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

Making American Religion Moderate

At the Law & Liberty site this morning, I review a new documentary on the history of religious freedom in America, “Free Exercise.” The film shows how minority religious communities–Catholics, Mormons, and others–have changed America over time. But, I argue, America has changed minority religions as well. Here’s an excerpt:

ike the Quakers, who went from being bottle-breaking radicals to sober citizens, Catholics and Mormons themselves changed in ways that made them less threatening to the American majority. One major point of contention between the Catholic Church and the wider American society had to do with religious liberty itself. The nineteenth-century Church was the Church of the Syllabus of Errors (1864), a papal document that condemned freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state as dangerous heresies. America’s Protestant majority saw this document and the values it espoused as hostile to fundamental American commitments. In the 1928 campaign, The Atlantic published an open letter questioning whether a Catholic like Smith could serve as president, citing the Syllabus and other papal pronouncements on church and state.

A hundred years later, though, and largely through the efforts of American Catholics like Fr. John Courtney Murray, the Second Vatican Council adopted Dignitatis Humanae, a document that specifically endorses religious liberty as a civil right. Catholic scholars have argued that Dignitatis Humanae and the Syllabus of Errors can be interpreted consistently with one another and that, from a theological perspective, there was no change. However theologians understand the situation, though, after Dignitatis Humanae, something had indeed changed as a practical matter. A major point of tension between the Catholic Church and American culture had disappeared, largely because of American influence.

Or consider the LDS Church. A primary source of conflict between Mormons and the wider American society in the nineteenth century had to do with plural marriage, the issue in cases like Reynolds and Davis. In 1890, however, the LDS Church officially ended the practice—making it possible for Utah to be admitted as a state six years later. Practically speaking, Mormonism changed in a way that made it much less threatening to the wider American public. Mormons conformed to social convention, and relations between the LDS Church and other Americans have been better ever since.

What causes religions in America to move toward the mean over time? Some argue that the Lockean ideology that underlies our First Amendment is designed to encourage religious moderation—to minimize religious “enthusiasms” that threaten social peace. If that’s the case, Lockeanism certainly seems to be working. Or perhaps another factor explains things. Two hundred years ago, Tocqueville wrote about the strong pressures for social conformity that exist in the United States, where he observed “little independence of mind.” Whether as a result of ideology or social norms, or both, the pattern is apparent.

You can read the full essay here.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Bardonner v. Bardonner, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a custody order that prohibited a father from taking his son to his church. The court held that his free exercise rights were not infringed upon by this restriction as the child’s mother, the legal guardian of the child, had the right to determine the religious upbringing of her child.
  • In Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities were not exempted from the state’s unemployment compensation law. The court reasoned that the controlling factor for qualification was whether the charity was operated primarily for religious purposes, and held that the charity’s purposes were instead charitable and secular.
  • The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ended an official visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia following a demand by Saudi officials to have USCIRF Chairman Rabbi Abraham Cooper remove his kippah while visiting a religious site.
  • In Miller v. McDonald, the District Court for the Western District of New York upheld the State of New York’s removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory student vaccination requirement. The Court held that the law was facially neutral, and the mere removal of existing religious exemptions is insufficient to prove hostility towards religion.
  • An observant Jewish passenger on a JetBlue flight filed suit against the airliner in the District Court for the Southern District of New York after being forced off the flight when he refused to sit next to a woman who wasn’t his wife or blood relative, on account of his religious beliefs.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 057: Historian Richard Brookhiser on Religious Freedom in America

In this episode, Center Director Mark Movsesian interviews historian Richard Brookhiser (left) about his new documentary, “Free Exercise: America’s Story of Religious Liberty.” How have minority religions tested and shaped America’s commitment to religious freedom over the centuries–and how has America changed those religions in return? From the Flushing Remonstrance of 1657 until now, it has been a grand story. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, a Texas federal district court found the repeal of the military’s COVID vaccine mandate only partially addressed a lawsuit by Navy SEALs denied religious accommodations. The SEALs argue the mandate exposed flaws in the Navy’s religious accommodation process, including delays and discriminatory practices, which remain unaddressed. The court noted ongoing issues such as indefinite request delays, lack of individual assessments, and coercive tactics against servicemembers seeking accommodations.
  • Members of the U.S. House Freethought Caucus criticized the invitation of Pastor Jack Hibbs to deliver an opening prayer in the House, labeling him a radical Christian Nationalist linked to the January 6th insurrection. They expressed concern over his history of controversial remarks towards non-Christians, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community, questioning the appropriateness of his role as Guest Chaplain.
  • The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Belgium’s elimination of exemptions for ritual slaughter without stunning, affecting Halal and Kosher practices, did not violate religious freedom or discrimination protections under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court recognized animal welfare as a legitimate aim under the concept of public morals, emphasizing the evolving nature of societal values towards the ethical treatment of animals.
  • The British Columbia Supreme Court denied the Matsuri Foundation of Canada, a Shinto organization, a property tax exemption for Knapp Island, sought as a “place of public worship” under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. The court found that the island’s worship use was private, lacking public access and invitation, and rejected Matsuri’s equity-based exemption argument for Knapp Island compared to other British Columbia properties.
  • The Church of England faces scrutiny over claims that it has unwittingly aided Muslim migrants in seeking asylum by converting to Christianity, motivated by the prospect of persecution claims. Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani acknowledged the difficulty in discerning genuine conversions, highlighting a small number of abuses. The Church defends its actions, emphasizing its biblical duty to care for strangers, while stating that assessing asylum claims is the government’s responsibility.
  • Greece became the first Christian Orthodox country to legalize same-sex marriage, following a Parliamentary vote of 176-76, led by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. The legislation, however, restricts same-sex couples from surrogacy rights, sparking criticism from LGBT groups. The Orthodox Church had opposed the legislation for different reasons and threatened supporters with excommunication.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Movsesian at Princeton Tomorrow

I’m looking forward to participating tomorrow in a film screening and panel discussion on the history of religious freedom in America at the James Madison Program at Princeton. Details above. Friends of the Forum, stop by and say hello!

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Long v. Sugai, the 9th Circuit ruled that a Hawaii prison sergeant potentially violated an inmate’s free exercise rights by delivering Ramadan meals four hours before sundown, leading to inedible and possibly unsafe food. The court emphasized that the timing of meal delivery significantly burdened the inmate’s religious practices and instructed the district court to evaluate whether this burden was justified.
  • In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the 5th Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of a case for damages from prison officials who shaved a Rastafarian prisoner’s head. The court said that even though the prison officials knowingly violated his rights, the question of whether the plaintiff can sue for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is one for the Supreme Court.
  • In Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, a federal district court declined summary judgment in a suit brought by a Muslim chaplain alleging First Amendment violations due to a “Statement of Applicant’s Christian Faith” in a prison job application. The court found the statement could be seen as a religious test, but disputes over its optional nature and impact on the plaintiff’s religious expression prevented summary judgment for either side.
  • In The Satanic Temple v. Labrador, a federal district court dismissed a case by The Satanic Temple challenging Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. The Satanic Temple argued it violated their religious right to conduct ritualistic ceremonial abortions and now plans to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Montreal is challenging a Quebec law requiring  all palliative care homes to offer medical assistance in dying, arguing it violates religious freedom. The Archbishop asserts that a palliative care home associated with the Catholic Church should not be obligated to administer euthanasia, emphasizing the importance of respecting freedom of conscience.
  •  In Miller v. University of Bristol, a British Employment Tribunal ruled that a Professor’s anti-Zionist views qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, the University issued a press release stating that the professor’s employment was terminated because his comments did not meet their behavioral standards.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Film Screening at Princeton Next Month

Next month at Princeton University, I’ll be participating in a film screening and panel discussion on religious liberty in the United States, “Free Exercise: America’s Story of Religious Liberty.” The event is sponsored by Princeton’s James Madison Program, where I spent a wonderful semester a few years ago. Details are available here. Friends of the Forum in the area, stop by and say hello!

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New Book on Locke, Religious Freedom, and Christianity

Scholars debate the extent to which Lockean ideas about religious freedom, which were so important to the Framers, are consistent with Christianity. An interesting-looking new book from the University Press of Kansas, Everyone Orthodox to Themselves: John Locke and His American Students on Religion and American Society, argues that Lockean liberalism is consistent only with a specific kind of Christianity, namely, a rationalist, non-dogmatic sort. The author, politics professor John Colman (Ave Maria), apparently maintains that conservative Christians are mistaken when they think their commitments compatible with religious freedom. Readers can decide for themselves. Here is the description from the publisher’s website:

Religious liberty is one of the hallmarks of American democracy, but the principal architects of this liberty believed that it was only compatible with a certain form of Christianity—namely, a liberal, rational, Christianity. Conservative and postliberal champions of the freedom of religion often ignore this point, sometimes even arguing that orthodox Christianity was, or should be, at the root of democratic liberty.

Everyone Orthodox to Themselves, John Colman’s close study of the religious views and political theologies of John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, shows otherwise. Colman demonstrates that Locke and his three American students specifically took aim at the idea of orthodoxy, which they argued continuously tempted its believers to try to impose an artificial uniformity upon the religious diversity that naturally exists in society and thought it necessary to advance a more rational, nondogmatic Christianity given the threat they saw religious orthodoxy posed to a free, liberal society.

While recent arguments have endorsed the idea that there is a crisis of liberalism that can only be met by the revival of more orthodox forms of religious devotion, Colman argues that, according to some of the most prominent American Founders and their philosophic predecessors, such orthodoxy is incompatible with religious freedom and the right to free inquiry. Everyone Orthodox to Themselves demonstrates that only a nondogmatic, rationalist Christianity could be made a friend rather than an adversary to the inalienable right of religious liberty.

Colman’s work reveals how the reform of Christianity, and with it the inculcation of a particular theological disposition, is necessary to secure religious liberty and the right of free inquiry. The book also establishes the importance of Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity for his larger argument for toleration.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 056: Can the NY State Thruway Ban Chick-fil-A?

Chick-fil-A Inc. logo (PRNewsFoto/Chick-fil-A)

In this episode, we discuss a bill pending in New York that would require future fast food restaurants at rest stops on the State Thruway to open seven days a week. The bill expressly targets Chick-fil-A, which closes on Sundays in line with the owners’ religious commitments. Does the bill violate Chick-fil-A’s free exercise rights under the US and NY State Constitutions? And what does this controversy suggest about religious practice in the US? Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS