Monday, May 14, 2012

Suit Challenges Limits On Evangelist's Gospel Tract Distribution At Street Festival

According to a press release from Alliance Defense Fund, a suit was filed in a New York federal district court last week on behalf of a Christian evangelist who wants to distribute Gospel tracts during the Buffalo (NY) annual Sorrento Cheese Italian Heritage Festival.  According to the complaint (full text) in Owen v. City of Buffalo, (WD NY, filed 5/10/2012), last year police stopped plaintiff from handing out literature at the street festival, even though the Army and local schools were permitted to hand out materials. The suit alleges violations of due process and free speech protections, and asks for a declaratory judgment, an injunction and nominal damages plus costs and expenses.

USCIRF Criticizes Passage of Kuwait's New Blasphemy Bill

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom last week issued a statement (full text) strongly criticizing the Kuwaiti Parliament's recent passage of a bill imposing strong penalties-- including the death penalty in some cases-- for blasphemy. (See prior posting.) USCIRF Chairman Leonard Leo said:
These penalties are alarming and contrary to international human rights standards.  It is particularly regrettable that a strong ally of the United States and a member of the UN Human Rights Council has taken these steps.  The Kuwaiti parliament’s approval is especially unfortunate in light of the new consensus resolutions at the Human Rights Council – adopted in both 2011 and 2012 -- that focus on fighting religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence without restricting speech.
The bill will become law only if approved by the Emir of Kuwait within 30 days of its passage.

Kansas Legislature Passes Anti-Sharia Law Bill

The Kansas state Senate on Friday, by a vote of 33-3 joined the House which by a vote of 120-0 earlier in the week approved the Conference Committee version H Sub SB 79, popularly known as the Sharia law bill. The bill, as amended by the Conference Committee report, provides in part:
Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions, including, but not limited to, equal protection, due process, free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or press, and any right of privacy or marriage.
According to a report of Friday from the Wichita Eagle, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, apologized for signing the Conference Report and thus placing the Senate in the position of having to vote on the bill. Reuters reports that Gov. Sam Brownback has not indicated whether he will sign the bill.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

Former USCIRF Employee Sentenced For Embezzling Funds

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that a D.C. federal district judge has sentenced Carmelita Hines, former office operations manager for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, to 20 months imprisonment for wire fraud.  In February, Hines plead guilty to the charges which stemmed from her embezzling over $217,000 from USCIRF. According to the Statement of Offense (full text), Hines used USCIRF credit cards for personal expenses and personal cash withdrawals for a period from 2007 to 2011.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Child Abuse Laws Do Not Violate Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

In Madison, Wisconsin last Thursday, a state trial court judge refused to overturn the conviction of a pastor who, in March, was found guilty on 8 counts of conspiring to commit child abuse. According to WTAQ News, pastor Philip Caminiti of the Aleitheia Bible Church in Black Earth (WI) was convicted for preaching to his parishioners that, consistent with Biblical teachings, they should discipline their children by hitting them on their bare buttocks with wooden dowels. Caminiti argued that his convictions violate his right to the free exercise of religion, but the judge ruled that Caminiti had failed to show that the state's child abuse laws put a burden on his sincere religious beliefs. (See prior related posting.)

Colombia's Constitutional Court Awards Pension Rights To Deceased Priest's Same-Sex Partner

According to a report on Friday by Pink News, Colombia's Constitutional Court has ordered the country's Institute of Social Security to award pension rights to the same-sex partner of a deceased Catholic priest. The two lived together for 28 years before the priest's death in 2009. The court ruled that same-sex couples constitute a family under Colombian law. Rejecting determination by lower courts that no pension was required because the priest had broken his vow of chastity, the Constitutional Court held that it must exercise the principle of religious neutrality in its decisions.

Arizona Governor Signs 2 Bills Aimed At Protecting Religious Liberty

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's office announced  that on May 11 she signed HB 2625 which expands the definition of those religiously-affiliated employers that may exclude contraceptive coverage from their health insurance plans. New language expands the definition to include "an entity whose articles of incorporation clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization's operating principles."

AP also reports that Brewer last week signed SB 1365 which prohibits denial or revocation of any professional or business licence for conduct or statements motivated by a person's sincere religious beliefs.  Among the specific conduct protected (subject to certain exceptions) is refusal to provide any service that violates the person's sincere religious beliefs, and making employment or client selection decisions based on sincere religious beliefs.

Patheos has the reaction of the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona to the two measures. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Couch v. Jabe, (4th Cir., May 11, 2012), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, remanding for further proceedings, held that prison officials had not satisfied their burden under RLUIPA to show how allowing a Sunni Muslim inmate to grow a one-eighth inch beard would implicate health or security concerns.

In Hall v. Martin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62499 (WD MI, May 3, 2012), a Messianic Jewish inmate sued claiming that denial of a kosher vegan diet violated his rights under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63300, March 29, 2012) and denied a preliminary injunction, saying it might be reconsidered if plaintiff is willing to accept the diet already offered to Buddhists and Seventh Day Adventists. The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's damage claim for violation of the free exercise clause, concluding that it was improper for officials to deny plaintiff's request by considering what Jewish religious doctrine requires, instead of merely considering his sincere religious beliefs.

In Warner v. Cate, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64643  (ND CA, May 8, 2012), a California federal district court  allowed an inmate seeking a kosher diet to move ahead with his free exercise and equal protection claims against several defendants.  Plaintiff's request had been denied by prison authorities because he was not born of a Jewish mother and was thus not considered to be Jewish under religious law. His complaint against the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections was dismissed with leave to amend to appropriately alleging supervisory liability.

In Birdwell v. Cates, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65199 (ED CA, May 9, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims by an inmate who practiced Asatru-Odinism and who claimed that certain limitations on items he could possess and requiring sharing of outdoor worship space violated his rights under the free exercise and equal protection clauses and under RLUIPA.

Christian College Professor May Proceed With Discrimination Claims

In Baiyasi v. Delta College, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65715 (ED MI, May 10, 2012), a Michigan federal district court permitted former college science professor, Stephanie Baiyasi, to proceed with religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The suit claims that the chair of the college's science division made anti-Christian statements and rejected "creation science" beliefs. While rejecting a hostile work environment claim, the court permitted plaintiff to proceed with her contentions that she was denied tenure and then terminated because of her religious beliefs, and that the that she was denied tenure in retaliation for her complaints about religious discrimination to Human Resources and the President of the College.

Defendant's Confession To Pastor Is Privileged

In People of the State of Michigan v. Bragg, (MI App., May 8, 2012), a Michigan state appellate court held that a confession to a Baptist minister of defendant's sexual assault of a young girl is privileged under Michigan law. Pastor John Vaprezsan elicited the confession from defendant, the son of the church's secretary. MCL Sec. 767.5a provides that communications between members of the clergy and members of their respective churches that are privileged when necessary to enable the member of the clergy to serve as such. The court held that neither the fact that the pastor initiated the conversation in which the confession was elicited, nor the fact that defendant's mother was present during the conversation prevented the confession from being privileged.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Romney Speaks At Liberty University of Religious Freedom and American Values

Earlier today, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivered the commencement address at Liberty University, the conservative Christian university founded by evangelist Jerry Falwell.  Business Insider has both video excerpts and a transcript of the full text of the talk. Romney said in part:
Christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or of the timid. It demands and creates heroic souls....  Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life. 
The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family....  As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate.  So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage.  Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.
The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate.  It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with.  Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Chile Passes Anti-Discrimination Law That Had Been Pending For 7 Years

The Santiago Times and I Love Chile News both report on final passage by Chile's Senate on Wednesday of an anti-discrimination law that had been pending in Parliament for 7 years. The Senate's 25-3 vote in favor of the bill follows the killing in March of 24-year-old Daniel Zamudio in a neo-Nazi hate crime attack. The new law, which still needs to be approved by the Constitutional Tribunal as constitutional, punishes discrimination by fines of up to 1.8 million CLP ($3700 US). A fine of up to 733,000 CLP ($1500 US) will be imposed an a complainant if no discrimination is found. The new law defines discrimination as:
any distinction, exclusion or restriction, without reasonable justification, made by state officials or private individuals and causing deprivation, disruption or threat to the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic or in international human rights treaties ratified by Chile.
It includes differential treatment based on a broad range of characteristics: race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, ideology, political opinion, religious beliefs, participation in organizations or lack thereof, sex, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, health and disabilities. In the past, opponents of the law, including Protestant churches and the Catholic Church, had been concerned that it could be used to legalize same-sex marriage.  To deal with those concerns, the final version provides in Art. 18: "The precepts of this law cannot be interpreted as derogatory clauses or modifications of other legal norms."

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.]

Thursday, May 10, 2012

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.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

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.