Howard Friedman summarizes the decision in the case, but I’m not
sure it’s right. Among other things, the Complaint asserts that church
officials expressly promised that plaintiff’s “baptism and conversion would
remain private,” and breached that promise. Why wouldn’t that be a legally
enforceable contract (see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/17/convert-to-christianity-sues-church-claiming-it-broke-confidentiality-promise-and-thus-exposed-him-to-attack-for-apostasy-in-syria/)?
Eugene
Feed: Religion Clause
Posted on: Sunday, June 26, 2016 11:28 AM
Author: Howard Friedman
Subject: Court Says Religious Autonomy Precludes Adjudication of Suit By
Torture Victim
In a fascinating decision handed down June 17, an Oklahoma trial court held
that the "religious autonomy doctrine" requires it to dismiss a suit against a
U.S. church by a convert from Islam to Christianity who was captured and
tortured in Syria because of his conversion. The facts are set out more fully
in a complaint (full
text<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/40/140e84c2-8d10-5a54-9d3d-d13294c224d7/576db887d0b63.pdf.pdf>)
filed in 2014. A Tulsa, Oklahoma resident who was born in Syria decided to
convert, but told First Presbyterian Church leaders that his conversion had to
remain confidential because he periodically traveled back to Syria and the
punishment for apostasy under Sharia law was death. Despite assurances of
confidentiality, the church published an announcement of his baptism in its
Order of Worship, which was posted on the World Wide Web. After traveling back
to Syria, plaintiff was bound, beaten and tortured by radical Muslims who
threatened to behead him. He eventually escaped. His suit alleges that the
church is guilty of negligence, breach of contract and outrageous conduct
leading to extreme emotional distress.
In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa,
Oklahoma<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/53/95392aab-1cb3-5434-bf1d-fb0f43dede43/576db88a24cf2.pdf.pdf>,
(OK Dist. Ct., June 17, 2016), the court held that the public dissemination of
the names of those who have been baptized "is a key part of how the Church
requires a conversion and baptism to be 'visible" to the world." The court went
on to say:
the simple dispositive issue is whether the public dissemination of Plaintiff's
name as a baptized person is "rooted in religious belief"....
[A] secular Court like this one must not consider claims ... that arise out of
a sacrament because a sacrament is part of the most sacred beliefs of that
religious institution.... Defendants' deeply held religious belief about the
visible, public nature of baptism must not be disturbed by this Court.
[emphasis in original]
Tulsa
World<http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/religion/ex-muslim-breaks-silence-on-nearly-being-beheaded-for-converting/article_c91cfbc8-42ac-55eb-924c-15a6c0d58fcb.html>
reports on the decision, with additional background.
View
article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/06/court-says-religious-autonomy-precludes.html>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
