Neil Foster

The University of Newcastle, Law/Social Sciences, Faculty Member

Followers

222

Following

Co-author

Public Views

Associate Professor in Law at Newcastle Law School, NSW, Australia. Teaching and researching on Torts, Law
Address: See other papers at http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/ and http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=504828 .

less

Interests

Uploads

Papers by Neil Foster

Individual liability of company officers: Neil Foster

Manslaughter by Managers: The Personal Liability of Company Officers for Death Flowing from Company Workplace Safety Breach

Banning churches from meeting in New York public schools

Banning churches from meeting in New York public schools Should Christians who do not own their o... more Banning churches from meeting in New York public schools Should Christians who do not own their own "church building" be allowed to meet in public schools on a Sunday? Officials in the New York City Board of Education do not think so, and the courts in the United States have supported their decision. The recent decision of the US Supreme Court to refuse what in Australia would be called "special leave to appeal" 1 leaves in place the decision of the lower court, the US Court of Appeal 2 nd Circuit, in The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York 650 F 3d 30 (2011) (available here). This 2-1 ruling upholds as valid the decision of the New York City authorities to ban the hiring of public schools on Sundays by churches. Comments suggest at least 60 independent churches will be affected, and have to relocate by February 2012. 2 How can a decision of this sort, which seems so clearly to discriminate against the churches (when other community groups will be allowed to continue to hire the school rooms for their purposes), be upheld in a country with what seems to be a clear Constitutional right of freedom of religion? The purpose of this note is to explain the reasoning of the majority in the 2 nd Circuit decision in light of the complex jurisprudence on the First Amendment, and also to suggest that the dissenting judgment of Walker J was the correct approach. Sadly, with the denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court, this odd decision will be implemented unless (as has been suggested) legislators in New York State succeed in overturning the City decision. 3 Constitutional Background By way of background, it is worth spelling out what the US Constitution says on this issue. The First Amendment 4 provides as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The first two clauses are of primary interest in the "freedom of religion" context. They are broadly described as the "no establishment" clause, and the "free exercise" clause. But, as we will see, it is actually the third clause, the "free speech" clause, which played a key role in this case. While these clauses are directed at "Congress" and so prima facie only binding on the Federal Government, in its decisions in Cantwell v Connecticut 310 US 296 (1940) and Everson v Board of Education 330 US 1 (1947) the Supreme

format_quoteThe expansive interpretation of the 'non-establishment' clause restricts government entanglement with religion significantly.format_quote

Download

Decision in Eweida, Ladele etc appeal

Download

What happened to the Resurrection

Download

Can Directors Insure Against Criminal Workplace Health and Safety Penalties

Religious Freedom Briefing Neil Foster.pdf

Religious Freedom at Australian Universities

The topic of "religious freedom" has assumed more importance in Australia in the last few years. ... more The topic of "religious freedom" has assumed more importance in Australia in the last few years. There are a number of reasons for this, including the increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse nature of Australian society, the shrinking number of persons who express commitment to what was previously the mainstream Christian consensus in society, 2 and a general move in the wider community away from a previously shared set of moral values about issues to do with sexuality and "birth and death" issues. For all these reasons, and perhaps others, there has been a heightened debate over the extent to which Australian society should support decisions of religious believers to live and act in ways that are mandated by their religion, but which are not usually supported for the community at large, or are unpopular. Given the role of Universities as a key source of general education, and research into important social issues, it is not surprising that some of these matters have started to affect the life of the University. In this paper I want to outline some of the challenges faced by believers who are part of University communities, and to note how the law and other policies currently deal with these challenges. The paper is not uniformly pessimistic about religious freedom on campus in Australia, but notes that there are areas where arguably change needs to take place to protect this important human right. Because I work at the University of Newcastle, and this paper is being presented to an audience at that University, most of my examples of law and policy relate to that context. I should say at the outset, however, that in my experience our University has generally supported appropriate academic and religious freedom, and many of the most concerning developments which can be seen from overseas are not present here. But "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", 3 and so it is worth being aware of possible future challenges.

Download

Religious Freedom in Australia overview 2017 update