First Amendment Does Not Protect Criminal Activities By Staff At Religious Organizations

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

First Amendment Does Not Protect Criminal Activities By Staff At Religious Organizations, Says Americans United

The First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions do not shield houses of worship from liability when their staff members or volunteers commit crimes, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the Nevada Supreme Court.

Americans United and several other organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief Dec. 11 in Nevada’s top court asserting that point.

The case in question, Ramani v. Segelstein, deals with a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by a cantor at her synagogue after a service. When she reported the assault to the head rabbi, he allegedly ignored the complaint and proceeded to solicit her for sexual favors.

“The principle of religious liberty must not be sullied by making it a shield for criminal activity,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The First Amendment was never intended to be interpreted that way.”

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/12/first-amendment-does-not.html

______________________________________________________________

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

[NJmaverick]

1. Strange that there would even be a case

how could anyone intepret freedom of religion to mean you get diplomatic immunity?

[Adsos Letter]

2. I don't know, but it seems to be the direction we are headed with the fight

Religious institutions trying (and often succeeding) at covering over criminal behavior.

[mrbarber]

3. What does this have to do with the first Amendment?

I don't recall there being a passage in the Torah that encourages groping and sexually assaulting woman in your congregation.

[greennina]

4. No, but there are sections...

that encourage it to be kept private.

[uberllama42]

5. Those allegations against the rabbi are bizarre

Sexual abuse by clergy is no surprise, but you have to be a dick on a different level to solicit sex from a woman who just complained about being assaulted.

It seems fairly straightforward to point out that religions should not be able to shield criminal behavior. I can't imagine that a court would rule that the First Amendment provides some kind of blanket immunity to clergy.