China Takes New Steps Against House Churches

Compass Direct News reports that Chinese authorities this week sentenced Shi Enhao, deputy leader of the Chinese House Church Alliance, to two years of  "re-education through labor" on charges of organizing and holding illegal religious meetings. Authorities have also ordered Shi's church members to stop meeting for worship, and have confiscated musical instruments, choir robes and church donations.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on growing tensions between the Chinese government and illegal underground churches. It said in part:

For the first time, China's illegal underground churches, whose members are estimated in the tens of millions, are mounting a unified and increasingly organized push for legal recognition.

The government, fearing that faith in God will soon subvert faith in the party, is responding with a stepped up campaign against the churches and the networks uniting them.

The struggle is shaping up as the tensest standoff over religious freedom in China since a brutal crackdown on adherents of Falun Gong in 1999 after they made similar calls for official acceptance.

New Interpretation of Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Rejects Blasphemy Laws

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  This week, after two years of debate and consultation, the Committee finalized General Comment No. 34, an authoritative interpretation of the freedoms of opinion and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Covenant. (Press release.) This is the first General Comment issued on these provisions since 1983.  Even though Article 18 of the Covenant protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this General Comment finds various protections of religious expression inherent in Article 19 as well.  It provides that freedom of opinion includes opinion of a moral or religious nature (Par. 9), and  freedom of expression includes religious discourse. (Par. 11). The General Comment also finds that generally blasphemy laws would violate the Covenant:

48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2 [advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement], of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over nonbelievers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Reuters reports on the release of the General Comment.

EEOC Sues Taco Bell Chain For Refusing To Accommodate Nazirite's Long Hair

On Thursday, the EEOC announced that it had filed suit against a company that operates a chain of Taco Bell restaurants in eastern North Carolina for failing to reasonably accommodate a former employee's religious beliefs.  In EEOC v. Family Foods, Inc., (ED NC, filed 7/28/2011), the EEOC charged that the company in 2010 informed employee Christopher Abby, who had worked for the company for six years, that he now needed to cut his hair to comply with the company's grooming policy. When he refused, he was fired. Abby is a practicing Nazirite and his religious beliefs preclude him from cutting his hair. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Divided 4th Circuit Says County's Invocation Policy Violates Establishment Clause

In Joyner v. Forsyth County, North Carolina, (4th Cir., July 29, 2011), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that  the prayer policy of a county commission violated the Establishment Clause even though the policy was neutral on its face. All congregations in the community were invited to send a religious leader to lead an invocation at one of the commission meetings. As implemented, however, all those who delivered prayers were Christian, nearly 80% of the prayers delivered mentioned Jesus, and none mentioned any other deity. This policy "resulted in sectarian invocations meeting after meeting that advanced Christianity..."  The majority added:

This is not to say that the Board must abandon the practice of legislative prayer. Nor do we wish to set forth some sort of template for an ideal legislative prayer policy....  The bar for Forsyth County is hardly a high one. Public institutions throughout this country manage to regularly commence proceedings with invocations that provide all the salutary benefits of legislative prayer without the divisive drawbacks of sectarianism.... And religious leaders throughout this country have offered moving prayers on multitudinous occasions that have managed not to hurt the adherents of different faiths.

Judge Niemeyer, dissented, arguing that the county's policy is completely neutral and proactively inclusive, allowing religious leaders to deliver invocations they compose. He insisted: "The Establishment Clause does not require the County to forbid invocational speakers from making sectarian references in their prayers." Summarizing his concerns, the dissent wrote:

The majority’s decree commands that every legislative prayer reference only "God" or some "nonsectarian ideal," supposedly because other appellations might offend. Thus, in a stated sensitivity to references that might identify the religion practiced by the religious leader, the majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer—the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Such a decision treats prayer agnostically; reduces it to civil nicety; [and] hardly accommodates the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Marsh v. Chambers....

(See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Rob Luther for the lead.]

Jeffs Trial Begins With Silence and Sermon From Defendant Representing Himself

The trial of Warren Jeffs, leader of the polygamous FLDS Church, proceeds with unusual twists. As previously reported, Jeffs dismissed his legal team and asked to represent himself. (See prior posting.) As reported by ABC News, Judge Walther urged Jeffs not to dismiss his impressive legal team; however she ultimately permitted Jeffs to represent himself and refused to delay the opening of trial.  The judge also ordered Jeffs' counsel to remain on as side counsel in case Jeffs again changes his mind.

As the trial began, Jeffs stared into space as the prosecutor gave his opening statement, and Jeffs declined to give his own opening statement. He remained seated and mute as the prosecution then moved ahead with presenting its case. Finally today, according to AP, Jeffs broke his silence and launched into a 55-minute sermon, saying in part:

We cannot surrender these principles based on the laws of man trying to convince us that our religion is not necessary in practice... [T]his must stop in a land of freedom if all others are to receive a similar guarantee against their freedom of religion being trampled.... We are not a fly-by-night religious society . . . We are a community of faith and principles and those principles are so sacred.... [Polygamy] is not of a sudden happening, it is of a tradition in our lives. And how can we just throw it away and say "God has not spoken?"

Wisconsin Website Links To Christian Pregnancy Centers Are Protested

According to yesterday's Madison (WI) Isthmus, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has written Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker complaining about a link on the state's website to Care Net Pregnancy Centers. (Full text of July 14 letter.) The link appears on the Family Services page of the website along with other links, most of which are to government agencies. In its July 22 press release announcing the letter, FFRF said:

Care Net promotes a rabid evangelical Christian agenda, and is hostile to nonbelievers, non-Christians and nonevangelicals, as well as the feminist principle of a woman’s right to reproductive self-determination. Care Net proclaims that it has adapted a statement of faith from the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE's professed government-relations goal is “Bringing biblical values to the political sphere.” No state government office should have any affiliation with a group that has a “statement of faith”....

Indonesia's Light Sentences In Attacks on Ahmadis Draw Criticism

The Jakarta Globe reports today that human rights groups and western countries are criticizing the light sentences handed down to 12 defendants found guilty of attacking members of the Ahmadiyah community last February, killing three Ahmadis and injuring five seriously. The defendants were villagers and students from Muslim boarding schools who joined a mob confronting the Ahmadis.  A court in Serang acquitted the defendants of inciting hatred and mob violence, but convicted them of participation in a violent attack that resulted in casualties. Sentences of between 3 and 6 months were imposed.  The sentences were imposed by different panels of judges.  All the panels, however, agreed that the Ahmadis instigated the attack by ignoring police calls to disperse and instead challenging the mob to a fight.  The United States Embassy in Jakarta issued a statement critical of the sentences:

We are disappointed by the disproportionately light sentences handed down on July 28 in the trials of twelve individuals implicated in the brutal murder of three Indonesian citizens during the February 6 attack on an Ahmadiyah community in Cikeusik, Pandeglang, Banten Province. The United States encourages Indonesia to defend its tradition of tolerance for all religions, a tradition praised by President Obama in his November 2010 visit to Jakarta.

The Ahmadiyah are seen as a deviant sect by other Muslims in Indonesia. (See prior posting.)

Herman Cain Apologizes For Remarks About Mosque Construction

Herman Cain, candidate for the Republican nomination for president, met on Wednesday with four Muslim leaders at ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, a mosque serving the Washington, DC area, and apologized for statements he made opposing construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. (See prior posting.) According to today's The Tennessean, Cain issued a written statement after the meeting, saying:

While I stand by my opposition to the interference of Shariah law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends. I am truly sorry for comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right to practice their faith freely and peacefully

Rwanda's Parliament Divided Over Definition of Religion

All Africa.com reported yesterday that the two houses of Rwanda's Parliament are split over the definition of "religion" in a proposed "Bill Governing Religious Communities in Rwanda." The comprehensive bill on freedom of worship, and registration and organization of religious communities was passed by the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, with "religion" defined as: "a group of people of the same set of beliefs with the same God or god and preachings based on their consciousness."  That definition emerged from the work of a team of researchers.  However, when the Senate passed the bill, it amended it to define religion as: "A doctrine of a community sharing the same beliefs and cult." Lawmakers have voted to set up a joint committee from both houses to work out an acceptable definition before proceeding further.

Two Groups That Lead Legislative Bible Study Battle Over Trademark

California's Capitol Weekly reported yesterday on a trademark dispute between two separate groups that organize Bible study classes for legislators. Pastor Ralph Drollinger's group, Capitol Ministries, has been leading Bible study for California legislators for over ten years, and three years ago began organizing classes in the Capitol in Washington, DC. However, in May it was sued for trademark infringement by Capitol Commission, a North Carolina-based group that leads Bible studies in 16 state Capitols because Drollinger's group often operates under the label Capitol Commission.  According to Capitol Weekly:

Capitol Commission president Jim Young said Drollinger is intentionally creating confusion between the two groups, by “domain squatting” on the Internet and other means, partially in order to siphon off donations meant for Capitol Commission....

Drollinger claims that a trio of former Capitol Ministries employees stole mailing lists and thousands of email addresses, which he said were then given to Capitol Commission. While he has not filed a lawsuit, he claims its Capitol Commission that is intentionally hurting his ministry.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge Texas Governor's Prayer Rally Sponsorship

In Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Perry, (SD TX, July 28, 2011), a Texas federal district court held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge as an Establishment Clause violation Texas Governor Rick Perry's proclamation declaring August 6 as "A Day of Prayer and Fasting for Our Nation" and his involvement with the American Family Association in sponsoring a prayer rally scheduled for that day. (See prior posting.)  The court concluded that "Governor Perry’s statements are requests, not commands, and no injury flows from a mere request."  It added that "feelings of exclusion or being unwelcome arising from an invitation 'to engage in a religious observance that is contrary to their own principles' are likewise not sufficient to confer standing...." The Houston Chronicle reports on the decision.

Warren Jeffs Trial Begins Today

AP reports that opening arguments begin today in San Angelo, Texas in the trial of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs on charges of sexually assaulting two underage girls.  Prosecutors charge that the leader of the polygamous religious sect lured the girls into "spiritual marriages."  Defense attorneys appear likely to raise a free exercise defense. Yesterday, Judge Barbara Walther denied a motion to suppress evidence seized in the raid of the FLDS Yearning for Zion ranch in 2008. (See prior posting.) Today, just before opening arguments, she will hear arguments on a motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop of Jeffs in 2006.  Meanwhile the Salt Lake Tribune last week reported on  the challenge to Jeffs power as FLDS leader by former high-ranking elder William E. Jessop.  Evidence in Jeffs trial could increase support for Jessop.

UPDATE: On Thursday morning, Warren Jeffs told Judge Barbara Walther: "I have released all my counsel. I desire to represent myself."  The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Walther recessed proceedings to consider the request. Jeffs says his lawyers could not present his true defense.

Tentative Ruling Removes Circumcision Issue From San Francisco Ballot; [UPDATE: Ruling Confirmed]

The Bay Citizen reports that in a tentative ruling yesterday, a San Francisco (CA) Superior Court judge held that the San Francisco ballot initiative to ban male circumcision should be struck from the November ballot. Judge Loretta M. Giorgi held that the measure violates a state law that bars localities from regulating health care professionals who are also regulated at the state level. (See prior posting.) The Los Angeles Jewish Journal sets out the full text of the decision in Jewish Community Relations Council v. Arntz. The tentative ruling reads in part:

The Court finds that the proposed ballot Initiative is expressly preempted by California Business and Professions §460(b). The evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure. California Business and Professions Code §460 (b) applies to medical services provided by a wide range of health care professionals. The statute speaks directly to the issue of local regulation of medical procedures and leaves no room for localities to regulate in this area. In fact, the legislative history of §460(b) confirms that the legislature intended to prevent cities and counties from regulating medical services which is a matter statewide concern. Because the proposed ballot initiative attempts to regulate a medical procedure, the proposed ordinance is expressly preempted. Moreover, it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made.

A hearing is scheduled in the case today at which the ruling will likely to be finalized.  Circumcision opponents say they will pack the courtroom. An appeal of the decision, once it is final, is expected.

UPDATE: AP reports that on Thursday, Judge Giorgi confirmed the tentative decision she handed down a day earlier, striking the measure from the November ballot.

UK Supreme Court: Faith-Based Arbitration Requirement Does Not Violate Employment Discrimination Law

In Jivraj v. Hashwani, (UK Sup. Ct., July 27, 2011), the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement entered in connection with a joint venture between two members of the Ismaili Muslim community was not void under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. At issue was a provision in the arbitration agreement that: "All arbitrators shall be respected members of the Ismaili community and holders of high office within the community." As summarized by the court's press release on the decision:

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal on the ground that an arbitrator is not a person employed under a contract personally to do work within the meaning of the Regulations, which do not therefore apply. The majority (Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Clarke and Lord Dyson) also find that the Requirement would have fallen within the exception for genuine occupational requirements if the Regulations had applied. Lord Mance preferred not to deal with this issue as it did not arise in the light of the finding that the Regulations did not apply.

New York Files Amicus Brief Arguing Federal DOMA Is Unconstitutional

New York's Attorney General announced Tuesday that its office has filed an amicus brief (full text) in Windsor v. United States, a case pending in federal district court in New York challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The case is one in which the surviving spouse of a same-sex couple legally married in Canada is challenging the federal government's refusal to recognize her as a spouse for federal estate tax purposes.  (Background and pleadings in case.) It is also one of the two cases in which the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would not defend the constitutionality of DOMA. (See prior posting.)  New York's filing of the amicus brief comes only days after same-sex marriages began to be legally performed in the state, though New York had previously recognized the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.  Here is an excerpt from the amicus brief:

By refusing to recognize for federal purposes marriages that are valid under state law, DOMA intrudes on matters historically within the control of the States, and undermines and denigrates New York’s law designed to ensure equality of same-sex and different-sex married couples. Thus DOMA threatens basic principles of federalism. Moreover, it classifies and determines access to rights, benefits, and protections based on sexual orientation, and also based on sex.

For each of these reasons, considered separately or together, DOMA should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and it cannot withstand such scrutiny.

Yesterday's New York Law Journal has more on the background of the case.

District Court Dismisses Challenge To Obama Administration Stem-Cell Research Guidelines

In Sherley v. Sebelius, (D DC, July 27, 2011), the federal district court for the District of Columbia upheld the legality of the Obama administration NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research. The court was constrained by a previous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied a preliminary injunction against implementation of the the Guidelines on the ground that plaintiffs had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits. In yesterday's decision, the district court held that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Guidelines. On the merits, however, the court held that the Guidelines do not violate provisions of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that prohibit the NIH from funding "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero..."

The D.C. Circuit had already determined that the term "research" in the Congressional funding ban was ambiguous. Following the lead of the D.C. Circuit, the district court held that NIH reasonably interpreted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to allow funding of stem cell research.  Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the NIH Guidelines were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Jurist  and USA Today report on the decision.

Challenge To State Law Protection of Ritual Slaughter Held Non-Justiciable

In Pasado's Safe Haven v. State of Washington, (WA App., July 25, 2011), a  Washington state appeals court dismissed as non-justiciable a challenge brought by an animal rescue organization to the provisions in Washington's Humane Slaughter Law permitting kosher and halal slaughtering of animals.  The law defines as humane either the stunning of animals, or slaughter pursuant to religious ritual that calls for instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries. The statute also provides that nothing in the statute shall be construed to abridge religious freedom.  Plaintiff sought to have those provisions declared unconstitutional and stricken from the statute. The court held, however, that the challenged provisions are inseverable from the remainder of the law, so that if they were found unconstitutional the court would need to invalidate the entire statute. Thus, in the court's language:

were plaintiffs to prevail on any one of their various constitutional challenges, the relief obtainable—a judgment declaring the challenged statute to be invalid in its entirety—is neither sought nor desired. Thus, regardless of our resolution of the merits of the various challenges made, at the end of this case the status quo would necessarily prevail. Our opinion would be nothing more than an advisory one.

Free Exercise Challenge To Animal Cruelty Law Not Preserved For Appeal

In Myers v. State of Texas, (TX App., July 21, 2011), a Texas state appeals court ruled that defendant in an animal cruelty case had failed to preserve for review on appeal his claim that the state's animal cruelty statute violated the free exercise of his religious beliefs. At trial, defendant urged the jury to consider his religious beliefs, but never argued to the court or requested a ruling on the constitutionality of applying the statute to him.

Chabad Gets Court Order Allowing Enforcement of Default Judgment For Library Collection Against Russia

In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, (D DC, July 26, 2011), the D.C. federal district court, finding that defendants had received adequate notice, issued an order permitting a Jewish religious organization to enforce the default judgement it had previously obtained against Russia, its Ministry of Culture and its State Library. The judgment ordered return of a collection of books and artifacts belonging to Chabad which had been lost to them during the World War I and World War II periods and ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. (See prior posting.)  The Russian Federation had previously withdrawn from participating in the litigation and also announced that it would refuse to loan art and cultural artifacts to art institutions in the United States, fearing that plaintiff would attach them to satisfy its default judgment.  The court's enforcement order, with consent of plaintiff, includes a provision that no execution will be made on property on loan to cultural or educational institutions which is exempt under a special provision of federal law. The court, however, refused to impose immediate sanctions for civil contempt and instead directed defendants to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt. Blog of the Legal Times reports on the decision.

Atheist Group Sues Over Placement of Ground Zero Cross In 9/11 Memorial

On Saturday, according to NBC New York, the so-called World Trade Center cross was moved from its temporary location near St. Peters Roman Catholic Church to the nearby site of the former Twin Towers where it will become part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum. The 20-foot high, 2 ton, twisted cross-shaped steel beams were found in the rubble of the World Trade Center in the days after their destruction, and the cross has become a religious icon to many. However, on Monday, American Atheists announced that they had filed a lawsuit in state court in New York seeking to enjoin the display of the cross in the September 11 Memorial and Museum until equal space is granted to non-Christian Americans for similar memorials. The complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority or New York and New Jersey, (NY Co. Sup. Ct., filed 7/25/2011), contends that the installation of the cross violates the Establishment Clause as well as various New York constitutional and statutory provisions.  Museum officials say the cross has become part of the Memorial and Museum not because of its religious symbolism, but because it is part of the history of Ground Zero. They say that steel girders made into other crosses, stars of David and possibly some Eastern religious symbols will also become part of the Museum.