DC School Voucher Program Ended By Congress
The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act that Congress has just passed (passed the Senate yesterday) effectively kills the controversial D.C. school voucher program by imposing conditions on its extension beyond this year that are unlikely to be met. Details on Religion Clause blog: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/03/dc-school-voucher-program-about-to.html * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
I have plenty of comments on it, as an officer of one of the other churches, after the court seemed to contrive a new hoop for us to jump through every week; but they probably would not get past the moderator. We're from the government, we're here to protect you. (Ironically, our church in Boston, where there is no such statute, might have benefited from some protection.) On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, SAMUEL M. KRIEGER wrote: Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise
I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that (1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force, unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife). The connection to the law of government and religion, as opposed to just religious law, is a section on possible religious freedom challenges in an article I'm writing about bans on tasers. Some states and cities ban tasers, but allow guns, so that people -- including those who have religious objections to using deadly force -- are pressured into either using guns or forgoing the ability to use any highly effective defensive weapons. Many thanks, Eugene ___ 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.
RE: Connecticut bill
To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
RE: Connecticut bill
In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 ___ 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.
NY Religious Corporations Law
Perhaps these separate provisions were originally negotiated with leaders of each faith group, attempting to provide what each group wanted. Even so, there is a high likelihood they got it wrong, or that orther institutions within the same faith group wanted, or now want, something different. To the extent that these laws are imposing governance stuctures on religious organizations contrary to each organizations religious self-understanding, they are unconstitutional. Even if they got it right, and one of these statutory sections is exactly what a religious organization wants, there remains the problem that the religious organization cannot amend its governance rules without going back to the legislature, which is surely also unconstitutional. I take this to be the point of James Madison's Veto Message in 1811, vetoing a bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church in Alexandria (then part of DC). The message is often cited for the proposition that Madison thought incorporation of churches is unconsistitutional, but that is not what he said. He said: The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and poceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated . . . so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the gneral church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognises. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. He also objected that the bill gave the church authority to provide for the poor, which he said was superfluous if it referred to pious charity, and making the church a legal agent for performnig a public duty if it were anything more. Quoting Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu: To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713___ 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.
NY Religious Corporations Law
So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org: In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713___ 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.
RE: NY Religious Corporations Law
Doug is right about the origins of NY's church incorporation law. There was a formal effort to change the whole structure about 20 years ago, but it got hung up mostly, as I recall, by the problem of making the transition from old law on which there were substantial reliance interests to a new format. Marc From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law Perhaps these separate provisions were originally negotiated with leaders of each faith group, attempting to provide what each group wanted. Even so, there is a high likelihood they got it wrong, or that orther institutions within the same faith group wanted, or now want, something different. To the extent that these laws are imposing governance stuctures on religious organizations contrary to each organizations religious self-understanding, they are unconstitutional. Even if they got it right, and one of these statutory sections is exactly what a religious organization wants, there remains the problem that the religious organization cannot amend its governance rules without going back to the legislature, which is surely also unconstitutional. I take this to be the point of James Madison's Veto Message in 1811, vetoing a bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church in Alexandria (then part of DC). The message is often cited for the proposition that Madison thought incorporation of churches is unconsistitutional, but that is not what he said. He said: The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and poceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated . . . so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the gneral church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognises. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. He also objected that the bill gave the church authority to provide for the poor, which he said was superfluous if it referred to pious charity, and making the church a legal agent for performnig a public duty if it were anything more. Quoting Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu: To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
The question here is whether you can satisfy the rule against judicial oversight of ecclesiology and permit the states to serve their legitimate interest in overseeing those that obtain corporation status. Religious entities need and/or want to be able to operate with the benefits of a corporation, including property ownership by an entity that surpasses the lives of any particular individuals and limited liability. Incorporation is voluntary, so why isn't there an argument that if they choose incorporation and its benefits, they have to agree to certain state oversight? While it is relatively easy to point to potential constituitonal difficulties in the laws as written, there are difficult issues getting the balance correct. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 2:23 pm Subject: RE: NY Religious Corporations Law Doug is right about the origins of NY's church incorporation law. There was a formal effort to change the whole structure about 20 years ago, but it got hung up mostly, as I recall, by the problem of making the transition from old law on which there were substantial reliance interests to a new format. Marc =0 D From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law Perhaps these separate provisions were originally negotiated with leaders of each faith group, attempting to provide what each group wanted. Even so, there is a high likelihood they got it wrong, or that orther institutions within the same faith group wanted, or now want, something different. To the extent that these laws are imposing governance stuctures on religious organizations contrary to each organizations religious self-understanding, they are unconstitutional. Even if they got it right, and one of these statutory sections is exactly what a religious organization wants, there remains the problem that the religious organization cannot amend its governance rules without going back to the legislature, which is surely also unconstitutional. I take this to be the point of James Madison's Veto Message in 1811, vetoing a bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church in Alexandria (then part of DC). The message is often cited for the proposition that Madison thought incorporation of churches is unconsistitutional, but that is not what he said. He said: The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and poceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated . . . so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the gneral church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognises. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. He also objected that the bill gave the church authority to provide for the poor, which he said was superfluous if it referred to pious charity, and making the church a legal agent for performnig a public duty if it were anything more. Quoting Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu: To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM 0A To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not -Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). Two additional notes- 1.Many of the cases in this area have courts straining to find a property interest and thereby granting jurisdiction to a secular court . See PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, ,v.CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, 90 NY2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330 (1997) . (fascinating procedural history) 2. Retaining unincorporated status may result in making the benefits of IRC Section 501 (c) (3) unavailable to the congregation. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-2900 Fax: (212) 363-2999 - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org: In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 -- ___ 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
