by Heather DonckelsExcerpted from: Religion News Service
Freemasonry may rank with Christianity, Judaism and Islam as an official form of "religious exercise," a California court of appeals suggested in a ruling on Oct. 3. As such, Masons would fall under the protections of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), the landmark law that says government may not infringe on religious buildings without a compelling interest.
"We see no principled way to distinguish the earnest pursuit of these (Masonic) principles ... from more widely acknowledged modes of religious exercise," the statement said. The case involves the Los Angeles Scottish Rite Cathedral (LASRC) and the Scottish Rite Cathedral Association of Los Angeles (SRCALA). The court concluded that "chief" Masonic principles include "the reverence of a Supreme Being and the embrace of other forms of religious worship."
The court said it could find "no decisions analyzing whether Masonic practices are sufficiently religious in nature to qualify under RLUIPA,"which says the government cannot "impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person."
The court's statement countered a lower court's opinion that "the `Freemason' organization is (not) a religion."
May the blessings of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brotherly love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us.
1 comment:
"The court said it could find "no decisions analyzing whether Masonic practices are sufficiently religious in nature to qualify under RLUIPA,"which says the government cannot "impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person."
This statement contradicts the title of the post, as well as the assertions by some that the ruling somehow proves that Freemasonry falls into a religious category.
If one reads the entire decision, which is offered online, then one will see that the religious assertion is bogus and that the court could not offer any proof otherwise.
However, few will read the entire account and only go by the headlines that contradict themselves, yet exist only to inflame.
--L.A. Chose
Post a Comment