|
DATE: September
29, 2004
On September 2, 2004, The
Hindu American Foundation (HAF) (www.hinduamericanfoundation.org)
submitted an amicus (friend of court) letter, with ten co-signatories
spanning the religious spectrum, in support of a request for
injunctive relief filed by the Hindu Temple Society of North
America in United States federal court on August 4, 2004.
The federal lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Hindu temple by
the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and supported by the
HAF amici curiae letter, that was one of the last documents
accepted by United States District Judge Raymond Dearie for
review, claimed that the Supreme Court of the State of New
York engaged in a hostile takeover of the prominent Hindu
Temple in Queens, New York.
The Becket Fund and HAF
hold that the state court, and an appointed referee who is
not Hindu, have unconstitutionally intruded upon the Hindu
temple in response to efforts by six dissident members to
gain control over the temple. The referee, Anthony Piacentini,
is currently in control over the daily administration of the
temple, including determining who qualifies as a “member”
and whether a member need be Hindu, because the state court
asserts that it has been unable to gain the cooperation of
the current Board in restructuring the governance of the temple.
The state court found that an earlier set of the by-laws required
the Hindu temple to have a voting membership to decide numerous
matters pertaining to the temple, including electing Board
members. The text of the amici letter clarifies that HAF does
not advocate for a specific party in the internal temple dispute.
“Our role is not to
recommend how a temple chooses to structure its governance
or for whom the courts should rule when temple disputes reach
the tragic point of filing lawsuits,” asserts Suhag
Shukla, Esq., Legal Counsel for HAF. “But HAF is concerned
that a similar dispute at a church or synagogue would not
have ended in the takeover of that institution by an outsider
who controls every aspect of that institution from administration
to how and when religious rites may be performed.” She
also added, “And certainly, we are, by no means, advocating
a position that religious organizations are somehow above
the law. However, there are numerous alternatives a court
may avail itself of to ensure that its orders are carried
out such as holding uncooperative parties in contempt. In
the instant case, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
chose to act in a way that ignores the fundamental principle
of separation of church and state.”
The Becket Fund and HAF
claimed in their filings that the state court intruded into
every level of temple administration in violation of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution—amendments
that guarantee the right to free exercise and equal protection
under the law, respectively. On September 16, 2004, Judge
Dearie ruled that the federal court appreciated the important
First Amendment concerns raised by the Becket Fund and HAF,
but chose to abstain from overruling the state courts at this
time.
“While we are obviously
disappointed that the federal court did not reverse the unconstitutional
ongoing interference into temple affairs by the New York Supreme
Court,” said Ms. Shukla, “HAF will continue to
support the Becket Fund in their appeal and continue to spread
awareness as to the crucial principles at stake.”
The text of the HAF letter
can be viewed in full on the Beckett Fund website at http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/87.html.
The letter that was presented by HAF on behalf of AGNI Corporation,
the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, the Hindu
Human Rights Group, the Hindu International Council Against
Defamation, Hindu University of America, Ile Obatala Oya,
Kanchi Kamakoti Seva Foundation, Navya Shastra, and the Queens
Federation of Churches, discusses how the state court system
has burdened the Hindu Temple Society's religious practice:
"The
order mandating a state-sponsored referee to determine the
method by which the Hindu Temple structures and governs itself;
who qualifies as a member, an inquiry which potentially includes
determining who qualifies as a 'Hindu; and imposing rule by
a majority of state-approved members, absent any legal basis,
appears punitive and represents a potentially hostile interference
into the sanctity of the Hindu Temple. It also clearly interferes
with the Hindu Temple’s ability to function, let alone
exercise its religion, as the Board of Trustees, which as
an entity has governed the Hindu Temple for the past thirty
years, is no longer able conduct its business including appointing,
hiring and dismissing priests; exercising authority over the
design and expansion of the temple grounds according to Hindu
religious principles; managing the scheduling of religious
services at the temple; deciding which divinities will be
honored as well as the forms of devotion that will occur at
the temple; controlling the finances of the temple; and all
other aspects of religious and temporal activities associated
with the temple."
“The fact that ten
organizations representing three different religions signed
onto a letter authored by HAF indicates the broad relevance
of this issue,” said Mihir Meghani, M.D., President
of HAF. “Furthermore,” continued Dr. Meghani,
“It highlights well the role HAF can play in representing
Hindu interests in just such a circumstance—something
few other Hindu organizations are able to do.”
For
further information: Please contact
HAF.
HAF is a non-profit, tax-exempt
501(c)(3) organization not aligned or affiliated with any
political entity, party or organization.
|
