On 5/12/2010 6:51 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
Here is my question-- why would anyone care about a "takeover"?
Wouldn't that just mean that a majority of the members voted in a
different slate of leaders? It's not like a dissenter could come in
and singlehandedly takeover a group, is it? They have to be chosen by
a majority. Then if the group takes a turn some don't like, the
minority starts their own new group, right?? Isn't that what happens
everyday with groups of people? And in particular religious groups?
There is even a term for it -- schism. But you don't even need a
full-out schism to see this happen in religious groups, where a
congregation will love a pastor but then some start disliking his/her
sermons or priorities, and switch over to another congregation, or
start a new congregation, or agitate for a new pastor. Isn't that the
American way of a marketplace in ideas and religion?
Well, not really. To begin with, there are congregational churches and
hierarchical churches, and churches that fall sort of in the middle. In
fact, there is no such thing as "boilerplate" bylaws for churches
because they all differ. Anyway, with hierarchical churches, the church
is controlled by the higher church authority (e.g. see the recent
Episcopal cases). With congregational churches, where the members
control, there is the question of who is a "true" member and has a right
to vote. Normally the people have to be admitted; you do not generally
become a member just by attending meetings. Sometimes the members have
to take classes; generally they need to agree to a statement of faith.
If someone does not do these things they can still attend the church,
but they cannot vote at church meetings. I had one case that went to
trial over who the members of the church were as of a specific date.
The vast majority of church splits occur, not because someone doesn't
like a pastor's sermons (as you said, that person will probably just
find another church where he or she is more comfortable), but over some
doctrinal issue. And courts cannot decide matters of church doctrine;
they must decide cases on the basis of neutral principles of law. The
case I mentioned re the members had to do with whether the church was
going to remain a Christian Church/Church of Christ, or whether it was
going to become a Pentecostal Church (and yes, new people came in and
claimed (unsuccessfully) that they were members, in order to try to
wrest the property away from the original church).
So why does CLS or any other group need protection from the
possibility that "outsiders" will take them over? If the CLS leaders
are so weak that those with different views can take over, they can
form a whole new group. So just how does the all-comers rule
disadvantage CLS? I think this need for protection against takeovers
is just a pretense for the intent to discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation.
As set forth above, churches (and other religious groups) all have their
own doctrines and beliefs, and generally require members to adhere to
those beliefs. A statement of faith of a Christian church is going to
be totally different from a new age type church. And there is no
uniformity of beliefs between the various Christian churches. Doctrinal
disputes have been going on, probably as long as there have been people
to believe (if you get 5 rabbis together, you will probably end up with
6 opinions). The issue of sexual orientation is really a very recent
dispute that has arisen in some religious organizations, and is only one
item on a long list of beliefs, any one of which would disqualify
someone from membership/leadership in the particular organization.
Truly, most Christian groups do NOT spend most of their time on the
issue of sexual orientation.
Lisa
In a message dated 5/12/2010 9:21:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu writes:
In any event, I think those who argue that an all comers rule is
OK because takeovers are unlikely would in effect be relying on a
pattern or practice of groups choosing leaders based on their
views. Usually a pattern or practice is somewhat equivalent to a
rule, where antidiscrimination principles are at stake. Thus in a
sense CLS is being denied benefits in part because of its honesty
in admitting what its members will do, and the all comers rule is
supported because groups will in fact engage in discrimination,
though perhaps not by way of formal rules.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
--
Lisa A. Runquist
Runquist& Associates
Attorneys at Law
17554 Community Street
Northridge, CA 91325
(818)609-7761
(818)609-7794 (fax)
l...@runquist.com
http://www.runquist.com
_______________________________________________
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.
