Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, January 15, 2010
6th Circuit Upholds Courthouse Display Including 10 Commandments
Judge Moore, dissenting, said: "The County's asserted purpose here—that the Display was posted for educational or historical reasons—is a sham and should be rejected." She also concluded that the display sent an unmistakable message of endorsing religion.
Liberty Counsel, (which represented Grayson County) urged in its press release on the decision: "Pray that the Lord continues to bless Liberty Counsel as we continue to battle the ACLU in other cases." The Lexington Herald-Leader, reporting on the decision, said that plaintiffs in the case are reviewing the decision to decide whether to file an appeal.
UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that on Jan. 18, just days after the decision, the Ten Commandments were reposted on the Grayson County Courthouse walls. Rev. Charles Shartzer and 200 others joined county officials for the ceremony, at which Shartzer said: "We have Christian leadership. We have leadership that is not ashamed to stand up for God, not ashamed to have this display in our courthouse."
Scientology Sues Atlanta Suburb Over Zoning Denial
Appeals Court Upholds Religious Objection To Autopsy On Executed Prisoner
The court held that under Tennessee's law on preservation of religious freedom (TN Code Ann. Sec. 4-1-407), the Medical Examiner is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence under the specific facts of the case that performing an autopsy is essential to further a compelling governmental interest. While there is a compelling interest to conduct some kind of investigation as to every inmate who is executed in order to assure against cruel and unusual punishment, where a religious objection is raised to an autopsy, that may be part of the investigation only if the compelling interest standard is met. Religious objections might be overruled when the execution was not without incident, the prisoner did not react to the drugs as expected, and there is a need to understand why. Even then, the autopsy needs to be limited to the procedures necessary to understand what happened. UPI reported on the decision yesterday.
County Assessed Large Attorneys' Fees and Costs In RLUIPA Case
UPDATE: The text of the opinion awarding fees and costs is at Rocky Mt. Christian Church v. Bd. of County Comm'rs. of Boulder County, CO., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8273 (D CO, Jan. 11, 2010).
DC Court Upholds Election Board's Rejection of Initiative To Define Marriage
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Pat Robertson's Remarks on Haiti Earthquake Draw Criticism
UPDATE: At Thursday's White House press briefing (full text), Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also commented on Robertson's remarks:
Q: ...What did you think of Pat Robertson's comments yesterday that the Haitians brought this on themselves by making a pact with the devil?
MR. GIBBS: It never ceases to amaze that in times of amazing human suffering somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid, but it like clockwork happens with some regularity....
9th Circuit Uphold's UC's Rejection of Certain Christian School Courses
In Malaysia, More Vandalism and Revelations of Broader Bans on Word Usage By Non-Muslim Papers
Malaysian Insider today and the New Straits Times yesterday say that in fact the ban on use of certain words by non-Muslim publications is broader than previously reported. Guidelines issued to the Herald in 2007 also barred it from using three other words: Kaabah (Islam's holiest shrine in Mecca), Solat (prayer) and Baitullah (House of God). Each state in Malaysia has enacted its own laws allowing certain words to be used only by Islamic publications. In the state of Pahang, Section 9 of the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 lists 25 words that cannot be used in writing or speeches to describe a religion other than Islam, as well as ten expressions with Islamic origins that may not be used by non-Muslims (except as a quotation or reference).
Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of California Proposition 8 Trial
Technically the court granted a stay of the district court's order pending filing of petitions for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. The decision only related to the proposal to broadcast the trial live to a number of other courthouses around the country. It did not relate to the proposal to post recordings of the trial on YouTube at the end of each day. The 9th Circuit never approved that portion of the district court's poposal because the district court's technical staff encountered difficulties in preparing video that was suitable for online posting. Justice Breyer dissenting, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor said:The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast.... Some of applicants' witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment....
The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.
The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.The New York Times reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)
Texas Board of Education Holds Hearings On Social Studies Curriculum
Rhode Island Legislature Overrides Veto Of Limitations Extension for Civil Rights Claims
Wisconsin Board Rejects RLUIPA Argument In Zoning For Bible Camp
Canadian FLDS Leader Sues BC Government For Illegal Prosecution
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Suit Seeks To Prevent Further Searches of Missouri Church [Corrected]
Bankruptcy Judge Orders Trial On Whether Parish Assets Are Shielded From Diocese Creditors
White House Faith-Based Task Force Debates Religious Symbols In Funded Programs
Trial Court Leaves Open Manslaughter Option In Trial of Tiller's Shooter
3rd Circuit Dismisses Challenge To Muslim Scientist's Security Clearance
El-Ganayni sued claiming the revocation was motivated by speeches he gave criticizing the FBI, US foreign policy and the war in Iraq, and that he was being discriminated against based on his religion and national origin. The court dismissed the claims concluding that El-Ganayni could prove retaliation or discrimination only by showing the government's primary motivation for revoking his clearance. This however would involve the courts in deciding on the merits of a security clearance revocation-- a matter over which courts lack jurisdiction. The court also concluded that DOE followed the applicable regulations and executive orders in revoking El-Ganayni's security clearance.