(Washington Times) - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected two cases involving the ouster of religious leaders, one brought by a church and the other by a private school.
The religious institutions had argued that the First Amendment’s jurisprudence and ministerial exemption, which bars legal claims brought by religious employees against a church, require courts to dismiss the lawsuits, leaving the internal dispute to the church.
One case was brought by Alexander Belya against the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. He claimed the church defamed him after he was removed from an elected leadership role over allegedly breaching the seal of confession, controlling parishioners and not accounting for church property.
Lower courts allowed his defamation suit against the church to proceed, opening up the discovery process to include aspects of the church’s internal work.
The other case was brought by Gregory Tucker against Faith Bible Chapel International. He was removed as chaplain after he delivered remarks to students suggesting the school community was racist due to White privilege.
He sued over his removal, claiming racial discrimination despite being White.
Lower courts allowed the discovery process to proceed, refusing the school’s motion to dismiss.
Both the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Bible Chapel International had asked the justices to reconsider the lower courts’ decisions, saying the lower courts intruded into church decisions and inner workings.
The high court declined to do so. It would have taken four justices to vote in favor of hearing the disputes.
Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, cheered the high court’s move. Her organization represented Mr. Tucker and Mr. Belya.
“Religious freedom is not a license to harm others or prevent people from seeking justice in courts of law. These cases are far from over, but Gregg Tucker and Father Alexander Belya now have a chance to vindicate their rights,” Ms. Laser said. “We are facing an aggressive movement working to recast religious freedom into a weapon that would allow religious institutions to discriminate without limit or consequence. AU believes religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Today, the Court let that principle stand.”
Monday, June 12, 2023
Belya is getting his day in court with ROCOR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Rachel Laser nailed it. Well done! When in doubt consult the Holy Gospels. The lessons from Jesus Christ's Good Samaritan Parable, and his episode with the Money Changers invited in the Temple of Jerusalem's inner courtyard, to facilitate sales of sacrificial lambs to foreigners applies as much to today's religious leaders as it did 2000 years ago. See
ReplyDeleteFor all I know, A. Belya may be innocent of all charges (though I doubt it). But I have no idea what "discrimination" R Laser is talking about.
Delete"Rachel Laser nailed it...."
DeleteShe nailed the secularized notion that all morals, culture, and organization, and politics falls under the "liberal" Lockean/Hume notion of The Good and how to apply that Good to society/law.
In other words, there is nothing that does not fall under the secular and allegedly "neutral" prevue of what is moral and just. As history has revealed, this methodology is empty of any principle - whatever the current majority bourgeois notion of right/wrong prevails on any given day. For example, for Mrs. Laser, the idea that the state should prevail over the parents towards "gender affirming care" would be a moral outcome of "the seperation of Church and State".
Your interpretation of the Gospel and its "lessons" (in relation to this subject) is not classical Christianity. Indeed, contrary to Mrs. Laser, Christ explicitly said that he came to bring a sword (a sword that separates the light from the dark). Mrs. Laser wants to emasculate Christ, so that He and his Commandments are just another form of (utalitarian) "source" of secular morality (i.e. a "shield").
Not to say that Christian (or any other) institutions should be able to hide evil within an absolutist notion of "separation of church and state" (liberty!) as some (Orthodox or otherwise) on the right would have it, but their philosophy is just the other side of the same Lockean and secular coin...
It seems like both Fr. Alexander Belya and Fr. Peter Heers (two names that you wouldn't expect to see together!) are having to deal with the fallout from ROCOR making a decision, having a change of heart, and then pretending like said decision was never made. It will be interesting to see what is disclosed as this case progresses.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of drawing a bolt of lightning, I have to say that the idea that religious organizations are or ought to be, completely independent of civil law is bit of a reach. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's. This can create some gray areas, but I think it dangerous to give a religious entity carte blanche immunity if they are violating a member's basic civil rights and trying to hide behind church law. Whether or not that is the case here will have to be sorted out. But no, I don't think the Holy Synod should have the last word on that.
ReplyDeleteThis just boggles my mind I need to question the validity of all of this. Why? I sent a letter to the cathedral in Florida asking for a copy of the 2023 calendar that was routed on their website. Good thing that I did not hold my breath, not one reply has been received. All I can assume is smoke and mirrors . So this reminds me of that great work of st William Shakespeare of Avon, " much ado about nothing"
ReplyDelete