Public School Archives - LAW AND RELIGION FORUM

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

In Woolard v. Thurmond, a California federal court upheld the requirement that state funds for home school programs be used only for secular instructional materials. The court ruled that this policy does not infringe on parents’ free exercise of religion, as states are permitted to provide strictly secular education in public schools.
In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott, a Texas federal court ordered the state to pay $346,500 in attorneys’ fees to the Freedom From Religion Foundation in connection with litigation over Texas’s removing FFRF’s Bill of Rights Nativity display from the State Capitol in 2015.
In Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit from 44 Methodist congregations trying to disaffiliate from the church’s main body but still keep their property. The court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, ruling that deciding the case would require it to interpret church doctrine and internal rules, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission challenging the inclusion of abortion as a covered medical condition in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The plaintiffs argue this inclusion and the nullification of the Act’s religious exemption will force employers to support abortion.
Ohio’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit to prevent Hebrew Union College from selling off its valuable Judaica library collection to address a financial deficit. The lawsuit alleges the college is violating state law by not disclosing the sale to donors and by breaching fiduciary duties by not preserving the collection according to donor intent.

Jeroen Temperman (Erasmus University Rotterdam) has posted Religious Symbols in the Public School Classroom. The abstract follows.

This paper flags a couple of preliminary legal questions that are remarkably often ignored or trivialized by (international) courts. Underscoring the importance of identifying primary rights holders, genuine conflicting interests, and the obligations of duty bearers in symbol cases, this contribution illustrates that much depends on who can be identified as ‘symbol-displayer’ and who as ‘symbol-viewer’ and within which particular (public) setting. Focusing on public school education, the paper addresses such questions as under what circumstances may State neutrality be considered a legitimate ground for limiting fundamental rights. And who is actually supposed ‘to be neutral’ according to human rights law –– States, buildings, the ‘public square’, civil servants, teachers, students, and/or pupils? When does a symbol truly ‘interfere’ with the rights and freedoms of others or with public order? And who is to prove that? Also, what are the exact standards of proof in symbols cases?