Equal Access in Russia

From the Religion Clause blog:

"Last week, in Case of Barankevich v. Russia, (ECHR, July 26, 2007), the European Court of Human Rights found that Russian government officials violated the European Convention on Human Rights when they refused to permit the pastor of the Christ's Grace Church of Evangelical Christians to hold a worship service in a park in the town of Chekov. The Chekov Town Council had taken the position that services should be held only on the Church's own premises. The European Court rejected the town's argument that because the religion was practiced by only a minority of the town's residents, a public service might provoke a violent counter-demonstration. The Court found that the town's refusal violated Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to peaceably assemble), interpreted in light of Article 9 (freedom of religion). The Court awarded damages of 6000 Euros to compensate the pastor, Petr Ivanovich Barankevich, for the violation. Forum 18 today carries a long report on the decision."

What Issues Would You All Like to Discuss?

One of the advantages of a focused course like Religion and the Constitution is that we tend to get a seminar-sized class of students who are quite interested in the subject matter of the course.

Are there some issues that some of you are particularly interested in?

If so, let's talk about it and see if we can spend some time looking at those issues.

Feel free to discuss this either with me directly, among yourselves, or even right here in the comments section.

Interesting Free Exercise Issue:"dispute between divorced parents over whether their 12-year old son could receive a religious circumcision"

Religion Clause blog. Here is an excerpt:



"An important issue remained undecided after the Oregon Supreme Court on Friday sent back to the trial court for further findings the dispute between divorced parents over whether their 12-year old son could receive a religious circumcision. As previously reported, in Boldt v. Boldt, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case for further findings on whether or not the boy wanted the procedure. The court's decision only tangentially addressed a critical issue-- to what extent do minor children have free exercise rights when their religious views conflict with those their parents wish them to hold?"

FYI--Some Links Concerning this Term's Second Amendment Case

From How Appealing:



"'Misfire at Justice': The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, 'The Second Amendment's right to bear arms has rarely been considered by the Supreme Court, but this year the Court is hearing a case that could become a Constitutional landmark. So it is nothing short of astonishing, and dispiriting, that the Bush Justice Department has now weighed in with an amicus brief that is far too clever by half.'


You can view the amicus brief at this link."



This is just a heads up for those of you who are interested in the Second Amendment case. It is not part of Con Law II.

"6th Circuit OK's Ban On Student Using Religious Product In Class Project"

From the Religion Clause blog:

"In Curry v. Hensiner, (6th Cir., Jan. 16, 2008), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an elementary school principal's decision to prevent a 5th grade student from selling religious-themed material as part of a Classroom City project in which students using faux school currency sold goods they had produced specifically for the event. Joel Curry, a student at the Handley School in Saginaw, Michigan, wanted to make Christmas tree ornaments in the shape of candy canes with an attached card explaining how candy canes can be seen as a symbol of Christianity. The school's principal said that Classroom City was considered instructional time and therefore use of cards with religious content was impermissible. Curry still received an "A" for the project and was given the opportunity to sell the candy canes in the school parking lot after school. The court concluded that because the principal's decision was driven by legitimate pedagogical concerns, Curry's constitutional rights were not abridged. The district court below had concluded that the principal had abridged Curry's freedom of speech, but enjoyed qualified immunity from liability because the precise contours of that right were not clearly established."

Politics and Religious Liberty

Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post.

Here is an interesting excerpt:

"Their model stresses the importance of freedom, not only in economics per se, but in religion itself. Religion most often has positive effects when it is free. This model is reinforced by the results of our recently concluded survey of international religious freedom. The countries with the worst religious freedom records, including Burma, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, have, unless they have oil, terrible economic records. Similar relations hold for those in the middle and for those with high levels of freedom: The highest 30 countries in rankings of economic freedom all scored highly on religious freedom.

Barro and McCleary's work suggests that this is more than a mere correlation: There is good reason to think that religious freedom leads to good economic outcomes. The current evidence indicates that closed religious systems hamper economic development. Hence, if we want economic growth and development, we need to permit religious groups and people to follow their beliefs. In this case, economists should join political scientists in examining religion more seriously."

"Choose Life" License Plates Not Religious Speech

From the Religion Clause blog:

"Children First Foundation v. Martinez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94944 (ND NY, Dec. 27, 2007) is a challenge to New York state's refusal to approve special picture license plates that include the slogan "Choose Life". In this phase of the litigation, a New York federal district court refused to permit the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles to amend her answer to raise an Establishment Clause defense, finding that religious speech was not involved. The court reasoned:

'It may very well be true that those who participate in the abortion debate on the pro-life side are members of religious organizations whose religious beliefs form the basis for their views. However, that does not transform the pro-life stance into one that is religious in nature, nor does it transform the phrase, "Choose Life" into religious speech. Nothing in constitutional jurisprudence supports the conclusion that political speech which is derived from one's ethical or religious beliefs or background transforms it into religious speech. Many religious persons and organizations may be opposed to capital punishment, or perhaps in favor of gun control. Those political issues are not therefore automatically transformed into religious issues simply by virtue of the religious beliefs of their supporters. The same is true for the abortion debate.'"

This decision is obviously correct, but many people still persist in believing that pro-life speech is religious speech just because many religious people are pro-life. Indeed, some people even make the absurd argument that all laws regulating abortion constitute religious establishments in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Of course, many great political movements--abolition of slavery, civil rights, environmental laws, and welfare for the poor to name just a few--are closely related with the religious beliefs of people who support these causes. It is silly to argue that civil rights laws or welfare laws or environmental laws violate the Establishment Clause merely because many supporters of these laws do so based upon religious beliefs or religious notions of morality. The same is obviously true of pro-life laws and pro-family laws. No?