The Blue Mass. Group blog yesterday made available the full text of Gov. Mitt Romney's proposed legislation to exempt Boston's Catholic Charities from the requirement to provide adoption services for gay and lesbian parents. [See prior posting.] It also sets out a close analysis of the language of the proposed law, arguing that it will not in fact accomplish the purpose that the Governor seeks.
Here is one of its arguments. The bill provides that "it shall be lawful for any [religiously sponsored social service agency] to take any action with respect to the provision of adoption or foster placement services which is calculated by such organization to promote its religious principles..." The analysis argues that while placing a child with a gay couple might violate Catholic principles, not placing a child with a gay couple would not "promote its religious principles".
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
U.N. Committee Censures U.S. Policy Toward Shoshone Indians
Last week (March 10, 2006), the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("CERD") issued an ''Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure'' (full text) strongly criticizing United States policy toward the Western Shoshone Indian tribe. The federal government, which claims that the Shoshone's lands became public lands after the tribe's title was extinguished, interferes with the tribe's using various ancestral lands for religious and cultural activities. The government says that the Shoshone tribe has twice approved a settlement with the government. The action by the U.N. body has been covered in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, Indian Country Today, and Spero News.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Four New Prisoner Cases
Several prisoner free exercise decisions have recently become available:
In Asad v. Bush, (11th Cir., March 14, 2006), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state prisoner's free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of disciplinary action taken against the prisoner after a dispute over whether Muslim services were being held at the proper time. It found that prison authorities offered an acceptable alternative when inmates were permitted to conduct prayers individually at the requested time.
In Wolf v. Sheriff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10009 (D. Ark., Jan. 30, 2006), an Arkansas federal district judge accepted the earlier recommendation of a Magistrate Judge (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40978 (Sept. 8, 2005)), that the religious rights of a Native American prisoners were infringed when the state prison authorities denied them access to a prayer feather. However, disagreeing with the Magistrate, the court found that defendants were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity as to damage claims against them.
In Iron Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9997 (ED Tex., Feb. 13, 2006), a Texas federal district court dismissed several constitutional claims by a Native American prisoner held in a Texas prison who claimed that existing Native American religious programs give preferential treatment to "Christian-oriented" Native American beliefs while disfavoring traditional ceremonial leaders known as shamans. His claims included ones for confiscation and denial of religious items; the lack of a program for shamans; denial of a racial category for "Native Americans"; failure to provide exemptions or accommodations for the dress code and grooming code; failure to allow equal access to services for inmates in segregation; and failure to honor prior agreements which he entered into with prison officials.
In Ragland v. Angelone, (WD Va., March 14, 2006), and a follow-up memorandum opinion issued on the next day, a Virginia federal district court rejected a claim under RLUIPA brought by a Rastafarian prisoner challenging a Virginia prison's grooming rules. The prisoner had refused to cut his hair and beard for religious reasons.
In Asad v. Bush, (11th Cir., March 14, 2006), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state prisoner's free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of disciplinary action taken against the prisoner after a dispute over whether Muslim services were being held at the proper time. It found that prison authorities offered an acceptable alternative when inmates were permitted to conduct prayers individually at the requested time.
In Wolf v. Sheriff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10009 (D. Ark., Jan. 30, 2006), an Arkansas federal district judge accepted the earlier recommendation of a Magistrate Judge (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40978 (Sept. 8, 2005)), that the religious rights of a Native American prisoners were infringed when the state prison authorities denied them access to a prayer feather. However, disagreeing with the Magistrate, the court found that defendants were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity as to damage claims against them.
In Iron Thunderhorse v. Pierce, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9997 (ED Tex., Feb. 13, 2006), a Texas federal district court dismissed several constitutional claims by a Native American prisoner held in a Texas prison who claimed that existing Native American religious programs give preferential treatment to "Christian-oriented" Native American beliefs while disfavoring traditional ceremonial leaders known as shamans. His claims included ones for confiscation and denial of religious items; the lack of a program for shamans; denial of a racial category for "Native Americans"; failure to provide exemptions or accommodations for the dress code and grooming code; failure to allow equal access to services for inmates in segregation; and failure to honor prior agreements which he entered into with prison officials.
In Ragland v. Angelone, (WD Va., March 14, 2006), and a follow-up memorandum opinion issued on the next day, a Virginia federal district court rejected a claim under RLUIPA brought by a Rastafarian prisoner challenging a Virginia prison's grooming rules. The prisoner had refused to cut his hair and beard for religious reasons.
House Hearings on International Human Rights
Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, of the U.S. House International Relations Committee held hearings on "Monitoring Respect for Human Rights Around the World: A Review of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005". (A webcast of the hearings, as well as selected transcripts, is available online- scroll to March 16, 2006.) Among those testifying specifically about issues of religious freedom were Catholic Bishop Thomas Wenski, Nina Shea (Director of Center for Religious Freedom), and Serbian Orthodox Bishop Kyr Teodosije. (See prior related posting.)
In a related matter, the House on Wednesday passed H.Con. Res. 190 expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards. Text of the debate and passage are available online.
In a related matter, the House on Wednesday passed H.Con. Res. 190 expressing the sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards. Text of the debate and passage are available online.
Is Polygamy The Next Constitutional Battle?
Today's Town Hall carries an article titled Polygamy Is 'Next Civil Rights Battle,' Activists Say. The article quotes Mark Henkel, founder of the Organization for Christian Polygamy who argues that polygamy is found in the Bible and throughout history. He calls the present concept of marriage "marital Marxism", produced in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church. The argument that bans on polygamy are unconstitutional is based primarily on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas which struck down prohibitions on homosexual sodomy. The focus on decriminalizing polygamy has intensified as HBO this week launched a new series, "Big Love", about a Utah polygamist and his three wives living in a comfortable suburban community. The Salt Lake Tribune has reported about the show and its impact.
Catholic On Alberta School Board Seeks To Retain Position
In Canada, this week's Western Catholic Reporter details an interesting complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission by the Chinook's Edge School Division. Roy Brassard has been chair of Chinook's Edge School Division for the past eight years. Last year, Catholic voters in Didsbury voted to join the Red Deer Catholic School Division, which is inside the boundaries of the Chinook's Edge public school system. Alberta approved the change in June. Under Alberta's School Act, this now disqualifies Brassard from continuing to serve on the board of the public school system. Under the School Act, all Catholics within the Catholic School Division are treated as residents of that district. While they are still permitted to send their children to the public school and to be employed by the public school system, they are disqualified from serving on the public school board of trustees. However, Brassard thinks the law needs changing, arguing that "parents of Catholic students who stay in the Chinook's Edge school system will not have the opportunity to represent their children as trustees." The complaint filed with the Human Rights commission was seen as an act of last resort to try to allow Brassard to retain his position.
Mass. Governor Proposes Exemption For Catholic Charities Adoption Services
Following an announcement last week by the Catholic Charities of Boston that it would no longer offer adoption services, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney formally proposed a bill Wednesday that would exempt Catholic Charities from a state anti-discrimination law that currently requires the organization to provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the Governor's bill, the Boston Globe Wednesday quoted Romney's letter to state legislative leaders: "It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission." [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]
In response, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA) and the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State yesterday issued a release arguing that the proposed exemption for Catholic Charities would be unconstitutional. They said, "The First Amendment's free exercise clause grants us all the right to hold whatever beliefs we choose, and to act in accordance with them in our private affairs. It does not, however, permit any individual or institution to engage in bigotry in the discharge of a public or governmentally regulated function."
In response, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA) and the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State yesterday issued a release arguing that the proposed exemption for Catholic Charities would be unconstitutional. They said, "The First Amendment's free exercise clause grants us all the right to hold whatever beliefs we choose, and to act in accordance with them in our private affairs. It does not, however, permit any individual or institution to engage in bigotry in the discharge of a public or governmentally regulated function."
Oregon Court Demands More Religious Accommodation In School Basketball Schedule
In Nakashima v. Board of Education (Ore. Ct. App., March 15, 2006), an Oregon state appellate court gave an initial victory to a Seventh Day Adventist school in its suit against the Oregon Board of Education in the Adventist school's attempt to get the dates of the state basketball tournament rescheduled so games would not be held on Friday night or Saturday, the Adventist players' Sabbath. The student basketball players filed suit under Oregon's statute banning religious discrimination in schools. The Oregon School Activities Association said that accommodating the school's request would amount to an "undue hardship" and therefore was not required by law. The Court of Appeals held that accommodation under Oregon's law required more than the federal civil rights law does. Federal law excuses accommodation if it imposes more than a de minimus burden. Under Oregon law, accommodation is required unless it "requires significant difficulty or expense". The School Activities Association was ordered to apply this test to the students' rescheduling request.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Suit Against UC Berkeley Evolution Website Dismissed
The UC Berkeley News reports that last Monday, a San Francisco federal district court dismissed a suit that had been brought by a Santa Rosa couple who claimed that a University of California, Berkeley, website titled "Understanding Evolution" was used to promote religion. (See prior posting.) Without reaching the merits, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The suit also named an administrator at the National Science Foundation, which partially funded the website, as a defendant. The judge has not yet ruled on the NSF's motion to dismiss the suit against it.
UPDATE: The full opinion in the case is now available on LEXIS: Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13688 (ND Cal., March 13, 2006).
UPDATE: The full opinion in the case is now available on LEXIS: Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13688 (ND Cal., March 13, 2006).
U.N. Creates New Human Rights Council
With the United States nearly alone in its opposition, the United Nations General Assembly yesterday approved the creation of a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Yesterday the New York Times reported that by a vote of 170-4 with 3 abstentions, the General Assembly passed the resolution that calls for the election of new Council members on May 9, 2006 and a first meeting of the Council on June 19. Joining the U.S. in voting against the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were Belarus, Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has objected to the resolution because it does not go far enough in guaranteeing that countries notorious for their human rights abuses will be kept off the new Council. The U.S. wanted a requirement that Council members be elected only by a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. (See prior posting.) Nevertheless, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said the U.S. would work cooperatively to strengthen the Council. He said whether the U.S. would be a candidate for membership on the Council is still under discussion.
School Board To Permit Distribution of Gideon Bibles
The Brunswick County, North Carolina school board, ignoring legal advice to the contrary, voted 3-2 last week to formulate a policy that would permit the Gideons to distribute Bibles in both middle schools and high schools. Attorney Joseph Causey, citing the 1998 Fourth Circuit case of Peck v. Upshur County Board of Education, had advised the school board to limit distributions to high schoolers once per year, and to make the opportunity available to all religious groups. The Board, however, said it was responding to a specific request, and would deal with other requests on a case-by-case basis, according to an article in yesterday's State Port (NC) Pilot.
SC Trial Judge Decides Church's Dispute With Diocese
In Charleston, South Carolina Monday, a state Circuit Court (trial level) judge handed down a decision in a dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and All Saints Church of Pawley's Island that broke away from the diocese in a dispute over the ordination of gay bishops. The Charleston Post and Courier reports Judge Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. ruled that All Saints Church for now could continue to occupy the 60 acres of land on which its building sits. However, he said, ownership will ultimately have to be decided in probate court. That court will have to interpret a 1745 charitable trust that set aside the land for the Church of England. Judge Cooper ruled, on the other hand, that the Diocese holds rights to the name All Saints Parish Waccamaw, and to the cash and assets still held by the breakaway church. Appeals are expected.
Danish Prosecutor Will Not File Charges Against Jyllands-Posten
Yesterday, according to Jurist, Denmark's Director of Public Prosecutions decided that he will not bring criminal charges against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper for publishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad last September. A complaint had been filed alleging that the paper violated sections 140 and 266 of the Danish Penal Code, but the prosecutor, according to his press release, found no violations. Nevertheless, he pointed out: "Section 140 of the Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and Section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religion among other things. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects." The prosecutor also said that his decision is unappealable. The full text of his 10-page ruling analyzing the relevant legal provisions is also available online. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]
Litigants Agree Elementary Students May Read Bible At Recess
In Knoxville, Tennessee on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press, federal district judge Thomas Phillips scolded attorneys for the schools and the family of fifth-grader Luke Whitson for permitting a misunderstanding to escalate into into a federal lawsuit. Whitson's parents claim Karns Elementary School Principal Cathy Summa told Luke he could not study the Bible with other students during recess. The principal denies that she said this. At a meeting ordered by the judge, both sides agreed that Knox County Schools have not and will not have a policy or practice of banning students from reading religious texts at recess. However, the lawsuit has not been dismissed.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Pakistan Supreme Court Orders Websites With Muhammad Cartoons Blocked
On order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has blocked access in the country to all websites displaying the controversial cartoons of Muhammad that were first published in a Danish paper. Asia Media reports that in the suit against a number of defendants, including Yahoo USA, attorney Qamar Afzal argued that availability of the cartoons should be declared to be intellectual terrorism. The court asked Attorney General of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan to assist the court in determining how it can exercise broader jurisdiction to prevent availability of blasphemous material on websites all over the world. The court will take up the case again next Monday.
The International Freedom of Expression Exchange reported last week that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority ordered Internet service providers to block 12 websites carrying the offending cartoons. ISPs, apparently as required by the PTA order, to implement the blackout have blocked all blogs hosted by blogspot.com.
The International Freedom of Expression Exchange reported last week that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority ordered Internet service providers to block 12 websites carrying the offending cartoons. ISPs, apparently as required by the PTA order, to implement the blackout have blocked all blogs hosted by blogspot.com.
Long Beach Seeking To Take Church Property For Condos
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, Baptist Press reported yesterday on the beginnings of a controversial attempt by redevelopment officials in Long Beach, California to use eminent domain to acquire the church building of the Filipino Baptist Fellowship. On March 13, the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency Board voted 6-0 to condemn the church in order to build condominiums, despite opposition from many community members. The church's attorney, John Eastman, director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, said proving that the taking is for a public use would be simple for the city because a church is tax-exempt and a housing project would bring in tax revenue.
Dutch Ministers Fail To Agree on Burka Ban
In the Netherlands yesterday, according to Expatica, Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk was unable to get cabinet agreement on banning the wearing of burkas in education, health care and certain other situations on security grounds. Two government parties have supported a broader ban that would prohibit wearing the burka anywhere in public. Legal experts, however, suggest that even a limited ban on the cloak worn by some Muslim women would violate the country's Constitutional protection of religious freedom.
California Bill Would Require Consideration of Religion In Adoptions
In California last month, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore introduced into the state legislature a bill that would require courts in adoptions and in appointment of guardians after terminating parental rights to consider "the religious, cultural, moral,and ethnic values of the child or of his or her birth parents, if those values are known or ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care." (AB 2130).
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Law Prof Says Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Would Violate Religion Clauses
Two weeks ago, American University law professor Jamie Raskin testified before the Judicial Proceedings Committee of the Maryland State Senate in opposition to a proposed state constitutional amendment that would bar gay marriage. His testimony (full text) focused directly on free exercise and establishment clause issues posed by the amendment. He said:
[W]hen I hear testimony from my fellow Marylanders about how ending statewide marriage discrimination would collide with their church beliefs, my response is simple and, I hope, reassuring: Your church will never have to perform a marriage ceremony of any gay couple or indeed any couple of any kind that it disapproves of....Later, in response to a Senator's question about whether "God's law" prohibits gay marriage, Raskin replied:
But the irony here is that the State today is stopping many churches and temples from marrying gay couples that the churches want to marry. That is, the State today is violating the rights of many churches--including Unitarian, Episcopal, Presybeterian and Jewish congregations, among many others--who seek to perform lawful weddings for their parishioners but may not simply because other groups of citizens think it would be wrong for them to do it.
Because America is for all its citizens regardless of religion and because so many churches have so many different belief systems, we are governed here not by religious law but by secular law. The rules of civil marriage--the license that the State grants you to marry--must be determined with respect to the federal and state Constitutions, not particular religious claims, no matter how fervently held.
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."Raskin himself is a candidate for Maryland's State Senate this year. [Thanks to Roy Mersky via Religionlaw for the information.]
Ohio Clergy Group Plans Rally Today For Social Justice Issues
The AP reports that a rally is planned today by We Believe Ohio, a group of over 100 Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy in central Ohio that wants to move debate away from divisive issues such as gay marriage , and refocus on social justice issues issues, such as jobs, education and health care. (See prior posting on other religious political activities in Ohio.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)