|
The refining of religious neutrality
By Jefferey Rosen
New York Times (28.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (01.07.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - Yesterday the Supreme Court played a calming role in the culture wars by declaring that the era of strict separation between church and state is over. In a welcome decision, the court upheld a public program in Cleveland that financed vouchers that could be used in religious or secular, public or private schools. In doing so, it embraced a healthy vision of religious neutrality. But a day earlier, the old-line strict separationists had what may be their last hurrah. A decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the Pledge of Allegiance, in its reference to one nation "under God," violated the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's vision of neutrality which holds that a government program enacted for a valid secular purpose is not unconstitutional if that program incidentally benefits religious organizations represents a moderate and appealing vision for addressing church-state issues, one that can accommodate the concerns of liberals and conservatives. By contrast, the appellate court's strict separationism one that banishes all religious expression from the public arena is a polarizing vision. Although liberals may oppose the Supreme Court's decision, in truth the foundational principle of neutrality set forth in the ruling will make it harder for religious conservatives (including those on the court) to argue for the constitutionality of school prayer and other state-sponsored support of religion.
Since the 1980's, three visions of the relationship between church and state have competed on the Supreme Court. On the left, there are the separationists, who want to prohibit any traces of religion in public life, from voluntary Bible study after school to religious opinions in student newspapers. On the right, there are the religious supremacists, who believe government can provide direct aid to religion and can sponsor prayers in the classroom as long as the prayers are nondenominational.
And in the shifting center there are advocates of religious neutrality, who argue that religious institutions may compete for government funds on equal terms with secular institutions as long as the private choices of individuals, rather than the policies of government, determine the ultimate destination of the funds.
In the vouchers case, the principle of religious neutrality was unequivocally embraced by five justices. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist declared that where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens, the program does not violate the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion. It didn't matter that 96 percent of the children enrolled in the Cleveland voucher program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Any benefit to the religious schools was the result of the choices of parents rather than of the government.
This is not a victory for the religious right. School prayer was not at issue in the voucher case. But the neutrality principle will constrain arguments for the resurrection of school prayer in the future. Prayer, by definition, is not neutral between religion and nonreligion. And constraining the conservatives is important, because at least three justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Justice Rehnquist have intimated in past cases that while they support religious neutrality, they also support an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that would allow promotion of nondenominational religion by the state. In a remarkable concurring opinion in the vouchers case, Justice Thomas wrote that states should be freer than the federal government to experiment with involvement in religion, including sponsoring prayers and passing laws that touch on religious matters, as long as the prayers don't discriminate among religions.
Reverting to strict separationism will not defeat conservative efforts to put the government on a religious mission. Indeed, the outrage expressed by politicians of all stripes toward the Pledge of Allegiance decision shows that separationism is more likely to induce a backlash against more moderate interpretations of the Establishment Clause. The principle of government neutrality, however, offers a way for moderates to resist Justice Thomas's extreme view.
At the same time, this principle will also constrain secularists from trying to remove references to religion in the public square. The federal appellate judges who struck down the Pledge of Allegiance were not, of course, making up law out of thin air. They applied various strands of past Supreme Court decisions on the Establishment Clause to hold that the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 lacked a secular purpose, since its goal was to promote religion.
But Supreme Court justices, including the most liberal ones, have also recognized over the years that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance probably does not offend the Constitution since it has such a minimal religious effect. The pledge, taken as a whole, was not intended to be a coercive prayer, but was designed to promote patriotism, and as such is consistent with the neutrality principle.
The emotional reaction to the Pledge of Allegiance decision shows how polarized America can become over the issues of church and state. That ruling will almost certainly galvanize Republicans to push for the appointment of conservative judges who will seek to place religion in the center of public life. Embracing the Supreme Court's moderate compromise requiring that the state neither encourage nor discourage religion in any way can check the extremists on both sides. The voucher decision shows that at least for now, the center holds.
Jeffrey Rosen is an associate professor at George Washington University Law School and the legal affairs editor of The New Republic.
Religious group can use school
By Helen Peterson
NY Daily News (27.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (01.07.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - A federal judge said yesterday the Board of Education must allow a Bronx religious group to rent space in a public school for meetings that include worship.
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Loretta Preska's decision comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued last year in a similar case.
The Bronx Household of Faith sued to keep the board from denying its application for space in Middle School 206 as it had in 1994.
The board said at that time that it was against policy to let religious groups use public school buildings for worship. Bronx Household argued the policy violated free speech.
The church revived its application after the Supreme Court last year forced the upstate Milford School District to let a religious club meet on school premises there.
Bronx Household's Sunday meetings at MS 206 would include Christian hymns, prayer, preaching, teaching, Communion and socializing, according to court papers.
Preska cited the Supreme Court's finding that religious clubs could use public school buildings as long as they aren't used solely for "mere religious worship."
City lawyers said they are reviewing their options regarding the case.
"Because religious services are different from any other activity that takes place in the schools, in our view, excluding them does not violate the First Amendment," said Assistant Corporation Counsel Lisa Grumet.
U.S. court votes to bar pledge of allegiance
Use of ? God ? called unconstitutional
by Charles Lane
Washington Post (27.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (01.07.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - The Pledge of Allegiance, recited by millions of American children at the start of each school day, is unconstitutional because it describes the United States as "one Nation, under God," a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the reference to God, which was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounts to an official endorsement of monotheism. Thus, the San Francisco-based court said, both the 1954 law and a California school district's policy requiring teachers to lead children in the pledge violate the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
If the ruling is allowed to stand, schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine western states covered by the court.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical . . . to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon currently serving as a semi-retired senior judge, wrote for the three-judge panel. Goodwin was joined by Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter.
The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, who did not want his daughter to have to recite the pledge in her second-grade class in the Elk Grove school district. After a federal district judge dismissed his lawsuit, Newdow, arguing the case himself, appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The ruling comes as patriotic and religious feelings are running high because of the war against terrorism - and on the day before the Supreme Court was set to redefine the church-state boundary in a major case regarding taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and parochial education.
It immediately rekindled an issue whose incendiary potential was demonstrated during the 1988 presidential election. Republican candidate George H.W. Bush blasted Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis for his decision as Massachusetts governor to veto mandatory recitation of the pledge in the state's public schools.
Yesterday, President George W. Bush led politicians of both parties in a chorus of denunciation, saying through spokesman Ari Fleischer that the court's decision was "ridiculous."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) called it "sad" and "absurd."
House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate, said, "I see no reason to change the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country's life and our nation's heritage."
Another possible contender, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), called the ruling "wrong."
House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance en masse. The Senate unanimously approved a resolution sponsored by its Democratic and Republican leaders that expressed support for the reference to God in the pledge, and instructed the Senate's legal counsel to intervene in the case. The vote was 99 to 0, with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) absent.
Calling the decision "just nuts," Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), yet another possible Democratic presidential candidate, urged the entire body to be on hand this morning when the Senate begins its work by saying the pledge. Few senators usually are on hand for the pledge.
Fleischer said the Justice Department is considering "how to seek redress." The options include asking the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the case or taking the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
If the ruling stands in the 9th Circuit, it is likely the high court would review it, since it clashes with a decision by the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upholding the pledge.
School is out for the summer, but the 9th Circuit's ruling would not take effect for 60 days, pending the government's appeal. The states that would be directly affected are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Critics of the ruling echoed views expressed by the lone dissenter on the panel, Senior Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Fernandez contended that there is only a "minuscule" risk that the use of the phrase "under God" would "bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's beliefs."
Under his two colleagues' view, he wrote, " 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone [from public places] for sure, and . . . currency beware!" Coins and bills carry the slogan "In God We Trust."
Goodwin's opinion insisted that the 9th Circuit's ruling was merely the logical extension of Supreme Court cases that have prohibited organized prayer in the classroom and at high school graduations and football games.
Under these precedents, Goodwin wrote, the officially sponsored recitation of the phrase "under God" - added at the height of the Cold War for the express purpose of distinguishing American values from the atheistic norms of the Soviet Union - amounted to not only state endorsement of religion, but also a subtle form of coercion over elementary school students.
"Although [individual] students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," Goodwin wrote.
Although the 9th Circuit is the most liberal federal appeals court in the country -- its rulings are frequently reversed by the more conservative Supreme Court -- legal analysts from across the ideological spectrum said yesterday that it was not stretching the high court's past cases.
"I don't think this is necessarily a wacko 9th Circuit result," said Washington lawyer Christopher Landau, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the cases the 9th Circuit cited to support its decision. "This is the Supreme Court reaping what it sowed."
"It is eminently defensible," said Eugene Volokh, a specialist in church-state law at UCLA Law School. "I'm not sure it's ultimately the right result. But the court is applying principles the Supreme Court has established."
Volokh suggested, however, that a majority of the court may ultimately decide that "under God" in the pledge, like the cry of "God save the United States and this honorable court," which opens each Supreme Court oral argument, qualifies as what the late justice William Brennan once called "ceremonial deism" - traditional references to a higher power so frequently invoked that they have lost any specific religious meaning.
"There is still a very credible argument that at some point you have to stop trying to relentlessly extirpate religious symbolism from the life of a country that is after all very religious," said Volokh, who served as a law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Bush criticizes ruling on pledge
AP (27.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (01.07.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - President Bush on Thursday called a federal appeals court ruling that challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance "out of step with the traditions and history of America" and promised to appoint judges who affirm God's role in the public square.
"America is a nation ... that values our relationship with an Almighty," Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit of world industrial powers.
"The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."
The president said the country needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."
"Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench," he said.
Bush has accused Democrats in the Senate of stalling his judicial nominees.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Wednesday that the use of the words "under God" in the pledge violates the Constitution's clause barring establishment of religion. The ruling, if allowed to stand, would bar schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine Western states covered by the court.
Bush, who attends church on a semi-regular basis and whose political base is rooted deeply the Christian conservative movement, said God "is obviously a very important part of my life" and of life in America.
"That's why the ruling of the courts was out of step with the traditions and history of America," Bush said.
The president said his first conversation with Putin concerned their faiths, suggesting it was a bonding experience.
"There is a universal God in my opinion and the first conversation I ever had with Vladimir Putin was about God," Bush said. "It was a way - we'd never met each other - and the first discussion we had was about our personal beliefs."
Putin did not comment on the ruling.
Court rules on door solicitations
AP (17.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (18.06.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - The Constitution protects the right of missionaries, politicians and others to knock on doors without first getting permission from local authorities, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court struck down a local law that leaders of a small Ohio town said was meant to protect elderly residents from being bothered at home. The ruling is a victory for the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion calls for doorstep proselytizing.
By a vote of 8 to 1, the court reasoned that the First Amendment right to free speech includes the entitlement to take a message or idea directly to someone's door, and that the right cannot be limited by a requirement to register by name ahead of time.
"The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
"It is offensive, not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."
Two of the court's most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed only with the outcome of the case and did not sign on to Stevens' reasoning.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented.
Stratton, Ohio, required a permit for any door-to-door soliciting by salesmen or anyone else. Theoretically, girl scouts would have to get such a permit to sell cookies, as would a candidate for the school board or a student raising money for a class trip.
The majority in Monday's case said the law was too broad. Had it been much more narrowly written to guard against unwanted sales calls, it might have withstood constitutional scrutiny, Stevens wrote.
People who do not want to listen to a political candidate or other canvasser need not do so, the court said. Residents may post a "No Solicitations" sign at the door, or simply refuse to engage in conversation.
The court also rejected the town's claim that the law helped prevent crime. There is no evidence that a criminal casing a neighborhood would be deterred by the need to get a permit, the court said.
Children of sect helped crack case
By Denise Lavoie
AP (17.06.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (18.06.2002) - Website http://www.hrwf.net - E-mail info@hrwf.net - When police knocked on the door of a Seekonk house on Nov. 8, 1999, they were looking for a 1-year-old boy they feared had been starved to death by members of a religious sect.
They soon found out there were two dead babies: Samuel Robidoux, who died three days before his first birthday, and Jeremiah Corneau, who was either stillborn or died during birth.
But it wasn't the parents who helped investigators -- it was the children of the sect members.
As Jacques Robidoux was convicted of murder Friday in the starvation death of his son, Samuel, prosecutor Walter Shea credited the children for helping authorities solve the case.
The children told us the truth, which is more than their parents did, he said.
The children, by virtue of the fact that they were children, had not yet been indoctrinated with the beliefs of the adults (in the sect). They were still innocent. They were open to the police and trusting of them.
The sect, known as The Body, is a Christian fundamentalist group that rejects modern medicine, government and science. The group is made up of two large extended families based in Southeastern Massachusetts, on the Rhode Island border.
When authorities first began investigating the disappearance of Samuel, they found 19 children living with the sect. A judge gave the state custody of 12 of the children; the other seven went to live with their fathers, who were not members of the sect.
Two years later, all but four have been adopted or permanently placed with relatives outside the sect.
The breakup of their homes and their extended sect family was sudden and traumatic. But state officials say relatives came forward quickly and offered to raise the children.
As of our last contact, the kids were doing well. They seemed to be getting appropriate care and nurturing from their relatives, said Michael MacCormack, a spokesman for the state Department of Social Services.
Dennis Mingo, who left the sect in late 1998 after becoming increasingly concerned about the group's extreme beliefs, was awarded custody of his five children, who range in age from 5 to 11.
Mingo's ex-wife, Michelle Robidoux Mingo, is awaiting trial as an accessory in the death of Samuel Robidoux. Prosecutors said she urged Jacques and Karen Robidoux to withhold solid food from Samuel as part of a religious prophecy. The boy died after 51 days because his mother was pregnant and was not producing enough breast milk to nourish him.
Two of the Mingo children gave authorities early help in finding the bodies of Samuel and Jeremiah after adult members of the sect refused to cooperate. They told investigators they saw two tiny bodies placed in boxes and put in the cellar of the Seekonk home.
They also described a trip to Maine, when members of the sect towed a red trailer with the two boxes inside. They said that during the three-week camping trip, they saw Jacques Robidoux, David Corneau and two other members of the sect head into the woods with a rope and shovels.
Later, one of the Robidoux children drove to Maine with investigators and pointed out landmarks he remembered to help pinpoint the location of the bodies in Baxter State Park.
Eventually, David Corneau led police to the bodies.
The four children of Rebecca and David Corneau -- parents of Jeremiah -- remain in state custody as the Corneaus continue to fight the state's bid to terminate their parental rights. All four, who range from 20 months to 8 years old, are all living with relatives who are not sect members, MacCormack said.
The Corneaus said Jeremiah was stillborn, but state child welfare officials said they believe the baby died during his home birth because his lungs were not properly cleared -- a routine procedure in hospital births.
Jacques and Karen Robidoux's two remaining children, a 5-year-old girl and a 3-year-old boy, are living with relatives. A 12-year-old boy and a 10-year-old boy Karen Robidoux had before she married Jacques are living with their biological fathers.
Karen Robidoux is scheduled to go to trial in September on a charge of second-degree murder in the death of Samuel.
Supreme court will not review leafletting case
AP (19.02.2002) / HRWF International Secretariat (28.03.2002) C Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to review a ban on leafletting in Philadelphia train stations.
Two people who wanted to hand out religious pamphlets to subway riders had asked the court to consider whether train stations are public forums, where people can practice their religion. Justices refused without comment.
The board that oversees transportation in the Philadelphia area has rules that prohibit activity on platforms and in other areas of stations. People can hand out literature outside the stations.
Nicholas Storti and Michael Perez had sued the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them, finding that the authority's rules are reasonable, nondiscriminatory and constitutional.
The authority had also been sued in 1975 by Hare Krishnas. As part of an agreement in that case, members of the Hindu sect were allowed to dance and hand out flowers inside train stations.
In 1999, the authority changed the rules to apply to all groups. Storti and Perez also wanted the Supreme Court to consider if it was unconstitutional for Hare Krishnas to be allowed in stations, while other groups were turned away from 1975 to 1999.
The case is Storti v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 01-865.
Courts draw the line at hurting children
LA Times (12.03. 2002) - HRWF International Secretariat (14.03.2002) C Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - Ross said there are thousands of small sects across the country not affiliated with Restoration that follow similar beliefs regarding medical treatment. And though the courts try to respect the fundamental right to religious freedom for adults, they draw the line when edicts of the church hurt children.
Prosecutors routinely charge parents with offenses ranging from child neglect to manslaughter for denying medical care.
In one of the boldest moves yet by a court, a Massachusetts judge ordered Rebecca Corneau into protective custody to ensure the safety of her unborn fetus. Corneau belonged to a fundamentalist sect called The Body, which rejects all medicine, including prenatal care. Last July, the Wiebes' 11-month-old daughter began vomiting. Over the next few days, she became sicker, eventually developing a fever and suffering seizures that lasted more than two hours at a time, Richard Wiebe told investigators. Wiebe and his wife fervently prayed over the little girl.They covered her tiny body with wet rags. As she weakened, they fed their daughter chamomile tea through an eyedropper. The Wiebes said they didn't know how sick their daughter was. They thought she just had the flu.
But by July 6, the little girl stopped breathing.
The Wiebes tried to perform CPR, but Julia never recovered. Wiebe called their pastor, Layne, who directed the couple to call paramedics, according to court testimony. Investigators believe the baby had been dead more than two hours by the time they arrived.
Under questioning by San Bernardino County Sheriff's investigators, Richard Wiebe, a draftsman for an Upland company, said he and his wife never considered taking Julia to the hospital.
"That was not something that I had an option for," Wiebe told investigators during a taped interview played in court Thursday. "I'm settled with the Lord and I was going to trust him."
Wiebe added he still believes he made the right decision. He was prepared to accept God's will.
"Faith is not a guarantee that we will be healed," Wiebe told investigators.
"Faith is just believing that God's way will be done."
Agnes Wiebe was pregnant at the time of Julia's death and has since given birth to a boy. Sheriff's officials seized the baby in January and placed him in protective custody. A trial in that case is also pending.
The Wiebes remain free on bail. The judge in Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court
will decide whether to order them to stand trial.
Another case of trouble with the law
LA Times (12.03. 2002) - HRWF International Secretariat (14.03.2002) C Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - The Wiebe case is not the first time that Restoration followers have gotten into trouble with the law. On July 4, Canadian authorities removed seven children from the home of a Church of God Restoration family in Aylmer, Ontario. Authorities were responding to complaints that the children had been beaten, in some cases with belts and sticks, and that at least one child suffered a severe burn, and was denied medical care. The children were returned to their parents by the court with conditions for their treatment while a trial is pending.
Kauenhowen, the former minister, said he told Layne he was alarmed by the direction of the church, a criticism that got him thrown out in February 2000, he said. Current members, he added, no longer speak to him.
Layne, who has never been married and has no children, said Kauenhowen is simply bitter over his falling out with the church. And relatives who complain are doing so because they refuse to understand their loved one's faith. Some interpret the church as extreme because of its rejection of all that modern society has to offer. But that does not make it a cult, he said.
"There's a pressure from society to conform to the norm," Layne said. "And that's difficult for us because we have a doctrine that teaches separation from what society teaches us--immorality, rock music, divorce, sexually explicit material, television. To us, all of that is horrible."
He denies being the church's only leader. Five other elder ministers join him in overseeing its teachings, he said.
"I wouldn't deny I have an influence on the church," Layne said. "But I would deny that anyone has to accept [my influence]....We don't run people's lives."
Church rejects much of modern society
LA Times (12.03. 2002) - HRWF International Secretariat (14.03.2002) C Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - Layne, a self-described transient and recovering heroin addict from Los Angeles, said he found God 22 years ago. He belonged briefly to the Church of God, but quickly became frustrated with what he considered a lax interpretation of the Bible. So in 1981 he broke away and started his own conservative church, now located in Upland.
Members reject much that is integral to modern society: rock music, movies and television. The church subscribes to strict standards of dress and behavior that includes modest dress, much like the Amish, and favors use of prayer over medicine, he said.
"I wanted to go back to the year of the reform, around 1880, and stick to what our pioneer brethren taught," Layne said.
Eventually Layne's church in Upland--which now has about 55 members, he says--sprouted satellite congregations in Louisiana, Ohio, Canada, Mexico and Germany, with a total membership that investigators estimate at more than 800 people.
Layne maintains that members are not forced to follow the church's teachings, but follow out of their own free will. But some former church members and an expert who has been tracking the group say Layne's grip on his followers has become increasingly intense in recent years.
One former Church of God Restoration minister said Layne attracted him and his wife about 10 years ago with his "seriousness about Christianity." At the time, "We didn't see the control he has now," said David Kauenhown, a Canadian resident. "He was a humble man back then. And we enjoyed the church, until he got so personally involved in people's lives."
After a few years, however, Layne began dictating the way parishioners should dress, Kauenhowen said. Long pants and shirts for men, T-shirts always underneath. Women couldn't show their legs or even their ankles. Jewelry of any kind, including wedding rings, was forbidden.
In time, Layne required parishioners to seek his approval to date, to marry or to move, Kauenhowen said. Children were subject to strict discipline and physical punishment from an early age and were to be home-schooled or sent to small schools run by the church. And if relatives became critical of the new guidelines, Layne advised shutting them out, he said.
And although prayer was always emphasized over medical treatment, in recent years Layne began shunning members who sought help from a doctor, calling it a sign of weakness in their faith, Kauenhowen and others said.
Rick Ross, a New Jersey-based consultant and paid expert witness who writes and lectures nationally on small sects, said that in the last six months he's gotten more than a dozen calls from former church members or relatives alarmed by Layne's teachings. Some are concerned that relatives are not getting proper medical care. Others say loved ones have cut them off because they questioned the group's beliefs, he said.
"They see a situation [in which] the person they care about has a lessening control over their lives," Ross said. "And they are fearful of what that's leading to."
A Child's Death Raises Questions About Faith
A couple who prayed instead of seeking medical care for their daughter face charges of involuntary manslaughter
LA Times (12.03. 2002) - HRWF International Secretariat (14.03.2002) C Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - Although 11-month-old Julia Wiebe struggled for days with a raging fever before dying of meningitis last summer, authorities say the true cause of death was neglect by her mother and father.
Richard and Agnes Wiebe of Rancho Cucamonga face charges of involuntary manslaughter for failing to get the simple antibiotics that would have saved Julia's life. They have pleaded not guilty.
The Wiebes--members of a small, tightknit church in Upland whose members claim branches around the world--say they did not realize how sick their daughter was. But they acknowledge religious convictions prevented them from seeking medical attention. Instead, they relied on prayer.
"The parents made a decision not to seek medical care, which could have treated the child and
prevented the death," pathologist Stephen Trenkle testified during a preliminary hearing that began last month and continues today. "They chose another form of healing. They made that choice--and from my position, they made the wrong choice."
The case bears striking parallels to another unfolding in Boston, where authorities put a woman suspected of religiously motivated medical neglect in custody to protect her unborn fetus.
In the Wiebe case, county child welfare officials took custody of another baby born to the couple after the death of Julia.
Several members of their church, the Church of God Restoration, have silently supported the couple. At one recent hearing, about a dozen women in ankle-length skirts and long-sleeved shirts under waist-length vests and jackets appeared in court. And watching everything from his seat in the back of the courtroom was Daniel Layne, the white-bearded founder of the Restoration Church.
Critics of the church say that under Layne's direction, members have moved away from their families, shunned friends, and avoided medical care for themselves and their children.
But Layne, 58, sharply denies these charges. Church members are free to act as they choose and are not punished, he said. Critics, he said, are either relatives who never took the time to understand the church or former members bearing grudges.
"Our members are not brainwashed, they are not zombies, they are not under any mind control," Layne said in an interview this week. "This is a voluntary association of freethinking people."
Although Layne declined to discuss the Wiebe case, he did say a strong belief in divine healing is one of the tenets of the church. He, in fact, would decline modern medical help if he were ill, Layne said.
"But if someone here were sick and wanted to go to a hospital," Layne said, "I would take them to the hospital myself, stay with them, pray with them, and then welcome them back with open arms into our service."
Florida House again passes school prayer bill
News Journal Wire Services (06.03.2002) / HRWF International Secretariat (14.03.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - School districts could allow voluntary student prayer at graduations and other non-required student assemblies under a bill the state House passed Tuesday.
It was the third time in less than a year the House has passed a school prayer measure. A similar proposal passed last spring and again in a special session in October but the Senate took up neither.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Wilbert "Tee" Holloway, would let school districts permit invocations, benedictions or inspirational messages at graduations and other assemblies. It passed 88-28.
Duval County, which includes Jacksonville, has such a policy allowing student-led prayers that has been upheld in the federal courts as constitutional.
Holloway has said the bill (CS HB 667) simply clarifies that it's OK for other districts to do the same. He said it would permit districts to allow prayers or inspirational messages, such as a poem, not require them to, and was nonsectarian.
"This bill is not intended to advance or endorse any religious belief," said Holloway, D-Miami.
A similar bill (SB 572) is pending in the Senate.
Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he hasn't had time to review the legislation but questioned whether it was needed in light of the Jacksonville ruling.
"I'm not sure what the difference here is compared to what already exists and I'm not sure we need to pass laws if it's already allowed," he said.
Jewish members of the Legislature have been the most vocal opponents, saying it infringes on freedom of religion and argued against the bill again Tuesday.
"Well, here we go again," said Rep. Mark Weissman, D-Parkland.
He said the measure's supporters were trying "to force the religious will of the majority on all the minority religions in our pluralistic society" and said the bill smacked of the religious intolerance of the Taliban.
Rep. Ken Gottlieb said the proposal restricted religious freedom because if districts adopt such policies it would force non-Christian students to listen to Christian prayers or forgo important events such as graduation.
Gottlieb, D-Hollywood, said students already have the right to pray individually and in groups or discuss their religious beliefs with their peers as long as they are not disruptive.
Under the House bill, a prayer or inspirational message could be delivered by a student volunteer and would have to be "nonsectarian and nonproselytizing." The bill specifies school staff can't participate in the message.
Top court eyes solicitation ordinance
By ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press (26.02.2002) / HRWF International Secretariat (27.02.2002) Website http://www.hrwf.net C Email info@hrwf.net - The Jehovah's Witnesses says its members spend more than a billion hours a year telling others about the religion, much of it going door to door with leaflets and invitations to hear the group's teachings. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not go door to door in Stratton, Ohio, however: a town ordinance bars them and almost everybody else from doing so without a permit.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considers whether such laws violate the constitutional right to free speech. Lawyers for the church contend that Jehovah's Witnesses need no one's permission to take their case directly to other's doorsteps. "Although the free one-on-one exchange of ideas is a pillar of our democracy, Stratton has devalued both the constitutional right of speakers to express information and the constitutional right of residents to receive it if they so choose," lawyers for the church wrote in a court filing.
Mormons, Independent Baptist Churches of America, Gun Owners of America and the American Civil Liberties Union are among more than a dozen organizations that signed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the church. The National League of Cities and other municipal representatives back Stratton.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by July on the church's appeal of a federal court ruling that upheld the permit rules as evenhanded. The court already has held that the Constitution gives people the right to distribute anonymous campaign literature, and a ruling for the church in this case would extend that right to anonymous door-to-door soliciting for any cause.
Stratton's ordinance requires that permits be obtained in advance before anyone can solicit at a private home. It applies to commercial salesmen, school groups selling candy bars or political candidates eager to shake hands. The solicitor must carry the permit for display to any resident who asks.
Attorneys for the Jehovah's Witnesses said the town of roughly 300 people passed the ordinance in 1998 to keep away members of the faith from a church in a neighboring town. Stratton's mayor then told a group of Jehovah's Witnesses they were not permitted in the town, and people had moved to Stratton to get away from them, the lawyers said.
Church lawyers said similar permit requirements have popped up in other jurisdictions over the years. Neither the church nor First Amendment scholars keep track of how many localities have such requirements. Village leaders said permits are free, and nobody has ever been denied one.
The ordinance is reasonable in "weighing the First Amendment rights of canvassers against the right of homeowners to security, privacy and peacefulness in their homes," they told the Supreme Court. The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees both free speech and the free exercise of religion.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have a storied history at the Supreme Court. The Christian denomination has brought more than two dozen high court cases, including some that helped establish broad protections for religious and political speech.
The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737.
DSS: Missing couple may have cult baby
by Dave Wedge
Boston Herald (11.01.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (14.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - Investigators searching for a baby believed to have been born to an Attleboro cult mom are trying to track down two sect members who they say may be hiding the infant.
``We're looking for Mark and Trinette Daneau. We think they either know where the baby is or may be in possession of the child,'' Department of Social Services commissioner Harry Spence said.
The Daneaus, who haven't been seen since August, are members of ``The Body,'' a religious sect that practices home births and rejects modern medicine. Member Rebecca Corneau, whose son, Jeremiah, died an allegedly preventable death during a 1999 home birth, is believed to have given birth again and authorities are trying to find the child.
``We are reasonably confident that a child was born,'' Spence said. ``There were persons who observed Rebecca Corneau in labor just after Thanksgiving.''
Jeremiah was secretly buried in Maine in the fall of 1999 along with his 10-month-old cousin, Samuel Robidoux, who was allegedly starved to death by his parents, Jacques and Karen Robidoux. Corneau, who has had four daughters taken by DSS since the probe into the boys' deaths began, was one of several cultists living in the Attleboro house where prosecutors say Samuel was starved to death. The Robidouxes are awaiting trial on murder charges. Corneau has not been charged.
Yesterday, investigators continued probing John Hunter, a fringe member of the group who owns a Rehoboth farm where officials found an infant swing last week. Hunter, a reputed religious fanatic, has teenage children but no babies. He has refused to cooperate with the probe.
Spence defended DSS' actions, saying charges from the Corneaus' lawyer that the state is on a ``witch hunt'' are ``outrageous.''
``There's evidence of a birth and we have two dead children,'' Spence said. ``That's a hell of a reason to go forward. We have both jurisdiction and a clear responsibility to ensure the child's safety.''
Investigators say sect paddled its children
Providence Journal (10.01.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (14.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - Members of an Attleboro religious sect commonly beat their children with a paddle "in order that the children's 'will' be 'broken,' "investigators say in court documents that became public yesterday.
Rebecca A. Corneau, the sect member who investigators believe recently had another baby, carried a paddle around her waist that she used for hitting children, according to a sworn affidavit from M. Carol Bridges, an investigator with the state Department of Social Services.
Bridges's affidavit was part of the paperwork the department filed with the Juvenile Court on Friday in its petition to take custody of the baby investigators believe Corneau, 33, had about a month ago.
Later on Friday, Attleboro police detective Arthur J. Brillon filed a copy of Bridges's affidavit with the District Court to support a request for a warrant to search the sect members' home at 196-198 Knight Ave. That affidavit became public yesterday when the police returned the executed search warrant to the court. The return, which normally lists what was seized in a search, indicates only that the baby was not found Friday night.
The court papers offer new detail about why investigators believe Corneau's baby is still alive, who they think may be hiding the baby, and what role a Rehoboth homeowner and a Dighton farmer have played in the investigation.
But the most startling revelation is that investigators believed in 1999 that the sect was in the practice of paddling its children.
Officials had previously said members of the sect were declared unfit as parents and the children placed for adoption because the sect members did not secure proper medical care for the children or send them to school. All the known children of sect members, including Corneau's four daughters, have been placed in state custody and cleared for adoption. That includes a girl who was born in October 2000 while Corneau was confined to a facility for pregnant inmates.
The court documents released yesterday say publicly for the first time that physical abuse was also a factor that led to Corneau and her husband, David P. Corneau, 34, losing parental rights to at least one of their girls.
"The child, age 26 months at the time of her removal from her parents' care, was spanked or paddled by her parents for soiling her diaper," Bridges's affidavit says. "When the child was placed in foster care she had bruising on her buttocks consistent with paddling. Her older sisters also had thickened skin on their buttocks consistent with paddling."
The affidavit also says, "This practice was common in the religious group in which the Corneaus were members. The practice of severely paddling the children was believed to be necessary in order . . . that the children's 'will' be 'broken.' "
The revelations became public one day after the Corneaus' lawyer, J.W. Carney, stood in front of the same courthouse and blasted the state and the court for prying into the Corneaus' family life.
"There is absolutely no evidence that David and Rebecca Corneau have ever abused any of their children," Carney said. "The court is on a witch-hunt. It's completely inappropriate to conduct a hearing like this."
David Corneau last night declined to speak to a reporter at his home. Carney and members of the sect could not be reached for comment last night.
The affidavit outlines the steps investigators took on Jan. 2 to determine whether Rebecca Corneau recently had a baby.
Bridges and other investigators, including Thomas Carroll, a child-abuse investigator with the Bristol County District Attorney's office, went to the Knight Avenue house that morning, where David Corneau answered the door but declined to speak with the investigators.
Bridges then talked to a neighbor on Knight Avenue, who told them that, about a month earlier, Rebecca Corneau appeared to be in labor one day as sect members led her into a vehicle. Corneau was breathing heavily and holding her belly, the neighbor said.
The investigators then went to a Dighton farm owned by Thomas Horton and his wife, who is not identified in the affidavit.
The Hortons told the investigators that they housed the sect's farm animals in exchange for free masonry work by sect members who are professional masons. The Hortons said recently they had seen a new person with sect members who came to the farm to care for the animals. They identified the man as John Hunter, of Brook Street, Rehoboth.
Bridges went to Hunter's house, but found no one home. Looking through windows next to the front door, she noticed an infant swing in the house. Town records indicate that Hunter had three teenaged children living in the home, but no young children or infants.
Bridges returned at 6:30 p.m., and Hunter answered the door. For the most part, Hunter declined to answer questions about whether any babies were living at the house.
Bridges also asked whether Mark or Trinette Daneau were at the house. Trinette Daneau is Rebecca Corneau's sister. The Daneaus are believed to be members of the sect, though the police have not seen them at the Knight Avenue house in Attleboro recently.
Female pilot sues U.S. over requirement to wear robe
serving in Saudi Arabia
By Jan Cienski
National Post (09.01.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (10.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - Lieutenant-Colonel Martha McSally is the U.S. Air Force's highest ranking female combat pilot, having flown A-10 Warthog tank busters over Iraq, but if she wants to leave her air base in Saudi Arabia, she is not allowed to drive.
She also has to be dressed in a black abaya robe, be accompanied at all times by a man and sit in the back seat while her male subordinates drive her around.
The policy, which applies to her and 1,000 other U.S. female military personnel stationed in the country, was not dreamed up by Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic monarchy, but by the U.S. military.
After quietly lobbying the Pentagon for years to change the policy, Lt.-Col. McSally is suing to have it declared unconstitutional.
"It strikes right at the heart of our Constitution," said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a civil rights organization that came to fame by championing Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit against former president Bill Clinton and which now represents Lt.-Col. McSally.
"She's a Christian. By having to wear that abaya, she has to subvert her own religion.
"Her cause has been taken up by an unusual coalition of right-wing Republican congressmen and liberal feminists, who are lobbying the White House to have the policy changed.
So far, the Pentagon has not responded to the lawsuit, filed last month, but Lt.-Col. McSally's action is hugely embarrassing for the U.S. government.
The military's sensitivity to its position in Saudi Arabia has led it to impose policies on female troops that do not apply at U.S. bases in any other Islamic country. Other branches of the U.S. government in Saudi Arabia, such as the State Department, do not require their female employees to wear the abaya and not drive.
The female pilot is scathing about the policy.
"If it were in our national security to deploy to South Africa under apartheid, would we have found it acceptable or customary to segregate African-American soldiers from other soldiers," she recently asked a group of students at Washington's National Cathedral School. "I would hope not.
"When those customs and values conflict with ones that our Constitution is based on, and that women and men in uniform died for in the past, that is where you draw the line," she said.
Drawing the line could cost Lt.-Col. McSally dearly.
Until she went public she had been on a fast track to make general. But in the past six months she has received her first negative assessment from a senior officer, chiding her for not being a team player.
"She could have shut up and had a real nice career but she decided to stand up," said Mr. Whitehead. "She's the cream of the crop, but for some strange reason she's a second-class person in Saudi Arabia."
Sect baby ordered in state custody
By Greg Sukiennik
Associated Press (05.01.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (11.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - The state was granted temporary custody Friday of a baby believed born to a member of a religious sect but whose whereabouts are unknown.
The Department of Social Services in obtaining custody cited ``grave concern'' over the deaths of two other children born to sect members. Officials said Rebecca Corneau, 33, no longer looked pregnant during a court appearance this week; she had appeared to be pregnant earlier.
``We have not yet seen a baby. We are terrifically concerned about its health and well-being,'' department spokeswoman Carol Yelverton said.
``We are trying to determine where the child is, if the baby is alive.''
Authorities said they were turned away from the couple's Attleboro home Thursday when they tried to determine if the woman had given birth.
Corneau and her husband, David, have been ordered to appear in court Tuesday on the custody motion.
In 1999, the Corneaus' stillborn son, Jeremiah, was secretly buried in Maine with his infant cousin, Samuel Robidoux.
The couple's four other children live with relatives who are not sect members. Prosecutors allege the Robidoux baby starved after his aunt said she had a vision instructing his parents to feed him nothing but almond milk.
Samuel's parents - sect leader Jacques Robidoux and his wife C face murder charges in a trial expected to start in March.
Ruling revives lawsuit claiming religious discrimination
Associated Press (03.01.2002)/ HRWF International Secretariat (11.01.2002) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - A federal appeals court has overturned a judge's decision to dismiss the lawsuit of a woman who alleged she was forced to quit her job at the University of Chicago Hospitals because of her religious beliefs.
The decision, issued Wednesday by a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, means that Victoria Leyva can go forward with her lawsuit. In the ruling, the panel held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, representing Leyva, sufficiently showed that Leyva was forced to quit because religious discrimination had created intolerable working conditions.
The decision reverses a ruling in 2000 by U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning, who threw out the lawsuit, saying Leyva's resignation was voluntary.
Leyva, an Evangelical Christian Baptist, worked as a recruiter at the hospitals' employment department in the early 1990s.
In her lawsuit, Leyva alleges that her job evaluations were positive until the hospitals hired a new director of human services, Jo Ann Shaw.
According to the lawsuit, Shaw directed other employees to order Leyva to remove religious items from her desk, ordered her and others to stop recruiting at churches and fired Leyva's immediate supervisor for not firing her.
Leyva alleges that while on vacation she was called by a supervisor asking for help finding paperwork on Leyva's desk. But Leyva was unable to help.
The lawsuit alleges she quit when she returned to work and found that her belongings had been packed into storage boxes.
"We were saying they were making it clear to her they wanted her to leave and if she didn't, they were going to fire her," said Ethan Cohen, an EEOC attorney handling the case.
The appeals court agreed, saying in its opinion that the EEOC "has sufficiently demonstrated that a reasonable employee standing in Leyva's shoes would have believed that had she not resigned, she would have been terminated."
Leyva was pleased with the decision. "Although it was painful at times, traumatic at times, the truth prevailed and the system worked," she said.
John Easton, a spokesman for the hospitals, said officials there were disappointed with the decision but "confident that we will prevail if the case goes to trial."
|
