Church of Body Modification Case.

Stuart BUCK stuartbuck at msn.com
Mon Dec 6 07:41:30 PST 2004 

What about the classic case of Theriault v. Silber, 453 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. 
Tex., 1978)?  The relevant portion of that case:


Several facts developed during the proceedings had at Atlanta in the case of 
Theriault v. Carlson, 339 F. Supp. 375, and succinctly restated by the Fifth 
Circuit in Theriault I and II, n3 are relevant to this Court's consideration 
herein. Among these are:

1. That "the Eclatarian faith, or Church of the New Song, was originally 
founded by Theriault and Jerry M. Dorrough at the federal penitentiary at 
Atlanta, Georgia, allegedly as the result of visions experienced by 
Theriault at the Marion, Illinois federal penitentiary in which he received 
prophetic messages from 'Eclat' informing him that he was the 'Eclatarian 
Nazarite' and directing him to establish the Church of the New Song." 
Theriault I and II, supra, footnote 1, p. 391;

2. That "Theriault acquired his Doctor of Divinity certificate through a 
mail order application. Theriault then, as self-appointed 'Bishop of Tellus' 
ordained Dorrough First Revelation Minister of the Church of the New Song . 
. .", supra, footnote 2, p. 392;

* * *

7. That Harry W. Theriault claims to be, among other things, the second 
Messiah, the Bishop of Earth (Tellus) (See generally Paratestament, 
Theriault) supra; and

8. That in the document submitted by Harry W. Theriault he claims that he 
would have established a new World order by 1976.

* * *


The Church of the New Song appears not to be a religion, but rather as a 
masquerade designed to obtain First Amendment protection for acts which 
otherwise would be unlawful and/or reasonably disallowed by the various 
prison authorities but for the attempts which have been and are being made 
to classify them as "religious" and, therefore, presumably protected by the 
First Amendment.

Rather than urging upon its followers any particular theology or philosophy 
of life, the Church of the New Song appears to encourage a relatively 
non-structured and free-form, do-as-you-please philosophy, the sole purpose 
of which is to cause or encourage disruption of established prison 
discipline for the sake of disruption. Disruption of and/or problems for 
prison authorities is not the result of this so-called religion; it is 
rather the underlying purpose of it. For example, the "Church's" one attempt 
at a paschal type feast produced a tongue-in-cheek request for prison 
authorities to supply steak and wine.


>From: "Marty Lederman" <marty.lederman at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Subject: Church of Body Modification Case.
>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:05:34 -0500
>
>Actually, I see no reason at all to think that this religion is in any way 
>bogus -- any more than mainstream religions with which we are much more 
>familiar.  More to the point, it need not be an actual established 
>"religion," as such, in order to be protected by title VII's religious 
>accommodation provision.  That law has been construed by the EEOC to track 
>the Seeger/Welch definitions of "religion," i.e., to protect "moral or 
>ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with 
>the strength of traditional religious views."  29 CFR 1605.1.
>
>Which leads back to Marc's question:  Is a "grooming" rule based upon 
>customer "preference" permissible in this area, even though an employer 
>obviously could not facially discriminate against blacks, or women, or 
>Jews, just because of customer preference?  I'm not sure what the answer 
>is, but I do want to suggest that the cases are not exactly parallel.  In 
>the classic "customer veto" case, the customers themselves would be 
>discriminating on the basis of the protected characteristic, and therefore 
>the law quite naturally does not permit the employer to tailor her business 
>practices to account for such customer biases.  In this case, presumably 
>the employer's not-implausible assumption is that customers will, rightly 
>or wrongly, look askance on multiple body piercings, not because they view 
>such piercings as religious in nature (to the contrary -- they'd probably 
>be as surprised as Richard that the piercings are religiously motivated), 
>but instead because of mainstream Western orthodoxy w/r/t such piercings 
>(ok on ears, not-so-ok on other parts of the face).  I'm not sure how this 
>would or should cut under title VII, but I suspect the CTA1 is correct that 
>courts have generally sided with employers in such cases.
>
>
>From: Menard, Richard H.
>   To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>   Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:41 AM
>   Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:. .:.
>
>
>   I've seen that in RFRA and RLUIPA cases: an almost neurotic reluctance 
>to call a bogus "religion" a spade.  Makes for messy jurisprudence, but by 
>and large the cases seem to come out right.
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Marc Stern
>     Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:35 AM
>     To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>     Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:. .:.
>
>
>     Could be, but the court specifically refused to rule on that issue.
>
>     Marc
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Menard, Richard H.
>     Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:30 AM
>     To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>     Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:.
>
>
>
>     I haven't read the opinion yet, but it sounds like a tacit judgment on 
>the sincerity of the belief.  Church of Body Modification, please.
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Marc Stern
>       Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:25 AM
>       To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>       Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case .:.
>
>
>
>
>
>       The First Circuit last week decided Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale 
>Corp, 04-1475 a Tile VII religious accommodation case. The plaintiff 
>claimed to be a member of the Church of Body Modification which required 
>members to wear facial jewelry. Such jewelry violated Costco's no facial 
>jewelry policy. The Court found that an accommodation of the faith would 
>have constituted undue hardship to Costco because customers would be 
>offended by the appearance of facial jewelry." Courts....have also upheld 
>dress code policies that....are designed to appeal to customer preference 
>or to promote a professional public image."
>
>       I find this astonishing. No court would uphold a whites only hiring 
>policy on ground of customer preference. Airlines long ago lost the 
>argument about customer preferences for sexy stewardesses. Why is religious 
>garb different?
>
>       The judicial evisceration of Title VII's religious accommodation 
>provisions continues apace.
>
>       Marc Stern
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following 
>annotations on 12/06/2004, 08:29:41 AM
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is 
>privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
>delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
>   Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following 
>annotations on 12/06/2004, 08:44:39 AM
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is 
>privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
>delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>   To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>   Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

More information about the Religionlaw mailing list