November 30, 2011).
• Carolyn Anne McConnell, What's in a Name? The Case for the Disestablishment of Marriage, (February 17, 2012).
• Mae Kuykendall and Adam Candeub, Symposium Overview: Perspectives on Innovative Marriage Procedure, (Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 2011, p. 1, 2011).
• Muhammad Elsayed, Contracting into Religious Law: Anti-Sharia Enactments and the Free Exercise Clause, (George Mason Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2012).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In McKennie v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16924 (WD TX, Feb. 10, 2012), a Texas federal district court held that the rights of a Hebrew-Israelite inmate under RLUIPA were not violated  when he was not permitted to congregate on the Sabbath with his fellow believers without a religious volunteer present and was not provided a vegan diet.

In Mathis v. Manza, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17147 (WD PA, Feb.9, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17148, Jan 18, 2012) and dismissed equal protection and Establishment Clause claims brought by a non-religious inmate in a jail's restricted housing unit who complained that religious inmates are allowed access to religious texts and jail visits from religious advisers, while he is not allowed access to non-religious texts and extra visits.

In Delgado v. Ballard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16807 (SD WV, Feb. 10, 2012), a West Virginia federal district court rejected RLUIPA. equal protection and retaliation claims by an inmate who adhered to a Taino/Arawak belief system. Plaintiff complained about hair length restrictions, restrictions on tobacco use, restrictions on his use of music during religious observances and interference with his mail. The magistrate's recommendations are at 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153093, Oct. 6, 2011.

In Santos v. Allen, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17206 (D NV, Feb. 13, 2012), a Nevada federal district court held that an inmate had no free exercise claim based on the loss or destruction of a mail-order Passover meal. However the court permitted another free exercise claim, not described in the opinion, to proceed.

In Hallman v. Metts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17393 (D SC, Feb. 13, 2012), a South Carolina federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's claims that he was not provided adequate and appropriate meals during Ramadan, that he was not provided adequate privacy in communal rest rooms, that n Imam was provided and that he was prevented from praying with other Muslims. The magistrate's recommendation in the case is at 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17390, Jan. 19, 2912.

In Shabazz v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17746 (ED VA, Feb. 13, 2012), a Virginia federal district court ordered various defendants to file a memo explaining their position on equal protection, free exercise and RLUIPA claims of a Nation of Islam plaintiff who wished to purchase Nation of Islam non-music CDs directly from The Final Call. Prison authorities required him to go through the Faith Review Committee for approval to add them to the catalog of the prison's distributor.

In Murden v. DeRose, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19112 (MD PA, Feb. 15, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when, his copy a Qur'an was confiscated for 16 days in a general cleaning of cell contents undertaken in response to a riot.

In Mujahid v. Cunningham, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19773 (WD WA, Feb. 16, 2912), a Washington federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that unidentified mail room staff trashed or rejected several religious books, magazines and publications. The magistrate's recommendation is at 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153281, Nov. 8, 2011.

In Barbosa-Orona v. Flores-Dasta, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19951 (D PR, Feb. 15, 2012), a Puerto Rico federal district court held that a Catholic inmate who claims he had made a religious vow not to cut his hair had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before suing over the forced cutting of his hair by prison guards.

In Palermo v. Wrenn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19154 (D NH, Feb. 8, 2012), a New Hampshire federal magistrate judge recommended permitting an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims against two defendants. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied access to Asatrú religious services, religious items, literature, and a religious diet on the basis that Asatrú is not a religion, but a white supremacist group.

In Vazquez v. Waln, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18186 (D NC, Feb. 14, 2012), a North Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153278, Nov. 28, 2011) and permitted an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims that a correctional officer
interfered with his religious practices by seizing his Religious Box which he needed to engage in prayers. However the court rejected his due process challenge to the seizure.

2nd Circuit: TRO On Church Use of Schools Only Applies To One Church

As previously reported, on Thursday a New York federal district court issued a temporary restraining order in the long-running case of Bronx Household of Faith v. New York City Board of Education, temporarily barring the Board of Education from enforcing a Chancellor's Regulation precluding use of school buildings for religious worship. Yesterday, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order (full text) in the case, clarifying that the TRO applies only to evicting Bronx Household of Faith, and does not apply to protect other churches that are not parties to the litigation. However the Circuit Court refused to stay the TRO as it applies to Bronx Household of Faith. Reporting on the 2nd Circuit order, New York Law Journal says that the city and some 50 religious groups had understood the TRO to apply to churches using any public school, and a number of churches were scrambling to get permits for this Sunday.

Canada's Supreme Court Upholds Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture Program In Schools

In S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, (Canada Sup. Ct., Feb. 17, 2012), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a religious liberty challenge to the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture Program that in 2008 replaced Catholic and Protestant programs of religious and moral instruction. Two parents challenged the program, arguing that it interfered with their obligation to pass on the teachings of the Catholic religion to their children. Justice Deschamps' opinion for 7 justices held:

Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish.  However, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society.  The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education.  Although such exposure can be a source of friction, it does not in itself constitute an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and of s. 3 of the Quebec Charter.

A concurring opinion by Justices LeBel and Fish agreed that on the current record, the program should not be struck down. They said, however, that once the program is full implemented so that the actual content and approach are known, it may be that a valid challenge will be available.

One News Now reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Dutch Court Dismisses Charges Against Jewish Man Who Could Not Produce ID On Sabbath

DutchNews.nl reports today that an appeals court in the Hague has dismissed charges of failing to produce an identification card that had been brought against an Orthodox Jewish man who for religious reasons did not carry his ID on the Sabbath.  A court spokesman said that the defendant's religious requirement was more important than the requirement to meet Dutch law.

UPDATE: DutchNews.nl (Feb. 22) reports that the public prosecution department will appeal the decision.

Preacher Loses Challenge To University's Speaker Rules

In McGlone v. Cheek, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18820 (ED TN,  Feb. 15, 2012), a Tennessee federal district court upheld rules at the University of Tennessee that permit outside speakers on campus only if they are sponsored by a student organization. The rule was challenged by a Christian preacher who wanted to share his religious beliefs at various outdoor areas on campus, but did not have student organizational sponsorship.  The court held that the University's rules were reasonable content-neutral restrictions on use of a limited public forum. The court also rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges.

Court Can Apply "Neutral Principles" To Dispute Over Removal Of Church Board Members

In Bendross v. Readon, (FL Aoo., Feb. 15, 2012), a Florida appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply to prevent a civil court from adjudicating a dispute over the make up of the a church's board.  Bible Missionary Baptist Church was incorporated as a non-profit corporation under Florida law. Eugene Rice, a member of the church's board,, filed the corporation's 2010 annual report with the state without notice to the remaining directors. The report removed four members of the board and added three new directors. Other board members objected, and eventually filed suit. The court held that since the church by-laws were silent on procedures for removing board members, default provisions in the non-profit corporation law should apply. The court explained:

Because the statute unambiguously establishes procedures of uniform law, the instant dispute "can be resolved by applying neutral principles of law without inquiry into religious doctrine and without resolving a religious controversy." ...  The court is not asked to interpret religious doctrine or to evaluate church policies. The allegations at the heart of the complaint — that Appellees improperly attempted to remove members of the Board of Trustees — are entirely controlled by neutral application of section 617.0808.

House Committee Holds Hearing On Obama Contraception Coverage Mandate

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday held a hearing titled Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?  Eleven witnesses appeared on two panels before the committee. The Committee's website has transcripts of the prepared statements of the witnesses along with videos of the hearing. Reporting on the hearing, McClatchy Newspapers said:

Leaders from the Catholic, Jewish, Baptist and Lutheran faiths joined in opposition to a proposed federal mandate that would require church-affiliated employers to cover birth control in their health plans.

The leaders took part in a highly politicized oversight hearing led by one of President Barack Obama's chief critics, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. But for those leaders, the issue was deeply serious and personal, touching on one of the basic tenets of the nation's democracy and raising questions about government's place in the faith community.

AP reports that Democrats on the committee were unhappy that Republicans accepted only one Democratic witness. Democrats were also concerned about the fact that only two women were slated as witnesses.

UPDATE: Apparently only ten of the witnesses appeared, with Barry Lynn of Americans United not appearing.

New Jersey Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Veto Expected

In New Jersey yesterday the Assembly gave final legislative approval to a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. However, according to a report by AP, it is expected that Gov. Chris Christie will veto the bill. The bill (full text) earlier this week passed the state Senate by a vote of 24-16, and then passed the lower house yesterday by a vote of 41-33.

New TRO Issued In Bronx Household Case, Keeping Churches In School Buildings

As reported by AP, yesterday a New York federal district court issued a temporary restraining order (full text) against the New York City Board of Education in Bronx Household of Faith v. New York City Board of Education, a suit that most observers had assumed was concluded.  The TRO temporarily bars the Board of Education from enforcing against a small Bronx church Chancellor's Regulation D-180.  That regulation bars public schools from allowing their buildings to be used for religious worship services or otherwise as a house of worship even though the buildings are available to be used outside of normal school hours for programs by community groups. Most observers thought that the validity of the regulation had been definitively upheld when last December the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case which has worked its way up and down the courts for 17-years. (See prior posting.)  After the Supreme Court's denial of review of the 2nd Circuit's decision, widely published media reports indicated that scores of churches were being forced to seek out new places to meet, at significant extra cost to the churches. On Feb. 3, plaintiffs in Bronx Household however filed a new motion (full text) in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the school board rule, asserting:

While the Second Circuit ruled in June 2011, that the Department’s policy did not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, neither this Court nor the Second Circuit have ever analyzed the Department’s policy under the Free Exercise Clause.... Further, that decision also requires new analysis of the Church’s Establishment Clause claim because it excessively entangles the government with religion.

In issuing the 10-day TRO yesterday, Judge Loretta Preska found that plaintiffs had demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause claims. She also said that a written opinion explaining her ruling further would follow.

State Appeals Court Affirms Attorney Sanctions In Jews For Jesus Case

According to a press release yesterday by Liberty Counsel, a Florida state appeals court has affirmed a trial court order requiring attorney Barry Silver to pay $56,000 in attorneys' fees incurred by Jews for Jesus in a long running case in the state courts of Florida. The case was filed by Silver on behalf of Edith Rapp who claimed that Jews for Jesus published a false report from her missionary stepson that she had joined the organization. The trial court found that the pleadings included redundant, immaterial and scandalous content that the court had previously ordered stricken, and that this involved bad faith litigation conduct on the part of attorney Silver. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel also said that the appeals court indicated that if Silver files more motions on appeal, their denial will lead to more sanctions.

Challenge To Excommunication Dismissed Under Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Cassell v. Christian Science Board of Directors, 2012 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 173 (MA App., Feb. 15, 2012), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial court's application of the church autonomy doctrine and dismissed a challenge by plaintiff to her excommunication from the Christian Science church. Plaintiff was a member of a "restoration group" that challenged modernization efforts by the board. The court said it was clear that "the First Amendment forbids courts from interfering with a church's internal governance or with the excommunication of its members." The court held that plaintiff's appeal was frivolous and awarded attorneys' fees to defendant.

Christian Employee's Title VII Claim May Proceed

In Grant v. I.N.I. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18113 (D SC, Feb. 14, 2012), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18116, Jan. 25, 2012) and permitted a Christian employee to proceed with a Title VII religious discrimination claim. Plaintiff alleged that he  informed his employer about his obligations to his church on Saturdays and Sundays, but that he was continuously scheduled him for Saturday shifts. Management failed to respond to his complaints.  He alleges that he was harassed because of the complaints and eventually was terminated from his position.