 |
|
|
|
 The Supreme Court handed down a landmark religious liberty ruling on Wednesday.
January 12th, 2012
09:58 AM ET
My Take: Huge win for religious liberty at the Supreme CourtBy Douglas Laycock, Special to CNN Editor’s note: Douglas Laycock, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Virginia, represented Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in the case the Supreme Court decided Wednesday. (CNN) - Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision holding that ministers cannot sue their churches for employment discrimination was a huge win for religious liberty. It was unanimous, it was sweeping and it was unqualified. This decision was about separation of church and state in its most fundamental sense. Churches do not run the government, select government leaders, or set criteria for choosing government leaders. And government does not run the churches, select religious leaders, or set criteria for choosing religious leaders. The Court unanimously reaffirmed that principle on Wednesday.
Cheryl Perich was a commissioned minister at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. She taught religion every day; she led prayers and devotional exercises every day; she planned and led chapel services. She also taught the rest of the fourth-grade curriculum. She was required to complete eight college-level theology courses; she was “called” to her office by a vote of the congregation; and she was commissioned as a “Minister of Religion.” When she got sick, Hosanna-Tabor carried her at full pay and full benefits for seven months. This was a terrible hardship in a church and school with seven teachers, 84 students and deep financial problems. In its effort to preserve a job for Perich to return to, the school put three grades in one classroom for a whole semester. It went far beyond the requirements of law in its efforts to accommodate her disability. Finally, at the semester break, the school reluctantly decided it had to replace her. When she provoked a confrontation at the school and threatened to sue the church, the congregation rescinded her call, for insubordination and for violating one of the church doctrines she was supposed to teach and model. There was a well developed church grievance process that she could have used, run by the denomination, with hearing officers independent of the local church. And there was longstanding church teaching that disputes over ministry must be resolved in that process, by Lutherans who understood the church and its faith, and not by the civil courts. The details of this employment dispute were not the issue in the Supreme Court. Rather, the issue was who decides. If ministers were allowed to sue for employment discrimination, judges and juries would wind up deciding who is a good minister, worthy of retention, and who is not. These cases end with a jury deciding whether the employer had a good enough reason to justify its decision. In Perich’s case, a jury would have decided whether she was fit for Lutheran ministry even after she defied Lutheran teaching. The Supreme Court unanimously said that ministers cannot sue their churches for employment discrimination. It defined “ministers” broadly, to include priests and rabbis and imams and persons with mixed religious and secular duties. And it said that the church need not explain its decision, because the reasons are none of the court’s business. The selection and retention of ministers is entirely the responsibility of the churches. Some churches will exercise this authority wisely; some may not. Denominations and associations of churches would do well to establish grievance procedures that really work, like the one that Cheryl Perich failed to use. But whatever the ratio of wise decisions to bad decisions, it is far better for the American tradition of religious liberty for the selection of ministers to be entrusted to the churches those ministers serve. Wednesday’s decision also protects the right of churches to define the qualifications of their clergy. Some churches have requirements that are forbidden to secular employers. Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and some Protestant denominations do not ordain women. Catholics require celibacy, violating laws on marital status discrimination in many states. Some denominations refuse to ordain sexually active gays and lesbians, violating sexual orientation laws in many states. There are no exceptions written into the discrimination laws to protect these longstanding religious practices. They have been protected only by the constitutional rule that the Court reaffirmed Wednesday – that ministers cannot sue their churches for employment discrimination. Of course, some members of these faiths would like to change these rules. But who is eligible for ordination is a theological issue to be fought out within each religious tradition, not an issue to be decided by courts or legislatures. It would be absurd for courts to order an end to Catholic celibacy rules, or to entertain a class action alleging that women are underrepresented in the clergy of some denomination that ordains women but has not ordained as many women as men. The legal rule that prevents such lawsuits is the ministerial exception that the Supreme Court reaffirmed Wednesday. Both the rules for selecting ministers, and the evaluation of ministers in individual cases, are decisions for the nation’s religious organizations – not the government. That is the welcome meaning of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Douglas Laycock. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
So the real question is, who's paying the court costs for this? And why is a non-taxable organization using the courts of the tax payers? How ridiculous! I'm outraged! Somebody from that church better pay up!
I thought the church was the one being sued. Unless I misread the article.
J.W They were but its still the problem of theirs in our courts. The case should have never been accepted.
What about the person who was suing them? Are they just screwed then because they happened to be suing a church?
@ J.W
No the church should be recognized for the business that it is and have to follow the same laws everyone else does. Anti-discrimination laws do not impact theology.
Your lack of discernment here is prodigious.
No problem here. Let the churches continue to do what they have been doing all along. Discriminating at will against whatever it doesn't want within it's walls. Patrons who feel persecuted by those church established rules should know what they're buying into before they dive in. So too bad so sad if you didn't do your homework first. Lesson learned? Want a job protected by anti-discrimination laws? Then don't work for a church.
You can go to any church you want. You just can not be in a leadership position if you do not follow the rules of the church.
"Discriminating at will against whatever it doesn't want within it's walls."
Hmmm...unless you are a very strange person...I think you do this very thing with your own home correct?
As a non-believer, I think that if churches can be discriminatory against its workers and against US policy, I think churches need to get OUT OF POLITICS! And pay their fair share of taxes!
Very well said.
A company would have fired this woman a long time ago. They went beyond the law to keep the woman employed who could not work at her job. READ THE article!
Tread softly-atheist orgs. are labelled non-profits too.
This isn't a win for religious liberty - it's a win for granted more exceptions for relgions. A church is no different than any other business (more closely related to not-for-profit businesses than a corner store, but still a business), and should have to follow the same rules as anyone else. The courts wouldn't be put into a position to say whether the lutheran minister is still qualified as a lutherin minister, they'd be put into a position to determine if the church violated labor laws and/or the ministers employment contract.
Not for profit my A$$
I do agree with you that the employment agreement should still be reviewed but not sooner than the churches paying income tax. Not on our dollar!
Okay, so if there is a trial concerning a, let's say, discrimination or conduct in the Lutheran church the Jury should only be made of Lutheran membership right. Yeah, lets take it down that route! Geez people. Separation of Church and state is fine the way it is. If you happen to live in a community where the popular concensus is guided by a particular ecclesiastic influence...MOVE! The same way you would move from an area that all of a sudden bacame over run by criminal and neardowells.
"A church is no different than any other business"
Except it is, at least according to our nation's laws. So what is your problem? The church of the nation's laws?
That's kind of my point, my problem is with the nations laws. This country was founded on (amongst other things) the separation of church and state. The state should not give churches any special dispensation based solely on the fact that they are a church.
"The state should not give churches any special dispensation based solely on the fact that they are a church."
Except that they should. If the govt decided to treat religious inst_itutions the same as any organization...then could you imagine the whining the atheists would do when religious groups start running SuperPacs right from their places of worship?
Hey...it's not perfect but I would rather have religious organizations separated from the govt in all ways than to tax them and then have to allow them the right to push their agendas onto the govt through elections.
@Uncouth Swain
>Except that they should. If the govt decided to treat religious inst_itutions the same as any organization...then could you imagine the whining the atheists would do when religious groups start running SuperPacs right from their places of worship?
For one thing they already can. SuperPacs are not required to pu.blicize their sponsors. This is actually one of the arguing points if you read more comments. Secondly that still no excuse for special treatment.
>Hey...it's not perfect but I would rather have religious organizations separated from the govt in all ways than to tax them and then have to allow them the right to push their agendas onto the govt through elections.
If this were the case you would have a lot less ‘whiney atheist’ bus.ting your chops. The church routinely gets in involved with the government. Do a little research on Washington lobbyist. The day the church keeps its nose of the government will be the day I stop posting.
"For one thing they already can. SuperPacs are not required to pu.blicize their sponsors."
~There sponsors, as in individuals...yes. But you think that a theoretical "United Baptist SuperPac" that headquarters is within a church can happen right now? If so..you are quite deluded.
"If this were the case you would have a lot less ‘whiney atheist’ bus.ting your chops. The church routinely gets in involved with the government. Do a little research on Washington lobbyist. The day the church keeps its nose of the government will be the day I stop posting."
~Incorrect...individual citizens that happen to be religious get involved with govt. Churches do not.
I have no problem with atheists in any way. When they get whiny because the law doesn't favor them...that is a bit annoying.
Your definition of "church" is so wide and va_gue...you'll be posting for quite some time.
hmmm...maybe mr. Santorum should read this
i would love to see santoriums face when he reads this articule. lmao
So then the religious right should stop putting religious displays on government property. They should put Rick Perry in jail for using government money and his standing as the Governor of a state and using state resources to have his revival meetin'. I am afraid this will become a one sided ruling where the religious right will interpret this as pushing for a bigger role for religion in government and public life and a call for government to legislate morality as per religious beliefs a la Rick Santorum. Great ruling, gonna be a bad interpretation.
well then to replace congress with the vatican, just vote for Santorum
I could see the decision being right concerning those who work in ministry-teach etc. But, how about the janitor of that school or any house of worship?? Would he have a case?
The problem is, you're an idiot who didn't read the entire article. Re-read the definition of MINISTER given by the court.
The problem is, you're an idiot who didn't read the entire article. Re-read the definition of MINISTER given by the court...
Good question.
I suppose that would have to be decided seperately since the article clearly states this was for clergy, ministers, imams, etc.
What about a director who fund raises for the ministry? Andre go bully someone else–I understood the article. Wasn't it reported those who continue the ministry or works for the cause. Pretty wide open for those individuals who work for a church.
Whenever I think of Alaska, I think of Sarah Palin. Whenever I think of Sarah Palin, I think of teabaggers. Whenever I think of teabaggers, I think of nascar. Whenever I think of nascar, I think of trailer trash. Whenever I think of trailer trash, I think of Sarah Palin. Whenever I think of Sarah Palin, I think of teabaggers. Whenever I think of....
Love it!
Whenever I think of you, I think of how much better off the world would be without you...
LOL
Whenever I think of palintwit I think of Libturd moron, whenever I think of Libturd Moron I think of DJL...
It does not seem as if you are doing any thinking at all.
This is a very good decision in that it keeps a nice thick wall between those who operate using rational laws, fairness, critical thinking and an acceptance of everyone, and those who operate based on mythology, fear, indoctrination, and discrimination-by-scripture. All you have to do is choose your side and you'll be insulated from all that lousy stuff on the other side.
So isolationism?
Well said. Bravo!!!
This ruling was not just a big win for religious liberty. It is a big win for SEPARATION of church and state. The church is free to fire at will and perhaps have a boy or two. But, the churches should stay out of government. This ruling showed that we are not a Christian nation.
From the article:
"This decision was about separation of church and state in its most fundamental sense. Churches do not run the government, select government leaders, or set criteria for choosing government leaders.
And government does not run the churches, select religious leaders, or set criteria for choosing religious leaders. The Court unanimously reaffirmed that principle on Wednesday."
I think this is not so much a win for the churches, as it is a loss for those who would set up a Jesus Nation, like Santorum and the Christian Right.
Cheers!
David, what this ruling DOES is DESTROY our EQUAL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS!
It destroyed that woman's Equal Rights protections under the Constltution!
Now every church and religion is free to disregard the law, our Civil Rights, and every damn law in the land as long as they say it is "an internal religious matter", and that includes shuffling ped0priests around without being held responsible for it!!!!!
This isn't a win for separation of church and state! This is just the OPPOSITE!
Now Muslims can murder using "Honor killings" and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
Jews can discriminate against non-Jews OPENLY now!
Every racist religion can now be racist OPENLY!
Every hate crime, as long as it is "religious expression" whether "internal" or not IS NOW LEGAL!
>"From the article:
"This decision was about separation of church and state in its most fundamental sense. Churches do not run the government, select government leaders, or set criteria for choosing government leaders.""
...except that is EXACTLY the opposite of the truth! Churches DO run the government! They DO select government leaders and set the criteria for choosing them - just look at the Republican Presidential race!
This is the camel's nose under the tent you doofus! This is the beginning of theocratic rule!
Religions NOW have nothing to stop them from committing crimes, because the Supreme Court just hamstrung the whole damn Constltution!
Now we cannot protect children from religious violence, including ra.pe.
Now we cannot protect anyone who passes under the control of religious people, including in their homes as they beat and mangle the hell out of their children because their god told them to do that!
Don't you see how wrong you are? This isn't about separation of church and state, except to shut out the rule of LAW and give any religion a free pass to doing anything they want.
And they did this by destroying our Equal Rights under the LAW in their favor!
With Equal Rights, a child being abused for religious reasons or under color of religion CANNOT BE HELPED!
The SCOTUS just threw the whole Constltution under the bus. Why? Because it is dominated by the Catholics, dominated by the Vatican, who only want free reign to abuse and lie without government interference.
This is the Vatican's version of "de-regulation" and "de-criminalization" since they are criminals who seek to hide behind the religious front they use!
That's what every criminal wants! De-criminalization of the crimes they commit! And now they have it! You simpleton!
This is the destruction of the wall of separation, not the strengthening of it! WAKE UP!
Where is the separation in the other direction? Nowhere to be seen. They now have no secular laws over their actions, but WE have NO protections against their intrusions into our government! None!
And now we have no protections anywhere religion holds sway, either. We just lost to the Vatican. They used their corrupt judges and now we have religious anarchy. And you think it's a good thing, but you couldn't be more wrong.
*WithOUT Equal Rights, a child being abused for religious reasons or under color of religion CANNOT BE HELPED!
Thought I'd better fix that.
Or a Muslim nation or a Buddhist nation . . .
Wow , ironi! I thought it was about who decides who can be hired or fired in the church. It didn't say all laws are null and void in the church. All the things you mentioned will still be illegal, even in a church.
@ironicus: no one is outside the law if it comes to violent crimes. police will arrest a minister as quickly as a drug dealer, if the cause raises it's head. what the supreme court did was make it so a priest couldn't sue in federal (aka, state run) court for being discriminated against. i'm surprised this hasn't happen before now. so now they have to take care of it with in the church governing system, or take a person not the whole church to court.
@Ironicus
I think going from a churches right to fire their employees at will, to honor killings might just be a stretch.
It is indeed a win for me and others that do not want a Christian Nation.
Read this from the article again:
"This decision was about separation of church and state in its most fundamental sense. Churches do not run the government, select government leaders, or set criteria for choosing government leaders."
That is huge! Many Christian Right pukes maintain there is no separation. They want a "Jesus Nation". This ruling gives me hope.
Cheers!
Thank you wasp and willy. Ironi, take a breather and re-read the decision. Yes, I can see where you are coming from, but this is not the decision that was made. There are religions that are not tolerated by the government (look up 7 religions allowed at the department of corrections in most states), but there are reasons for that. The state would not allow a demonic religion (cult) that sacrifices maidens, goats, etc. in America, but this is a different issue than choosing to hire or fire some one person. There is a limit that the state must step in and a limit where there must be seperation, this is one where seperation makes sense.
It is a "ministerial exception" which is just a euphemism for special treatment because of religious status and having nothing to do with the actual violation of the law.
SCOTUS has done this before in nullifying one party's standing by refusing to acknowledge the equal rights provisions.
In this case they have done so by using religious criteria to remove the equal rights-supported legal standing of the victim, very similar to the other case in that the victim is the one being disenfranchised here and their standing is brushed off from the pompous viewpoint of the Catholic-dominated Court for...of course...religious reasons.
How ironic that they would use religious reasons to exempt a religious organization by pretending that their special exemption was an effort to avoid giving a religious bias to their decision – yet the decision was that there should be a religious bias in favor of the religious organization and not the victim of the religious organization – solely based on the fact that the organization was religious and the religious status of the employee relationship rather than the civil and secular nature of the relationship even though the suit was brought in a civil and secular court and not a religious one.
Ironic as hell. Just doesn't stop, this ironic stuff....
The illeducated can believe in all the gods, ghosts, angels and devils they want, but I do not know why doing so should give them a pass on laws that apply to the rest of us nor exempt them from paying the taxes we all pay.
Ahh, Bronze Age Palestinian mythology is a wonderful thing to have.
Yes, and it seems that the bigger issue here is what happens to a small business when one of it's employees becomes ill. How do you balance the needs of the individual and the needs of the business.
You hardly seem in a position to call anyone else uneducated...
If you get rid of one groups tax free exemption then why not get rid of all of them? Or should we only target those groups that help in the community that "DO" like....
@pace-it
"Yes, and it seems that the bigger issue here is what happens to a small business when one of it's employees becomes ill. How do you balance the needs of the individual and the needs of the business."
At the company I work for, there is a policy to handle this. You can purchase long term illness insurance (Very cheap). The company itself will cut your salary to about 60%, after you have been ill for a certain amount of time (I think it is 6 months). This will continue until you come back to work, or die.
Most larger corporations have policies to cover these things. But remember, this right to fire at will is for the churches only. In the secular world, the discrimination laws still apply.
I am not thrilled that this ruling allows churches to fire their employees, simply because they didn't seem to be really into rolling on the floor. But as I've pointed out there is a really nice silver lining to this cloud.
"When God Closes a Door, Somewhere He Opens a Window.. If we just look around we may see the light coming through the window." – http://treadsoftlyupon.blogspot.com/2006/06/when-god-closes-door-somewhere-he.html
Love and Prayers
Who knew Jesus was such a bigot?
Judas
A very perfectly reasonable decision. A church should be free to decide these employment issues without interference from the govt. A simple solution. And no, claiming your company is a religion and its employees are clergy wont work for you. If you need to figure out why, please seek legal help.
Discrimination should NOT be free of government "interference" because it is supposed to be ILLEGAL!
We are supposed to have the Rule of LAW here, not free-range discrimination hidden under a church roof!
By the same token, anyone going into a church can now be murdered, because prosecuting a murderer who did it for religious reasons is now useless. Same difference.
You say "interference" but that is just the police enforcing the law. Any criminal would say the same.
I am a non believer, this is the best decision that the Roberts Court has made. The government stays out of church business, the church stays out of government business. That is the meaning of "separation of church and state", this is a very good decision.
"the church stays out of government business" .. and when did that happen?
While the state might seek to ignore particular religious observance, those actions that are illegal should not get a free pass.
And there is nothing explicitly keeping these religious extremists from making unconstltutional laws. But now we have the SCOTUS saying we cannot apprehend and prosecute criminal behavior inside a church.
So tell me again how great this is and I'll punch you in every genital you own.
Every.
Genital.
You.
Own.
Ironicus "But now we have the SCOTUS saying we cannot apprehend and prosecute criminal behavior inside a church."
They never said that. Can you read? They said that the government has no business involving itself in who the churches hire or fire. You are so set to spread fear and discord that you don't stop to hear yourself. You are a drama queen.
Guilty! 😀
Calgon! Take me away! *whoosh!*
Actually I'm surprised it wasn't worse.
I really did skip a lot of the details and went a little off the deep end there, but it was fun and, in those posts where my ignorance was not a factor, I think I wrote some pretty good posts.
I really gotta work on that ignorance thing. We don't run into many Supreme Court articles here and I usually forget to read the actual decision when it happens. Well hell, I'm not perfect.
The damage really isn't that bad although I did get a bit off in spots.
No biggy. Hardly anyone reads these blogs anyway.
Most people just read the articles.
If they were expecting total perfection from some anonymous poster in a back-room blog, they'd be fools to do so.
I'm usually glad if I get one good post or some really good paragraphs. Who cares about the rest?
We can't afford to bribe Congress to fix things, so complaining and arguing will have to do in keeping us busy and out of trouble, right?
Otherwise being a drama queen wouldn't be nearly as fun. We'd have to be more serious if this were an actual thing instead of a comment section for random trolls.
......
Ode to a small lump of putty I found on a CNN blog
–by Ironicus-
Ah, life! There can be no bars inside a cage.
We only vandalize the empty space for comments at the bottom of Life.
Thus are we magnified as we fade to white behind the words.
There are no gods.
The Church legally gets to discriminate against disabled people. They get to ignore laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act, and as this case shows, they will.
That's just what Jesus would do. The Bible is full of stories of Jesus discriminating against disabled people. This church was just following Jesus' example.
Do you want the government telling the church who to hire and fire or the church telling the government what laws to pass?
Now if churches would just get their noses out of gov't. all would be well.
The church already does John. At least they try to. And pray tell why should a church not be required to follow the laws everyone else does? Separation of church and state does not apply. The laws do not target the church or a specific religion.
JohnQuest, the government isn't telling them who to fire or hire, it is supposed to be telling them they cannot discriminate or otherwise violate our equal rights, civil rights, or any other law.
This is the most blatant violation of the Constltution and their duties as judges that I have ever seen since the last time they did something like this. They are telling churches they can violate every law now. There is nothing holding them back at all.
Your Equal Rights have just been destroyed. How do you feel about that? Did you think you didn't need them all that much since you hadn't been discriminated against lately? Don't they matter to you? Or are you swallowing the BS in the article whole?
This encroachment is illegal and a violation of the Constltution.
And it was done by a Catholic majority. Does that tell you anything? It should.
Problem is....I will now label my company 'religious' require everyone to 'preach' for 1 minuet every day, then I can now finally fire that annoying black lady for being black.
This is a horrible result for anyone who thinks companies and churches should have to follow the law. Quite simply, now they do not. Reported the priest because he was dicking little boys to bathroom walls and they fired you? Tough luck, they can do that now.
hey the religious right reeps what it sows... my kid is going toworshp satan in school. and bring voodoo dolls and chant during the pledge of alligience... its his right to practive his religion in school.
Yes! All it takes is to express your religion to be Free of all laws!
Thank the One True GOD for making the Supreme Court show us these Truths!
Feel Free! Be Free! Act Free! And that includes doing whatever you like as part of your religion!
Isn't America wonderful?
A new Pluralistic Theocracy! And the Supreme Court made it happen, not all those false religious followers trying to make more laws! It is a SIGN from the One True GOD that we can do whatever we like and ignore all human laws!
The only laws you cannot break are the laws of physics! Feel Free! Be Free! Act Free Today!!!
Hey Pops, I might join your religion.
Can I remain an atheist and still violate laws like religious people get to do? I could go for that.
What ? There was a decision ? Leave me alone. I'm going back to sleep.
Thanks, that was funny I needed a laugh
Don't worry, Clarence. I voted for you as usual. As you know, I am the decider.
Another shameful decision by our highest 'court'.
This is a great victory for the Churches, as they do not have to abide by the laws that we, as a society have agreed upon. The Churches have proven that they do not discriminate, do not squash progress, and most certainly do not redistribute known pedophiles.
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court has become obsessed with ruining its status faster than the Legislative and Executive branches of our failed experiment at governance. When things get worse and the people demand that we throw out our entire government the historians will probably look back at this as the time when the impending revolution began forming.
At this court.
What the Catholic Church does is the Catholic Church's business. Don't like it? Continue being the hateful person you are and worship elsewhere.
Feel Free to destroy all the false religions of the world! Don't let living in a Pluralistic Theocracy get you down!
Join my One True Religion! All the others are false! Only mine is True!
Once you join, you can ignore any human laws you want because they Truly Do Not Matter!!!!
And Today is First Holy Day! The First Day of The One True Religion!
A very auspi.cious Day to join! Feel Free! Be Free! Act Free!
Atheists and those who fought for separation between "church and state" have lost for all time!
Now there is only those who have a religion and all the losers who refuse to join one who have to follow all the stupid laws we still have on the books! Ignore those stupid laws! Join me and stop being an atheist without a religion!
And celebrate the Only True Religion that has ever existed in this Universe! All atheists are welcome to join while remaining atheists! There are no rules but physics! Shoot people with lasers! Blow up cities with nuclear weapons! It's all good!
@ Mel
The laws in the united states for employers should apply for all employers, even churches. Don't like it? Don't build your church in America.
@I'm the best
I'm actually waiting for the day when religious freedom is revoked in America. I see it coming, slowly. I don't like it and I don't want it, but I see it. I sense that either my children or my grandchildren will be jailed or killed because this country is slowly being turned into a nation that will allow everyone to do damn near anything in the name of freedom, that is, with the exception of practicing religion. Openly talking about religion currently gets eye-rolls, later it will be frowned upon, then loudly protested, and finally it will be punishable by death.
What else would I expect from a country that I love, but that I also see going down the toilet.
TCS, what evidence do you have that our laws are becoming inimical to religious belief? This article just highlighted the opposite.
Now whether or not anyone actually personally respects your religious belief is another matter and has nothing to do with the law.
My point exactly. The whole culture is becoming more and more hostile to religion. It currently has nothing to do with the law.... yet. Later on, expect to see a 'no headscarves/star of david/crosses' in school law. Slowly, the general populace will be more hostile to any public display of religion. "Keep it in church" they will say. "Don't push any morals that came out of text eons ago." This is all the rhetoric of people who do want to fully do away with religion and from history, we can see what happens: segregation, persecution, execution.
TCS, the same Consti.tution that keeps religious people from forcing their religion on non-believers is still there to protect the rights of believers. Please note that the ACLU used the Consti.tution to protect the free expression of religion in public schools. The Consti.tution is equally fair. The better the Consti.tution is upheld for all, the better protected will be your religious expression.
If your fears were true then non-believers would have been persecuted by law up until a few decades ago.
@MarkinFL
What evidence does he have? There's a lot, right here in the comments on this article. The majority of those commenting seem to think that removing (in one direction, at least) the separation between church and state is not only acceptable, but desirable. They don't seem to recall – or perhaps never learned, despite the fact that they (wrongly) consider themselves to be smarter and better educated than the rest of us – is that the initial impetus for English emigration to North America was government persecution of religion. The Founders were perfectly aware of this, and did not want government in the religion business – they'd had quite enough of that with the official state religion of England. What we call the Anglican Church in North America is called the Church of England over there for a very good reason – Henry VIII made it the official religion, with the British monarch being the secular head, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the spiritual head.
If they want to go ahead and erase the line separating church and state, they can go ahead, but they might want to be careful what they wish for. If that line is erased, it might indeed open the door to establishing a theocracy in the United States. There are still far more people of faith than not of faith, and most of our immigrants these days are hispanic Christians. There are many people of faith who think that would be a bad idea, but there are enough who don't that it could conceivably become a reality.
Flyguy, This argument is a lot more gray than you make it out to be. Churches do not exist outside the law. Deciding just exactly what rules do or do not apply to churches is not always clear. Many times churches act like businesses and that blurs the line. They can be employers as in this case. Some rules may apply.
So just because a church has to follow secular laws does not imply a breakdown in the separation of church and state.
MarkinFL, this SCOTUS decision has deliberately said that churches NOW do not need to follow the secular laws!
That was the whole point! Being religious is now an excuse to commit any crime! This has REMOVED the requirement that religious organizations and the people within them follow SECULAR laws by showing that discrimination, illegal discrimination at that, is allowed for the mere reason that it is religion-based crime.
Now there are no equal rights any more. Time to fire up the truck and grab a shotgun. Let's go shoot some Muslims because our Bible says they are evil and deserve killin'! And don't interfere with any cops! Because we're all religious and shlt. Yeah.
Ironicus,
Churches are held to the same laws as everyone else. The reason behind their employment discrimination ruling is to allow them to continue to worship.
Let's take this ruling the other way. It is now fully 'illegal' to discriminate against hiring or firing someone because of their believes or practices. Atheists can then apply for a ministry job and can't be instantly disqualified because he doesn't subscribe to the belief. He gets hired and starts to preach about how everyone in the congregation is stupid. Come on now. If the person doesn't live up to the standards and practices of the particular religion, they have every right to not include that person in their church.
It seems now that there is this movement for protecting an individual or two with umbrella-like laws that go way beyond the reach of its intent and ends up mutating the original point to absurdity.
I think this was the right decision also. It upholds the tenants of separation, and does not in any way put any undue burden on either the church (or synagogue or circle or grove or whatever) or the individual. I don't know all the particulars of this case, obviously, however I think the decision is a sound one.
You proclaim your ignorance proudly. There's other words for that, but let me just say that your ignorance is definitely pathetic.
ALL HAIL THE ONE TRUE GOD OF TRUTH!
The Supreme Court has been used by my GOD to show us that human laws do not matter! My GOD WINS!
We can now ignore every law in expressing our religion! It is a day of Freedom to all religious people especially followers of my GOD!
This is now a Pluralistic Theocracy! Feel free to express your religion any way you like! Kill, maim, torture, steal, rob, cheat and commit perjury! None of those laws matter now!
All it takes is being a member of a religion! Join mine! It is the BEST ONE and the ONLY TRUE ONE!
All the other religions are false but they are free to ignore the law also! But they are based on lies and MINE IS NOT!!!!
Be a member today! Ignore all those silly laws! They don't matter now!
ALL THANKS TO MY ONLY TRUE GOD! There is none true but mine! Join today!!!
I forgot to mention that today is First Holy Day! Celebrate the only First Holy Day we have had in the history of the Universe for humans! Other species, extraterrestrials, etc., may have had theirs already. Don't miss this one! It is the only First Holy Day you will ever see!!!!!
Party and ignore all human laws as you like today! My GOD has given us a SIGN! HOOAH!
thanks for the irony LOL
At the moment, I figure the person who showed you how to use cut and paste ought to put in jail.
Emily? Emily Litella, is that you?
In the 70's, Saturday Night Live had a bit where "Emily Litella" (played by Gilda Radner) would appear as a guest commentator on their mock "news" show to offer an opinion on a current subject. Litella would go off on an animated tangent, and it soon would become obvious she had only read or heard a few words of the issue she was commenting about. When it was called to her attention, she would think for a bit and respond with the now-classic "Never mind."
"Pops" reminds me of Emily. It appears he's only read or heard a few words about the decision, but that doesn't stop him from taking off and running with his ardent, albeit uninformed, commentary.
The Court didn't say churches can do anything they want. In fact, it specifically said it was not saying churches are free to hire and fire anyone they want. It said only that the government cannot tell a church who it must employ as a minister. And it talked about some of the things lower courts must consider when deciding whether a person really is a minister.
Really, that's it.
Now, but this point Pops, if (s)he started reading this at all, has moved on because there are too many words. (Hey, reading can be hard for some, especially those whose opinions block their vision.) But for those still with me, the Supreme Court's decision wasn't even really anything new. For decades, Circuit Courts of Appeal (the courts one level below the Supreme Court) have said the same thing. The issue just never reached the Supreme Court before.
"Pops" is an ironic name for an adolescent–measured either in years or intellectual sophistication or both.
@Pops
My gods junk in bigger than your gods.
Cheers!