In the recent case, Hutterville v. Warden, the South Dakota Supreme Court rightly refused to get involved in a church dispute because it would have interfered with religious freedom.  The conflict arose in a Hutterian church whose members govern their lives by New Testament principles and live in an agrarian, communal colony.  They share common roots with Mennonites and the Amish.  The church split into two factions, each of which supported a different leader.  One group was excommunicated by the church, leaving the other faction in charge.

Because the matter boiled down to who were truly members of the church, the court wisely washed its hands of the matter, determining this was a religious dispute secular judges have no business adjudicating.  This finding conforms to the well-recognized, and long established legal doctrine of church autonomy.  That is, the First Amendment prohibits government from interfering with churches on matters of governance, doctrine, membership, and discipline.

Application of the church autonomy doctrine in this case was complicated by the fact that the members lives were completely immersed in the church.  Their jobs and where they lived were dictated by their church membership.  Normally one’s occupation and residence are civil matters, but in this case, one cannot live or work in the colony unless they are members of the church.  So who governs the colony is necessarily a religious issue.

If the court had ruled otherwise, it would inject secular government into the internal workings of a religious entity.  This is exactly the type of entanglement the founders sought to avoid when making the religion clauses part of the First Amendment.  The South Dakota Supreme Court is to be lauded for their understanding of this foundational principle and respect for the autonomy of religious organizations.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

We reported back in June that a preliminary ruling in Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine eroded the freedom of religious organizations. In an unusual development (and as a result of some good lawyering by St. Catherine’s attorneys), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to go ahead and review that ruling early. ADF, on behalf of itself and the National Association of Evangelicals, recently filed an amicus brief in the case, urging reversal of the lower court’s dangerous ruling.

In the brief, we explain that the District Court undermined the freedom of religious organizations when it allowed the plaintiff’s religious harassment and retaliation claims against a Catholic institution to go forward.  Villa St. Catherine is a Catholic nursing center that the District Court recognized is exempt from the religious discrimination prohibitions of Title VII.  Congress wisely included this exemption so that religious organizations can maintain their religious character.  This makes constitutional and practical sense. A Jewish ministry to the poor should not have to adjust its workplace requirements so that a Muslim would feel comfortable accomplishing its religious goals, and vice versa.  When government entangles itself in the employment decisions of religious organizations, it violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. 

The District Court’s order results in the nonsensical legal reality that St. Catherine could have simply fired Kennedy because she was not Catholic, but could not require her to dress and act in a way that does not conflict with the Catholic beliefs of the institution and the people it serves.  This makes an end run around Congress’ well-conceived efforts to protect religious organizations from liability when they ensure their employees’ religious beliefs comply with their own.  More significantly, it violates the religious freedom of religious organizations by exposing them to liability for simply teaching employees their doctrine, and requiring them to act in compliance with it while at work.

Hopefully, the Fourth Circuit will agree and undo the lower court’s unfortunate limitation of religious liberty.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Recently a federal court in Maryland undermined the independence of religious organizations when it allowed a nurse’s religious harassment claim against a Catholic institution to go forward.  It was the first such decision of its kind. Villa St. Catherine’s is a Catholic nursing center that the Court recognized is exempt from religious discrimination provisions of Title VII – the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination.  Congress wisely included this exemption so that religious organizations can maintain their religious character.  This makes constitutional and practical sense. A Jewish ministry to the poor should not have to hire a Muslim, and vice versa.  And when government entangles itself in the hiring and firing decisions of religious organizations, it violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.  A good analysis of this aspect of Church Autonomy can be read here.

Significantly, the Maryland court agreed that St. Catherine’s should be able to maintain a workforce with beliefs compatible with Catholicism. The nurse in this case was not Catholic, but a member of the Church of the Brethren.  She alleged she was fired because of her religious beliefs, and the Court rejected that claim because religious organizations like Villa St. Catherine’s are allowed to fire people because they don’t share the organization’s religious beliefs.

But Nurse Kennedy also brought a claim for religious harassment and this is where the Court’s analysis and common sense part ways. Prior to being fired, Nurse Kennedy was told that her Church of the Brethren manner of dress – long skirts and a head covering – was not compatible with a Catholic institution and made the residents and family members uncomfortable.  When she complained about this reasonable instruction, she was fired, so she brought a retaliation claim (which the Court also allowed to go forward).

The upshot of it is, St. Catherine’s could have simply fired Nurse Kennedy because she was not Catholic. Instead of taking this drastic measure, she was advised to change her dress to comport with the beliefs of the institution and the people it serves.  Amazingly that reasonable effort to save the nurse’s job proved to be St. Catherine’s downfall.  Under this rationale, a Jewish nursing center could not require its employees to refrain from dressing in traditional Islamic garb – even though it would be contrary to Jewish teaching and have a disturbing effect on the individuals being served.

This is non-sensical and makes an end run around Congress’ well thought out efforts to protect religious organizations from liability when they ensure their employees’ religious beliefs comply with their own.  More significantly, it violates the religious freedom of religious organizations by requiring them to tolerate behavior that conflicts with their teaching and traditions.  Hopefully, St. Catherine’s will appeal this dangerous precedent and the Fourth Circuit will nip this new attack on religious freedom in the bud.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Recently, the Roman Catholic Church has come under fire after two of its schools, one in Massachusetts and one in Colorado, declined to enroll students who have same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, these decisions created a firestorm of public criticism and outrage, raising questions about whether churches should have the right to make these types of enrollment decisions.

A similar situation arose in California not too long ago. A Lutheran high school in California was the target of a lawsuit by two former students who were expelled for violating the school’s Christian Conduct policy. The policy prohibited students from engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, including homosexual behavior, which these two students engaged in. The lawsuit alleged that the school violated California law by discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation.

Most of the time, non-discrimination laws serve worthy goals that help strengthen our religious freedom. But they can be misused and overextended, especially when religious organizations are involved. When that happens, these laws are put on a collision course with religious freedom. And far too often, it’s religious freedom that is sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

These situations are perfect examples. One of the most basic and fundamental principles of the First Amendment is that churches should remain autonomous and not have the government interfering with their internal affairs. But churches lose that freedom when the government imposes non-discrimination laws that intrude into religious matters, like operating a private school.

After all, the mission of a church-run school is not just to provide a good education, but to inculcate students with a particular set of values and beliefs. So it’s essential that we give churches wide latitude in deciding how to implement their educational system, including its enrollment criteria, to best carry out that mission.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, in defending the Colorado school’s enrollment policy, put it this way: “The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

By God’s grace, the Lutheran school in California ultimately prevailed in its lawsuit. ADF and the Christian Legal Society filed briefs in that case supporting the school on behalf of over 830 private religious schools throughout California who would have all been affected by a bad ruling in the case. And we will continue to fight to ensure that churches keep the right to set their policies based on religious conviction, not government mandate.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Another example of european-style church restrictions has shown up in our neighbor to the north – investigation of a church for not allowing homosexuals to serve at the alter. LifeSiteNews reports that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is forcing Bishop De Angelis to appear before it to defend his diocese against charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Tribunal is responding to a complaint filed by an alter server who was excluded from service because he is engaged in homosexual behavior.

That this investigation is even being pursued threatens the very core of religious freedom: the ability to determine who leads a congregation in worship. Church autonomy is an important legal doctrine that protects religious organizations from government intrusion into the areas of membership, doctrine, governance, and staff. At minimum, this doctrine prohibits government from even questioning how a church determines who leads the congregation during worship services. We need to keep a watchful eye on erosion of church autonomy - even though it may occur in another country. And the U.S. is seeing attacks at the outer edges of this doctrine, such as religious schools, as I noted in a previous post.  Please let ADF know as soon as possible if you hear of an intrusion on church autonomy near you.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch