Sunday, February 19, 2012
Headley v. Church of Scientology
In an article posted on Courthouse News Service, the details of the Headley v. Church of Scientologycase are discussed, bringing up serious issues regarding the government’s role in regulating a religious organization’s practices. Husband and wife Claire and Marc Headley are bringing two separate cases against the Church of Scientology for forced labor, a case that if won could mean a rejection of the ministerial exception established in the First Amendment.
The Headleys claim that they were members of the Church of Scientology’s Sea Org for nearly 15 years, during which time they were prohibited from having children and were forced into having two abortions. Claire Headley claimed that individuals who left the church were threatened, coerced to return, and deprived of food and water in addition to other punishments. Marc Headley claims to have experienced physical abuse from other ministers at the church and that the church threatened he would not be able to leave the church without first going through a “routing out” process in which he would perform labor without pay.
The Headleys first attempted to sue the Church of Scientology in 2010 based on the terms of Trafficking Victims Act which “prohibits…obtaining the labor or services of a person by means of force, threats of force, physical restraints, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person” (US Dept. of Justice). Their attempt was unsuccessful, deemed by the courts to fall under the ministerial exemption provided by the First Amendment. Thus, the Headleys, as ministers in a religious organization were incapable of filing a civil rights case against their employer. Now, the Headleys are appealing that decision.
However, this case is about more than simply the Headleys’ claim of involuntary servitude. It is yet another example of the government’s role in regulating the practices of religious organizations. While the ministerial exception allows religious institutions to conduct their organization without government interference, individual constitutional rights are also at stake here. As we’ve seen in other cases in US history, the government has long been caught between these two positions-that of ensuring civil rights and protecting the freedom of religious organizations. Recalling the Reynolds v. United States (1879) case, the court ruled that one’s religion cannot excuse his actions or practices. To do so, according to the court, would be to be set religious law above the law of the land. In other words, a religious organization can believe what they want, but when the actions and practices are “subversive of good order” the courts can regulate that activity.
Thus, it would seem that in the Headley’s case the government should step in to prevent the subversive actions of the church. Laws meant to protect the freedom of a religious organization to hire upon their own discernment should not interfere with the ability of individuals to file a civil liberty case against his/her employer. Religious freedom should not come at the price of an individual’s first amendment protection under the law.
Tags:
0 Responses to “Headley v. Church of Scientology”
Post a Comment