Time Magazine Features Democrats' Embrace of Religion

The cover story of this week's Time Magazine is How The Democrats Got Religion. It reports:

The democrats' courtship of religious voters exploits a rare Republican predicament: disillusioned with Bush's stewardship and serial scandals, many religious conservatives see a field in which their preferred candidates can't win, and those who can win include, for now, a politically elastic Mormon; the twice-divorced, pro-choice, gay-friendly former New York City mayor; and a maverick who called conservative religious leaders "agents of intolerance" the last time he ran.

Along with the feature article, the issue carries a report on a poll of voters' views of leading candidates religiosity. The issue also carries a background piece titled The Origins of the God Gap.

Lay Leaders Added As Defendants In Episcopal Church Property Dispute

Both sides are raising the rhetoric in the property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and eleven breakaway parishes that have affiliated with African Anglican bishops. (See prior posting.) Virtue Online reported on Friday that the Diocese has amended its lawsuit to add as defendants a number of individuals who were elected as vestry members in each church after the spit off. Jim Oakes, speaking for all the break-away churches, said that suing lay members was an attempt "to terrorize us". He said that under Virginia law, voluntary leaders of non-profit organizations are immune from liability unless they engaged in willful misconduct or criminal negligence. He accused attorneys for the diocese and the Episcopal Church of following "a scorched earth policy".

Oregon Zoners Reject Church Site Despite Claim That A Vision Inspired Its Location

The Jackson County, Oregon Planning Commission decided earlier this week that the owners of Circle of Teran-- a spiritual retreat site-- have not shown that they are entitled to an exception from the county's prohibition on churches within three miles of an urban growth boundary. The owners, Scott and Sulara Young, want to use the house they have built as a church. According to yesterday's Southern Oregon Mail Tribune, Planning Commissioner Don Greene said that a church could be built elsewhere on the Youngs' 1700 acre property without running afoul of the zoning restriction. Invoking the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, however, Scott Young said that the he and his wife had a vision that led them to build the house where it is now located.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Carter v. Howard, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49628 (CD IL, July 10, 2007), an Illinois federal district court rejected a claim by a prisoner that his free exercise rights were violated when he was prevented from attending communal religious services while in disciplinary segregation.

In Greenlaw v. Hill, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49443 (D OR, June 27, 2007), an Oregon federal district court rejected an inmate’s free exercise claim stemming from a one-year delay in providing him with pureed kosher food after his teeth were extracted due to gum disease.

In Chambers v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48804 (D AZ, July 5, 2007), an Arizona federal district court rejected a prisoner’s challenge to a jail’s policy of allowing only three detainees per week to attend religious services.

In Al-Barr v. Lewis, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48269 (ED CA, July 3, 2007), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of most of the claims brought by a Nation of Islam prisoner who alleged that NOI inmates were denied access to the prison chapel for religious study groups, and that at various times they were excluded from Ramadan services and various Islamic events. Plaintiff alleged free exercise and equal protection violations. He was permitted to move ahead only with one of his equal protection claims.

In Blount v. Milgrum, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48172 (WD VA, July 2, 2007), a Virginia federal court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a prisoner’s claim that his religious rights were violated when, on one occasion, Prison authorities gave him a non-kosher "loaf meal" in retaliation for his filing a grievance.

In Lancaster v. Tilton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48403 (ND CA, June 21, 2007), a California federal district court held that San Quentin prison officials were ignoring provisions of a consent decree requiring group religious services and counseling on a regular schedule for certain death row inmates.

Defendant In Employment Discrimination Trial Ordered To Testify On Religious Beliefs

A judge in a New York City trial court has ordered Ted Doudak, president of Riva Jewelry Manufacturing in Long Island City, to testify about his religious beliefs in a trial in which an employee alleges that Doudak illegally fired him because he is gay. John Fairchild says that he was fired after he admitted to being gay and after Doudak found out that Fairchild's daughter was a lesbian. Doudak allegedly made numerous derogatory comments about gays and lesbians. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead has ordered Doudak to testify whether he believes homosexuality is a "sin against God," if he believes gays and lesbians face eternal damnation and if he finds homosexuals "repulsive." Doudak's lawyer says that the order violates his client's First Amendment rights. Yesterday's Queens (NY) Times Ledger reports on the case.

UPDATE: The full opinion in Fairchild v. Riva Jewelry Manufacturing Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY County, June 28, 2007) is avaialable online.

Hate Crimes Bill May Come To Senate Vote; Clergy Take Opposing Sides

A bill to expand federal hate crimes prohibitions to cover crimes of violence motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, may come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate today or early next week. In order to move forward on the bill, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S.1105) has been proposed as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill by Senators Edward Kennedy and Gordon Smith. The House has already passed a version of the bill. Christian pro-family groups staged a rally at the Capitol on Wednesday opposing the bill. They argue that the bill threatens free speech of those opposed to homosexuality. Supporters of the bill strongly contest this claim, and in a full page ad in Roll Call on Wednesday, over 1300 clergy urged passage of the bill. Developments were reported yesterday by the Christian Post and by the Washington Blade.

Pakistan's Supreme Court Changes Method of Allocating Haj Quotas

The full bench of Pakistan's Supreme Court yesterday suspended the Haj quota allotments to private tour operators that had been made by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and set up an independent committee to reallocate quotas for the upcoming Haj based on merit. The new committee will be made up of two members of the Senate, the Secretary of Religious Affairs and a former judge of the Supreme Court. The Religious Affairs Ministry has been accused of favoritism in allocating quotas. Pakistan's Daily Times and International News both reported on the court's decision. Following the decision, the government announced that Haj applications will be taken through designated branches of five banks. Associated Press of Pakistan says that 159,588 pilgrims from Pakistan will go on the Haj this year; 79,500 will be sent under government auspices.

Hindu Cleric's Invocation In Senate Disrupted By Christian Protesters

Yesterday, for the first time in history, the U.S. Senate's session was opened with a Hindu prayer, offered by Hindu cleric Rajan Zed of Reno, Nevada. (See prior posting.) However, the invocation, which is usually routine, was interrupted by three Christian protesters in the public observation gallery. CNS News reports that the protesters began to pray loudly for forgiveness for betraying the Christian tradition when Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain from Nevada, began his invocation. Security guards quickly removed the protesters.

TPM Cafe reports that the protesters were members of the anti-abortion group Operation Save America. Its report also links to a video of the invocation and its disruption. In a press release after the event, Operation Save America said "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release deploring the intolerance of the religious right protesters. [Thanks for leads from Alliance Alert and Blog from the Capitol.]

Tajik Court Upholds Campus Ban On Islamic Head Scarves

In Tajikistan, a court has upheld the Education Ministry's ban on women wearing the Islamic head scarf on college campuses. Radio Free Europe yesterday said that this is the first legal challenge in Central Asia to bans on Islamic dress. While Tajikistan is predominately Muslim, President Emomali Rahmon's government has imposed other restrictions as well, including banning mosques from using loud speakers to call worshipers to prayer.

Complaint Dismissed Against Judge Who Questioned Defendant's Knowledge of Bible

Yesterday's Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the Ohio Supreme Court has dismissed a complaint that was filed against Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge John Burlew. (See prior posting.) In April, in a hearing to set bond for Eric Hine who was charged with receiving stolen property, Hine's attorney argued that Hine was employed and regularly attended church. To test the claim, Judge Burlew asked Hine to recite the 23rd Psalm. When Hine did so, the judge released him on his own recognizance. This led David Palmer of Folsom, California to file the complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court, alleging that it was improper to reduce Hine's bond because of his religious beliefs.

Romanian Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against God

A court in Timisoara, Romania has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a prisoner against "God, who lives in the heavens and is represented in Romania by the Orthodox Church". Mircea Pavel, serving a 20 year sentence for murder, sued for fraud and betrayal of trust because his prayers were not answered. He argued that a contract he made with God was breached. Interfax yesterday said that the court dismissed the case because "God is not subject to law and does not have an address."

New Mexico Town Will Place 10 Commandments By City Hall

Yesterday's Santa Fe New Mexican reports that officials in Bloomfield, New Mexico are moving ahead with plans to erect a Ten Commandments monument outside City Hall, under a policy that allows monuments to feature local or national figures, or events and documents related to the development of law or government. City officials say the planned monument is historical and artistic. The monument's $6000 cost would come from private funds.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Statute of Limitations Argument In Fraud-Abuse Case

In what is described by commentators as a "surprise move" (Orange County Personal Injury Lawyer), yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that fraud claims against the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee growing out of priest sexual abuse charges may still be able to be brought. In John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, (WI Sup. Ct., July 11, 2007), the court affirmed dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of claims that the church had been negligent in supervision of its priests. However it held that

the claims of fraud for intentional misrepresentation are independent claims based on the Archdiocese's alleged knowledge of the priests' prior sexual molestation of children and the Archdiocese's intent to deceive children and their families. We further conclude that the date of the accrual of the fraud claims is "when the plaintiffs discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered" that the Archdiocese's alleged fraud was a cause of their injuries.

Two justices dissenting in part argued that the negligent supervision claims should not have been dismissed either.

LDS Church Loses Bid to Keep Finances Secret

The Oregonian reports today that Oregon's Supreme Court has rejected a motion by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for emergency relief from a trial court's order that it disclose detailed information about LDS assets. The order came in a suit brought by a man who alleges that he was molested 20 years ago by a church-endorsed home teacher who was to provide educational and religious guidance. The Church argues that disclosing the financial information would infringe its free exercise rights. The Church has released no financial information since 1959.

Muslim Head Scarves Remain Controversial In U.S.

The wearing of a traditional head scarf by Muslim women remains surprisingly controversial in the United States. The Associated Press reports that representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations met with Valdosta, Georgia municipal court officials yesterday to discuss a change in the policy that prohibits wearing of head coverings into courtrooms. (See prior posting.) No definitive resolution of the issue was worked out, but the parties agreed to continue talking and hope to make further progress on the issue.

Meanwhile, yesterday's Sacramento (CA) Bee reports that a Muslim woman has filed a discrimination suit in Solano, California Superior Court against Whitehall Jewelry stores. Shereen Attia had previously worked part-time for the stores. Her former supervisor asked her to return to work, but when he discovered that she had begun to wear a head scarf for religious reasons, he refused to hire her. Whitehall already employed one woman who wore a head scarf. Attia's suit alleges that the stores' district manager vetoed her hiring, saying "Oh no, not another one."

Cobb County, GA Wins On Most of Its Prayer Practices

The Associated Press reports that a Georgia federal district judge has upheld the way in which the Cobb County, Georgia, Board of Commissioners chose clergy to deliver invocations at Board meetings. It invited clergy from a diverse set of religious organizations. However the court found that the Cobb County Planning Commission violated the Establishment Clause in 2003 and 2004 when, in choosing clergy to deliver opening prayers, a deputy clerk excluded Jewish, Muslim, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon clergy. Since those exclusions were halted before the lawsuit was filed, the court refused to issue an injunction and merely awarded nominal damages of $1. The court refused to ban clergy delivering invocations from using sectarian prayers, so long as a wide variety of clergy were invited.

UPDATE: The full opinion is now available on Lexis: BATS v. Cobb County Georgia, 2007 U..S. Dist. LEXIS 50196 (ND GA, July 6, 2007).

Jews For Jesus Challenges Leafleting Restrictions

In the second round of its challenges to the Town of Oyster Bay, New York (see prior posting), Jews for Jesus has filed suit in federal court challenging the town's ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature in public parks. Yesterday's New York Law Journal reports, however, that shortly after the suit was filed, the town changed its rules so that printed material can now be distributed if a group first obtains a permit from Town officials. Leaflets can be distributed only from a table at a fixed location, and no more than four leafleters may be present. Susan Pearlman, associate executive director of Jews for Jesus, said that the group would still move ahead with its lawsuit. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Recent Articles On Church-State Issues

From SSRN:
Leslie C. Griffin, Conscience and Emergency Contraception, Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 299, 2006.

From Asian Journal of Comparative Law, (Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2007):
Andrew Harding, Buddhism, Human Rights and Constitutional Reform in Thailand.

Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia.

From SmartCILP:
Dana E. Blackman, Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination?, 14 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 59-97 (2007).

Kristin B. Gerdy, The Irresistible Force Meets the Immovable Object: When Antidiscrimination Standards and Religious Belief Collide in ABA-Accredited Law Schools, 85 Oregon Law Review 943-991 (2006).

Michele Estrin Gilman, Fighting Poverty With Faith: Reflections on Ten Years of Charitable Choice, 10 Journal of Gender Race & Justice 395-438 (2007).

Symposium: The Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II. 45 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 221-669 (2006).

Dean Sanderford, The Sixth Amendment, Rules 606(b), and the Intrusion into Jury Deliberations of Religious Principles of Decision, 74 Tennessee Law Review 167-197 (2007).

Church Gets TRO Against Bidet Ad On Billboards At Its Building

On Monday, according to the Associated Press, a New York state trial court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting a billboard ad company from placing a planned ad for a bidet company on two Times Square billboards. Rev. Neil Rhodes, pastor of the interdenominational Times Square Church , filed the lawsuit objecting to the bare buttocks with smiley faces that were to be in the ads that were scheduled to go up on billboards on two sides of the building that houses Rev. Rhodes' church. He said that the ads would interfere with the church's religious activities, which include a Bible school and day care center. The judge, who said that the motion poses novel and significant issues, required the church to post a $90,000 bond to cover damages and costs for the defendant if the church ultimately lost its lawsuit.

Kentucky County Will Issue Revenue Bonds To Finance Church Addition

Boone County, Kentucky's Fiscal Court has agreed to issue up to $2.8 million in industrial revenue bonds to finance a 5,000 square foot addition to the Vineyard Christian Church in Burlington, Kentucky. The addition will be used for Sunday school classes as well as for community groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The Kentucky Post reports that yesterday's decision by the County was defended by County Judge-Executive Gary Moore who said that the issuance of the bonds does not breach the required separation of church and state. He cited both federal court decisions and a 1993 Kentucky Attorney General's opinion.

NY Rabbinical College Sues For Permission to Build

The Brooklyn-based Congregational Rabbinical College of Tartikov has filed suit in federal district court in New York challenging Pomona, New York officials' refusal to permit the group to build a Rabbinical College on 30 acres of the Congregation's 100 acre property. The proposed college would include places of worship, educational facilities, religious courts, libraries and student housing. The complaint (full text) in Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, alleges violations of RLUIPA and of the federal Fair Housing Act, as well as violations of various state and federal constitutional provisions. The complaint alleges that "The Village of Pomona has engaged in a targeted and deliberate decades long effort to prevent various Jewish individuals and institutions from developing the subject property and other nearby properties, while permitting other development within the Village." The Associated Press today reports on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

IRS Issues New Rev. Proc. On Sec. 501 Determinations

The Internal Revenue Service has issued Revenue Procedure 2007-52 (effective July 23, 2007), 2007 IRB LEXIS 591, setting out the procedures to be used by non-profit organizations, including churches and other religious groups, in applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Rev. Proc. updates a similar set of rules issued in 1990. Among the changes in this Rev. Proc. is the centralization of determinations on exempt organization applications in the IRS's Cincinnati office

Military Conscientious Objector Rules Are Depublished

Largely unnoticed until now, in May the Department of Defense reissued Instruction 1300.06 setting out DoD policy on conscientious objectors and the procedures for processing discharge requests based on conscientious objection. Then last month the Department of Defense removed from the Code of Federal Regulations the previous version of Defense Department rules on conscientious objectors (32 CFR Part 75). This makes the current CO rules unpublished regulations. The June 19 Federal Register, 72 FR 33677 (June 19, 2007), says that this step has been taken because: "The document on which this part was based has been revised and is limited only to DoD personnel management matters, affects only DoD military personnel, and has no impact on the public." [Thanks to Scott Idleman via Religionlaw listserv for the lead.]

Conference Honors Roy Moore

Jews on First this week has a lengthy account of the God & Country Patriotic Celebration & Conference held in Bowie, Maryland on July 1- 3. Sponsored by a number of right wing Christian groups, the Conference's concluding day honored former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. In his remarks, Moore called for "the sovereignty of God in this country", while conference leader Michael A. Peroutka referred to the Confederate flag that was flying (along with those of Alabama and Maryland) as "the American flag".

Anti-Discrimination Policy vs Student Religious Rights: Once More Unto the Breach

Another lawsuit alleging a conflict between a school's anti-discrimination policy and the restricted religious membership of a proposed University club has been filed. See prior posting here and here.

The Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society have filed a suit against the University of Florida because, according to a CLS Blog post, "University officials refuse to recognize [Brothers Under Christ/Beta Upsilon Chi] as a registered student organization because the fraternity limits membership to men, and refuses to allow the fraternity to go under the Greek system because it requires members to share the group's Christian beliefs."

Franchise Story 2: Forbes Discusses One Franchisor's Practices

Forbes has published a story called "The Cult of Chick-fil-A," found here (free registration required) and at Westlaw (2007 WLNR 12995596). The article attempts to characterize Chick-fil-A's relationship with its franchisees, noting that Chick-fil-A allegedly "screen[s] prospective operators for their loyalty, wholesome values and willingness to buy into Chick-fil-A's . . . Christian credo." The article then discusses potential legal issues relating to such

screening:

. . . Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking
nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)

Franchise Story 1: 7th Circuit Allows Race-Based Discrimination-in-Franchising Case to Proceed

A panel of the Seventh Circuit has unanimously ruled that an Arab and Muslim franchisee who refused to serve pork products in his store could proceed with his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982 claims against Dunkin Donuts. The case is Elkhatib v Dunkin Donuts, No. 04-4190 (7th Cir July 10, 2007).

Elkhatib claims that Dunkin Donuts refused to allow him to renew his franchisee agreements or relocate when it learned that he was not selling Dunkin Donuts' breakfast sandwiches. The Court determined that Dunkin Donuts' citation of Elkatib's failure to carry the products was pretext, concluding "there is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts." Slip. Op. at 10.

What may be more interesting to the readers of Religion Clause is how the two courts dealt with (or not) the religious element of his claim. In granting Dunkin Donuts' motion for summary judgment, the trial court sua sponte construed Elkhatib’s claim to be one of religious discrimination rather than racial discrimination, based on the court’s determination that the restrictions on handling pork are associated with religion, not race:

Elkhatib alleges discrimination based on race. See Compl., ¶ 9 (“Plaintiff, as an Arab is forbidden from dealing, buying or selling pork products, because of his race's traditions and religious practices”). Elkhatib cites St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987) for the proposition that Arabs may sue for racial discrimination under § 1981. In that case, plaintiff Al-Khazraji sued a university that denied him tenure on the alleged grounds of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court held that “[i]f Respondent on remand can prove that he was subjected to intentional discrimination based on the fact that he was born an Arab, rather than solely on the place or nation of his origin, or religion, he will have made out a case under § 1981.” Id. at 613. Al-Khazraji based his claim solely on racial grounds. However, the court construes Elkhatib's claim to be one of religious discrimination rather than racial discrimination. The dietary restrictions Elkhatib points to are associated with religion rather than race. Islamic and Jewish law both prohibit the handling and consumption of pork. . . . Claims of religious discrimination are not cognizable under § 1981 and § 1982. Elkhatib v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. 2004 WL 2600119, *3 (N.D.Ill. 2004) (notes and religious citations removed). [Ed Note: Links Repaired].

On appeal, neither party argued this point. Slip. Op. at 3. Apparently, the Defendant only pressed its contention that that the district court properly held in the alternative that Elkhatib had failed to meet his burden in demonstrating racial discrimination. Id. And Plaintiff, of course, rested on its position that Elkhatib was subject to racial discrimination.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Seventh Circuit accepted this characterization without comment (and without examining the district court's contention) and treated the claim as a race-based one.

Thanks to How Appealling for the lead.

Hudson Institute's Religious Freedom in the World 2007

On Monday, July 9, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom released the initial findings for its forthcoming book Religious Freedom in the World 2007 (Rowman and Littlefield). According to Hudson, this survey describes and analyzes over 100 countries and territories, especially those where religious freedom is most violated.

Some of the statistics in the survey can be found here:

1. Country Religious Freedom Scores Compared to Freedom House Rankings of Political Rights and Civil Liberties


2. Grim & Finke Scores for Government Regulation of Religion (GRI), Government Favoritism of Religion (GFI), and Social Regulation of Religion (SRI)

Here is a National Review piece by Paul Marshall on the study he edited.

Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the lead.

InnerChange: Latest Developments

On July 1, 2007, this blog reported (here) that Iowa prison officials have reached an agreement with the faith-based prison treatment program, InnerChange, permitting it to continue to operate-- at its own expense-- at Newton Correctional Facility pending the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on whether the program violates the Establishment Clause.

Yesterday's Des Moines Register (IA) has an editorial calling that decision into question, writing "If the state desires to institute 'values based' programs aimed at reforming convicted criminals, it must be sure they are not disguised as government-sponsored avenues for evangelization."

Defendants have also filed two F.R.A.P. 28(j) letters providing supplemental authorities to the court. One relates to rates of recidivism for inmates in the program. The second discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in Hein v Freedom from Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. ____ (2007) (June 25, 2007) and University of Notre Dame v Laskowski, No. 06-582 (US June 29, 2007) (cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded in light of Hein). Both of these cases are discussed here.

Defendants argue that the district court relied heavily on Laskowski, and "[t]hus the anomalous legal basis for allowing private, taxpayer plaintiffs to compel restitution to the government is gone, and the decision below granting that remedy should be reversed." Plaintiffs argue in reply that unlike the case in Hein, "InnerChange was funded for the last four years with appropriations by the Iowa Legislature specifically for the program." Plaintiffs also argue that "The restitution question is an issue of remedy, not standing. Hein does not impact the logic of prior cases that treated restitution as an available remedy...."

Asylum Seeker Has Right to Profess Faith in Public

According to the Middle East Times (Egypt), a German court ruled that an asylum seeker from Iran who had converted to Christianity may not be deported. Germany had originally denied the asylum seeker's request on the grounds that she had been able to secretly practice her religion in Iran. The asylum seeker claimed that her faith required public professions and attendance at worship services.

The administrative law judges reviewing the decision accepted her argument that a 2004 European Union directive requires the granting of asylum to those who face persecution for practicing their religion in public. Moreover, the court doubted that she could return to the secret practice of her religion after living openly in Germany.

Article 10 of that directive holds that:

1. Member States shall take the following elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution: (a) . . . . (b) the concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief . . .

$1 Damages to Cobb County Prayer Plaintiffs

In September, 2006, a Georgia federal district judge upheld the practice of the Cobb County (GA) Board of Commissioners and its Planning Commission to open their sessions with prayer, but determined that the Planning Commission's selection procedure for identifying clergy to deliver that prayer was defective. That case, Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1374 (N.D. Ga. 2006), was reported on here and here.

The court has issued its decision on relief owed the plaintiffs. As said, the Court had previously upheld the Board of Commissioners' process for selecting speakers which involved inviting clergy from a master list compiled using the Yellow Pages. The Planning Commission also used the Yellow Pages, but its set of Yellow Pages "contained cross-out markings through the contact information of Islamic, Jehovah’s Witness, Jewish, and Latter Day Saint churches. Leaders of those faiths were categorically excluded from the pool of invitees in 2003 and 2004." Pelphrey v. Cobb County, No. 1:05-cv-2075, slip op. at 4 (ND Ga. July 7, 2007).

The court concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the 2003-2004 practice was unconstitutional, that they are entitled to compensatory damages of $1, and that they are not entitled to injunctive relief. Id. at 21-22. The court concluded that no injunctive relief was appropriate because, given that the practice had stopped in 2005, "an injunction would not operate to redress the unconstitutional conduct." Id. at 21. It concluded that nominal damages were appropriate where, as here, a plaintiff established the violation of an “absolute”constitutional right—such as the right to be free from a state establishment of religion—but cannot prove actual injury. Id at 17 - 18.

A story detailing this award can be found here in the Daily Report (Fulton County, GA).

Preacher's Failure to Follow Campus Rules Not Sufficient for Trespass

A Schenectady (NY) City Court has acquitted Greg Davis of criminal trespass after Davis was arrested and tried for entering Schenectady County Community College's campus to preach. The court concluded that Davis' failure to follow the campus' rules for speaking on campus and defiance of an administrator's order to leave were not sufficient to support the trespass charge. The Decision and Order can be found here.

The Court determined that under NY Law, the People were required to demonstrate that the particular order to exclude Davis had a legitimate basis and that, considering the nature and use of the subject property, its enforcement did not unlawfully inhibit or circumscribe the defendant from engaging in constitutionally or statutorily protected conduct. After establishing that that the campus was "open to the public," the Court ruled the People had not met their burden:

[t]he Court finds that the People offered insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the . . . order to the defendant to leave the SCCC campus had a legitimate purpose, rationally related to the power to maintain order on the campus, or that its enforcement did not violate an independent right of the defendant.

Therefore, the Court finds this defendant not guilty of the charge of Trespass . . .

The case is People of the State of New York v. Davis, # 06-77707 (Schenectady City Ct. 6/27/07) .

Thanks to ADF for the lead.

Slidell: Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Copies of the complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in Doe v Parish of St. Tammany are now available online. This is a case in which plaintiffs object to an icon which contains a portrait of Jesus that is posted in the lobby of a Slidell, Louisiana courthouse. The complaint alleges, in part:

11. The lobby contains two paintings. One is a painting of the founding judge of the City Court of Slidell and is accompanied by wording to that effect. The other, placed on a separate wall, is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox sect of Christianity. It shows an image of Jesus Christ presenting the New Testament. The icon is positioned above the large gold wording, "TO KNOW PEACE, OBEY THESE LAWS." The display in question is the Eastern Orthodox religious icon combined with the wording below it.

12. The display is prominently displayed in the center of the wall directly above the teller window of the City Court of Slidell.

14. Prior to June of2007, in order to participate fully as citizens, to conduct business, or to fulfill certain legal obligations, Plaintiffs, John Doe and members of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, separately entered the City Court of Slidell, saw the display, and were offended by it as a whole and in its several parts. In order to participate fully as citizens, conduct business, or fulfill certain legal obligations, Plaintiffs will be obligated to return to the courthouse in the future.

17. On information and belief, Defendants installed the display, which had never
before been displayed on public property, before the courthouse opened in 1997 and have maintained it at taxpayer expense since that time.

See prior postings on this case 1, 2, 3.

Thanks to the First Amendment Center for the lead to the online documents.

The Legacy of Zelman v Harris-Simmons

Five years ago (6/27/2002), the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Zelman v Harris-Simmons which held that Ohio's Cleveland-based voucher program was constitutional. Sunday's Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH) has this assessment of the program:

From Cleveland Heights to Akron, the population shift from older neighborhoods could lead to the closing, merger or consolidation of about one-sixth of the schools in the eight-county Cleveland Catholic Diocese. But Catholic schools in Cleveland proper have a guardian angel: Ohio taxpayers, who provided more than $16 million in tuition vouchers for more than 5,500 city children to attend parochial schools this past school year.

The paper also notes that the program enjoys bi-partisan support. Voucher opponents claims that the program drains resources from other public school activities.

The Legacy of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia

A Chronicle of Higher Education story discusses the confusion that remains after the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia.

More than a decade later, some public universities still have policies that appear to run counter to the spirit and letter of [Rosenberger]. In fact, a review of more than a dozen student handbooks across the country reveals a confusing and contradictory mishmash. Some policies explicitly welcome religious groups to apply for student-activity funds and inveigh against any "viewpoint discrimination." Others prohibit religious groups from receiving any money. Still others are so vague that it's unclear who is and is not eligible for support.

As a consequence, there is litigation involving schools that are allegedly engaging in viewpoint discrimination. See for example a prior posting (here) discussing a case in which the University of Wisconsin settled a lawsuit filed against it by UW Roman Catholic Foundation challenging UW's refusal to recognize the Foundation as a student organization.

More interesting may be the article's effort to describe what lies ahead. The article quotes Steven K. Green, a professor of law at Willamette Universiy (and former Americans United policy director) as saying that the next wave of post-Rosenberger litigation relates to schools citing their anti-discrimination policies and refusing to fund religious groups that deny gays and lesbians the right to join or be officers. The article mentions Christian Legal Society v Southern Illinois University at Carbondale as one example of this kind of litigation (see prior postings here and here). In that case, CLS sued after the University revoked CLS’s status as a recognized student group because it violated the University’s non-discrimination policy by not allowing non-Christians, gays and lesbians to be voting members. The University settled with CLS and, among other things, reinstated CLS. Another similar case, not mentioned in the article, is Christian Legal Society of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Kane, which is still pending (see prior postings here and here).

Howard Friedman, your regular host on this site, provided this detailed Analysis of The Christian Legal Society Cases back in May, 2005.

Thanks to ADF for the lead.

European Court of Human Rights: No to Norway's Mandatory Religious Ed

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Norway's mandatory elementary school religion classes. The case was Folgerø and Others v. Norway (Application no. 15472/02) (June 29, 2007). The judgment of the Court in can be found here.

The facts, as set out by the Court:

The present case concerns complaints lodged by non-Christian parents. It relates, firstly, to a complaint under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, about refusals by the domestic authorities to grant their children full exemption from a compulsory subject in Christianity, Religion and Philosophy (the “KRL-subject” – see paragraph 16 below) taught during the ten-year compulsory schooling in Norway. Secondly, it concerns their complaint about discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with the aforementioned provisions and Article 8 of the Convention. (Para 3 of the opinion).

Article 2 of Protocol 1 can be found here. The Court concluded:

[N]otwithstanding the many laudable legislative purposes stated in connection with the introduction of the KRL subject in the ordinary primary and lower secondary schools, it does not appear that the respondent State took sufficient care that information and knowledge included in the curriculum be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds that the refusal to grant the applicant parents full exemption from the KRL subject for their children gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. (Para 102 of the opinion).

Having disposed of the Article 2 claim, the Court did not reach the Article 14 claim (Para 105).

There was a dissent, which argued:

In our opinion, a review of the case requires a twofold approach, namely, in the light of the requirements of modern Norwegian society and with its history as an important background. On the one hand, the increasing number of Norwegian citizens with different ethnicities and religious beliefs calls for inclusive measures, with a common education in religions and ethics in schools. On the other hand, when devising the curriculum, one cannot overlook the many centuries of Norwegian history. Christianity has a very long tradition in Norway, both as a religion and a school subject (see paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment). This aspect must be reflected in the curriculum, which must at the same time be inclusive and broad.

An article on the case can be found at the Norway Post.

[Thanks to Christianity Today for the lead.]

Malaysia: Muslim to Hindu Conversion Blocked by Islamic Court; Woman Detained

According to AP and Reuters, a Malay woman was released on July 6 from a 180-day detention in a "religious counselling center." Massosai Revathi had been detained by the Malacca Islamic Religion Council because she sought to convert from Islam to Hindu after marrying a Hindu man. In Malaysia, Islamic courts determine whether a Muslim may convert out of Islam and these courts routinely do not allow such conversion. Without permission, a person cannot marry a non-Muslim or emigrate.

Revathi claims she was subject to "intimidation and mental torture" while in the center. She claims she was placed in solitary confinement, forced to wear a headscarf, pray as a Muslim, and was served beef (which Hindus may not eat). AP reports that Islamic officials also seized the couple's 18-month-old daughter in March and placed her in Revathi's Muslim mother's care. According to the BBC, a lawyer representing the Malacca Islamic Religion Council rejected her allegations and said officials believe that she can still be persuaded to embrace Islam.

In a widely publicized case, in May a woman, Lina Joy, lost a battle in Malaysia's highest court to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. She had sought to convert from Islam to Christianity.

Previous posts relating to Lina Joy and Malaysia's treatment of converts can be found here.

Members of Congress Call on Bishops to Work to End War in Iraq

Earlier this week, fourteen Democratic Members of Congress sent a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last Thursday, calling on the Bishops to increase their involvement in efforts to end the war in Iraq. A press release and a copy of the letter can be found here.

Guest editor's note: I couldn't find a Republican (or other) response or critique of the letter to the USCCB. If any reader knows of one, please post a link in the comments section.

American Baptist Churches and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Hold Historic Worship Service

The Washington Post carried a story today about an historic joint worship service held by American Baptist Churches USA and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. American Baptist Chruches Secretary Roy Medley said "[t]his is, in and of itself, an awesome God moment . . . American Baptists, Cooperative Baptists, Progressive Baptists coming together. . . . It gladdens our hearts." The Washington Post also carried this story about the American Baptist Churches' multicultural membership.

The American Baptist Churches' also presented its first Religious Freedom Award to the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.



Lead from Blog From the Capital.

ADF Sues City of Zachary, LA Over Prohibited Preaching

The Alliance Defense Fund said in a press release that it has filed a lawsuit and a motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of a man whom a policeman prohibited from sharing a religious message on a public street outside of a bar in the city of Zachary, Louisiana. The officer cited a city ordinance prohibiting speech that is “annoying” or “offensive” to another person. The case is Netherland v. City of Zachary, No. 3:2007-cv-00409.

According to ADF, on the evening of Nov. 18, John Todd Netherland stood outside on public property to speak about his Christian faith about 75-100 feet from the entrance of a local bar. Even though he was allegedly standing on public property, a police officer told Netherland he could not preach there and instructed him to move closer to the street. The officer then allegedly warned Netherland that if he stepped back to the place he’d been standing, he’d be arrested and sent to jail. Despite agreeing to comply, the Plaintiff claims that the officer told him that if he continued to preach, even in the new location, he would arrest him for “disturbing the peace.” Netherland claims that he then ceased speaking because of the threat of arrest.

New Faith-Based Initiative in Granite State

The Nashua Telegraph (NH) reports that "New Hampshire – long known for a libertarian streak that eschews government overreach – has become the 33rd state to officially connect state and church for the purpose of helping those in need." The paper says that the effort will follow the model of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Additionally, according to the AP, "State officials and representatives of various churches or church organizations signed an agreement [July 2] formalizing faith-based cooperation."

Developments in Odessa, TX Bible Case

On Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reported some developments in the Odessa, Texas Bible-in-curriculum case, Moreno v. Ector County Independent School District. (See previous post here.) Defendants filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 offer of judgment to plaintiffs, asking them to settle the suit for $500. A Rule 68 offer can change the financial stakes of the litigation: "[i]f the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer." At the same time, the Defendants also filed a motion for referral to mediation. Notably, Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute, is one of the attorneys representing the defendants.

Times (UK) Attacks Regent University Law School/Justice Department Relationship

The TimesOnline (UK) has published an essay that is highly critical the Justice Department's hiring of Regent University School of Law graduates. The essayist believes that the hiring of 150 graduates of this faith-based law school raises questions about the influence of faith on the American political process. Another, less critical article on the relationship between the Justice Department and Regent was published in April by Slate. Religion Clause reported on another article, here.

Defendant's Religious Beliefs Fair Game in Employment Case

The New York Daily News reports that the New York Supreme Court (a trial court) has determined that an employer can be required to answer interrogatories about his religious beliefs when those beliefs are "relied upon to form a basis of discrimination against a person who is a member of a protected class." The opinion can be found here.

Defendant argued that his individual associational privacy rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and his individual beliefs and freedom of exercise of religion under the religion clauses of the US and NY Constitutions are absolute, and that no compelling state interest exists so as to compel him to divulge those beliefs. Disagreeing, the judge concluded:

It is the duty of every Court to guard jealously the great right and privilege of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference, with all the power that the Court possesses, but no person should be permitted to use that right as a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices inconsistent with the protections against invidious discrimination proscribed in New York State law.

Without ruling whether any answer given would be admissible at trial, the judge has required the defendant to answer the following questions:

“State whether defendant [] believes that ‘homosexuality is a sin against God.'"
“State whether defendant [] believes that ‘gays and lesbians are doomed to eternal damnation."
“State whether defendant [] regards homosexuals as ‘repulsive.'”

The case is Fairchild v. Riva Jewelry Mfg., Inc., No. 101169/2006, 2007 NY Slip Op 31857 (June 28, 2007).

Leonard Link also has an analysis of this case.

Elections at U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has announced that it elected Michael Cromartie to serve as its chairman for a one-year term, starting July 1. Michael Cromartie is Vice President at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and he directs both the Evangelicals in Civic Life and Religion & the Media programs.

The Reverend Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Preeta Bansal , a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, were elected to serve as vice-chairs.

According to the Commission, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

Student Dress Code Falls in Napa

The Nappa Valley Register reports that the ACLU has won a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of a dress code at a Nappa Valley middle school. The policy (which is attached to the judge's order) permits students to wear only solid-color clothes in certain specified colors, with no pictures, logos, words, or patterns of any kind. The case is Scott et al v Napa Valley Unified School District, et al., Case No. 26-37082 (July 3, 2007).

The suit was brought by six students who were punished for violating the attire policy, including one who wore a t-shirt that said "Jesus Freak," another who wore a D.A.R.E. pin, and a third who wore a breast cancer awareness ribbon. The district also punished a student wearing a pair of socks bearing the image of the Winnie the Pooh character Tigger. The district defended the policy, saying that it furthers the important governmental interests of providing a safe school environment and of preventing gang activity on campus.

This case is an early post-Morse v. Frederick (551 U.S. __ (June 25, 2007)) decision. In its reaching his decision, Napa Superior Court Judge Raymond Guadagni cited Morse as upholding the well-settled principle from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist that student expression is protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969).

Maryland State Bd. of Ed. Approves Sex-Ed Curriculum Over Religious Objections

According to the Washington Post, here, the Maryland State Board of Education has ruled in favor of a sex-education curriculum adopted last month for use in Montgomery, Maryland middle and high schools. Because of the curriculum's views relating to homosexuality, opponents to it had claimed Free Exercise and Establishment Clause violations. They also claimed that the curriculum violated student free-speech rights by expressing a favorable view of homosexuality and that it restricts religious expression by suppressing the view that homosexuality is a sin. Notably, use of an earlier version of the curriculum (which the Post reports has since been wholly re-written) was stopped by a federal court's preliminary injunction. In that granting injunction, the judge ruled that the earlier version had criticized religious perspectives on homosexuality and thus raised Establishment Clause issues.

In the June 27 ruling, the State Board of Education's opinion, found here, dismissed the opponents' claims, concluding that the Free Exercise challenge does not succeed because "a curriculum need not espouse every viewpoint to pass constitutional muster" and that the curriculum in question does not "preclude the Appellants from espousing their religious beliefs..." The Board rejected the opponents' Establishment Clause claims, saying the the curriculum has a secular purpose, which is fostering tolerance and diversity. In rejecting the Free Speech claim, the Board concluded that the Constitution does not require the district to be viewpoint neutral or include all points of view.

The Post says that the opposition group has not yet determined whether it will seek relief in federal court.

Gordon Brown Gives Up Right to Appoint Senior Ecclesiastical Positions

Today's Times (UK) reports here that new UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has given up his right to appoint key ecclesiastical officials. In a constitutional Green Paper (found here), the Government has said that the Prime Minister should no longer use the royal prerogative “to exercise choice in recommending appointments of senior ecclesiastical posts, including diocesan bishops, to the Queen." In the absence of the Archbishop of Cantenbury (who is on a "study leave"), the Archbishop of York welcomed the decision.

Guest Blogger Steve Sheinberg To Host Religion Clause For The Next Week

For approximately the next week, Religion Clause will be edited by guest blogger Steven Sheinberg, instead of by me. Steve Sheinberg is Associate Director, Legal Affairs at the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/). Steve works on the full range of ADL's religious freedom advocacy. Please join me in welcoming Steve. --- HMF

2nd Circuit Vacates Injunction Permitting Renting Of School Buildings For Church Services

In a fragmented decision in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district judge's permanent injunction barring enforcement of a school policy on rental of space in public school buildings to outside groups on evenings and weekends. (See prior posting.) The New York City schools, concerned about having schools identified with any particular religious group, had prohibited rental of school space to religious groups for worship services. In 2002, the 2nd Circuit had affirmed a preliminary injunction invalidating that policy. (See prior posting.) But now, on appeal of the grant of a permanent injunction in the case, a different 3-judge panel of the court reached a different result. Here is how the court described its fragmented holding:

Judge Calabresi would hold that this dispute is ripe for adjudication and would vacate the injunction because he concludes that Revised SOP §5.11, while a restriction on the content of speech permitted on school property, is viewpoint-neutral. Judge Walker agrees that the dispute is ripe for adjudication but would affirm the injunction because he concludes that Revised SOP § 5.11 is viewpoint-discriminatory. Judge Leval expresses no opinion on the merits, but votes to vacate the injunction because he concludes that the dispute is not ripe for adjudication.
Our disparate views of this case leave us without a rationale to which a majority of the court agrees. While two judges who disagree on the merits believe the dispute is ripe for adjudication, the court cannot decide the merits of the case without the vote of the third judge, who disagrees as to ripeness. Judge Leval agrees that the dispute over Revised SOP §5.11 would indisputably become ripe if the City were to deny Bronx Household permission to use school facilities in reliance on the terms of that rule.
... The City is free to adopt Revised SOP § 5.11 (if it has not already done so), and then require that Bronx Household apply to use school buildings pursuant to that rule. In the event Bronx Household does so, and the City denies the application, Bronx Household may seek review of that denial in the district court on an expedited basis.

Today's New York Sun reports on the case. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Itinerant Preacher Loses Bid To Preach On Murray State Campus

In Gilles v. Miller, (WD KY, June 27, 2007), a Kentucky federal district court ruled against traveling evangelist James G. Gilles who was challenging the policy of Murray State University that required him to have sponsorship from a University organization or department in order to proselytize on campus. The court held that the University's policy did not violate Gilles' speech rights because it is a viewpoint-neutral and reasonable policy applicable to a designated public forum. The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection challenges to the policy. Yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal reported on the decision.

Australia May Pay Racecourse To Host Mass By Pope

In Sydney, Australia, Pope Benedict XVI will conduct a Mass on World Youth Day, July 20, that is expected to draw up to 600,000 worshippers. Today's Herald Sun reports that some question has been raised about proposals to compensate the Australian Jockey Club for up to $50 million in losses that it would suffer if its Randwick racecourse is used for the Mass instead of for racing events. Part of the payment would come from taxpayer funds.

Egyptian High Court Will Review Converts' Right To Change ID Card Designation

Yesterday's International Herald Tribune reports that Egypt's Supreme Administrative court has accepted jurisdiction in an appeal by 45 Coptic Christians who converted to Islam (some as children) and now want to return to Christianity. A lower administrative court ruled against the request to change their national identity card designations back to indicate that they are Christians. Sharia law treats conversion out of Islam as apostasy. However, Egypt generally permits Copts to convert into Islam-- and many do in order to obtain a divorce that is not available from Coptic authorities.

Fargo Reverses Decision-- Will Keep 10 Commandments On City Mall

Reversing an earlier decision, the Fargo, North Dakota City Council yesterday agreed that a 10 Commandments monument would remain on City Hall mall. Today's Fargo Forum reports that Commissioner Tim Mahoney reversed his earlier vote in favor of moving the monument. This all happened as members accepted a petition with over 5,000 signatures seeking to place an initiated ordinance on the ballot that would prohibit the city from moving any monument or marker that has been on city property for over 40 years. Council then received and filed a request by the Red River Free Thinkers who want to erect a companion monument that would contain a quote saying that America is not founded on the Christian religion. That proposal had previously been rejected, but one member of council said she voted against it only because she thought that the 10 Commandments would be moved off the mall. (See prior related posting.)

Tajikistan's Religion Law Draft Raises Concerns

According to a report yesterday by Forum 18, religious minorities in Tajikistan are deeply concerned about the latest draft of a proposed Religion Law. They say that the law will limit the number of mosques, and will make it nearly impossible for non-Muslim religious communities to obtain legal recognition. Recently a letter objecting to the high threshold numbers for recognition, signed by representatives of 22 religious minorities, was sent to the President and Parliament

"Day of Truth" Lawsuit Settled As School Enacts New Speech Policy

Yesterday, the Alliance Defense fund announced the settlement of a suit it had filed against a New Jersey High School in order to assure that the head of the school's Christian Club could hand out fliers and cards, and have an ad about the Day of Truth read over the school's loudspeaker. The event is a Christian response to "Days of Silence", an event designed to combat harassment of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. (See prior posting.) The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in Aufiero v. Northern Highlands Regional High School Board of Education was filed after the school permitted the Day of Truth activities to proceed and also enacted a new student speech policy protecting student rights to speak on issues of current interest.

Supreme Court Remands Notre Dame Case In Light of Hein Decision

On Friday, taking up the case of Notre Dame University v. Laskowski, (Case No. 06-582), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 7th Circuit for further consideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. In the Notre Dame case, the 7th Circuit had held that taxpayers had standing to challenge a grant from the Department of Education to Notre Dame University to fund a Catholic teacher training program. The case raised the unusual question of whether Notre Dame might have to repay past government funds it had already spent. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Unlike the expenditure in Hein that was from a general appropriation to the executive branch, the funds given to Notre Dame stemmed from a specific earmark by Congress in Sec.309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-261 to 262 (Nov. 29, 1999). Today's Inside Higher Ed reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Accommodating Muslim Prayer In San Diego School Raises Controversy

Today's San Diego Union-Tribune reports on the debate in Oak Park, California over the actions at Carver Elementary School to accommodate the needs of some 100 Somali Muslim students who enrolled after their charter school closed. Carver added Arabic to its curriculum and, more controversially, it gives students a 15-minute break each afternoon so Muslim students can pray. Other students can read or write during that time. Proponents say that this accommodation is needed because Islam, unlike many other religions, mandates a specific time for required prayers that conflicts with the school day. While some advocacy groups have criticized this move, the Pacific Justice Institute has written San Diego's Board of Education to request that the district's policy be expanded to allow Christians and Jews daily prayer time as well. The letter asks that the Board institute a Daily Prayer Time Policy that would set aside separate classrooms for each religion to use, and would allow clergy to lead students in those prayers. (PJI release).

State Can Apply Child Care Licensing To Bible School

In Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Priest Lake Community Baptist Church, (TN Ct. App., June 25, 2007), a Tennessee state appellate court upheld application of the state's child care licensing requirements to a weekday Bible school program operated by a Baptist church. The court found that the church lacked standing to challenge certain of the substantive requirements imposed by the regulations. The court limited the church to challenging whether a general requirement that it obtain a child care license violates its free exercise rights. The court upheld state regulators, finding that the licensing law was a neutral generally applicable regulation and did not target religious conduct for special treatment.

South Carolina House Upholds Veto Of Blue Law Repeal

The South Carolina House of Representatives last week, by a 38-63 vote, sustained Governor Mark Sanford's line item veto of a one-year repeal of Sunday closing laws that had been placed in the state's budget bill. The State last Friday reported on the House action. The bill would have permitted sales all day-- except for alcohol-- around the state. The governor said the measure deserved more extensive debate than it got buried in the budget bill. The veto means that in a number of counties in the state, many merchants will need to continue to be closed until 1:30 pm on Sundays. [Thanks to Dispatches From the Culture Wars for the lead.]

Pentacle To Go On Arlington Cemetery Headstone With Cross

In April, the Veterans Administration approved adding the Wiccan Pentacle to the approved list of symbols that may be placed on grave markers in national cemeteries. (See prior posting.) Taking advantage of that ruling, on July 4 at an interfaith memorial service, the Pentacle will be added to the Arlington Cemetery gravestone of Jan Deanna O'Rourke. BBS news reports that the double headstone marking O'Rourke's burial site, next to her veteran husband, will become the first in a veterans cemetery to carry both a cross (marking her husband's grave) and a Pentacle. O'Rourke was active in politics, business and the charitable world. She was also a Wiccan priestess, active in interfaith work.

More of June's Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Kaufman v. Karlen, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45568 (WD WI, June 21, 2007), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a prisoner's Establishment clause challenge to prison policy that prevented him from wearing an emblem signifying his atheist beliefs. Prison policy aimed at assuring that prisoners did not wear symbols of secular groups or gangs. The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise and establishment clause challenges to delays by the prison library in shelving books on atheism that were donated to it. The court also rejected establishment clause and free speech challenges to prison policy that prohibited inmates from receiving free publications other than religious material, college promotional material and retail catalogs.

In Watts v. Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45812 (ED CA, June 15, 2007), a California federal district court awarded limited attorneys fees to counsel who was partially successful in a prisoner's challenge to prison grooming standards by negotiating a settlement that expunged the prisoner's disciplinary record regarding grooming violations.

In Key v. Keim, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46101 (SD IL, June 26, 2007), a federal district court accepted a federal magistrate's recommendation that summary judgment be denied to a prison chaplain who was sued by a prisoner who was a member of the African Hebrew Israelite faith. The prisoner claimed that his free exercise rights were violated when he was denied kosher meals several times and was denied access to certain religious tapes.

Bar Exam Question Challenged On Free Exercise Grounds

A bar applicant has mounted an unusual Free Exercise challenge to the Massachusetts bar exam that he recently failed. This week's National Law Journal reports that Stephen Dunne has filed suit in a Massachusetts federal court claiming that he would have passed if bar examiners had ignored his failure to answer an essay question on gay marriage. He alleges that answering the question would have required him to "affirmatively accept, support and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting" in violation of his religious beliefs. Dunne has also raised equal protection, due process and commerce clause challenges in the suit that he has filed pro se.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in Dunne v. Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners. [Thanks to Dispatches From the Culture Wars for posting it.]

City Officials Defiant Over Jesus Picture In Courthouse

Yesterday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that Slidell, Louisiana officials have rejected in strong terms a request by the ACLU that a picture of Jesus-- a reproduction of a Russian Orthodox icon-- hanging in the Slidell City Court lobby be removed. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Judge Jim Lamz said: "We respectfully disagree with the ACLU's opinion that this is a violation of the Constitution. The only opinion that counts in this type of case is the opinion of the federal judge to whom this will go if the ACLU sues." In a somewhat stronger statement, Slidell Mayor Ben Morris attacked the ACLU: "I fight daily with FEMA for the recovery of our city, and now we must fight with these tyrants, this American Taliban who seek to destroy our culture and our heritage."

UPDATE: The Times-Picayune reports that on Tuesday, the ACLU filed suit against the Slidell City Court challenging the constitutionality of displaying the icon reproduction in the courthouse lobby.

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Professional Negligence Suit Against Pastor

In Westbrook v. Penley, (TX Sup. Ct., June 29, 2007), the Texas Supreme Court held that it "would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church governance and impinge on the core religious function of church discipline" if it were to take jurisdiction over a suit in which a congregant charged her pastor with improperly disclosing confidential information received during a secular counselling session to church elders. Pastor "Buddy" Westbrook, Jr. and church elders then sent a letter to congregants telling them that they should "break fellowship" with Peggy Lee Penley because she intended to divorce her husband without any Biblical basis for the divorce and she had a "biblically inappropriate" relationship with another man. The court concluded that "the secular confidentiality interest Penley's professional-negligence claim advances fails to override the strong constitutional presumption that favors preserving the church's interest in managing its affairs." It explained that imposing civil liability on the pastor for professional negligence "would in effect impose a fine for his decision to follow the religious disciplinary procedures that his role as pastor required...."

California Court Restrains Radical From Going Near Mosque

An Orange County, California judge has issued a restraining order sought by members of Irvine's Islamic Center. The order prevents Craig Monteilh from going near the mosque or its employees. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that mosque members became concerned after Monteilh, a recent convert to Islam, began discussing jihad and said he wanted to get involved in a terrorist operation. Some worshippers have stopped attending because of Monteilh's presence. The Islamic Center has charged that the FBI has it under surveillance, but the FBI denies this.

Alabama Governor Proclaims "Days of Prayer for Rain"

Alabama Governor Bob Riley last Thursday issued a formal Proclamation (full text and press release) setting the week of June 30 to July 7 as "Days of Prayer For Rain". The Florence (AL) Times Daily reports that Riley was responding to a once-in-50-years drought in northern Alabama. The Proclamation encourages "all Alabamians to pray individually and within their houses of worship for sufficient rain". The Governor's press release quotes Don Wambles, Director of the Alabama Farmers Market Authority, a state agency, who said: "We need God’s forgiveness and our land needs His healing."

Court OK's School's Ending Of Mohawk Thanksgiving Address Over PA System

In New York state, parents of Mohawk Indian children last week lost their equal protection challenge to a decision by the Salmon River School District to end the practice of reciting the Mohawk Thanksgiving Address (in the Mohawk language) over a school's public address system and at other school events. In Jock v. Ransom, (ND NY, June 28, 2007), a New York federal district court held that school officials were justified in relying on advice of their attorneys that the Address might be considered a religious prayer and its recitation might be seen as violating the Establishment Clause. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not proven purposeful discrimination by school officials, particularly since it now allowed students to voluntarily go to the gymnasium twice a week to recite the Address an permitted its recitation in the cafeteria where students lined up before graduation.

This week's New York Law Journal reports on the decision, pointing out that two-thirds of the school district's students are American Indians and that the recitation of the Address was originally an attempt to raise awareness among non-Indian students of Mohawk culture.

Iowa Permits Faith-Based Prison Program To Continue Pending 8th Circuit Decision

Iowa prison officials have reached an agreement with the faith-based prison treatment program, InnerChange, permitting it to continue to operate-- at its own expense-- at Newton Correctional Facility pending the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on whether the program violates the Establishment Clause. The Des Moines Register yesterday reported that Prison Fellowship will be permitted to operate the program without the state funding it has been receiving, but authorities will be able to shut it down immediately if the 8th Circuit agrees with last year's district court decision invalidating the program. The district court suspended its order while the appeal is pending. Prison officials also said they intend to seek bids for a new "values-based" treatment program at Newton Correctional Facility next year.