Cyprus and Church of Cyprus Reach Tax Agreement

Cyprus Mail reports the the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus last Friday approved a tax agreement with the government of Cyprus that will bring millions of Euros into the country's dwindling coffers this year. The country's cabinet already approved the deal last Wednesday, and the Church agrees to be bound by it now, rather than waiting for parliamentary approval. The agreement is based on a 2005 agreement that was never ratified by the Cabinet, but includes several changes from the 2005 draft. According to Voice of Russia, the main feature is an agreement that the Church in the future will pay taxes when buying, selling or exchanging real estate. The government gives up claims for tax arrears by the Church, while clergy will no longer get duty-free autos. The church plans transactions this year which will generate 20 to 30 million Euros in tax revenue.  Finance Minister Kikis Kazamias thanked the Church for delaying one large transaction until after the agreement was finalized so that it would generate revenues for the government.

Pressure To Include Shariah Law In New Constitution Grows In Tunisia

In the wake of Tunisia's Arab Spring revolution last year, the country's Parliament is in the midst of drafting a new constitution. As CNS News reported earlier this month, pressure is growing to enshrine Shariah law as the principal source of legislation in the new constitution, despite Tunisia's secular history and statements last year by the head of the moderate Islamic Ennahda party that won 40% of the seats in Parliament that the Constitution would not mention Islamic law. (See prior posting.) According to Reuters, last month the Popular List, the party with the third largest block in Parliament, proposed a draft constitution that called for Shariah to be the principal source of Tunisia's legislation. Now, last Friday, thousands of Tunisians rallied outside of parliament demanding that the new constitution specify Islam as the state religion and Shariah as the principal source of legislation.  World Bulletin reports that the demonstration was organized by a coalition of religious organizations known as the Islamic Front. Ennahda did not participate in the demonstration.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Copeland v. Livingston, (5th Cir., March 13, 2012), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an inmate's challenge to his 6-month ban from prison religious gatherings after he caused a disturbance by refusing to leave a Muslim meeting in the prison chapel. It also dismissed his challenge to the monitoring or religious meetings and the presence of Christian symbols in the chapel.

In Golden v. Cates, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30901 (ED CA, March 8, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a prisoner's complaint that he has been denied a kosher meal and required to work on the Sabbath.

In Washington-El v. Beard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30489 (WD PA, March 7, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that his requests for a copy of the Koran and his requests to participate in Islamic congressional meetings and services were rejected. His claim under RLUIPA was dismissed with prejudice, but he was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint as to his 1st Amendment free exercise claim. The magistrate's recommendation in the case is at 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30482 (Feb. 3, 2012).

In Lenhart v. Pennsylvania, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30447 (WD PA, March 7, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend as to some defendants, plaintiff's claim that as a pre-trial detainee he was denied access to a Catholic priest. The magistrate's recommendations in the case are at 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30444 (Jan. 12, 2012).

In Collman v. Skolnik, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29986 (D NV, March 6, 2012), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30011, Jan. 26, 2012), and permitted a death row inmate to proceed with a number of his claims regarding delay in allowing him clergy visits from clergy of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), audio monitoring of these visits initially, delay in allowing him a full immersion baptism and failure to recognize PCG as a faith group.

In Williams v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30468 (ND NY, March 7, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153917, Dec. 15, 2011) and dismissed an inmate's claims that he was wrongfully disciplined for not complying with count procedures because at the time he was engaged in prayer as required by the tenets of the Nation of Islam.

In Ramon v. Dretke, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31428 (ED TX, March 8, 2012), a Texas federal district court  adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31522, Jan. 3, 2012) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that when he sought access to a Catholic priest, the prison chaplain told him it would take too much time to arrange for a priest to assist him with partaking of the sacraments. Plaintiff has now been transferred to a status that permits attendance at religious services.

In Knight v. Thompson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31288 (MD AL, March 8, 2012), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (set out in Limbaugh v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153964, July 11, 2011) and dismissed claims of Native American inmates that that state policies restricting inmate hair length violate RLUIPA.

In Durbin v. Cain, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32159 (MD LA, March 8, 2012), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31882, Feb. 16, 2012)  and dismissed a Jewish inmate's claim regarding refusal to allow him to celebrate Jewish holidays, but permitted him to proceed with his complaint that he was transferred to a prison outcamp where he is limited in his ability to practice his religion and meet together with members of his faith.

In Smith v. Cain, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32144 (MD LA, March 8, 2012), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31876, Feb. 14, 2012) and referred back for an evidentiary hearing an inmate's petition to withdraw a previous settlement of a claim against prison officials that he was forced to listen to religious programming on the prison radio and TV network and that the Establishment Clause was violated when a Baptist Bible College was established on prison grounds. Plaintiff claims he signed the prior settlement agreement under physical threats from the warden.

In Mohamad v. Smith, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32478 (WD PA, March 12, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's constitutional and RLUIPA claims that his kufi was wrongfully removed for the taking of his inmate ID photo.

In Ruiz v. Adamson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32971 (ND IL, March 8, 2012), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with various claims stemming from the prison chaplain's refusal of his request to change his religious designation to House of Yahweh and to receive a kosher diet.

Tennessee AG OKs Excluding Religious Groups From Partnering With Homeland Security Department

The Tennessee legislature has pending before it companion bills, SB 2237 and HB 2375, that would authorize the state's Department of Safety and Homeland Security to promote its goals by entering partnership agreements with non-profit organizations.  The state's Attorney General has issued Opinion No. 12-29 (March 2, 2012), concluding that a proposed amendment to the bills that would exclude partnership agreements with political or religious non-profits (and their affiliates) is constitutionally defensible. As to religious non-profits, the Attorney General's opinion concludes:

All religious and religious-affiliated nonprofit organizations are treated the same and are excluded. On its face, this exclusion does not appear to be based upon any hostility toward religion, but rather can be characterized as an attempt to avoid an excessive entanglement or improper affiliation with religion.... [T]he pending legislation mandates numerous requirements applicable to the “nonprofit partners”.... These on-going requirements could be construed as being an excessive entanglement or improper affiliation between the Department of Safety and Homeland Security and a religious or religious-affiliated organization....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Coptic Pope Shenouda Dies As Egypt Goes Through Important Transition

The New York Times reports that long-time head of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, Pope Shenouda III, died Saturday after a long illness. His death comes at a critical time for the 10 million Coptic Christians in Egypt as their country goes through a political transition in which the formal role of Islam is still uncertain. In a statement offering condolences, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Shenouda "an advocate for national unity and religious cooperation." President Obama issued a statement, saying in part: "We stand alongside Coptic Christians and Egyptians as they honor his contributions in support of peace and cooperation."

Indiana Supreme Court Grants Direct Appeal of Trial Court's Decision In School Voucher Case

The Indiana Supreme Court yesterday (March 16) issued an order (full text) in Meredith v. Daniels allowing the parties to skip the intermediate appellate court and take a direct appeal to the state Supreme Court of a trial court's decision upholding Indiana's Choice Scholarship school voucher program. NWI Times reports on the court's action. The case involves claims by 12 plaintiffs that the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions that bar the use of tax funds for religious institutions and which require a general and uniform system of common schools. (See prior posting.)

Religious Discrimination In Employment Claims Filed or Decided This Week Involve Multiple Faiths

In recent days, several cases involving refusal of employers to accommodate employees' religious beliefs have been filed or decided. In Rumfola v. Total Petrochemical USA, Inc., (MD LA, March 13, 2012), a Louisiana federal district court held that a jury question exists as to whether an employer would have suffered "undue hardship" if it allowed an employee, a member of the Living Church of God, to take off on Friday night and Saturday for religious reasons during a production plant turnaround process. [Thanks to CCH Employment Law Daily via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

The Detroit News reported earlier this week on a federal lawsuit filed by a Jewish dentist against the Dearborn, Michigan dental office that employed him. Dr. Mark Ellis claimed that his employer accommodated religious practices of Muslim employees, while rejecting or reluctantly granting similar accommodation to him.  Ellis says he was advised against wearing a yarmulke (ead covering) and Tzitzit (ritual fringes) during work hours because the dental office had many Arabic patients.However Muslim dentists could wear head coverings and other religious clothing.  Midwest Dental also constantly harassed Ellis about leaving early on Friday, even though it permitted Muslim dentists an extra hour at lunch to attend Friday prayers.

Aol Jobs reported this week that 8 Musliim cab drivers in Orlando, Florida are filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that their employer, Star Taxi, threatened they would be fired if they were caught praying at any of the company's service stations, even though employees of religions are4 permitted to take a break to pray or read religious material.

New Compromise Proposed By Government On Contraceptive Coverage By Religious Non-Profits' Insurance Policies

In a news release yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department and the Department of the Treasury announced that they were issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to once more try to find an acceptable compromise with religiously affiliated institutions on the issue of contraceptive coverage in health care policies made available to their employees and (for colleges) their students. The Advance Notice takes several steps to try to meet concerns expressed, particularly by Catholic institutions.

First it makes clear the the narrow definition of religious employer used for the previously announced religious exemption from the contraception coverage mandate is intended only for purposes of the coverage requirements enacted by the Affordable Care Act:

Whether an employer is designated as “religious” for these purposes is not intended as a judgment about the mission, sincerity, or commitment of the employer, and the use of such designation is limited to defining the class that qualifies for this specific exemption. The designation will not be applied with respect to any other provision of the PHS Act, ERISA, or the Code, nor is it intended to set a precedent for any other purpose.

The Advance Notice reiterates the Administration's previous proposal calling for insurance companies to furnish contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional cost, for employees of non-profit religious institutions that have religious objections to financing such coverage.  The Advance Notice then moves on to tackle the problem of contraceptive coverage for the many non-profit religious organizations that self-insure, and thus lack an insurance company to furnish coverage. For these organizations, the third-party administrator of the group health plan or some other independent entity would arrange and finance contraceptive coverage.  Religious non-profit groups would only have to self-certify their eligibility. The Advance Notice suggests a number of sources for revenue for the third-party administrator to use in providing the coverage.

The New York Times reports on the new proposal and says that it "virtually guarantees that birth control will remain an issue in the battle for the White House and Congress." [Thanks to Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Britain Begins Consultation Process On Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Yesterday, Britain's Home Office launched a Consultation seeking public input on how to provide equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples. According to the 25-page consultation document (full text), the government's proposals are designed to:

• enable same-sex couples to get married through civil ceremonies.

• retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples, including the ability to have a civil partnership registration on religious premises (on a voluntary basis and retaining the ban on any religious elements forming part of the registration).

• allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership.

• make no changes to how religious marriages are solemnized.

Expanding on the issue of religious marriage, the consultation document says:

marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-sex couples.

Annex B of the document sets out specific consultation questions. Interested parties have until June 14 to file responses and comments on the proposals.  BBC News reports on these developments.

South Africa's Chief Justice Criticized For Inviting Judges To Evangelical Presentation

Today's Mail & Guardian is one of a number of South African media outlets covering criticism of an e-mail sent on behalf of South Africa's chief justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng, to chief judges around the country urging them to attend a leadership conference presented by American evangelist and motivational speaker John C. Maxwell.  Apparently none of the invited judges in fact attended the conference (which involved an attendance fee), but calls are being made for the Judicial Service Commission to censure Mogoeng. Mogoeng is is a lay preacher at the Winners Chapel International Church, and his appointment last year as chief justice was controversial because of his apparent views on homosexuality and the role of women. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: SAPA reports (3/18) that the Heads of Courts say they have full confidence in Mogoeng.

Rape Victim Denied Anti-Conception Pill By Religious Jail Guard States Claim

In R.W. v. Spinelli, (MD FL, March 6, 2012), a Florida federal district court held, in a case involving rather unusual facts, that a rape victim can maintain a suit for violation of her privacy and equal protection rights against a jail employee.  Plaintiff was prescribed anti-conception pills at a rape crisis center where she took one and was instructed to take the second 12 hours later.  While police, investigating the rape, accompanied the victim back to the crime scene, they discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant against her. They arrested her, and when she was taken into custody the second pill she had with her was confiscated.  The next morning when she asked defendant Spinelli, the jail worker in charge of decisions involving her care, for the pill, Spinelli refused saying it was against her (Spinelli's) religious beliefs to administer it. Ultimately, just prior to her release the next day, plaintiff was permitted to take the second pill, and she did not become pregnant.

The court, while permitting plaintiff to move ahead, warned that at most she would receive only nominal damages of $1. It also expressed some question about whether plaintiff's equal protection allegations were well-founded. She alleged that Spinelli would have given the same contraceptive to male inmates undergoing sex change. The court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the sheriff in his official capacity. Courthouse News reports on the decision.

St. Louis Archdiocese Loses Suit To Regain Control of Parish

St. Louis Review reports at length on decision handed down yesterday by a Missouri state trial court judge rejecting attempts by the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and former parishioners of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church to return the congregation to communion with the Catholic Church.  The church was created as a separate non-profit corporation in 1891. A parallel parish, originally created by the Franciscans, operated under the control of the Archbishop at the church. In 2003, St. Stanislaus' members rejected demands from the Catholic Archdiocese to restructure and turn its assets over to the Archbishop. A year later the Archbishop declared that St. Stanislaus is no longer a Catholic parish and moved the exsiting parish to a different location. Board members, and a priest hired by the church, were excommunicated.

In Krauze v. Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish, (MO Cir. Ct., March 15, 2012), the court held that Church bylaws are not inconsistent with its Articles of Agreement, and that the church's property belongs to the congregation, not the Archdiocese. Summarizing the issues it faced, the court said:

[I]n 1891 the predecessors of today’s litigants struck a tacit bargain that, in regard to St. Stanislaus, the Archdiocese would not overreach into civil corporate matters and the Parish Corporation would leave religious matters to the Archbishop. Since neither side anticipated that the other would ever break that deal, both sides now seek to have the Court enter a judgment declaring that the other side has breached....

After analysis of the articles, the charter, the bylaws and Canon law, ultimately it is clear that a declaratory judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor would not finally resolve issues with St.Stanislaus Corporation.

In passing on the question of title to the church's property, the court said:

The Archbishop may own the souls of wayward St. Stanislaus parishioners, but the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation owns its own property.

Canadian Priest Sues LifeSite News For Defamation

LifeSite News yesterday reported on a $500,000 defamation lawsuit filed in 2011 against it and five of its staff in Canada by Quebec Catholic priest and former member of Parliament, Raymond Gravel.  Apparently Gravel objects to articles published online by LifeSite News that describe him as being "pro-abortion." Examples of the articles can be found here and here. Fr. Gravel is a critic of the Church's teachings on homosexuality, and apparently describes himself as "pro-choice" on abortion. LifeSite News says that defending the suit will cost it $130,000. Apparently LifeSite News' primary defense is that Gravel has contributed significantly to his own damages by granting interviews in which he repeats the statements that he claims are defamatory. It argues that he has fueled his own reputation, and that LifeSite News was not responsible for his decision to leave politics. LifeSite News has also counterclaimed for damages against Gravel.  Available details on the parties' claims are sketchy at this point.

Private Business and Its Owner Challenge Contraceptive Coverage Mandate On Religious Freedom Grounds

The American Center for Law and Justice yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit by a small business and its principal owner challenging on religious liberty grounds the Obama administration's mandate requiring health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services. CatholicVote.org Legal Fund, which filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs, also issued a press release. The complaint (full text) in O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, filed 3/15/2012), alleges:

3. Plaintiff, Frank R. O’Brien Jr., is an adherent of the Catholic religion. As the individual with the controlling interest in Plaintiff, O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (“OIH”) and its subsidiaries, O’Brien wishes to conduct his business in a manner that does not violate the principle of his religious faith.

4. O’Brien has concluded that complying with the Mandate would require him to violate his religious beliefs because it would require him and/or the corporations he controls to pay for, not only contraception and sterilization, but also abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.

The complaint alleges violations of the 1st Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  While several lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated non-profit organizations challenging the Affordable Health Care Act mandate (see prior posting), this is the first challenge by a private business.  The complaint says that the company's mission, as described on its website "is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society."

The lawsuit raises a number of complicated issues not directly addressed in the complaint.  These include whether business entities (here "limited liability companies") can have protected religious beliefs, and, if not, when are an individual owner's religious beliefs infringed by mandates placed on the business entity.

Ugandan Gay Rights Group Sues American Activist in U.S. Court

On Wednesday, a Ugandan LGBTI rights group, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute in a U.S. federal district court in Massachusetts against Massachusetts resident Scott Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries. The complaint (full text) in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, (D MA, filed 3/14/2012), alleges that Lively, along with counterparts in Uganda, has waged a decades-long campaign to persecute persons in Uganda on the basis of their gender and/or sexual orientation and gender identity. (See prior related posting.)The complaint claims:

In large part due to defendant Lively's contributions to the conspiracy to persecute LGBTI person in Uganda, plaintiff ... as well as its individual staff-members ... have suffered severe deprivations of fundamental rights. Their very existence has been demonized through a coordinated campaign ... to attribute to the "genocidal" "gay movement" an irrepressible predilection to commit rape and child sexual abuse.... [T]hey have endured severe discrimination in virtually every meaningful aspect of their civil and political lives; their association has been criminalized; their advocacy on issues central to their health and political participation has been suppressed and punished; and they have been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As a result, ... [they] live in persistent fear of harassment, arbitrary arrest and physical harm, including death.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaratory judgment that Lively's conduct violated the law of nations, and other appropriate relief. The New York Times, Religion Dispatches,

Russian Court Backs Government's Rejection of Olympic "Pride House"

Gay Star News reports today that a trial court in Russia has backed last year's decision by the Russian Ministry of Justice to refuse the registration of the NGO that planned to organize a "PRIDE House" for gay and lesbian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.  The court wrote in part:

The aims of the organization contradict the basics of public morality and the policy of the state in the area of family motherhood and childhood protection. The activities of the [Pride House] movement leads to propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation which can undermine the security of the Russian society and the state, provoke social-religious hatred, which is the feature of the extremist character of the activity.

Moreover it can undermine the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation due to the decrease of Russia’s population.

Such aims as creating an understanding of the necessity to fight against homophobia and the creation of positive attitudes towards LGBT sportsmen contradicts with the basics of public morality because they are directed towards the increase of the number of citizens of sexual minorities which breaches the understanding of good and evil, good and bad, vice and virtue.

A successful PRIDE House was created in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics there.

White House Negotiations With Bishops Focuses On Definition of Religious Organization

Reuters reported yesterday that the Obama administration is quietly negotiating with representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to resolve their high-profile disagreement over the administration's mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives. (See prior posting.) Apparently the critical issue has become the White House's narrow definition of religious organizations that are exempt from the health care insurance mandate: non-profit religious employers whose primary purpose is the inculcation of religious values and which also both employ and serve only individuals who share the groups' religious tenets. The Bishops fear that this narrow definition-- which excludes most faith-based colleges,hospitals and social service organizations-- will spread in federal law and supplant more broadly interpreted exemptions for religious institutions in other federal laws. The White House says its definition for purposes of the Affordable Care Act minimum coverage provisions is not intended to create a precedent.

Government Issues First Ever Permit To Kill Bald Eagle For Religious Purposes

In what is seen as an important vindication of Native American religious freedom, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week issued a permit to allow the Northern Arapaho tribe to kill up to two bald eagles (without eggs or nestlings) this year for religious purposes.  AP reported yesterday that while the government has previously issued permits for tribes to kill golden eagles, this is the first time that a bald eagle permit has been issued.  The step came after the tribe last year brought suit over the government's failure to grant a permit application filed nearly three years ago. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668a) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to issue a permit for the taking of eagles for scientific or exhibition purposes, or for the religious purposes of Indian tribes, when that is compatible with preservation of the eagle population. The government's administration of the permit system under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was unsuccessfully challenged in a long-running prosecution of a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe who in 2005 killed a bald eagle so he could use it in his tribe's Sun Dance. (See prior posting.)

Cuban Government Launches Website For Pope's Upcoming Visit

Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to visit Cuba March 26-28.  God Discussion reports that the Cuban government has launched a new website devoted to the Pope's upcoming visit. The website, Benedicto XVI in Cuba, carries the schedule for the visit along with numerous background articles.

Roy Moore Wins Republican Nomination For Alabama Chief Justice

CNN reports that Alabama's former Supreme Court chief justice, Roy Moore, may get his old job back.  Moore won Tuesday's Republican primary in which the current chief justice, Chuck Malone, was challenged by two contenders-- Moore and former Alabama attorney general Charlie Graddick. Once final results were in late yesterday, it became clear that Moore had avoided a run-off election by capturing just over 50% of the entire vote. Moore is best known for his attempt ten years ago to keep his 2.5 ton Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building which housed the Supreme Court. In 2003, a state judicial ethics panel removed Moore from office when he defied a federal court order to take down the monument. According to an AP report in March, the major issue in the primary race was whether the Alabama state courts can withstand another round of budget cuts. Moore will face Democratic candidate Harry Lyon in the November election. WBRC reports that Moore, when asked if he would attempt to return the 10 Commandments to the Court, said:

We'll not return the Ten Commandments because it would be more about me or a monument about me. That's what I'm identified with, and I think it would be detrimental to the true issue. The true issue is whether we can acknowledge the sovereignty of almighty God over the affairs of our state and our law. That I will not back down from.