I will be the first to admit that I may have misread Jones v. Wolf, but "neutral principles of law" is a rather capacious concept, and don't forget Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and the insistence there of the right of the Court to provide a remedy where there was "fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness" in the proceedings before the religious tribunal.
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:31 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation? In a message dated 1/26/2007 1:11:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will defer to those who know this area of the law better than I do, but, isn't it the case that secular courts will impose secular notions of procedural due process on adjudications by religious bodies? No, indeed quite to the contrary and appropriately so If that is so, then this case may be but so important, if it turns out that the Episcopal Bishop transgressed those secular due process norms. And if that be the case, then isn't the appropriate judicial remedy a judgment directing the Episcopal Bishop to give Moyer a "fair" trial? One more thought that may be even more important: if the Episcopal Church's own rules contain due process protections and the Episcopal Bishop has failed to follow them, then isn't it appropriate for a secular court at least to order the religious organization to follow its own rules, quite apart from any notions of constitutional (i.e. secular) due process? No, the state has no constitutionally permissible role in ensuring that ecclesiastical process either meets secular notions of due process or in enforcing what it interprets to be the process selected at any given point in time by an ecclesiastical body While I have not read any opinion that may have accompanied this judge's order, the press report, if accurate, suggests that this judge has strayed beyond both federal and state constitutional boundaries...I have obtained the exact opposite outcome in a case raising similar issues from another judge in Montgomery County Donald C. Clark, Jr. 2333 Waukegan Road Suite 160 Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 847-236-0900 847-236-0909 (fax) This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ************************************************************************ ******************************** IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein.
_______________________________________________ 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.
