judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “belief”

Templeton Project: Apology in the New Testament III

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Apology in the New Testament III.”

See also:

_______________

The previous article ended with a quotation from First Peter.  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame, For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”  (I Peter 3: 13-17 ESV)

Let’s summarize the letter of which this extended passage is a part.  Peter writes to the “elect exiles in the dispersion,” a specific reference to Christians’ living in several Roman provinces of what is today the country of Turkey.  By God’s mercy in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are “born again to a living hope,” fulfilled in end time salvation. Though the recipients have been through various trials, they are to rejoice in their salvation.  Persecution is always a possibility and may have been experienced by the recipients of the letter..

Peter calls on Christians in their exile, not to be conformed to the passions, but to be holy as God is holy.  The exiles are to remember that they were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.  The apostle continues with admonition to put away deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander and yearn for the “pure spiritual milk.”

Peter reminds the exiles that they are a spiritual house, a royal priesthood, a chosen race, a holy nation that “proclaim the excellencies” of God who called them out of darkness into his light.  They are to avoid the passions of the flesh.  Among the Gentiles they are to be honorable in their conduct.  Though non-believers speak of them as evildoers, the result will be that on the day of God’s visitation, they will glorify God.

Peter continues by exhorting them to submit to human authority, respecting the emperor and the governors sent by him.  Their doing good will silence foolish people.  It is of no benefit to be punished for doing evil and endure, rather it is good in God’s sight to endure for suffering for the good.

Christ is the example of suffering for Christians to follow.  He suffered, though He committed no sin, on the cross so that we may “die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Peter continues with a section on the proper conduct of husbands and wives and servants, followed by an admonition to the churches to “unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” The exiles are not to respond to evil with evil but respond with blessing.   After some relevant quotes from the Old Testament, Peter writes the words that were quoted at the beginning of this article.  In our defense of the faith, Christians are to be gentle and respectful.

It is better to suffer for good than evil.  Christ suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.

Christians are to live for the will of God, not for evil passions.  The end is approaching for which we are to prepare.  He exhorts the recipients of the letter to live self-controlled lives and love one another in the the community.

Peter returns to the theme of the trial of the exiles.   They are not to be surprised that trials are happening.  They should rejoice in the sharing of Christ’s sufferings as they will rejoice when Christ returns and are to glorify God in their suffering.  Judgment begins in the household of God and then among those who do not believe the Gospel.  The elders are instucted on how to lead the flock and the young are reminded of their proper duty.

The exiles suffer now but will inherit the eternal glory of Christ.  Finally the apostle calls the exiles to stand firm in their belief.

Chrisitans are to suffer for the good, never for the evil.  Our conduct is to be good as a witness to others.  This includes a respectful and gentle way of speaking and conducting themselves with those who ask for an account of their  faith.  The appropriate way to present a defense of the faith is very important as is its content.

What can we learn from theis text?

1. The Christian community consists of elect exiles in this world and also is a holy nation and royal priesthood. Christians are elect exiles, because of God’s choosing us as His people in a world hostile to the Gospel.  Our true home is heaven, an imperishable inheritance.

2.  The churches and the people in them have gone through and will continue to go through various trials, not because we are evildoers, but because of doing good.  Persecution is always a possibility for Christians.

3.  We are not to conform to the passions, but remember that we are a holy nation.  Our lives should be one of self-control.

4.  Christ, who suffered for our salvation, is the model for our own suffering.

5.  To respond to others with an apology, or defense, is a witness to Christ.

6.  Our defense should be with gentleness and respect, no matter how the challenger behaves.

7.  We are to rejoice in our trials.

(All quotations from the Bible are from the English Standard Version)

Michael G. Tavella

March 18, 2019

The Day of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 386

Custody of Nonbiological Children—Burden and Proof Issues

In the matter of R.L. v. M.A., Case No.: 2740 EDA 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court delved into the leading edge of family law when it ruled upon whether an individual in a same-sex relationship can be awarded custody of a child with whom she has no biological relationship.

In R.L., the appellant, M.A., entered into a romantic relationship with R.L. (appellee) in 2012. During the relationship, the parties decided to impregnate the appellant via artificial insemination using sperm from the appellee’s brother.

The couple proceeded to prepare for the birth of the child by setting up the baby’s room and purchasing typical baby supplies. R.L. was present for the baby’s birth, chose the baby’s first name, and gave the baby her own surname. Not long after the child was born, the couple broke up.

Instead of litigating, the parties entered into an informal agreement for the custody of the child. The child lived primarily with the appellant and spent every other weekend with the appellee. This arrangement lasted until 2014 when the parties informally elected to equally share custody of the child. This 50/50 arrangement lasted nearly four years until R.L. called the daycare center where the appellant worked and which the child attended. R.L. complained that the appellant was having too much contact with the child while in daycare and even inappropriately (in her opinion) removed the child from the daycare premises.

In response to the above-mentioned telephone call, the appellant unilaterally discontinued their customary 50/50 arrangement, which led to R.L. filing a complaint for custody of the child. R.L. was granted in loco parentis over the child fairly quickly, which conferred R.L. standing to have custody of the child. The matter went to trial and the trial court entered an order granting each party equal custody, alternating on a weekly basis; the appellant appealed this order to Superior Court.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the appellee did not meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence that a nonparent should have custody equal to a parent, and that the court erred in weighing the evidence presented.

In support of her argument that appellee did not meet her burden of proof, the appellant argued that 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5327 requires a trial court to apply a presumption in favor of parents over nonparents, and, as a “nonparent,” the appellant did not meet her burden to overcome the presumption in favor of the appellee. The appellant also argued that the trial court erred in considering the parties’ informal shared custody arrangement when rending its decision.

In making its ruling, the Superior Court acknowledged that “even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the biological parents’ side.” In saying that, the Superior Court also recognized that this principle does “not preclude an award of custody to the nonparent.”

Additionally, the court made it clear that the “best interests” standard is still the touchstone when entering a child custody order. Furthermore, once someone is granted in loco parentis, she need not demonstrate that the other party is unfit, but rather merely demonstrate that it is in the best interests of the child (as proven by clear and convincing evidence) to be with the nonparent party.

The Superior Court ruled that the appellant did meet her burden of clear and convincing evidence, specifically by demonstrating that the parties lived out an agreed shared custody arrangement for a number of years, indeed most of the child’s life, and only discontinued that arrangement due to the appellee being upset over the appellant’s telephone call to the daycare center, as opposed to anything directly related to custody.

The Superior Court also indicated that the appellant’s interpretation of the law is incorrect. Namely, while the scales do tip heavily toward a parent over a nonparent, there is a distinction as to whether that nonparent is seeking shared, as opposed to primary, custody. As she was only seeking shared custody, the appellant only had the burden of clear and convincing evidence to bring the scales even with the appellee. Only if the appellant were seeking primary custody would she have to tip the scales hard toward herself under the burden of clear and convincing evidence.

Ultimately, a nonparent seeking shared custody of a child has to have standing and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that such a custody arrangement is in the best interest of a child.

This article was originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on June 27, 2019 and can be found here.

Templeton Project: Apology in the New Testament II

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Apology in the New Testament II.”

See also:

_______________

The word, defense or apology, is found twice at the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. The letter starts out with mention of sender and recipients, followed by a greeting.  Paul continues by giving thanks for the Philippian Christian community. He speaks of his defense and confirmation of the Gospel in partnership with the Philippians.  Paul is in prison when he writes this letter. A little bit later in the thanksgiving, Paul mentions that his imprisonment has served to advance the Word.  Furthermore, the Philippians have become bolder to share the Word as result of Paul’s situation and example.  He emphasizes that he finds himself in prison for the purpose of defending the Gospel.

The defense of the Gospel involves its proclamation so that others may believe.  To defend the Gospel is to witness to Christ.  When Christians are witnessing, they are proclaiming Christ so that people may believe.  To defend the Gospel is not a defensive measure in response to hostility, though hostility may be the case, but is an opportunity to share its power and truth boldly and humbly.  An apology is not an “I’m sorry,” the primary use of the word in English, but is a “Let me tell you about Jesus Christ and why He is the truth.”  Challenges to this witness will require answering questions and clearing up misunderstandings.  The Christian response should be respectful of the antagonist, rather than coarse, crass, and caustic.  The disciple is called to conduct oneself courteously both  in word and action without a deference that compromises the sharing of God’s powerful Word. Saint Peter puts itwell:  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (mine) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,  having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” ( I Peter 3: 14-17 ESV)

Michael G. Tavella

Templeton Project: The Biblical Foundation–Apology

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “The Biblical Foundation – Apology.”

See also:

___________________

In English the word apology most often means an expression of regret or sorrow for one’s lapse in behavior in word or action; but, it can also be used according to its meaning in ancient Greek, which is a defense of a point of view, opinion, idea, philosophy, religious belief, etc. In the New Testament the word is used in this latter sense in both its nominal and verbal forms.

Apology is used most often in Luke-Acts and Paul.  The verbal form appears two times in Luke, six times in the Book of Acts, and once in Romans and 2 Corinthians.  In Luke 12: 11 Jesus counsels the disciples, “And when they bring you before synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12: 11-12 ESV) The parallel passage in Matthew does not utilize the verb apologeomai, defend oneself, as does Luke.  The same is true when comparing Luke 21: 14 with parallels in Matthew and Mark.  Here again, only Luke employs the verbal form of apology while Matthew and Mark use a verb meaning to speak.

Luke 12: 11 pertains to the witness of the disciples at a time of persecution.  The Greek verb, apologeomai, in the English Standard Version of Luke 21: 14 is translated “to answer.”  The whole verse reads, “Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.”  (Luke 21: 14 ESV) In persecution the disciple has the opportnity to witness to the Gospel.  Both passages in Luke where apologeomai is used refer to persecution and martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples. The meaning in both contexts is the same.  The Christian replies to the charges of the opponent and, at the same time, testifies to the Gospel of Christ.

In Acts the verb is used six times.  Paul makes his defense before Felix in Acts 24; before Festus in Acs 25; and before Agrippa in Acs 26.

Luke does not use the noun apologia but Acts, written by Luke, does.  In Acts the word is used two times toward the end of the book, as is the case with the verbs.  The word refers to Paul’s defense of his ministry in public.  In Acts 22 Paul must defend himself against the Jews’ false accusation that he was teaching against the Law and bringing Gentiles into the Temple. In Acts 25 Paul makes his case before Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice.

In Acts 22 Paul gives an account of his conversion. Paul’s defense also served as opportunities to witness to Christ.  He insisted that he was not preaching against His people, the Law, or the government.  In Acts 26 Paul gives yet another account of his conversion.

Both verb and noun refer to Paul’s defense in various contexts that were of a juridical nature.  He defends himself against false charges, gives account of his conversion, and witnesses to Christ.  The crowd opposed to the Apostle interpreted his defense with loud threats aginst his person.  The government officials listem more sympathetically.

The next article will consider Paul’s use of apology in Philippians and then in I Peter, its only use outside of Luke-Acts and the Pauline correspondence.

Templeton Project: Grounds for the Project

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Grounds for the Project.”

___________________

The environment in America for debate on controversial subjects is replete with incivility, exemplified by politicians and news media. As a result, greater understanding on important matters has been lost in the turmoil.  No less has dialogue concerning topics of religion, especially those pertaining to Christianity, been caught in a Charybdis that inevitably leads to the disappearance and destruction of an environment in which the hearers could learn more about the subject at hand and the issues at stake.

This project, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, seeks to promote greater understanding and civility among Christians and atheists as they dialogue on matters pertaining to the Christian faith. The blog and response will test our ability to foster mutual respect on a subject that delves deeply into what is most important to human beings, the meaning of our lives in this world. It is not assumed that this is the first attempt to do this. But, it is a fresh undertaking that may or may not result in new insights.  If it fails in this,  it is hoped that it will at least provide a forum for the respectful exchange of views.  A small guide book for those in dialogue or seeking it will be produced as a result of this blog. Its primary purpose is to advise Christians.  But, atheists intent on positive dialogue will hopefully find it beneficial.

The Scriptural basis for this endeavor is found in I Peter:  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed.  Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” (I Peter 3: 13-17 ESV)

Here are the specific goals of the project, susceptible to revision.

We will endeavor

1. to foster greater civility and understanding on matters pertaining to the Christian faith and atheism.

2. to avoid contempt and, at all times, to show respect for one another.

3. to acknowledge our lapses of civility and to pledge to do better.

4. to reduce misunderstandings that come from lack of knowledge of the subjects of religion and atheism and to clarify what participants believe.

5. to commit to research on matters we know little about.

6. to explore religious and non-religious views of the world.

7. to emphasize the importance of accurate historical, scientific (natural science), philosophical and theological knowledge.

8. to commit ourselves to promoting understanding and civility among friends and family.

9.  to witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A committee has been formed to develop the resources to meet the above goals.  You will be hearing from them on this blog.

By: The Rev. Dr. Michael G. Tavella

Superior Court Navigates ‘Twists and Turns’ in Case Involving Paternity Tests

Pennsylvania Superior Court recently heard a rather complex and tangled case regarding how, when and what significance a paternity test may have in determining the paternity of a child. In the matter of H.Z. v. M.B., 2019 Pa.Super. 33, the Superior Court offered insights that may be instructive for other similar matters, especially in cases where attempted clever tactics and intrigue are elements.

In H.Z., the mother, seeking child support, filed for paternity testing in New York shortly before the child was born in March 2005. The results of the testing excluded M.B., the putative father. Consequently the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the mother would discontinue her paternity and support actions against M.B. with prejudice.

Two years later, the mother hired a private investigator to surreptitiously secure a sample of the father’s DNA. Specifically, the investigator followed M.B. to a Starbucks where he picked M.B.’s discarded coffee cup out of a trash can, and submitted it for genetic testing that resulted in a finding of a probability of over 99 percent percent that M.B. is the father of the child.

About a year later, the results of the investigator’s test motivated the mother to file a new paternity case against M.B., this time in New Jersey, where the mother had relocated. The case was transferred to Pennsylvania as New Jersey had no jurisdiction over M.B., who was a resident of Pennsylvania. A few months later, the parties again entered into a stipulation dismissing the mother’s case.

Undeterred, the mother almost immediately filed a third case, this time in Montgomery County, to which M.B. filed preliminary objections, a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay the testing, primarily on the basis of res judicata. While M.B. successfully had the Starbucks test excluded as evidence, per a motion in limine, the case, for some reason, was not scheduled for a hearing until about five years later. After that hearing the trial court ordered M.B. to submit to genetic testing once again. The father appealed, primarily on the basis of res judicata. In an unpublished opinion, the Superior Court ruled that the stipulation entered in the New York matter was in violation of New York law and, therefore, not controlling.

Finally, after another year’s time, M.B. submitted to a buccal swab genetic test requested by the mother’s petition requesting blood and hair testing, which again excluded M.B. as the father of the child. Upon receiving the result of this test, M.B. requested the dismissal of the case. The mother countered by requesting M.B. to submit to more rigorous testing on the basis that M.B.’s DNA samples had irregularities, and M.B.’s genetic profiles in the various tests all differed from one another which, she averred, means they did not come from the same person. The parties subsequently filed various motions seeking sanctions and striking filings. A trial court hearing on these issues was finally scheduled for December 2017.

At the hearing, the mother called two officials from the Montgomery County Domestic Relations Office who testified that, despite many years of experience and their knowledge of  hundreds of cases, neither have had a case where the DNA sample they collected was insufficient for testing. In opposition to these witnesses, M.B. called a DNA lab director who testified that there was no evidence of tampering, no issues with the chain-of-custody of the DNA sample, and no issues with testing protocols. While the lab director did note that the DNA that was recently tested did degrade, she could not come to a definite conclusion as to why.

After some of the witnesses testified at the hearing (as described above), the trial court scheduled at least two more days of testimony. Without explanation or apparent reason, the trial court suddenly entered an order concluding that M.B. is the father and directed that an appropriate support order be awarded. M.B. immediately appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

On appeal, M.B. argued that the mother’s case should be dismissed on the basis that the Montgomery County test excluded him as father. M.B. specifically argued that a paternity hearing could only be scheduled if the results of a genetic test did not indicate that the putative father was not excluded from being the father. Consequently, per M.B.’s argument, in the instant matter, as the Montgomery County test excluded him as the father, the aforesaid rule required the mother’s case to be dismissed. The Superior Court rejected this argument and decided that the rule does not limit the scheduling of a hearing only when a test does not indicate an exclusion. The court also pointed out that the rule does not provide that a genetic test—by itself—is sufficient to establish paternity but, instead, indicates that a hearing on the reliability of genetic testing is permissible. The Superior Court also found that Rule 1910.15(d)(4) sets forth “a clear course of conduct addressing every possible result of the genetic testing” and M.B.’s request for dismissal was not relief afforded to him by the rule.

M.B. further argued that the Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity (23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5104) eliminates any discretion on the part of the trial court to rule in this matter. Superior Court ruled that the aforesaid statute does not apply as no blood test ever took place in this matter, rejecting M.B.’s argument that it applies to all manner of genetic testing, not just blood testing.

M.B. then argued that 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4343 also requires the dismissal of an action for paternity when a man is excluded from paternity after genetic testing. The court rejected this argument as well, pointing out that the statute cited by M.B. actually directly opposes his argument. The Superior Court noted that the statute “does not provide that genetic tests are conclusive of the issue of paternity,” but such a determination may only be made by “a court in a civil action.” Additionally, the statute also allows for additional testing if a party contests the initial test.

M.B. proffered a cursory argument that additional testing would violate his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, as he did not raise this argument in a timely manner, the Superior Court did not consider it. Instead, it indicated that additional testing may be permitted if the first test can be demonstrated to be unreliable by the preponderance of the evidence.

M.B. finally argued that the trial court abused its discretion by basing its ruling on excluded evidence (the Starbucks cup) and the Montgomery County test (which he argued had no facts to suggest it was unreliable). The Superior Court was sympathetic to this particular argument, however it directed its focus to the fact that the trial court never completed the record due to inexplicably entering an order before finishing the hearing. As a result, the court could not sufficiently review the facts and evidence in the case as it was left incomplete. Indeed, the Superior Court ruled that 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4343 affords the mother the right to an additional genetic test at her own expense as a matter of right.

After all of the twists and turns in this case, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion when it ruled that M.B. is the father as the hearing was not complete. The Superior Court ultimately ruled that an additional test is to be administered if no stipulation between the parties is reached. If the new test indicates M.B. is the father, then a hearing may be scheduled to determine the reliability of the test. If M.B. is excluded as the father, then the parties may proceed to a hearing on the issue of paternity. If any additional testing is requested, then evidence of any prior tests’ unreliability must be presented, and Fourth Amendment implications can be considered. As a result, the trial court’s order was vacated and the matter was remanded for further proceedings and testing.

May this case be a warning to those who think that genetic testing to determine paternity speaks conclusively as to who a child’s father is or is not. While modern technology has made significant contributions in this area, there still remains sufficient doubt to warrant other forms of evidence and inquiry before a court.

This article was originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on March 19, 2019 and can be found here.

Ministerial Exception Defense Rejected In Suit To Apply Labor Code To Preschool Teachers

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple, (CA App., March 8, 2019), a California state appellate court held that teachers in a Reform Jewish Temple’s preschool are not covered by the ministerial exception rule.  In the case, California’s Labor Commissioner sued on behalf of 40 teachers alleging that the school violated the state’s Labor Code by failing to provide rest breaks, uninterrupted meal breaks, and overtime pay.In rejecting the Temple’s ministerial exception defense, the majority said in part:

Although the Temple’s preschool curriculum has both secular and religious content, its teachers are not required to have any formal Jewish education, to be knowledgeable about Jewish belief and practice, or to adhere to the Temple’s theology.  Further, the Temple does not refer to its teachers as “ministers” or the equivalent, nor do the teachers refer to themselves as such. Accordingly, we conclude the teachers are not “ministers” for purposes of the ministerial exception.

Presiding Judge Edmon filed a concurring opinion contending that the court need not reach the question of whether the teachers held “ministerial” positions, saying in part:

I would conclude that the Temple has not demonstrated that the ministerial exception has any application to the present dispute, which does not touch on the Temple’s freedom to choose its ministers or to practice its beliefs….

[T]he constitutional imperative against encroaching on a church’s selection of its ministers does not, as a logical matter, suggest that churches must be exempted from all laws that would regulate the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Given the number and variety of federal and state employment laws, it stands to reason that some laws will impose a greater burden on religious interests than will others. Accordingly, courts can, without doctrinal inconsistency, exempt churches from the application of some employment laws without exempting churches from all such laws.

You can learn more about this issue here.

City Settles Firefighter’s Religious Discrimination Suit

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The city of Utica, New York has settled a religious accommodation lawsuit that was filed against it by a firefighter who refuses to cut his hair after taking a Nazirite vow.  Under the settlement announced Friday, firefighter John Brooks has been granted a religious accommodation from the fire department’s grooming policy. A press release from First Liberty announced the settlement. First Liberty’s website has more on the case.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Christian School May Use Oregon’s Religious Exemption To Reject Jewish Faculty Applicant

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In King v. Warner Pacific College, (OR App, Feb. 21, 2019), an Oregon state appellate court held that a Christian college’s refusal to hire a Jewish applicant for a position as adjunct professor of psychology falls within the religious preference exemption to Oregon’s non-discrimination law.  ORS 659A.006(4)provides:

It is not an unlawful employment practice for a bona fide … religious institution, including … a school… to prefer an employee, or an applicant for employment, of one religious sect or persuasion over another if:  (a) The religious sect or persuasion to which the employee or applicant belongs is the same as that of the … institution; … [and]  (c) The employment involved is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the … institution….

The court held that the exemption allows the school to reject a non-Christian applicant and await a later hiring cycle to fill the position, or to assign the work to an existing Christian employee.  A majority of the judges also held that this particular faculty position met the requirement of being closely connected to the school’s religious purpose.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate Says Calls For Recusal Promise Are Attacks On His Religious Beliefs

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the controversy surrounding 2005- 2006 law school blog posts of a state appeals court judge Brian Hagedorn who is a candidate for the state Supreme Court in the upcoming April 2 election in Wisconsin.  As reported in an earlier Journal-Sentinel article, the posts sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling overturning anti-sodomy laws. saying they could lead to the legalization of bestiality. Hagedorn also attacked Planned Parenthood as an organization that was more devoted “to killing babies than to helping women.” Critics have called for Hagedorn to promise to recuse himself in cases involving same-sex relationships and Planned Parenthood. In a radio interview, Hagedorn, an evangelical Christian, says that the criticism of his posts and calls for recusal are attacks on his religious beliefs.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Post Navigation