Dutch Cartoonist Arrested For Publishing Cartoons Insulting To Mulsims

Radio Netherlands reports that last Tuesday a Dutch cartoonist, drawing under the name Gregorius Nekschot was arrested for publishing cartoons that were "insulting to Muslims and to people of colour". Many were published online. The Public Prosecutors Office says that a complaint was filed against Nekschot in 2005, but because the cartoonist used a pseudonym it has taken this long to locate who he really is. Nekschot is know for cartoons that are insulting to left-wing politicians as well as for those that insult religion. This YouTube clip shows a number of the offending drawings. NIS News reported yesterday that many in the Lower House of Netherlands Parliament have sharply criticized Nekschot's arrest.

Court Rejects Challenge To Hawaii's Limits On Who Can Perform Marriages

In Woods-Bateman v. State of Hawaii, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39661 (D HI, May 13, 2008), an Hawaii federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to HRS § 572-12. The statute limits those who can be licensed to solemnize marriages to either clergy or judges. In filling out an application to be licensed to perform marriages, plaintiff left blank the questions relating to whether he came within one of these categories. After he was denied a license, he sued claiming that his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated. The court held that Hawaii's requirements did not violate the Establishment Clause:

The requirement has the secular purpose of maintaining the integrity of marriage records.... Judicial officers and religious leaders are individuals that the State has recognized in the past and can reasonably expect will ensure, in the future, the recording of essential information.

The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech and equal protection challenges, holding that there is no fundamental right to be entitled to solemnize marriages.

Suit Threatened Over Wisconsin Village Land Sale To Preserve Cross

Last month, the Village Board of Holmen, Wisconsin reacted to a complaint about a display of a cross and a star on property it now owns by agreeing to sell the land and display to the Lions Club for $600. The Lions Club, which pledged to keep the display intact, was involved in its construction in 1960 on the land that was then privately owned. Five years ago the city bought land that includes the display for a reservoir. (See prior posting.) It turns out, however, that when the Village Board agreed to the sale to the Lions, it ignored higher bids from two other groups. The American Humanist Association (AHA press release) had bid $1000 for it and the Freedom from Religion Foundation had bid $1200. Yesterday's Holmen Courier reports that the AHA is now considering suing the village, saying that the Village Board ignored the competing bids only because it favored the cross remaining on the land. The Lions Club will fence off the display, install signs saying it is their property and will have an electric meter installed so it will pay for lighting. It will also restrict access to protect the nearby village water reservoir.

California Church Wins RLUIPA Claim Over Use Permit Process

In Grace Church of North County v. City of San Diego, (SD CA, May 9, 2008), a California federal district court concluded that the city of San Diego violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it granted Grace Church only a five year conditional use permit to occupy property it leased in the Rancho Bernardo Industrial Park. The court concluded that:

the mandatory CUP process established by Defendants and applied to Grace Church – with the result that Plaintiff received a CUP of only half the length Plaintiff requested, and has no reasonable expectation that Defendants will approve any extension – constituted a substantial burden on Grace Church’s exercise of religion. At various levels of Defendants’ mandatory CUP process, Grace Church experienced outright hostility to its application, decision-making that is seemingly arbitrary or pretextual, and ignorance regarding the requirements of controlling federal law regarding the application of land use laws to religious institutions.

... The facts of this case belie Defendants’ claim that they have a "compelling interest" in preserving industrial lands in the industrial park where Grace Church has secured its property.

Alliance Defense Fund last week issued a release on the decision and World Net Daily reported on the decision on Friday. (See prior related posting.)

Reactions To California Marriage Decision From Chief Justice and Religious Groups

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on its unusually candid interview with California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George about the Court's ruling last week legalizing same-sex marriage. George told the paper: "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe." Meanwhile today's San Jose Mercury News reports on the divided views about the decision among religious leaders of different faiths and denominations. Before the decision came down, a group known as ProtectMarriage.com already filed with the California Secretary of State petitions containing 1.1 million signatures to get a marriage amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The Secretary of State is expected to announce in mid-June whether there are enough valid signatures for the measure to actually be placed on the ballot. Liberty Counsel announced Friday that it would file a motion with the California Supreme Court asking it to stay the effectiveness of its ruling until after the November vote on the marriage amendment.

Uganda's Parliament Passes Education Bill Calling For Elective Courses In Religion

Catholic Information Service for Africa yesterday reported that Uganda's Parliament has passed an Education Bill that makes religious studies an elective in elementary and secondary schools in the country. The bill rejects the government's proposal to take religious education out of the school curriculum. However it also rejects a proposal by the Uganda Joint Christian Council and the Uganda Muslim Education Association to make religious studies compulsory for all students.

Cert. Petition Filed In Oregon Religious Circumcision Case

Friday's Oregonian reports that last month a petition for certioarari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Boldt v. Boldt, (Docket No. 07-1348). In the case, a now-divorced mother who is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church is seeking to prevent her former husband-- a convert to Judaism-- from having their 12-year old son circumcised. The issue was raised in the context of a petition for change of custody. The Oregon Supreme Court below remanded the case, ordering the trial court to determine whether the child wants the circumcision, or objects to it-- an issue over which the parents disagree. (See prior posting.)

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In College Aid Case

On Wednesday the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Colorado Christian University v. Baker, a case challenging Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. The district court upheld the exclusion. (See prior posting.) Wednesday's Denver Post reports that judges questioned counsel on the state's purpose in enacting the exclusion and asked whether the exclusion might pressure religious institutions to change their policies in order to participate in the programs. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]

Czech President Vetoes Anti-Discrimination Law

CeskeNoviny reports today that Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus has vetoed a broad anti-discrimination law designed to assure equal access to education, work, health care and social advantages. The law would ban discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as on the basis of numerous other grounds (age, race, nationality, sexual orientation, health handicap, sex, and world outlook). Even though such legislation is mandated by the European Union, Klaus in vetoing it said that it merely sums up protections already in place. He said that the form of anti-discrimination measures is up to individual EU members. Klaus called the legislation "ideological, not legal". The bill now goes back to the Chamber of Deputies.

Arizona Appellate Court Strikes Down School Voucher Programs

In Cain v. Horne, (AZ Ct. App., May 15, 2008), an Arizona appellate court found that two school voucher programs that were enacted by the state legislature in 2006 violates the Arizona Constitution. At issue are voucher programs for students with disabilities and for students in foster homes. The court held that the neutral programs do not violate Art. 2, Sec. 12, the Religion Clause of Arizona's constitution which bans appropriations to support religious instruction. However, the court held that the voucher programs do violate the Aid Clause of Arizona's Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 10 that bars appropriations to aid private or sectarian schools. The court rejected the argument that the "true beneficiaries" of the voucher payments are the students rather than the private and parochial schools that receive the voucher checks made out to pupils' parents or guardians. Today's Arizona Daily Star reports on the decision.

Coast Guard Agrees To Vaccine Exemption, Ending Lawsuit

Cath News reports today that the U.S. Coast Guard has now agreed to grant an exemption from its Hepatitis A vaccination requirement to Lt. Cmdr. Joseph J. Healy who has refused the vaccine on religious grounds. The version of the vaccine available in the U.S. was developed from cells originally taken from an aborted fetus. Last December Healy filed suit against the Coast Guard after an officer denied his immunization request on the ground that Catholic Church doctrines do not ban adherents from receiving the vaccine. (See prior posting.) Now that the Coast Guard has informed the court that the exemption will be granted, Healy's attorneys say they will drop their DC federal court lawsuit.

Kosher Meat Shortage Possible After Immigration Raids On Largest Producer

The Forward reported yesterday on a potential shortage of kosher meat in the United States after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on Monday conducted its largest workplace raid this year. Some 390 workers at the Postville, Iowa meat processing plant operated by AgriProcessors were arrested. Most were charged with criminal identity theft or fraud in hearings ending yesterday. (Radio Iowa.) AgriProcessors produces over half of the kosher beef sold in the U.S., and most of the production is from its Iowa plant. The interruption in meat production could have a particular impact in smaller communities where the only kosher meat sold by supermarkets is supplied by AgriProcessors, often under the Aaron's Best, Rubashkin and Supreme Kosher brand names. AgriProcessors has also been the subject of high profile labor and animal rights disputes in recent years. The disputes have led the Conservative movement of Judaism to create the Hechsher Tzedek Commission that is attempting to focus more on working conditions, wages, environmental impact and other ethical issues in the production of kosher meat. Meanwhile, an article from Wednesday's Jewish Week suggests that federal indictments against the owners of AgriProcesors could be in the offing.

California Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban, But No Impact On Religious Doctrines

The California Supreme court today in a 4-3 decision ruled that under the California Constitution, same-sex couples have the same right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. In In re Marriage Cases, (CA Sup. Ct., May 15, 2008), the majority emphasized, however that "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)"

In reaching its decision on gay marriage, the court held that "sexual orientation [is] a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment...." In response to the argument that sexual orientation should not trigger strict scrutiny because it is not an "immutable" characteristic, the majority said that: "California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes ... and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control." Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Here are links to the briefs and recordings of the oral arguments in the case.

University Fires Human Resources VP For Anti-Gay Statements

Last month, Crystal Dixon, who was Associate Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, wrote an op-ed in the Toledo (OH) Free Press which read in part: "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle...." University of Toledo President, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, quickly responded in another column, saying: "Although I recognize it is common knowledge that Crystal Dixon is associate vice president for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, her comments do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo. It is necessary, therefore, for me to repudiate much of her writing and to make this attempt to clarify our values system."

The University also fired Dixon after she refused the alternative of a demotion and pay cut. (Toledo Free Press.) Today's Toledo Blade reports that Dixon now says that her First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion rights were infringed by the University's actions. She says she had a divine mandate to write the column and that she was speaking as a private citizen. However a University spokesman said that Dixon's public expressions called into question her ability to perform in her human resources position.

Muslim Serviceman May Sue Army Over Its Autopsy of Infant

The AP reported yesterday that a Muslim soldier and his wife, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, may join a pending lawsuit challenging the military's respect for religious diversity. Pfc. Eli Agee and his wife, Mackenzie, are upset that authorities insisted on performing an autopsy on their infant son who died May 3, likely from sudden infant death syndrome. Muslim beliefs prohibit autopsies. The Army expedited the autopsy so the child could be buried within 24 hours as required by Muslim law. However the parents later learned that some of the child's vital organs had been removed and would be sent later for burial. Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said there has been a consistent pattern of anti-Islamic prejudice in the Army.

New Developments In FLDS Child Custody Cases

Legal developments continue in Texas in the FLDS child custody cases. (See prior posting.) Three FLDS fathers who are in monogamous marriages to women who are of legal age filed habeas corpus petitions in a court in San Antonio seeking return of their children. Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that James Dockstader, Rulon Keate and LeLand Keate argue that their wives have the same rights to procreate and raise a family as does any other citizen, and the fact that one of their neighbors became pregnant as a minor does not justify removing their children.

Meanwhile, according to today's Dallas Morning News, Texas Child Protective Services has drafted guidelines for "service plans" that parents will need to develop in order to regain custody of their children. CPS has set out 10 goals and 14 tasks that should be included. The guidelines question any form of communal living, require residential buildings to be open for unannounced visits by CPS workers, and mandate that the names of everyone in the home must be given to CPS. The guidelines also call for job training, schooling for children and knowing how to access community resources.

Split 9th Circuit Rejects En Banc Review In Sunrise Rock Cross Case

Yesterday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an amended opinion in Buono v. Kempthorne, (9th Cir., May 14, 2008), eliminating one footnote, but otherwise reaffirming its holding finding Establishment Clause problems with Congress' transfer of the Sunrise Rock Cross in the Mojave Preserve war memorial to the VFW. (See prior posting.) The deleted footnote had indicated disagreement with a 7th Circuit case on land transfers undertaken to end Establishment Clause problems.

After the panel refused to grant a rehearing, the full court also refused to grant an en banc rehearing. However, in a long opinion, five judges dissented from the denial en banc review. The dissent argues that there is no evidence that the government will maintain or support the Sunrise Rock Cross after its transfer, and says that the VFW should not be required to sacrifice its private rights in the Sunrise Rock land in order to cure an Establishment Clause violation by the government. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.][Corrected].

New York Town Transfers Enforcement of Building Codes Against Amish to State

In the face of possible lawsuits by the Amish community over building code enforcement against them, the town board of Conewango, New York yesterday voted to opt out of code enforcement and turn enforcement over to state authorities. Thus any lawsuits will be filed against the state and not against the town. Yesterday's Jamestown (NY) Post-Journal reports that the Amish have concerns about both some of the substantive code requirements and about the mandate to furnish workers compensation insurance to those hired to help with the construction.

Court Concludes Paratrooper Is Entitled To Conscientious Objector Status

In Barnes v. Green, (D AK, May 13, 2008), an Alaska federal magistrate judge concluded that an Army paratrooper's request for conscientious objector status be granted. The court rejected the Army's contention that Michael Barnes was not sincere in his claim that he was a conscientious objector, saying:

Much is made of the fact that Barnes did not attend church services in Iraq. While [this] ... might hold sway if there were other facts showing a sudden and convenient getting of religion, surely the Army agrees that it is not its province to suggest there is a proper way to be a Christian, or for that matter, to lay claim to or practice any other form of religion....

The fact that Barnes’ thought processes may not have been "mature" is of no moment. One need not be a St. Augustine or a St. Thomas Aquinas to qualify as CO, indeed conscientious objection has no necessary relation to intellectual sophistication....

The evidence is overwhelming that Barnes – a motivated infantryman –is a person who takes his religious beliefs seriously, and there is strong evidence that his decision was motivated by those beliefs.... True, the timing of Barnes’ decision is suspect. But that alone cannot be the basis for denying his application....

Instead of remanding the case to the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board, the court concluded that Barnes' petition for habeas corpus and mandamus should be granted and the Army should be ordered to grant Barnes an honorable discharge. The Army has until tomorrow to appeal the magistrate's findings. Yesterday's London Guardian reports on the decision.

UPDATE: the May 24 Anchorage Daily News reports that the Army has appealed the magistrate's decision to federal district Judge John Sedwick.

Massachusetts Agrees That Non-Jewish Prisoner Gets Kosher Diet

Yesterday, the U.S. 1st Circuit court of Appeals dismissed as moot the case of Guzzi v. Thompson, (1st Cir., May 14, 2008). A release by the Becket Fund explains that the dismissal comes after Massachusetts prison authorities agreed to allow a prisoner who requested kosher food for religious reasons to have access to it even though the prisoner is not Jewish. The Becket Fund had argued to the 1st Circuit that "governments should not be deciding whether a religious belief is orthodox."