player

Thursday, February 07, 2008

State Supreme Court to hear Northshore UCC case

In August 2007, Northshore United Church of Christ (NUCC) filed a petition with the Washington State Supreme court requesting review of a July 16, 2007 Washington Court of Appeals ruling. The Appeals Court ruling affirmed the June 12, 2006 trial court order to evict the Tent City 4 homeless encampment from the church's property during the encampment’s 90 day stay in the summer of 2006.

On February 6, 2008, the Washington State Supreme Court took an important step toward defending the freedom of religious practice in Washington State when it agreed to review the Appeals Court decision in the Tent City 4 case—a decision which significantly limited religious freedom in Washington.

At issue in the appeal is the Northshore United Church of Christ’s (NUCC) freedom to minister to the needy and the homeless on its property. The congregation of Northshore United Church of Christ (NUCC) agreed to host transitional housing for residents of Tent City 4 for 90 days in 2006, residents who would have become homeless without the hospitality of the church.

We are delighted that the Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the lower court rulings. We believe the Supreme Court will reverse those rulings because they represent a serious threat to the rights of Washington citizens to the free exercise of religion.

Those lower court rulings represent a serious threat to religious liberty because:

  • They allow the courts to judge how and when a church may exercise its right to free exercise of religion.
  • They misread the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), which represents Congress’s determination that churches should be allowed to use their own property for religious purposes as they see fit subject to only limited exceptions.
  • They give no weight to the Washington State Constitution’s freedom of religion clause even though the State Constitution guarantees even broader rights to religious freedom than does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

No comments: