Top Egyptian Presidential Candidates Debate-- Including Views On Religion and State

Policymic posted a live blog report on yesterday's debate in Egypt between the country's two leading presidential candidates-- Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, former leader of the Musilm Brotherhood running as a liberal Islamist; and Amr Moussa, formerly Hosni Mubarak's foreign minister running as the secular candidate. Here are excerpts from the debate relating to the candidate's views on religion and its relation to government:

5:35pm. Aboul Fotouh asks what he meant by referring to "the general principles" of Sharia?

Moussa responds by saying his understanding does coincidence with the prevalent understanding of this topic, and it refers to the general framework of Islamic thought which encourages tolerance, serving people and the nation, moral values, etc. He states that we have to be clear, though, that Aboul Fotouh calls for applying the rules of Sharia whereas I am calling for applying only the principles (as is stated in Article 2).
.....
4:40pm Amr Moussa asks Aboul Fotouh: in a previous interview you stated you believe that it is the right of a Muslim to convert to Christianity and it is the right of a Christian to convert to Islam. Do you still believe this?

Aboul Fotouh: That quote isn't precise: I said that God has given all of humanity the right to choose a religion. And when it comes to apostates, we can try to convince them to change their mind but ultimately we cannot interferring with their right to choose.

4:35pm What is your specific vision for the relationship between religion and state?

Moussa: There is consensus on Article 2 of the constitution which states that the principles of Sharia are the main source of legislation. Different religious groups also have their different primary sources. Egypt is a religious society and the foundation for all the candidates' visions is rooted in religion, but when it comes to making decisions about social issues (health, education, etc.) this foundation needs to agree with the needs of Egyptian society. For example, our education system must be modern and must be able to prepare our youth to compete in today's world. 

Aboul Fotouh: The nature of Islam and its basic principles is that it seeks the best interests of the people. So when we seek the best interests of the people in health, education, agriculture, etc this is in agreement with Islam. As the current constitution states, and we hope the forthcoming constiution will also affirm, Sharia is the main source of legislation, under the supervision of the Constitutional Court.

2nd Circuit Upholds New York's Kosher Food Disclosure Law

In Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, (2d Cir., May 10, 2012), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of New York state's Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004. The law requires sellers and manufacturers that market their products as kosher to label the foods as such and to identify in a filing with the state Department of Agriculture the individuals certifying the food as kosher. Individuals who certify non-prepackaged food as kosher are required to file a statement of their qualifications with the Department of Agriculture. Establishments that prepare kosher food on premises must post a specified disclosure form regarding certification of its food and certain of its practices. The Act does not define what is kosher, adopt kosher standards of any particular branch of Judaism nor authorize state inspectors to determine if products are in fact kosher-- defects which led courts in a 2002 case to strike down an earlier version of New York's law on kosher food. The court found that the 2004 labeling and disclosure law does not violate either the Establishment or Free Exercise clause, nor is it unconstitutionally vague. Bloomberg News reports on the decision.

Colorado Day of Prayer Proclamations Violate State Constitution

In Freedom From Religion Foundations, Inc. v. Hickenlooper, (CO Ct. App., May 10, 2012), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the governor's Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations issued from 2004 to 2009 are unconstitutional under the Colorado Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4, that provides: "Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."  Applying Colorado's standing rules that are broader than those in federal court, the court held that plaintiffs could bring suit as taxpayers challenging the proclamations.  The court went on to hold that the predominant purpose of the proclamations is to advance religion, and that "a reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status." It also held that the precedents permitting legislative prayer do not validate the proclamations. Freedom From Religion Foundation issued a press release announcing the court's decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Canada's Federal Court Rejects Questioning Refugee Applicants On Religious Knowledge

In Zhang v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (Fed. Ct., May 4, 2012), Canada's Federal Court ruled that it was improper for Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board to decide that an applicant for refugee status was not a genuine Christian, based on questioning about the applicant's knowledge of Christianity.  At issue was a claim by Haixhin Zhang, who was in Canada on a visitor's visa, that he would be arrested if he returned to China because he regularly attended services of a house church in China. The Refugee Protection Division member who initially passed on the application found that Zhang had likely joined a Christian church in Canada to support a fraudulent refugee claim. The Federal Court said, however, that this conclusion is not defensible as a matter of either fact or law:

The transcript reads as a debate between scholars on the correct interpretation of Christian theology. Testing an applicant’s understanding of religious tenants is fraught with unaddressed extremely serious questions.....

If it is to be said that all Christians should know certain facts about the religion, there must be a verifiable way to establish this expectation. The expectation cannot be so established on a completely subjective basis by a decision-maker. Therefore, if a general expectation is established of persons who claim to be Christians, advance notice of the expectation must be given so the expectation is fair to all who apply....

[A] finding of implausibility that a certain person is not of a certain faith because he or she does not meet a certain subjective standard set by a decision-maker is indefensible as a matter of fact.... [K]nowledge of religious dogma, does not equate to holding religious faith. It’s not about the doctrines. The thing that is important is the ethic instilled by the religious teachings that a person takes and lives by. Attending church and quoting scriptures aren’t as important as how a person lives his or her life according to the morals and values learned....

The National Post, reporting on the decision, says that other cases in recent months have similarly found that the IRB has imposed unreasonably high standards of religious knowledge on applicants claiming religious persecution.

Investigative Article Explores Pressures In Hasidic Communities Not To Report Sexual Abuse

Today's New York Times carries a long front-page story on the pressures within New York's insular Hasidic Jewish communities against victims' families reporting child sexual abuse to civil authorities. The Times reports:

There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases.

Abuse victims and their families have been expelled from religious schools and synagogues, shunned by fellow ultra-Orthodox Jews and targeted for harassment intended to destroy their businesses. Some victims’ families have been offered money, ostensibly to help pay for therapy for the victims, but also to stop pursuing charges, victims and victims’ advocates said.

The situation varies among different Hasidic communities. Last year a Chabad-Lubavitch religious court in Crown Heights ruled that where there is evidence of abuse, "one is forbidden to remain silent."  And recently in Williamsburg, Satmar Hasidic authorities posted Yiddish-language signs in synagogues warning adults and children to stay away from a specific named individual who was molesting young men.

Suit Challenges Indiana's Limit On Who May Solemnize Marriages

The Center for Inquiry is an organization devoted to fostering a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values. Yesterday it filed a federal lawsuit seeking to require the state of Indiana to permit those who have completed the Center's Secular Celebrant Program to solemnize marriages in Indiana. The complaint (full text) in Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Clerk, Marion Circuit Court, (SD IN, filed  5/9/2012), claims that IN Code Sec. 31-11-6-1 that limits solemnization of marriages to clergy, various religious groups, and public officials, violates the Establishment Clause and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Center for Inquiry issued a press release yesterday announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

President Obama Says He Supports Same-Sex Marriage

ABC News reports that in an interview recorded today, President Barack Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he now supports same-sex marriage. Obama said in part:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The President added that this is his personal position, but that he still supports the right of individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same-sex marriages.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney today reiterated his position opposing same-sex marriage and at least some types of civil unions:

"My view is the same as it’s been from the beginning," Mr. Romney told a CBS affiliate in Denver. "I don’t favor civil unions if it’s identical to marriage, and I don’t favor marriage between people of the same gender." Asked why he opposed civil unions, in particular, he explained that in many cases they represent marriage by a different name for gay couples.

North Carolina Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment Preserving Traditional Definition of Marriage

CNN reports that yesterday North Carolina voters, by a 61%-39% majority, approved a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage and civil unions. The vote was 1,303,952 for, and 831,788 against. The amendment (full text) provides:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

With this vote, North Carolina becomes the 31st state to add a constitutional amendment preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Six states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Australian Appeals Court Refuses Bench Trial For Muslim Who Feared Jury Prejudice

In R. v. Belghar, (NSW Ct. Crim. App., May 4, 2012), an appellant court in the Australian state of New South Wales reversed a trial court judge's decision that a Muslim defendant charged with assault, intimidation and attempted murder should be granted a non-jury trial. Defendant, who allegedly attacked his wife's sister, requested the bench trial because he believed the jury might be prejudiced against his religious beliefs. The Crown objected to the request. The attack apparently took place because defendant was angry that his sister-in-law took his wife to the beach where his wife displayed her body (as evidenced by her sunburned shoulders). According to the trial court judge:

this was abhorrent to the applicant by virtue of either his strict religious beliefs or by virtue of the fact that he believed he had absolute authority over the wife as opposed to the wife's family having some authority over her.... In this particular case there is direct reference to aspects of the Muslim faith which may cause a jury to take their mind off the central issue which is a single issue, that is, what was the intent of the applicant at the point in time that he came into contact with the victim at the Broadway shopping centre.

The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed the decision, holding that:

the mere apprehension of prejudice in prospective jurors, not based on evidence or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice... is at odds with the assumption which the common law makes that jurors will understand and obey the instructions of trial judges to bring an impartial mind to bear on their verdict....

It may be accepted that from time to time adverse publicity is given to events which have occurred, generally outside Australia, where the strict application of a form of Muslim law or Islamic tradition has given rise to the treatment of a woman or women in a manner which is generally unacceptable to ordinary Australians. It may also be that some people in the Australian community harbour prejudice against persons who adhere to the Muslim faith, particularly against those holding "conservative" views about the place and role of women in marriage or in wider society. However, without evidence that such views are widespread in the Australian community and would be likely to influence jurors, it must be assumed that the protection afforded an accused person in the ordinary course of a trial will protect him or her from an unjust result.

9News reports on the decision.

India's Supreme Court Orders Phase Out of Hajj Subsidy

According to Calcutta's The Telegraph, a two-judge bench of India's Supreme Court yesterday ordered the government to phase out over ten years the government's subsidy for Hajj pilgrims, even though another bench of the Supreme Court had previously held the subsidy constitutional. Currently the government subsidizes each pilgrim the equivalent of $730 (US). The court yesterday apparently based its decision largely on the fact that the Qur'an required Muslims to use only their own funds for making the Hajj. Several Muslim leaders welcomed the decision, some saying that the subsidies benefit Air India more than the pilgrims, and that more competition among airlines could lower the cost. The court yesterday also asked the Haj Committee of India and the state Haj committees to explain further the method they use to select pilgrims. The committees have two months to file a reply.

Catholic Business Group Challenges Health Insurance Mandate

Another federal court lawsuit was filed this week challenging the Obama administration's mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring that health insurance policies fully cover contraceptive services. The suit was filed by Legatus, an organization of Catholic business owners and CEOs, as well as by a member of the organization and his company. The complaint (full text) in Legatus v. Sebelius, (ED MI, filed 5/7/2012) claims that the Mandate violates the free exercise and Establishment clauses, infringes free speech rights and violates RFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint alleges:

Complying with the Mandate requires a direct violation of the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs because it would require Plaintiffs to pay for and assist others in paying for or obtaining  not only contraception, but also abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “ella” come within the Mandate’s and Health Resources and Services Administration’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.

The Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Algeria's Election Commission Warns Against Use of Religion In Campaign

In Algeria, the National Legislative Election Monitoring Commission has warned Islamist groups that the country's law on political parties prohibits the use of religion for political ends.  According to Magharebia yesterday, the Commission is concerned about Islamist candidates using religious references in their speeches. Meanwhile, the Religious Affairs Ministry has urged imams to remain neutral in tomorrow's legislative election, saying they are exploiting the office of imam by becoming involved in political arguments. The Religious Affairs Minister has called for daily reports of any recorded wrongdoing, whether by imams or political parties. In the 1990's a civil war in Algeria between the government and the Islamic Salvation Army killed over 150,000 people.

New USCIRF Commissioner Appointed; Child of Holocaust Surviviors

On May 1, former House of Representatives member Sam Gejdenson was appointed by  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to a vacancy on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. (USCIRF press release.)  Gejdenson is the child of Holocaust survivors, having been born in 1948 in a U.S. displaced persons camp in Eschwege, Germany. While serving in Congress, Gejeenson co-authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Summary Judgment Denied To Defendants In RLUIPA Zoning Case

In Liberty Temple Full Gospel Church, Inc. v. Village of Bolingbrook, (ND IL, April 12, 2012), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants in a RLUIPA case in which the parties disagreed over what the zoning designation was for the area in which a church leased land on which it wished to build.  The city claimed that the area is not zoned for churches, and that the zoning designation of the area was merely incorrectly left off the county's zoning map. The court said:

This  case,  then,  turns  on  the  issue  of  what  the  property leased was zoned:  B-2 (Community Retail) or B-4 (Commercial Urban Development).  Both sides agree churches are allowed in the latter, but not in the former.  If it is the former, the church was not substantially burdened merely by the fact that it was not allowed to locate wherever it chose.  If  it  is  zoned  B-4, the Village’s  refusal  to  accept building permit application and architectural drawings, and forcing the  church  to  either  apply  for  a  SUP [special use permit]  or  go  to  court,  may  have substantially burdened the Plaintiff in violation of RLUIPA.

See prior related posting.

Judge Suggests Mediator Consider a "6 Commandments" Solution

As previously reported, last September the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Giles County, Virginia school board challenging a display of historical documents including the Ten Commandments in one of the county's high schools.  NECN News reported yesterday that federal district judge Michael Urbanski sent the case into mediation, suggesting that the parties consider whether the display could be modified by leaving out the four Commandments that mention God.

Allocation of Playing Fields Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Rogers v. Mulholland, (D RI, May 4, 2012), a Rhode Island federal district court rejected claims by municipal taxpayers that the city of Pawtucket violated the Establishment Clause in the way it allocated use of publicly owned athletic fields for use by private religious schools. The court said in part:

There is no evidence that the fields are used for anything other than a purely secular purpose. The sectarian school students are receiving a benefit available to all junior high and high school students in the City. Public schools receive preferential assignments for all games. The Court concludes that a reasonable observer aware of the relevant circumstances and context of the City's conduct would not perceive a message of governmental endorsement or sponsorship of religion.

Guantanamo Proceedings Begin With Attorney In Hijab and Delay For Prayer

Facing the action by Congress blocking the trial of Guantanamo Bay inmates on U.S. soil, yesterday five inmates charged with the 9/11 attacks were arraigned in a military tribunal at Guantanamo.  The London Daily Mail reports that Walid bin Attash's attorney Cheryl Bormann, appeared in court wearing a Hijab (Islamic head scarf). She later explained that her client insists  she wear this clothing, and she always does so around him.  She also requested that other women at the hearing dress similarly so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes "for fear of committing a sin under their faith."  At one point during the hearing defendant Ramzi Binalshibh delayed the proceedings by standing up and then kneeling on the courtroom floor and praying for several minutes, with a row of guards keeping close watch.

Australian State Supreme Court Upholds Prison Sentence For Anti-Semitic Statements and Internet Postings

In O'Connell v. State of Western Australia, (Sup. Ct. W. Aust., May 4, 2012), the Supreme Court of Western Australia upheld the conviction and 3-year sentence (with eligibility for parole) of Australian Brendon O'Connell for harassing a member of a racial group and for promoting animosity toward a racial group. The convictions stemmed from anti-Semitic statements that defendant published on the Internet, as well as statements made directly to Elliot Keyser who was president of the Western Australian Union of Jewish Students. O'Connell engaged in a heated confrontation with Keyser during a protest by Friends of Palestine over a supermarket's sale of Jaffa oranges imported from Israel. O'Connell then posted video footage online accusing Jews, in vivid language, of killing anyone who stood up to them. O'Connell was also prosecuted for blog postings he placed online after he was charged in connection with the video footage.  JTA reports that the prison sentence is the first under Western Australia's racial vilification laws. O'Connell had gone on a hunger strike in an attempt to get the court to hear his appeal.

Jury Awards $5.12 M In Employment Discrimination Suit Against AT&T

AP reports that last Thursday, a state trial court jury in Kansas City, Missouri awarded a Muslim woman $120,000 in lost wages and other actual damages, and punitive damages of $5 million, against AT&T in the largest employment discrimination award in Missouri history.  Susan Bashir, who worked as a fiber optics network builder for ten years converted to Islam in 2005. She was harassed constantly about her religion, and in 2008 her boss pulled off her headscarf and exposed her hair in an encounter over the fact that she had filed an employment discrimination complaint with the EEOC. She became so stressed that she could not return to work, and she was fired after being off the job for nine months.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mark L. Movsesian, The Price of Ottoman Failure, (April 27, 2012).
• Cyra Akila Choudhury, Between Tradition and Progress: A Comparative Perspective on Polygamy in the United States and India, (University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, 2012).
• Kenneth L. Marcus, Three Conceptions of Religious Freedom, (May 4, 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Dwight Bashir, Dean Fred F. Herzog Memorial Lecture. Religious Freedom under Assault in the Middle East: An Imperative for the U.S. and International Community to Hold Governments to Account, 45 John Marshall Law Review xxiii-xlii (2011).