New Indian Express, New York's Hindu temple attracts media spotlightNew York's Hindu temple attracts media spotlight
New Indian Express
Friday, August 27, 2004
NEW YORK: A Hindu temple in Flushing, Queens, has shot into prominence with its trustees asking for an injunction on a state court order that asks the temple to conduct elections and have proper audits.
Attorneys for the Ganesh temple, the oldest Hindu temple in North America, citing the principle of the separation of religion and state, asked a federal judge on Aug 26 to place an injunction on the state Supreme Court order.
When the case came up for hearing at a Brooklyn court it was packed with Indian Americans, some of them with sandalwood and ash marks on their forehead, many of the women in saris, eliciting curious glances from visitors to the federal court.
The mainstream New York press was also represented. The matter, which was only a local and community issue in Queens, gained national prominence after the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took up the case.
Roman Storzer of The Becket Fund asked federal judge, Justice Raymond J Dearie, to issue an injunction barring the New York State Supreme Court Judge Joseph J. Golia and his appointed referee, Anthony J. Piacentini, from engaging in further activity that would jeopardize the rights and autonomy of the Hindu Temple Society of North America, of Flushing, Queens, and its devotees.
Justice Dearie, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, said he would study the issues at stake for a week before arriving at an opinion, let alone passing an order.
He did not interfere with the Supreme Court order summoning the trustees for a contempt hearing on Sep 1.
The Becket Fund is an international, interfaith, public interest law firm that has represented numerous religious denominations - including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Native Americans, and Sikhs - in a variety of cases involving constitutional, federal, and state issues.
Amy Held appearing for the state Supreme Court pointed out that if a handful of plaintiffs were granted an order to protect their religious rights, other non-parties could also seek protection of their rights in turn. This would lead to endless litigation.
Storzer, who appeared for the plaintiffs, had no answer to this query. Instead, he simply responded that his clients had "sincere religious beliefs" that elections were improper under Hindu religion.
Held also argued that the federal court could not interfere in the state court proceedings because the state proceedings afforded plaintiffs an adequate opportunity for raising their claims. Relevant Cases
| 
