The court also concluded that under the state's Religious Freedom Act (Sec. 52-571b), the legislature did not intend that construction of a place of worship would constitute "religious exercise" nor did it intend that the non-discriminatory application of land use regulations would be subject to strict scrutiny under the Act. Yesterday's Hartford Courant reports on the decision and the facts behind it. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Jeffrey Struski for the lead.]the substantial burden provision of RLUIPA does not apply to neutral and generally applicable land use regulations that are intended to protect the public health and safety, such as those at issue in the present case.....
[T]he provisions of the town’s regulations allowing religious facilities to be built in a residential zone by special exception treat such uses more, not less, favorably than certain other nonresidential uses that are not allowed by special exception. Moreover, although the commission has some discretion to determine whether a proposed specially permitted use is consistent with residential use, the regulations do not grant the commission the discretion to apply the standards differently to religious facilities than it applies them to the other uses allowed by special exception, such as clubs, private schools, seasonal camps, certain public utility buildings, hospitals, sanitary landfills, nurseries and horse boarding stables.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Connecticut Supreme Court Rejects Buddhist Temple's RLUIPA Appeal
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tennessee Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Cult Leader Charged With Child Neglect
Voter Complains About Polling Place At Church with Anti-Abortion Display
Egyptian Court Decides 3 Cases On Listing Religion On ID Cards
In a third case, the same court refused to permit a Christian convert from Islam to list his new religion on his identity papers. IOL News yesterday reported that the court held that Mohammed Higazi (Hegazy) had not followed the proper procedures and, in any event, could not convert "to an older religion." The court wrote: "Monotheistic religions were sent by God in chronological order... As a result, it is unusual to go from the latest religion to the one that preceded it." The AP reports that Hegazy has been the subject of police torture and death threats from his father and from an Islamist cleric after his 1998 conversion was discovered and when he was pictured in a newspaper posing with a poster of the Virgin Mary.
Suit Settled; Student Gets Credit For Volunteer Hours At Church Program
Progressive Muslim Group Blasts Canadian Agency's Study of Sharia Banking
State Hears Religious Defense To Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Colorado Senate Opens With Hinud Prayer for First Time [Corrected]
UPDATE: Following Zed's appearance, state Senator David Schultheis told WorldNet Daily that he was shocked. He said: "I don't know of any Hindus or individuals from India actually in the legislature.... I think the most troubling thing [is] we have this appearance, and yet the bulk of our population is Christian ... and we are not allowed to mention 'Jesus' in any prayer."
Archbishop of Cantebury Suggests New Law To Replace Blasphemy Ban
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Chaplain Objects To Policy Allowing Prisoner to Choose Multiple Faiths
State Senator Mike Carrell is introducing an amendment to an existing prison bill to protect the jobs of prison chaplains whose duties conflict with their religious beliefs. Carrell argues that inmates will chose multiple religions in order to exploit the system and get various advantages. Department of Corrections policy already excuses chaplains from performing ecclesiastical duties that conflict with their religious tenets. Suss' problem however is with chaplains' nonreligious duties, such as giving prisoners access to religious items.
State of the Union Calls For Extension of School Choice and Charitable Choice
We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our Nation's Capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other non-public school. Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning. And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids....
In today's New York Times, two former officials in the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives published an op-ed supporting Bush's call for making the Faith Based Initiative permanent. However David Kuo and John J. DiIulio, Jr. criticized the slow growth and the focus of the present program:In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need. Over the past seven years, more of our fellow citizens have discovered that the pursuit of happiness leads to the path of service. Americans have volunteered in record numbers. Charitable donations are higher than ever. Faith-based groups are bringing hope to pockets of despair, with newfound support from the federal government. And to help guarantee equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds, I ask you to permanently extend Charitable Choice.
The initiative ... was designed so that small congregations and ministries that had long served needy neighbors on shoestring budgets — and not just large, national religious charities — could get their fair share of government aid. It did not happen. The number of faith-based organizations receiving a federal grant rose from 665 in 2002 to only 762 in 2004.... Over the past six years, federal grants to faith-based programs have shifted away from the local "armies of compassion" praised by Mr. Bush and toward large, national organizations with religious affiliations.
Turkey's Main Parties Agree On Plan To Lift Headscarf Ban At Universities
Austrian State Proposes Law To Restrict Building of Mosques
Good News Club Sues Virginia School Board Over Fees
UN Official Finds Religious Liberty Issues In Israel and Palestinain Authority
NPR Interview With Author of Book on Religon In White House
Monday, January 28, 2008
Presidential Candidates Preach At Churches Despite IRS Guidelines
Situation 9. Minister F is the minister of Church O, a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invites Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services. During his remarks, Candidate X states, “I am asking not only for your votes, but for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to get a very large turnout on Tuesday.” Minister F invites no other candidate to address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these activities take place during official church services, they are attributed to Church O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign intervention.
Does this IRS guideline cover speeches from the pulpit if a candidate does not explicitly ask for voters' support?
WMAZ-TV News reports that Sen. Barack Obama spoke for more than 30 minutes yesterday to an overflow crowd at Macon, Georgia's Harvest Cathedral. As part of his remarks, he said: "I believe that our values should be expressed not just through our churches and our synagogues, but through our government."The Commercial Appeal reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at morning services at Monumental Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee. During her remarks, she emphasized her support for universal health care, universal pre-kindergarten and an end to the Iraq war.
Former Governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee's Sunday morning church attendance seems to have been orchestrated more carefully with IRS guidance in mind. WFOL Fox35 reports that Huckabee attended services at Orlando, Florida's First Baptist Church. The church had invited all candidates to attend. Huckabee did not speak, but did have a brief exchange of reminiscences with Senior Pastor David Uth. Uth also said: "I have made a commitment that our church will not endorse a candidate. Our only purpose is to pray over each candidate and ask for God's wisdom for them. We will not treat any candidate any differently than another." However, Huckabee was scheduled to speak on Sunday evening at services at Pensacola, Florida's East Brent Baptist Church. The Huckabee Campaign notes that this talk is closed to the press.
Press reports do not indicate whether or not other candidates were also invited by the churches at which Obama, Clinton and Huckabee spoke.
Commentary: Oregon Circumcision Decision Avoids Issue of Child's Independent Free Exercise Rights
In the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, Justice Douglas dissenting in part raised this precise question. There Amish parents were being prosecuted for refusing to send their children to high school on the grounds that high school attendance conflicted with Amish beliefs. Douglas argued: "If the parents in this case are allowed a religious exemption, the inevitable effect is to impose the parents' notions of religious duty upon their children. Where the child is mature enough to express potentially conflicting desires, it would be an invasion of the child's rights to permit such an imposition without canvassing his views."
In Boldt, the child's father argued that the 12-year old's views were irrelevant. He, and several Jewish organizations as amici, argued that the 12-year old should have no more say in the decision than should an infant who is circumcised. In one of her arguments, the mother who opposed the circumcision (along with amicus Doctors Opposing Circumcision) also suggested that the boy should have no say in the matter, so that even if he wanted the procedure he should not be circumcised because of the medical risk involved. The court fudged the issue, holding that the boy's views are important, but only because forcing him against his will to have the procedure would impact his relationship with his father to the point that a change of custody might be in order.
In both speech and religion cases, courts have often vindicated rights of mature children, but in most cases parents supported their child's First Amendment claims. When there is disagreement between parents and child, the issue is more complex. An example of this is an abortion decision made by a mature minor over the religious objections of her parents. In this situation, the Supreme Court has upheld parental involvement, but not parental veto. Another example is a parent's attempt to remove his or her minor child from a religious cult. Courts appear willing to give parents full authority to do this for minors, though not for adult children. See Scott v. Ross, (9th Cir., 1998).
An excellent Harvard Law Review Note, Children as Believers, Minors' Free Exercise Rights and the Psychology of Religious Development, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2205 (2002) [LEXIS link], further explores the issue of minors' religious rights.
Ohio Supreme Court Case Questions Family's Right To Body Parts of Deceased
The federal trial court certified to the Ohio Supreme Court the question of whether Ohio law grants a right to next-of-kin to a decedent's body parts that have been removed in an autopsy. It noted that a subsequently enacted Ohio law guarantees return of body parts, but only when the autopsy is contrary to the deceased person's religious beliefs. Albrecht v. Treon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18613 (SD OH, March 17, 2007). The Washington Post calls attention to one controversial line in the brief of the medical examiners filed with the Ohio Supreme Court: "The real family interest is in the 'soul' of the deceased, if it continues in an afterlife, or in the memory of the 'soul', rather than to the dead carcass."