Court: Judges cannot get involved in Church Disputes

by Iamallcool 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  Suppose a church employee embezzles or misuses church funds. The church could fire that person without a problem. But, could they sue the person to get the money back? I don't know, but it appears to me that this could become a problem in at least some cases. If the employee could reference any church rule or policy or even misapplied scripture that implies that his actions were justified, then it might make the courts reluctant to interfere in internal religious matters.

  I like to imagine what would happen if a power struggle took place within the Watchtower Society. Suppose one faction managed to seize a sizable portion of the assets. Could one faction sue the other? I think it would be difficult, even if some of the actions were illegal. The courts might tell them to handle the situation themselves. I could see it getting really ugly with all sorts of disfellowshipping, slander and acts of intimidation going on.
• 

  TD

  The JW's were already on solid legal ground as far as their church tribunals are concerned. The only time anybody would have a chance (In my amateur bourgeois opinion) is when elders have neither a legitimate pastoral interest nor demonstrable ecclesiastical authority.
• 

  JeffT

  DT

  Theft isn't a religious function, nor for that matter a civil court case. I don't know of anything, including this court case, that prevents a church from filing a police complaint against a thief.
• 

  DT

  "DT

  Theft isn't a religious function, nor for that matter a civil court case. I don't know of anything, including this court case, that prevents a church from filing a police complaint against a thief."

  I think there could be a lot of gray areas. Suppose a church employee takes a certain amount of money every day for "personal expenses". He is fired and sued for the amount of money taken. It seems to me that the court would have to examine internal religious policies in order to determine if he was entitled to that money or not. It also seems that a judge could just claim that he can't do that. Suppose that the employee mentions a church policy that states that someone in his position is entitled to be reimbursed for some personal expenses. A judge would have to examine that church policy and make a decision on the interpretation of that policy. Even if that policy obviously has nothing to do with the case in question, it is still something that would have to be reviewed by a judge in order for a lawsuit to proceed. It would be easy for a judge to say that he can't get involved.

  The church could pressure the person to return the money, perhaps using intimidation tactics that would be illegal if done by a regular business, but they might have limited legal options.

  I'm just trying to point out that this type of situation could easily work for or against an organised religion. It's usually the members that are prevented from using the court system to seek justice, but there could be situations when a religion is denied the ability to protect its basic rights. If this happens, can it really be said that this country has any type of freedom of religion?
• 

  Terry

  Well, realistically, it is silly to think of the Watchtower Society as anything but PEOPLE.

  You can sue people.

  Just leave out the religious trappings.

  Pedophilia is what a person does to a person.

  What is inside the head of anyone is beside the point unless it comes to accessory before, during or after the fact.

  "Conspiracy" is the way to go.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  I may be the odd man out, since I often use bizarre approaches to anti-witness to my family, but I see this as very good news. I would be thrilled if my cousin were to bring something like this up!

  Cuz: Billy, did you hear that the supreme court ruled in favor of religion?

  B the X: Yeah! Not only did they rule in favor of religious rights, but it was a unanimous decision! The brothers must be truly happified... except... I'd always been led to expect that the government would become hostile toward religion. None of the presidential candidates are running on some atheist platform. And in the Middle East, all those people were revolting against their governments and not against religion. And despite the financial crisis, the government hasn't tried to tax church property or clergymen. It would be great even if they would just require religions to open their financial records and report what money is coming in and where it's going. I'm surprised the society has never done that even voluntarily, like the congregation has reports that were posted monthly on the information board. The congregation has to report every nickel to the CO, yet the largest assets of the society are never announced has having been audited by anybody. I would think they should be proud to show their financial records. I was surprised when they stopped announcing things in the congregation like the COs expenses. Of course, if the government began taxing ministers, that would be quite a hit for all the COs and DOs. Taxes on their cars, apartments, insurance, green handshakes, it could add up. At that point, the COs might have to stop relying on the publishers' financial generousity and start relying on Jehovah to provide, instead. But it sure doesn't look like they'll have to worry about that for a long time. It sure looks like this generation with it's views of religious freedom would have to pass away before there would be some huge wave of anti-religious sentiment that would overturn a supreme court decision. I haven't seen anything in the publications that explain developments in governments turning on "false" religion, or any identification of the King of the North. Has there been any "new light" that I've somehow missed?

  Cuz: Wha?
• 

  Band on the Run

  There is no religioius discrimination in laws of general applicability that were not enacted to discriminate against a religion. The most recent case of which I am aware involved Native Americans use of peyote in religious ceremonies. The federal government enacted a law banning peyote, marijuana usage. Despite being recognizing as a religion spanning thousands of years and the use of peyote for all those years, the Court held that the federal law barred peyote use. It applied to all residents of the US and the legislative histroy revealed no animus towards Native Americans.

  It was a controversial decision. My gut reaction is that it was wrongly decided. Polygamy is often cited, too. Many people think that if a polygamy case came before the Court, polygamy laws could no longer be enforced. It makes me wonder why a Mormon polygamy case has not arrived at the Court.

  Clearly, there are grey areas. Any change in facts can affect the decision in the present case. It sounds like a good law school hypothetical. It is much better than the ones I encountered in school.
• 

  steve2

  TD - I agree: This adds absolutely nothing to the Watchtower's current legal and legislative protections. Religious groups already have a solid right to have their own tribunals and elect to eject members.
• 

  inbyathread

  Churches want their cake and be able to eat it also. Each justice of the SCOTUS should have their heads examined and in my opinion aren't qualified to render such a decision or sit in the position of justice. If a church wants to discharge someone for not TEACHING doctrines of their faith, I agree that courts should stay out of that decision process. In this case however, the church has won the ability to discharge someone if they are Black, Old, Married or Not, Uses a Wheelchair to get around or any of the other protected status's that we as Americans enjoy working in any other job.

  Second point not to divert thread but look also at recent Oklahoma ruling. Judges are allowed to use international law including Shaira Law in their decisions. EXCUSE ME!! I'm not going to that state anytime soon. Don't want to be taken to court by some male acusing me of looking wrongly at his (adult) sister and wanting me executed for causing his family emotional harm.

  Polgamy is illegal. But wasn't polgamy originally decided on by a RELIGION? And Government got involved and said "No" to that.

  And to cases of theft, well then the churches don't mind the court system getting involved. They can possibly get their money back. Hypocritical at least but that is the system we live in.
• 

  euripides

  I think it is important not to read into these things other than the narrowly tailored set of facts and the Justice's decision on the question rendered--can a person functioning as a religious employee bring a suit under the ADA against their religious organization employer for employment discrimination? And the answer was, clearly, No. It would open a ridiculous floodgate of litigation wherein doctrinal differences get morphed into acts of alleged discrimination. The Justices don't want to have to decide, or have courts decide, who is a true believer and who isn't, who best represents leadership in a particular church, etc. Look, when you work for a religious origanzation in a religious capacity you ought to have your eyes wide open as to who and WHAT you are working for--you work for them at their pleasure to reflect their organization and probably proselytize, or at least espouse their organization's beliefs. Should I be able to sue the Synagogue for not hiring me to be a Rabbi because I'm not a Jew? Puh-lease.

  People are free to create whatever religious affiliations they want, and like anything, it is a balancing act with the law--if something becomes criminal, or even a contractual violation, then there likely will be remedies for it. You can cook up hypotheticals about (money) conversion, embezzling of funds, oral agreements about investments, etc., this doesn't give "religion" a free ticket to anything of the sort. Look, every person investing their money in ANYTHING should "put it in writing!" I don't believe THIS case has a lot to say about it, quite frankly. And yes, I AM a lawyer.