Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Jan. 18, 2010 | 2:06 a.m.
The Nevada Supreme Court has been asked to decide to what extent churches are liable in cases involving sexual abuse committed by clergy. The case raises the issue of whether the First Amendment protects churches from these types of lawsuits.
As Steve Kanigher reported in Wednesday’s Las Vegas Sun, the case is rare. Most lawsuits against churches, as those against the Roman Catholic Church, have been settled, so courts have not had to handle this issue.
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Theressa Ramani, who says she was assaulted in 2001 by a cantor associated with Chabad of Southern Nevada and Chabad of Summerlin. The man pleaded guilty the next year to open and gross lewdness. Ramani said she and her son were then harassed by Chabad after she complained about the attack.
In 2003 she filed a lawsuit in District Court in Clark County against the Orthodox synagogues, as well as some rabbis and individuals associated with the organization. The suit was eventually thrown out because a judge says she didn’t show a direct link between Chabad and the attack and didn’t prove that the man was an employee of the synagogues.
She appealed in 2007, and the case gained stature because of the issues involved. The Roman Catholic bishops of Las Vegas and Reno and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have joined the synagogues in fighting the case. Ramani has been joined by the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children.
Chabad and the churches argue religious organizations are protected by the First Amendment from these types of lawsuits. They say if the court holds churches liable for the actions of volunteers or congregants, it would be disastrous for their charities and operations because they would be tied up in expensive litigation. Responding to Ramani’s claims of harassment, the churches say they have a right to exercise discipline or even expel members.
Ramani and the advocacy groups say churches must be held liable for their actions and to exclude them would allow abuse to go unchecked. They point to documented abuse in the Catholic Church by some priests, in which church officials knew about allegations of abuse for years. They argue that the churches are trying to “twist the First Amendment into a refuge for harmful behavior.”
Churches do have the right to exercise their religious freedom and they do have the right to discipline or expel members. The question in this case, though, is whether the group is liable in an abuse case.
The religious provision in the First Amendment was intended to keep the government from establishing a state religion and to allow people the freedom to worship as they choose. It shouldn’t be construed as a blanket protection from liability. If clergy or a church engage in or allow illegal behavior, they should have to answer for that.
"If clergy or a church engage in or allow illegal behavior, they should have to answer for that"
I couldn't agree more, but it shouldn't stop with clergy or church, it should extend all across the spectrum.
That includes elected officials, government workers, government appointees, in fact, everyone should have to obey the laws. Not just the citizen on the street.
"The religious provision in the First Amendment was intended to keep the government from establishing a state religion and to allow people the freedom to worship as they choose."
Sun -- you almost got this one right. "...to allow people the freedom..." is directly opposite of the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Far more accurate to say "...to preserve to the people the freedom..."
It was acknowledged by most of the founding fathers the five great freedoms they called "First Principles" had existed long before even the Declaration of Independence. Those five great freedoms being life, liberty, property, happiness and conscience.
"...but on our soil any church leader who violates the law has to accept the responsibility of that crime."
fosimmons -- depends on the law. In the context here I'm in complete agreement with your point. Henry David Thoreau went to jail rather than "be in compliance with" the local law requiring anyone preaching to be licensed. From that incarceration we got his classic "The Duty of Civil Disobedience."
guns4hire -- your first post made no sense at all. Care to get some coffee in you and try again? The gist of your second post has its roots in the founders again.
"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776.
Why does anyone believe this primitive christian mythology?
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Well, christians, you have your marching orders and if you believe your nonsense you will make sure to murder your children the next time they curse you.
The way the law was written was to permit religion to operate in the country provided they abide by the law. The Catholic church has has many laws on its books which are outside our laws and many laws dealing with matters which are the jurisdiction of the state or country. There will not be any justice for victims and the American people until the Church firstly complies with the law rather than lobby to change them to suit their cover up needs.
Their first obligation is to comply with the law of the land. They get around this by stating that church law forbids this or that. That is not the point - the point is the church has a requirement to abide by the law first and foremost as that is the basic requirement or condition of its right to operate in a country. Make them comply with the law by removing everything from Church law which deals with matters of the State - then they are in compliance and then they should be permitted the freedom to operate in the country - until then they are just common criminals in breach of the Constitution.
bella -- give it a rest. This Discussion is fast becoming unreadable due to your multiple barely-relevant rants.
Bella: Give it a rest! You're geting to be f*cking annoying! Ranting on-and-on only makes you look crazier than you already are!
there is killer bee with the usual Libertarian religous push. Libertarians want a church state and less personal freedom.
Keep church and state separate, don't vote libertarian!
Nick -- you should give it a rest, too. You'd be like a broken record if anything you posted were true. Anyone who reads my posts can see I'm no friend to organized religion or dogma. Either proof up or expect to be shunned.