Religious Freedom Compared to Economic Freedom

by DT 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  Suppose a small group of people in the United States decide that they want to start a religion. Does United States law and the constitution give them this right? After thinking about it, I'm not so sure.

  They can certainly meet and talk about the Bible or religion. However, in theory, they should be able to set up some kind of organization to advance their religious goals and beliefs. They could sign agreements about how they want to run things and split the expenses. However, if they are smart, they might realize that this would provide little protection for their investment of time and money. Someone could run off with the money or one member could declare himself leader, expel anyone who doesn't agree with him and use the money to form his own cult.

  If something like that happened, what could they do? In view of certain legal precedents and the recent Supreme Court case about freedom of religion, they probably couldn't do anything legally. Judges are generally unwilling to interfere in internal religious matters.

  Of course, an established religion usually has all sorts of policies, procedures and traditions that help it remain somewhat stable. It acts like a little government and is generally happy that the Federal government is reluctant to interfere in its operations.

  A new religion is an entirely different situation. The founders might sign agreements about how the rights and investments of its members will be protected, but they likely won't be able to count on any court to enforce those agreements. If an internal threat arose they would likely have to resort to some kind of intimidation (shunning, slander, etc.) to control it. Some of these methods might be illegal in other settings, but it's unlikely the courts would interfere.

  Imagine if this same situation applied to a group who wanted to start a business. It would be chaos. Thankfully, the government gives people a right to enter into legally binding contracts in a business setting and seek help from the courts when their economic rights are violated.

  It's strange that the same rights don't exist for those who want to advance their religious goals. It's not just a matter of established religions violating the rights of individuals. It's also a matter of collections of individuals being unable to attain certain types of collective religious expression and organization.

  While it is almost impossible for a group of individuals to set up a meaningful religious structure that respects the rights of its members in this legal climate, cults and high control groups are able to flourish. They are able to police themselves effectively while not having to worry too much about individual rights.

  Although I think government interferes too much in business at times, some level of supervision is necessary so that individuals can work together while protecting their personal rights and economic interests. It's too bad that there isn't a similar mechanism to protect individual rights when people seek their religious or spiritual goals.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I'm not certain that business contracts could not be evaluated. It is interesting that while I read many First Amendment cases, I don't recall a single case dealing this matter. The WT conducts business where no religius aspect is present. If no stability were guaranteed, no one would form religious associations. There would be no point in creating documents that could not be enforced. It is an excellent question. Religions would need no lawyers.

  I suspect this area is very murky. Courts cannot construe church doctrine or governance. No one would sell services or goods to a religion. I would love to hear an analysis. Maybe I will see if there is a law review article that addresses it.
• 

  arko_n9ne

  the modern world was founded by people who had their hands in the church cookie jar. all god fearing men who had a vision of the church taking precedent over government.

  if the world would remove that annoying clause of seperation of church and state then i am sure the global budget could be balanced and people would be more selective about the religion they choose.

  it would also force corporate religions to reform in an attempt to make a profit thereby exposing their motives. imagine how long the watchtower would last if they had to pay taxes.

  the study edition of their magazines would include some misquote from jesus in an attempt to extort more money. probably when jesus said to give away all your things. seems like their m.o.

  it would be hard to recruit after that since it takes brainwashing to be okay with giving men all of your hard earned money in the name of god. so eventually they would have to close membership.

  at that point they would be forced to become publically radical. let the world know what us dedicated few had to hunt down. this would saddle them with 7 million recruits. but since many dont buy into the wts bs as it is...

  i predict they would lose two million members before upping the anty to a traditional cult of threatening the lives of friends and family of those who leave.

  another million would leave before they started doing their rendition of a waco.
• 

  euripides

  "The founders might sign agreements about how the rights and investments of its members will be protected, but they likely won't be able to count on any court to enforce those agreements"

  OK, I'm going to interject here 1) as an ex-JW and 2) as a lawyer. Legally binding contracts are just that--there is a large body of law that governs what will happen if there is a breach of this contract. A person or group cannot use the designation of 'religion' to invalidate contractually binding legalities. I think many have misapprehended the recent cases on the Court's unwillingness to intrude into an 'internal' matter of a religion exercising it's policies among its voluntary membership. For example, not ordaining women as priests will not be construed as a violation of a constitutionally protectable right of a woman* seeking to be a member of the Catholic clergy--we get that, right? Justice Scalia himself has said that where there is a square conflict between the church and the law, the church will not prevail. Before we let our imaginations go running wild on what a person could or couldn't do and have something called a "religion" avoid legalities, let's remember one important lesson from the JW past about tax sheltering proceeds from the sales of literature--remember when these things cost money to the householder? Then when the IRS said, o no, that is a taxable event going on there, it is a sale of literature, where is the sales tax, then all of a sudden, these from now on will be GIFTED to people, although the JW membership still cough up for them, I understand. They just can't sell them, not directly, anyway.

  *even though the constitutional protection against discrimination based on gender is really describing discrimination from the government in the form of laws, etc, not from a private group or person--again, a large and complex topic
• 

  euripides

  From the ABA review here:

  " Roberts said the ruling was confined the facts of the case—a fired minister who could not sue for employment discrimination because of the ministerial exception. “We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers," he said."

  OK, so let's all drop the runaway panic over religion protected from all sorts of tortious conduct by this ruling--not in the least.
• 

  Tofayel

  Religion is not out of law in any country, yet goverment don't want to interfere on any religious fector. Because it is so emotional.

  Indiana
• 

  DT

  Thank you for all your comments.

  I agree that the specific Supreme Court case was limited in scope. Many have drawn conclusions from that case that aren't warranted. It may also be true that some of my concerns are exaggerated.

  However, there are other precedents and a general reluctance for the courts to interfere in any matter that is related to religion, even when other human rights, including personal religious liberties, are at stake. I would also like to point at that if a court refuses to intervene in a religious matter, then any other laws or contractual considerations that might have affected the result become meaningless.

  When it comes to contracts, or even verbal agreements, that relate to internal religious matters, it is difficult to say how this would be handled in a legal dispute. It's certainly possible that a court might intervene, however it could be extremely difficult to reconcile this judicial involvement with a court's refusal to intervene in other religious matters that may be just as important. It's also quite possible that a court would refuse to hear the case or arbitrarily declare any of the laws that might relate to the case as being unenforceable in a religious setting. If this same level of uncertainty existed for business transactions, then it would be nearly impossible to get anything done.

  The way I see it, I can't join a religion without sacrificing my other rights. Even if I agree with the rules and governing structure of the religion, I should accept the fact that these could change at any time or the religion might just choose to ignore its own rules. In this case, I would likely have no legal recourse if this results in unjust treatment of me. Although I might have some legal protections in a religious setting, I might not be able to predict which laws can be enforced.

  If I wanted to start a religion with others who want to preserve human rights and dignity in a religious setting, it's not clear how or if this can be done. We could have written agreements about how the church should operate, but if these were ever overruled and changed by an internal faction, it would be hard to have confidence that there would be a legal recourse to prevent the changes. There might be a legal remedy, but the uncertainty could be enough to prevent the project from ever getting started.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The problem is that legal cases involving religions have existed in America since the founding of the colonies. The Mayflower Compact. The City on the Hill. I have no current access to a legal database from home. The rule is established. I expect there are gray areas at the boundaries of what constitutes religious governance. People argue Supreme Court cases as precedent broadly or narrowly to suit their client's interests. The legal dept of the Witnesses would no longer be necessary. A slight change in procedure or fact could yield a different result. Many times I see no principled differeence in facts that yields to a different holding.

  Cases that approach internal church policy must be fascinating. Religions are not exempt from laws of general applicability with no intent to discriminate.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Also, the plaintiff and the facts were not conducive to sympathy. It seems as though they searched for an obnoxious plaintiff. There is much rancor between the justices on religoius matters. This case was unanimous. All those liberal, separation of church and state jurists voted with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
• 

  euripides

  Band on the Run are you a McCartney and Wings fan, and, are you a law student or lawyer?