Religion Clause

Friday, November 01, 2013

USCIRF Urges Obama To Press Iraqi Prime Minister On Religious Freedom

President Obama meets today in Washington with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. (State Department press briefing.) The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday released a letter (full text) that it has sent to President Obama urging him to use the occasion to urge Maliki to do more to protect human rights and religious freedom. The letter says in part:

Regrettably, the government of Iraq has been unable to stop sectarian attacks from occurring and often lacks the will to investigate attacks and bring perpetrators to justice. This has created a climate of impunity and a perpetual sense of fear for all religious communities, particularly the smallest ones. The actions of Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government have also exacerbated the feelings of exclusion and discontent among the country’s Sunni population through political marginalization and prosecutions of Sunni leaders. In addition, the dispute between the central government and Kurdish parties over territory in the north has led to human rights abuses, particularly against the smallest minorities in those areas.

Religious Remarks of Ted Cruz's Father Are Scrutinized

A Mother Jones article yesterday explores at length controversial religious and political statements made by Rafael Cruz, father of Texas' U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. The article argues that the father's remarks are relevant to Ted Cruz's political positions because the Senator brings his father along at campaign stops, refers often to his father, and sometimes deploys his father as a surrogate for campaign events. In April Rafael Cruz insisted to a Tea Party group that the United States is a Christian nation, and insisted that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are a "divine revelation from God." In an August 2012 sermon at an Irving, Texas megachurch, the elder Cruz embraced Christian Dominionism and end-of-time transfer of wealth.

New Contraceptive Coverage Suit Stems From Employee Frustration With Obamacare Website

New twists never seem to end in lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The Thomas More Law Center announced that problems with the Healthcare.gov website led to events that caused it to file suit on Wednesday in D.C. federal district court on behalf of an Ohio-based small business, Electrolock, and its Catholic owners, the Williams family:

The Williams Family, who are devout Catholics, object to the HHS mandate requirement that they provide insurance for their employees covering abortifacients, contraception and sterilization.... [I]n an effort to avoid compromising their religious beliefs... the Williams Family initially paid each of their 43 employees several thousand dollars so the employees could purchase their own health insurance through the government Exchanges.

When employees began to have problems with the Exchange website, the Williams Family had to respond to the complaints and the serious concerns of their employees who were facing loss of health care, frustration with the flawed government website, and the decision to look for other employment that did provide healthcare....

In a final attempt to provide for their employees in good conscience, the Williams Family has organized a self-insured employee health plan which they are seeking to implement. However, since the plan excludes abortion, sterilization, contraception, abortifacients and related education, the Williams Family requires an injunction from the court in order to implement the plan without penalties, which would exceed $1.5 million dollars per year.

New Limitations Window In Minnesota Has Generated 18 Clergy Abuse Cases

Yesterday's Huffington Post reports that 18 lawsuits have been filed against Catholic clergy in Minnesota since the enactment in May of this year of HF 681 that creates a 3-year window for previously time-barred cases alleging sexual abuse of a minor. A number of these cases also include the archdiocese as a defendant. Prospectively, the new law eliminates any limitation period for suits against individuals who sexually abuse minors, while suits claiming vicarious liability for the abuse must be brought before the victim reaches 24 years of age.

Italian Magazine Claims NSA Intercepted Vatican Communications; NSA Denies Targeting Vatican

As reported by the Huffington Post and Reuters, the Italian magazine Panorama claimed in an article (full text in Italian) on Wednesday that the U.S. National Security Agency's communications intercepts included internal communications at the Vatican and phone calls at the Domus Sanctae Marthae where cardinals lived during the Papal conclave that selected Pope Francis. It says that calls may have been intercepted up to the start of the Conclave. The magazine also charges that calls about this year's election of the new president of the Vatican Bank were monitored. A Vatican spokesman said: "We don’t know anything about this, and in any case we don’t have any concerns about it." The NSA said that it "does not target the Vatican" and Panorama's claims that it did "are not true."

7th Circuit: Rejection Of Bible Camp's Zoning Requests Did Not Violate RLUIPA or Constitution

In Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Center v. Town of Woodboro, Wisconsin, (7th Cir., Oct. 30, 2013), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to county land use regulations which prohibit plaintiff from operating a year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property. Eagle Cove argued that the regulations violate several portions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Wisconsin constitution. In rejecting Eagle Cove's RLUIPA "total exclusion" claim, the court held that whatever may be the case as to the Town of Woodboro, there was not total exclusion of recreational camps from the larger area of Oneida County which had ultimate jurisdiction over the zoning request. More generally, the court said:

RLUIPA is meant to protect religious freedoms from impermissible land use regulations, it is not meant to allow religious exercise to circumvent facially-neutral zoning regulations.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Halloween Still Raises Church-State Concerns In Some Schools

Today is Halloween. Earlier this week, AP reported on upset parents in some Pennsylvania school districts where Halloween celebrations had been cancelled or scaled back. Schools that have cut back on Halloween cite church-state issues as only one factor. Some parents object to what they see as religious overtones of witches, demons and ghosts. But schools are also concerned about security in light of the recent spate of school shootings. Costumes might disguise a shooter, or parties at which parents are welcome might make schools more accessible to outsiders who pose a danger. Some schools are also concerned about Halloween cutting into traditional instruction time. For those who are interested in exploring the mixed origins of Halloween at greater length, the Boston Globe last week reviewed seven books that delve into the topic at great length.

State Legislators Ask Governor To Hold Bill On Tax Exemption for Yeshiva

In New York, the Assembly and Senate sponsors of a bill (S 5658 / A7750) to allow an Orthodox Jewish elementary school in Ramapo to apply retroactively for a property tax exemption are now asking Gov. Andrew Cuomo not to sign the bill. Yesterday's Lower Hudson Journal News reports that Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee and state Sen. David Carlucci are having second thoughts because the school is operating in violation of the zoning code and lacks a permanent certificate of occupancy. The school is holding its classes in an converted single-family house and two classroom trailers. The tax exemption bill was passed in June by the state Senate by a vote of 60-3 and by the Assembly by a vote of 136-4.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Survivor Benefits To Patrolman's Same-Sex Partner

The Missouri Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision this week, upheld the denial of survivor benefits to the same-sex partner of a deceased highway patrolman. In Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation, (MO Sup. Ct., Oct. 29, 2013), the court held that since plaintiffs were not challenging the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the issue is merely whether distinguishing between married and unmarried couples is permissible. The court held that it is; the survivor benefit statute passes "rational basis" scrutiny. Judges Teitelman and Draper dissented, arguing that the survivor benefit statutes intentionally discriminate against gay men and lesbians in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Riverfront Times reports on the decision.

British Judge Traces Change In Role of Religion In Family Courts

British media are giving significant coverage to Tuesday's address by a senior judge, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, to a Law Society Conference. His remarks, titled Law Morality and Religion in the Family Courts, trace changes in the role judges assign to religion:

In recent years we have witnessed enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country. A century ago, a judge could pray in aid the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer as an appropriate statement of the public policy to be applied by the courts. Today we live in a largely secular society which, insofar as it remains religious at all, is now increasingly diverse in religious affiliation.

At the same time as the judges have – rightly – abandoned their pretensions to be the guardians of public morality Christian clerics have, by and large, moderated their claims to speak as the defining voices of morality and of the law of marriage and the family.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Delivery Man Wins $900,000 Damages For Anti-Semitic Harassment

The New York Post reports that yesterday a jury in a New York federal district court awarded $900,000 in damages to restaurant delivery man Adam Wiercinski who, the jury found, was the target of virulent anti-Semitic harassment by three supervisors at the restaurant where he worked for 16 years. However the court also directed that the transcript of the trial be forwarded to the U.S. Attorney's Office because it showed that between 2000 and 2008, Wiercinski was receiving Social Security disability payments while also collecting his full delivery job pay under a fictitious name.

Saudis Release Blogger After 20 Months In Prison

Yesterday Saudi Arabia freed 24-year-old Hamza Kashgari after he served 20 months in prison over a series of Tweets he posted expressing conflicting feelings about the Prophet Muhammad. After threats from religious conservatives over the Tweets when they appeared, Kashgari had fled the country. However he was extradited by Malaysian authorities when Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud ordered his arrest. (See prior posting.) The Wall Street Journal reports that after his release yesterday Kashgari quickly opened a new Twitter account. In a press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reacted to the release, saying:

While Hamza Kashgari’s release is a step in the right direction, he never should have been detained in the first place.

USCIRF urges the Saudi government to take the next step and release online editor Raif Badawi and writer Turki al-Hamad. Badawi was unjustly convicted in July and sentenced to seven years in prison for insulting Islam and al-Hamad has been in detained without charge since December 2012 after reportedly publishing a series of tweets calling for the reform of Islamist teachings.

USCIRF further urges the Saudi government to end state prosecution of individuals charged with blasphemy and apostasy. Laws that punish expression deemed blasphemous, defamatory, or insulting to religion are incompatible with international human rights standards and exacerbate religious intolerance, discrimination and violence.”

Former International Religious Freedom Ambassador Discusses Reason For Her Resignation

Religion News Service on Monday followed up on the resignation earlier this month (see prior posting) of U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook. According to RNS, Cook resigned because she is unable to adequately help her sons with the cost of their college educations on her government salary. She plans to pursue speaking, consulting and is looking to sit on corporate boards. Those interviewed about Cook's 30-month tenure had mixed reviews of her effectiveness.

Law Faculty Union Supporters Say Their $666 Raises Were Intended To Brand Them As the Antichrist

An Unfair Labor Practice Charge (full text of complaint) has been filed with the State of Ohio Employment Relations Board by the Cleveland State University AAUP which represents the University's law school faculty. As reported by TaxProf Blog on Oct. 29, the complaint (originally filed in August) charges that the law school dean retaliated against nearly all faculty who assisted with union organizing efforts by giving them merit raises of either $0 or only $666. In a memo, one of the union organizers charged:

[The $666 figure] is a universally understood symbol of the Antichrist or Devil -- one of our culture's most violent religious images. Implicitly, but unmistakably and obviously intentionally, [the Dean] used his powers to set faculty salaries as an occasion to brand his perceived opponents as the Antichrist.

The University says that the $666 figure was the result of mathematical division, not of anti-union animus. [Corrected as to filing date.] [Thanks to Joe Slater via Facebook for the lead.]

UPDATE: The University has released its Oct.8 response (full text) to the AAUP charges, and the AAUP on Oct. 31 issued a press release in reply.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Kerry Issues Statement Marking Oct. 27 As International Religious Freedom Day

Last Sunday, Oct. 27, was International Religious Freedom Day. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a press statement on Sunday marking the day, saying in part:

The freedom of religion is a priority for President Obama, as it is for me as Secretary of State, because it is essential to human dignity and individual liberty, and it remains an integral part of our global diplomatic engagement.

We call on the international community – governments, civil society, and citizens alike – to speak out against religious persecution, and to stand unequivocally for religious freedom.

We do so humbly, knowing that our own journey as Americans was not without challenge, that the Pilgrims who fled across the ocean to escape religious persecution and landed in my home state of Massachusetts, would soon witness congregations break away and found Connecticut and Rhode Island in search of their own freedom to worship.

We also know that centuries later, we would see Catholics persecuted simply for being who they were and believing what they believed. But even as we are humble about the challenges of our history, we are proud that no place has ever welcomed so many different faiths to worship so freely as here in the United States of America.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Guy v. Mims, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150358 (ED CA, Oct. 18, 2013), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an Orthodox Jewish inmate to proceed with his complaint that it took 147 days before he was furnished with kosher meals.

In Phillips v. Palmer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152643 (ND IA, Oct. 23, 2013), an Iowa federal district court permitted plaintiff who is civilly detained as a sexually violent predator to move ahead with his general claim that he has been denied religious materials and recognition of the religion of his choice.

In Mack v. Yost, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152713 (WD PA, Oct. 24, 2013), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a damage claim by a Muslim inmate who alleged religious harassment in the course of his commissary job.

In Borkholder v. Lemmon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153249 (ND IN, Oct. 24, 2013), an Indiana federal district court, in an opinion whose language is unusually sympathetic to an inmate's religious claims, enjoined prison authorities from revoking plaintiff's religiously motivated vegan diet merely because he purchased chicken-flavored ramen noodles from the prison commissary. The inmate says he discards the meat flavoring packets and eats only the noodles. The commissary does not offer a vegetarian noodle option.

In Artis v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2580 (NJ App., Oct. 25, 2013), a New Jersey state appellate court affirmed the decision of the Department of Corrections to respond to a civilly committed inmate's complaint and allow Special Treatment Unit inmates from two buildings to attend religious classes and services together. The court held that the inmate's claims regarding joint choir and choir practices need to be clarified if he wishes to pursue them further.

In Israel, Knesset Passes Controversial Law Loosening Regulation of Jewish Wedding Ceremonies

In Israel yesterday, the Knesset voted 57- 14 (with one abstention) to give final passage to the so-called "Tzohar bill" which loosens the control of the country's Chief Rabbinate over who conducts Jewish wedding ceremonies. As reported by the Jerusalem Post, the new law allows a couple to open a marriage registration file with the local rabbinate of any district or city in Israel, rather than requiring the marriage be registered in the locality where the bride or groom lives. The legislation was supported by Tzohar, an organization of 600 national-religious Orthodox rabbis who say that many of their members have been precluded from obtaining licenses to perform marriages. In areas where Tzohar rabbis can perform ceremonies, they have set up more user-friendly systems.

Tzohar says that the haredi religious establishment wants to protect weddings as a source of income for rabbis who are approved by the Chief- Rabbinate and who often illegally charge couples for performing weddings. The Chief Rabbinate says that the new system will make marriage registrations unreliable and lead to inadvertent marriages that are not permitted by Jewish religious law.

State of Alabama Joins Non-Profit Organization In Challenge To Contraceptive Mandate

Yesterday, EWTN, a non-profit Catholic radio and television network, filed suit challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. Like a number of other religious non-profits, it had filed an earlier challenge that was dismissed on ripeness grounds (see prior posting), and now that the final rules applicable to non-profits have been issued is refiling. It contends that the final rules still require it to become involved in finding a third party that will furnish contraceptive coverage to its employees.

The lawsuit also has a new element to it-- the State of Alabama (where EWTN is primarily located) has joined as plaintiff. The complaint (full text) in Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sebelius, (SD AL, filed 10/28/2013) alleges that:

In November 2012, the people of Alabama voted to adopt an amendment to the Alabama Constitution to prohibit any person or employer, such as EWTN, from being compelled to participate in a health care system.... If lawful, the Mandate would displace Alabama’s regulatory choice and strike a new and different balance between the cost and availability of health insurance.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Employee Lacks Standing To Challenge Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

In Wieland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Oct. 16, 2013), a Missouri federal district court denied a temporary restraining order to a Missouri state employee and his wife who claim that the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate forces them to violate their religious opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients by mandating that their group health insurance policy make these services available to their daughters who are covered by the policy. The court held that plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they did not allege a sufficient connection between the injury they claim and action by HHS, the only defendant. Here, any injury was caused by the State of Missouri and its health insurer, and if an injunction were issued barring enforcement of the mandate, the state could still refuse to offer its employees a health plan that excludes contraception and abortion. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]