"In a case involving the Los Angeles Scottish Rite Cathedral and the City of Los Angeles, the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles held it could not distinguish between "the earnest pursuit of [Masonic] principles ... from more widely acknowledged modes of religious exercise" such as Christianity or Judaism. "They cited the US Federal law the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 in support of their contention, saying it prohibits a government from implementing a land use regulation in a way that "imposes a substantial burden" on one's "religious exercise." "The Court held that it could find "no decisions analyzing whether Masonic practices are sufficiently religious in nature to qualify for protection" under law. However it used the test adopted by the courts in the case of the US v Meyers that presented a five-pronged test in defining whether a creed or belief was a "religious belief" and determined it was a religion."

We have found no decisions analyzing whether Masonic practices are sufficiently religious in nature to qualify for protection under RLUIPA, nor have the parties identified any such authority to us. We have considered, however, numerous attempts by courts to define more particularly the nature of religious belief and found especially useful the opinions in U.S. v. Meyers (D.Wyo.1995) 906 F.Supp. 1494, affd. (10th Cir.1996) 95 F.3d 1475 (concluding professed belief in Church of Marijuana not a religious belief within meaning of RFRA), and Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 39, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 (concluding veganism is not religious creed within definition of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov.Code, S12900 et seq.). The Meyers court adopted a multi-part test inquiring into (1) the ultimate ideas embraced by the asserted belief; (2) metaphysical ideas addressing transcendence of the physical world; (3) moral or ethical systems constraining an adherent's conduct; (4) comprehensiveness of beliefs; and (5) accoutrements of religion such as a founder or teacher, important writings, gathering places, keepers of knowledge, ceremonies and rituals, structure and propagation or recruitment. (U.S. v. Meyers, supra, 906 F.Supp. at pp. 1502-1503.) Friedman, on the other hand, elected a three-part test inquiring whether the claimed belief addresses fundamental and ultimate questions, is comprehensive in nature and consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. (Friedman, at p. 69, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 663.) Although Freemasonry does not identify itself as a religion and need not for purposes of RLUIPA, it plainly fosters principles and practices that resemble religious exercise under the tests articulated above.³

1.Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, title 42 United States Code section 2000cc et seq. 2.George Conger, "Seventh District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles declares that Freemasonry is a religion", Church of England Newsletter, [CEN 10.19.07]. 18 October 2007, p. 6. Text mirrored from geoconger.wordpress.com. 3.Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. SCOTTISH RITE CATHEDRAL ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. Windsor Square Association, Intervener and Respondent.No.B194230. Decided: October 3, 2007. Full text of ruling available at caselaw.findlaw.com.