Civil Discourse
Dialog for understanding opposing viewpoints at the intersection of faith and law; church and state; religion and politics.
Children categories
Prayer, Speech & Expression (6)
Dialog on the legal issues surrounding religious expression
View items...
Land Use & Institutionalized Persons (3)
Dialog on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
View items...
Business Practices (1)
Dialog on issues concerning church and ministry business practices and the law
View items...
Religious Accommodation (2)
Discussion of news and issues concerning religious accommodations
View items...School Vouchers (1)
Discussion of news and laws affecting school vouchers and choice in public education
View items...Sex Abuse (2)
Discussion of news and issues surrounding church and clergy sex abuse scandals
View items...
Religious Conflicts (1)
Discussion about conflicts within and between churches, ministries, and religious institutions
View items...
Property (2)
Discussion of news and issues relating to the law and the property of religious institutions
View items...
How Far Does Clergy Confidentiality Go Under Common Law? Part 2
Tuesday, 07 May 2013 Written by Theresa Lynn SidebothamPreviously, we discussed the magistrate judge’s decision in United States v. Dillard, which held that communications between a lay spiritual counselor and a prisoner were not privileged. Angel Dillard appealed that decision to the district court, which reversed (in Case No. 11-1098-JTM), holding that her communications with Scott Roeder were privileged under the clergy-penitent privilege.
Colorado Choice Scholarship Program Upheld for Now
Monday, 29 April 2013 Written by Theresa Lynn SidebothamWhen Douglas County, Colorado, instituted the Choice Scholarship Program, a private scholarship system that allows parents to select a private school (from an approved list) and receive a tuition scholarship to attend, several groups and individual Plaintiffs (such as the ACLU) sued, saying the program violated certain statutory and constitutional provisions of Colorado law. While opponents to the program won in the district court, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reversed, ordering a judgment for Douglas County.
You hate to see a case with a caption like God’s Hope Builders, Inc. v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, since it seems unlikely the lawsuit is what God would have hoped for. The Georgia Court of Appeals, on March 28, 2013, remanded this case with orders to the trial court to figure out, if it legitimately could, who the church members actually were.
How Far Does Clergy Confidentiality Go Under Common Law?
Tuesday, 26 March 2013 Written by Theresa Lynn SidebothamConfidential communication with clergy has been protected for centuries under the common law. This means that clergy do not have to disclose the content of those discussions. How far does that confidentiality extend? The answer varies depending on the state statute, but a federal magistrate judge in Kansas says that it is fairly limited under common law. United States v. Dillard, 11-1098-JTM-KGG (D. Kan. March 7, 2013) is not precedential, but the analysis is interesting and could show how other courts will approach the problem.
Reverse Veil Piercing and the Religious Rights of For-Profit Employers
Tuesday, 19 March 2013 Written by Theresa Lynn SidebothamReverse veil piercing is not an obscure form of body art but an obscure legal doctrine related to corporate law. Stephen Bainbridge of the UCLA School of Law wrote an article called “Using Reverse Veil Piercing to Vindicate the Free Exercise Rights of Incorporated Employers,” which can be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229414. Assuming that you are not a corporate law attorney, why should you care? Because this is potentially an important argument in the debate over whether the HHS mandate to provide contraceptive and abortifacient services should apply to employers who have religious objections.
What is RLUIPA Substantial Burden on a Church, Anyway?
Thursday, 28 February 2013 Written by Theresa Lynn SidebothamThe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) makes the government meet a very tough standard for a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, including for churches. Obviously an important initial question is whether the regulation does impose a substantial burden. A Fourth Circuit case issued January 31, 2013, Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council, develops the “substantial burden” standard in a way that may help other churches facing zoning issues.