Court Opinion

ID: 9701464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:14.902466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:21.497704
License: Public Domain

J. HARVEY HUDSON, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion in all respects and write separately only to further address the contention raised by Joe Myers Toyota that Grant failed to show she has a bona fide religious belief which reasonably conflicts with the required sales training.
As part of the Automotive Sales Training class, Grant was required to read Og Mandino’s book, The Greatest Salesman in the World. A fictional tale set in New Testament times, the book recounts how Hafid, the servant of a wealthy Middle East merchant, aspired to be “the greatest merchant, the wealthiest man, and the greatest salesman in all the world.” While on a business trip to Bethlehem, Hafid donates a valuable robe to a young woman and her newborn infant child who have taken refuge from the cold in the stables outside his inn. Shortly thereafter, Hafid is given a mysterious set of ten scrolls *425containing the secrets of life and the principles of how to become a great salesman.
Incorporating the principles and teachings of the ten scrolls, Hafid becomes immensely wealthy. At the end of a rich and successful life, Hafid encounters Paul, the apostle of Christ. Paul is depressed and frustrated. He relates that he has tried for four years to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, but all of his efforts have ended in failure. Hafid then delivers the secret scrolls to Paul. Incorporating the teachings of the scrolls, Paul then becomes the greatest salesman in all the world.
The ten scrolls are set forth in the book. After reading the first scroll, Grant concluded that Mandino’s teachings were contrary to her beliefs as a Christian, and she refused to read the remainder of the book. Joe Myers Toyota argues that Grant failed to articulate how the tenets of her Christian faith are in conflict with Mandino’s teachings. In its brief, Joe Myers Toyota states that Mandino is an ordained minister and that if Grant had finished reading his book she would not have been offended because the book simply teaches “the values of charity, love, dedication and faithfulness — all true Christian values.” Thus, we are invited to compare Mandino’s book with the doctrines of the Christian faith and decide whether they are in conflict.
It is the role of theologians, not courts, to define the accepted tenets of a particular faith.1 In determining whether a person holds a “bona fide religious belief,” the test is not whether his or her beliefs fit within the “accepted” parameters of a particular religious faith because to do so would be tantamount to “establishing” an approved religion.2 Rather, the question before the court should be whether the religious belief is “bona fide” in the sense that it is truly a deeply held religious conviction of the person under inquiry, not whether it comports with the doctrines of a recognized religious faith.3
While it is the plaintiffs burden to establish that he or she possesses a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with his employment duties, this is not a particularly difficult task.4 Here, Ms. Grant described herself as an “evangelical Christian.”
Broadly speaking, “evangelical” is a term used to describe all Protestants who follow a traditional, often conservative doctrine.5 Thus, the term “evangelical Christian” has general reference “to a broad group of believers who (1) have had a *426born-again (conversion) experience resulting in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; (2) accept the full authority of the Bible in matters of faith and the conduct of everyday life; and (3) are committed to spreading the gospel by bearing public witness to their faith.”6 They are orthodox in their beliefs and embrace the fundamentals of the Christian faith;7 they “will not accept any theological claim that abandons classic Christian beliefs about the person of Jesus: his messiahship, incarnation, bodily resurrection, or divinity.”8
Grant’s objection to the training course was not merely reading the book — the students were also required to assimilate the teachings of the scrolls into their minds and thereby change their attitudes and outlook on life. The scrolls are filled with religious imagery and teach that through the power of positive thinking, one can be “born again” by becoming a slave to good habits. These habits are cultivated by reading aloud the teachings of the scrolls three times a day — “when I arise,” “after I have partaken of my midday meal,” and “just before I retire at day’s end.” Each scroll is to be read in this manner for thirty days. The pupil is to recite and confirm in his memory self-affirming thoughts such as — -“I am nature’s greatest miracle”; “I will be the master of my emotions”; “I control my destiny, and my destiny is to become the greatest salesman in the world”; and “I will multiply my value a hundredfold.” The tenth scroll concludes with a prayer which is to be offered to the “creator of all things” in which the pupil again expresses his or her desire for good habits and success. Grant perceived the ritualistic readings and oral chanting as a form of prayer. She was uncomfortable with the practice and refused to participate. She also objected to specific teachings contained in the first scroll, namely: (1) “bad habits” are the source of failure; (2) “good habits” are the key to all success; and (3) the first law to be obeyed above all others is to become the “slave of good habits.” Citing specific verses of scripture in support of her beliefs, Grant said: (1) sin, not bad habits, is the door to failure; (2) Jesus Christ, not good habits, is “the way, the truth and the light”; (3) and that as a Christian, she was obliged to love the Lord her God and to have no other gods before Him. She stated that she believed the course was attempting “to change my mind about my belief in Christ.”
Grant also objected to teachings regarding the autonomy of man. Dick Smouse, an ordained minister and the course instructor, allegedly told the class they were gods.9 Grant took issue with this teaching:
... he asked us to look at an overhead light similar to this one. And he said that man created that light, that we were gods and we had the power and the ability to create and the fact — to prove it was, that we had created this light. I said, “No, we didn’t create this light.” And he said, “Well, we sure did.” And then he says, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute.” He said, “Who in my class is a Christian?” And I raised my hand. And I think a couple of others did.... Then he said, “Who in my class is a *427strong Christian?” And my hand went back up. He says, “Well, Christians are flaky, irresponsible and undependable.” And I said, “Mr. Smouse, that’s not true because I’m a Christian and I’m not any of those.”
(Emphasis added). The following day, Ms. Grant again articulated her objections to the teaching:
... when class began, I said, “Mr. Smouse,” I said, “remember yesterday when you said that we created this light?”
He said, “Yes, we created it.”
I said, “No, we invented it. Man invented it but God gave man the wisdom to do that because we’re not God, we didn’t create anything.”
And he said, “Well, I say we created it.”
And then I said, “Mr. Smouse, may I say something?”
And he said yes.
I said, “I cannot read this book.” And I said, “I just can’t. It goes against everything I believe as a Christian. I cannot read this scroll. I cannot read it in the morning, at noon, at night. I can’t say it aloud. I just can’t. I said, “Is there any way that I can continue this class?”
He said, “That’s part of the class. You have to read it.” I said [I] can’t. He said, “Mrs. Grant, you’re dismissed.”
If Grant’s account of the class is accurate, the Automotive Sales Training course required by Joe Myers Toyota contrasts sharply with her Christian beliefs. In fact, the instructor allegedly acknowledged his hostility toward traditional Christian doctrine.
By some estimates, evangelicals comprise between one-fifth to one-fourth of the American population.10 In addition, adherents of orthodox Judaism or Islam would also likely find it impossible to participate in the course for many of the same reasons articulated by Ms. Grant. “New age” training programs have been highly controversial for more than a decade.11 It should have been anticipated that at least some persons would not be able to participate in the Automotive Sales Training class due to bona fide religious convictions, yet no reasonable accommodation was planned, made, or offered by Joe Myers Toyota.
Grant offered sufficient proof that she possessed bona fide religious beliefs which conflicted with the required training class; thus, the trial court erred in granting Joe Myers Toyota’s motion for summary judgment. With these observations, I join the majority opinion in all respects.

. See Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1953) (holding that it is “no business of courts to say ... what is a religious practice or activity,” because it "is merely an indirect way of preferring one religion over another”). However, the fact that a particular belief is shared by others of the same faith or sect may provide some evidence that it represents the true belief of the person asserting it.

. See Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1437 (9⅛ Cir. 1981); U.S. Const, amend. I ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”).

. See International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 441 (2 nd Cir. 1981) (holding that "those beliefs which are held as a matter of conscience” are protected, and that any inquiry involving the verity of the underlying belief is "forbidden”). See also Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192 F.3d 826, 830 (9 th Cir.1999) (noting that the employee had proven he "had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty” because it was "uncontested that [he] sincerely believes that his religion prevents him from providing a social security number”) (emphasis added); Barbara L. Kramer, Reconciling Religious Rights and Responsibilities, 30 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 439, 448 (1999).

. See Philbrook v. Ansonia Board of Education, 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2 nd Cir. 1985), aff'd, 479 U.S. 60, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). See also Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond, 101 F.3d 1012, 1019 (4 th Cir. 1996) (holding that a plaintiff establishes the existence of a bona fide religious belief by merely alleging it if the employer offers no evidence to the contrary).

. Jonathan Turley, Laying Hands on Religious Racketeers: Applying Civil RICO to Fraudulent Religious Solicitation, 29 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 441, 459 (1988).

. See Mark A. Shibley, Americans and Religions in the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Evangelicals: Born-Again and World Affirming, 558 Annals 67, 69 (1998) (The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science).

. Ms. Grant testified that she believes the Bible is the true word of God, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that in September of 1973, her past deeds were forgiven when she came into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

. David P. Gushee, The Holocaust: Remembering for the Future, 548 Annals 138, 142 (1996).

. A common characteristic of "new age” training programs is that students are told they are deities equal to God. See Charles E. Mitchell, New Age Training Programs: In Violation of Religious Discrimination Laws?, 41 Lab. L.J. 410, 411 (1990).

. Stephen Bloch, Cumulative Voting and the Religious Right: In the Best Interest of Democracy?, 24 J. Contemp. L. 1, 20 (1998).

. See Mitchell, New Age Training Programs, supra at 410-11 (1990).