Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Queens, NY, statues depicting Christ and the Virgin Mary were vandalized and decapitated outside of a Catholic Church, resulting in the perpetrator being charged with a hate crime. The incident took place outside of Holy Family Catholic Church in Fresh Meadows, Queens, with the attack being fully recorded by the church’s camera.
  • The Center for Religion, Culture, & Democracy recently released the 2023 iteration of their Religious Liberty in the United States survey, which measures each state’s statutory protections against religious discrimination. West Virginia finished last, whereas Illinois finished first, providing an insight into how cultural norms can misalign with formal legal protections.
  • In Chino Valley Unified School System v. Newsom, a California school district sued the state of California, claiming that recent legislation prohibiting parental notification of a child’s gender transition violated parents’ free exercise rights.
  • In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., a Buddhist novice’s disability discrimination suit was dismissed due to the ministerial exception doctrine.
  • In L.F. v. M.A., a New York state trial court held that a Coptic Orthodox wedding was sufficient to render a couple civilly married for the purposes of a divorce action. The court held that the belief of both parties, as well as testimony from the officiating bishop, were enough to overcome the lack of formal marriage license.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Religious Freedom & National Security

Before states established religious freedom as a constitutional principle, they saw it as a matter of diplomacy and national security. “Cuius regio eius religio” was meant to keep peace among nations, not so much within them. And religious freedom continues to figure in international relations today–though, sadly, religious freedom is often honored more in words than deeds. A new collection of essays from Routledge, Security, Religion, and the Rule of Law: International Perspectives, argues that national security depends on states’ honoring the religious freedom of their own citizens. The editors are Tania Pagotto (University of Milan-Bicocca), Joshua Roose (Deakin University) and G.P. Marcar (University of Otago). Here’s the description from the publisher’s website:

Security, Religion, and the Rule of Law argues that true, substantive, and sustainable national security is only possible through respect for the rule of law, human rights, and religious freedom.

Despite the emphasis on national security and the war on terror that has preoccupied governments for over two decades, nations – and the world – seem to be more divided than ever, with a concomitant impact of increasing the risk of terrorism and religious and political violence. The national security paradigm, previously reserved primarily for foreign threats, has been turned increasingly inwards, focusing on a state’s own citizens as potential threats. This is often along religious lines, threatening fundamental human freedoms. This book provides a series of critical engagements on some of the most pressing issues at the interface of religion and security today, including proposing a deeper engagement with theology when dealing with freedom of religious belief, exploring a better understanding between domestic peace and international relations, abiding by the rule of law while countering terrorism, and developing a broader understanding of identities and of the nature of citizenship. It provides the resources to further reflect upon and address these topics, as well as stimulate further discussions on religion and security matters across a range of different disciplines. Wide-ranging case studies consider Australia, China, Europe, the Kurdish people, Nigeria, Russia, Ukraine, the United Nations, and the United States.

This book will appeal to students and scholars across a range of disciplines, including international relations, law, philosophy, political science, religious studies, security studies, and theology. It will also appeal to human rights lawyers, judges, NGO researchers, governmental agency specialists, and policy makers.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:

  • The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review of a Second Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of Connecticut’s decision to repeal religious exemptions from its mandatory vaccination laws while retaining medical exemptions. The denial effectively allows the Second Circuit’s ruling to remain in effect, upholding Connecticut lawmakers’ decision to repeal religious objections out of concerns that upticks in exemption requests were coupled with a decline in vaccination rates in some schools.
  • A group of parents (acting on behalf of their children) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Louisiana, challenging Louisiana’s recently enacted statute that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the Louisiana statute imposes religious beliefs on public school children and unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance and adoption of a state-favored religious scripture, all in violation of the Free Exercise and Free Establishment clauses of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs seek declarative and injunctive relief.
  • A federal district court in Florida held that a 2014 prayer vigil organized by the Ocala Police Department meant to encourage witnesses to come out and cooperate with police in the aftermath of a shooting spree that injured several children violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Implementing the Supreme Court’s new Establishment Clause test set out in Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, the court determined that the city’s involvement in “conceiving, organizing, and implementing the Prayer Vigil” constituted government sponsorship of a religious event, which violated the First Amendment.
  • In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, the Oklahoma Supreme Court violated the Oklahoma and US Constitutions by authorizing a Catholic-sponsored, publicly-funded charter school. The court ruled that state funding for the school violated anti-establishment provisions in both the state and federal constitutions.
    • Please read Center Director Mark Movsesian’s post about the case here.
  • Israel’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that draft-age Haredi Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men are not exempt from the country’s mandatory military service, even if they are studying in a yeshiva. The Supreme Court also ordered that the Israeli government cease funding yeshivas unless their students enlist in the military.
  • In India, a family that recently converted to Christianity was attacked in the state of Chhattisgarh, resulting in the death of one woman. Christian leaders in India have spoken out against the attack as merely one in a growing number of attacks committed against Christians, largely attributable to mobs who seek to make India a purely Hindu nation. Christian leaders have also condemned police inaction as another reason for increased attacks.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:

  • In French v. Albany Medical Center, the Northern District of New York found that a hospital did not violate the religious rights of a nurse who refused to receive a flu shot on religious grounds. The Court held that the requested accommodation was not reasonable due to her proximity to flu patients and vulnerable individuals.
  • In Bacon v. Woodward, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a suit by firefighters who claimed their free exercise rights were infringed by the City of Spokane’s refusal to accommodate their religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine. The Court held that the city’s termination of the plaintiffs while inviting potentially unvaccinated firefighters from neighboring departments for assistance constituted more favorable treatment for a secular group.
  • In Blackmon v. State of Missouri, a Missouri trial court held that the references to God and the belief that life starts at conception do not translate into various pro-life statutes running afoul of the Establishment Clause. The Court likened the mention of God to that found in the State’s Constitution, and refused to consider the latter belief as religious.
  • In Russia, a self-proclaimed witch was detained in court after disseminating literature calling for violence against clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. She was also charged with insulting the feelings of religious believers as well as distributing extremist literature.
  • In Pakistan, a Christian man was killed by a mob of hundreds of individuals after being accused of desecrating a Quran. The United States Center for International Religious Freedom claims that the attack was inspired by Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which explicitly provide for the death penalty upon anyone found to insult the Islamic faith.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New Collection on Human Dignity

In this week’s Scholarship Roundup, I’m delighted to note a book edited by three friends: Brett Scharffs (BYU), Andrea Pin (Padua) and Dmytro Vovk (Yeshiva): Human Dignity, Judicial Reasoning, and the Law: Comparative Perspectives on a Key Constitutional Concept. “Human dignity” is something human rights law endorses in principle–pretty much everyone agrees about that. But legal cultures define human dignity quite differently, and the consensus can quickly fall apart when one starts to talk about concrete cases. Comparative work is necessary if we are to understand what judges, lawyers, and religious leaders mean when they say they are committed to human dignity. This new new book, from Routledge, is thus very welcome. Congratulations to Brett, Andrea, and Dmytro!

Here’s the description from the Routledge website:

This volume explores how national and international human rights courts interpret and apply human dignity. The book tracks the increasing deployment of the concept of human dignity within courts in recent decades. It identifies how human-dignity-based arguments have expanded to cover larger sets of cases: from the right to life or the right to integrity or anti-discrimination, the concept has surfaced in disputes about political and social rights and rule of law requirements, such as equality or legal certainty. The core message of the book is that judges understand, interpret, and apply human dignity differently. An inflation in the judicial recourse to human dignity can saturate the legal environment, depriving the concepts as well as human-rights-based narratives of salience, and threaten the predictability of court decisions. The book will appeal to philosophers of law, constitutional theorists and lawyers, legal comparativists, and international law specialists. While being dedicated specifically to human dignity jurisprudence, the book touches on many aspects of judiciary and as such will also be of interest to researchers studying legal reasoning, interpretation and application of the law and courts, as well as social philosophers, political scientists, and sociologists of law, politics, and religion.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:

  • In Wallbuilder Presentations v. Mark, a D.C federal court granted a preliminary injunction against the removal of advertisements on a public bus that indicated that the American founders were Christians. The Court found that a local transit guideline banning advertisements that attempt to influence the public on controversial issues was unreasonable and susceptible to the biases of those overseeing its enforcement.
  • In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, the 11th Circuit found that a policy granting religious exemptions for vaccinations only to certain religions violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The Court rejected the university administration’s decision that only adherents of religions that expressly prohibit all immunizations may claim an exemption, holding that a government policy cannot use its own views of a belief’s legitimacy to judge whether it is sincerely held.
  • In Foothills Christian Ministry v. Johnson, a California federal court rejected a complaint by three churches against California’s Child Day Care Facilities Act which required all preschools to make acts of religious observation discretionary by the student’s parents. Because the Act allowed all registrants to reject the admission of any child whose parents refuse to allow their children to participate, the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked a cognizable injury.
  • In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo, the NY Court of Appeals rejected a claim that the state’s religious exemption for mandatory coverage of medically necessary abortion was too narrow. The Court held that the state’s four-element test for qualification as a religious employer was generally applicable and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny, despite the alleged hardship of meeting the four elements.
  • A nondenominational church challenged a zoning objection made by the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado against the church’s use of an RV as temporary shelter for the homeless. The complaint alleges that the aforementioned objection violates the plaintiff’s Free Exercise Clause rights, citing multiple passages from Christian Scripture that mandate believers to tend to the homeless and hungry.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

How Islam Rules in Iran

People in the West often assume that government in Islam is a theocracy, but that isn’t quite true. If we define theocracy in traditional terms, as rule by clerics, classical Islam wouldn’t qualify–and very few contemporary Muslim-majority states would meet the definition, either. But the Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy–the Supreme Leader is a Shia cleric. A new book from Cambridge University Press, How Islam Rules in Iran: Theology and Theocracy, discusses the place of Islam in present-day Iran. The author is government scholar Mehran Kamrava (Georgetown University in Qatar). Here’s the description from the Cambridge website:

This study provides a comprehensive examination of the evolution of Islam as a ruling framework in postrevolutionary Iran up to the present day. Beginning with the position and structure of Iran’s clerical establishment under the Islamic Republic, Kamrava delves into the jurisprudential debates that have shaped the country’s political institutions and state policies. Kamrava draws on extensive fieldwork to examine various religious narratives that inform the basis of contemporary Iranian politics, also revealing the political salience of common practices and beliefs, such as religious guardianship and guidance, Islam as a source of social protection, the relationship between Islam and democracy, the sources of divine and popular legitimacy, and the theoretical justifications for religious authoritarianism. Providing access to many Persian-language sources for the first time, Kamrava shows how religious intellectual production in Iran has impacted the ongoing transformation of Iranian Shi’ism and ultimately underwritten the fate of the Islamic Republic.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League, a New York federal district court dismissed a complaint alleging that the Anti-Defamation League violated Farrakhan’s First Amendment Rights by repeatedly referring to him and his organization as antisemitic. In the dismissal, the Court reasoned that Farrakhan failed to allege that his injuries were concrete or traceable to the ADL.
  • The City of New York has agreed to settle a class action damage claim brought by Muslim women protesting a policy that required wearers of hijabs to remove them when sitting for arrest photos. The NYPD agreed to change the policy in an earlier settlement in 2020, and the settlement amounts to $17.5 million.
  • In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging a new zoning law that allowed places of worship to be more easily built, claiming that the law improperly promoted religion. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs lacked standing, suffering no cognizable harm apart from tax dollars passing the law.
  • In United States v. Safehouse, a Pennsylvania district court held that the prosecution of a nonprofit providing safe injection sites for drug users did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Despite the leaders of the nonprofit claiming religious motivation, the entity itself has no religious affiliation, and the Court therefore held that the religious inspiration of its leaders doesn’t protect it against prosecution for the violation of a federal statute criminalizing the maintenance of drug-involved premises.
  • In Ocean Grove, New Jersey, the NJ State Department for Environmental Protection ordered the Christian nonprofit owners of the waterfront area to allow beach access to the public on Sunday mornings or face up to $25,000 in fines per day. State officials claim that the closure violates the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act, which itself is based on the public-trust doctrine, outlining that certain natural goods like waterfront areas are to be reserved for public use.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Modernity and the Muslim State

Modernity, most people think, implies the separation of the state and religion. That has certainly been the case in the Christian West. But it has not been the case elsewhere, including in many Muslim-majority countries. Islam has never divided religion and the state in the same way the Christian West has, of course, and many states where Islam is the majority religion have aspired to modern administrative government while maintaining state identification with Islam. A new book from Princeton, The Making of the Modern Muslim State: Islam and Governance in the Middle East and North Africa, explores this phenomenon. The author is Islam scholar Malika Zeghal (Harvard). Here’s the publisher’s description:

In The Making of the Modern Muslim State, Malika Zeghal reframes the role of Islam in modern Middle East governance. Challenging other accounts that claim that Middle Eastern states turned secular in modern times, Zeghal shows instead the continuity of the state’s custodianship of Islam as the preferred religion. Drawing on intellectual, political, and economic history, she traces this custodianship from early forms of constitutional governance in the nineteenth century through post–Arab Spring experiments in democracy. Zeghal argues that the intense debates around the implementation and meaning of state support for Islam led to a political cleavage between conservatives and their opponents that long predated the polarization of the twentieth century that accompanied the emergence of mass politics and Islamist movements.

Examining constitutional projects, public spending, school enrollments, and curricula, Zeghal shows that although modern Muslim-majority polities have imported Western techniques of governance, the state has continued to protect and support the religion, community, and institutions of Islam. She finds that even as Middle Eastern states have expanded their nonreligious undertakings, they have dramatically increased their per capita supply of public religious provisions, especially Islamic education—further feeding the political schism between Islamists and their adversaries. Zeghal illuminates the tensions inherent in the partnerships between states and the body of Muslim scholars known as the ulama, whose normative power has endured through a variety of political regimes. Her detailed and groundbreaking analysis, which spans Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon, makes clear the deep historical roots of current political divisions over Islam in governance.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, the 7th Circuit ruled against a religious school’s appeal for zoning approval to install lights for nighttime athletic events. The court found that the inability to host these events does not constitute a “substantial burden” on the school’s religious mission, noting that alternative venues could host such events, thus not impeding the school’s religious mission.
  • In Pendleton v. Jividen, the 4th Circuit found that a West Virginia prison’s dismissal of a Sufi inmate’s religious diet claim was incorrect. The inmate’s Sufi beliefs require a diet excluding soy, which cause him health issues, making soy-based foods religiously “Haram.” The court emphasized that an inmate does not need a medical allergy test to prove a substantial burden on religious practices, thus allowing his RLUIPA claim to proceed.
  • The Satanic Temple has filed a lawsuit in a Tennessee federal district court against the Memphis-Shelby County School Board, alleging unconstitutional hurdles in renting space for an After-School Satan Club.
  • Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb vetoed House Enrolled Act 1002, aimed at defining antisemitism in educational settings, citing its failure to fully adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition and examples, particularly concerning criticism of Israel.
  • The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (concerning freedom of thought, consciousness, and religion) by convicting a conscientious objector for refusing reserve duty. The Court emphasized the absence of alternative service options for conscientious objectors in Turkish law, upholding previous case law on balancing societal interests and individual rights. Turkey is ordered to compensate the objector for non-pecuniary damage and costs.