Political & Elections

Cartera · Guru

RE: Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House on Religious Freedom

winchester · Guru

the Court may have made the right decision in this case, but Robert's analysis went too far.

From things I've read in the past, it seems that this kind of thing is not new to the Supreme Court. I've read opinion pieces that say the court's reasoning about some decsision or another was bogus but in the end they did the right thing anyway.

Human "reason" evolved for the purpose of winning arguments, not for finding the truth. (See: The Argumentative Theory )

But sometimes we find the truth or do the right thing anyway in spite of ourselves.

-- Edited by winchester on Friday 13th of January 2012 08:12:55 AM

-- Edited by winchester on Friday 13th of January 2012 08:15:06 AM

hope · Guru

Better to grant religious institutions the benefit of the doubt regarding good faith, imo, than to open the door to government intrusion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/church-state-and-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/245854/

I love the way they keep trying to tether them to government via tax dollars:

I'd be more sympathetic to these concerns if religious organizations valued their autonomy consistently and refrained from feeding so voraciously at the public trough. Parochial schools depend, in part, on public funds providing them with computers, textbooks, and remedial teachers, as well as students whose tuitions are subsidized by vouchers or tax breaks. Public colleges and universities can be required to support proselytizing sectarian student groups. Taxpayer dollars fund "faith-based" social services. Religious organizations have fought hard for these public dollars, with no apparent concern for their autonomy, successfully resisting claims that church/state partnerships violate prohibitions on establishing religion.

As a result, religious institutions perform essential public welfare and educational functions and lay claim to public funds that might otherwise be channeled to public schools and other secular service agents. In providing these non-ministerial services they employ hundreds of thousands of people entitled to the protection of workplace laws, as Perich points out. I don't agree that religious organizations have a right to public funds, but when that right is recognized, it should at the very least entail the willing assumption of responsibilities under public laws -- not wholesale exemptions and a wholesale assault against them.

I don't know the extent of any public support that Hosanna-Tabor or the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod have enjoyed. I do know that Hosanna-Tabor seeks a Supreme Court ruling that would apply broadly to religious institutions, including parochial schools and service providers, that do enjoy significant taxpayer support. If government entanglement in religion is a sin, they should be last in line to throw stones.

Liberals take such an unusual interest in where their tax dollars are going when it comes to anything touching on religion. wink

Cartera · Guru

I would say judging by the Atlantic piece, the Court may have made the right decision in this case, but Robert's analysis went too far. I agree with the Atlantic's conclusion that -

His opinion effectively grants churches a license to act in bad faith, as institutions governed by mere human beings often do.

The Court essentially did away with the principle of neutrality. The door is clearly wide open for a religious institution to call everyone a minister or subscribe ministerial duties to everyone as a pretext to avoid civil liability. That argument was effectively shut down and there was no reason to do so.

-- Edited by Cartera on Thursday 12th of January 2012 07:27:52 PM

longprime · Guru

So now there is two sets of laws? evileye

Church Law and Constitutional Law. evileye

hope · Guru

"The woman's status as a minister was debatable and divided the courts."

"Given the arguable ministerial nature of Perich's job, it's not surprising that the Supreme Court deferred to the Church's exception claim here."

In any case, she seems not to have been a solely secular employee.

Judging by The Atlantic piece, it appears to me that Roberts made the right decision.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/the-supreme-courts-religious-double-standard/251263/

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 12th of January 2012 03:01:32 PM

-- Edited by hope on Thursday 12th of January 2012 03:02:19 PM

Cartera · Guru

I encourage people to read other articles that describe accurately the substance of the case. The Fox News author uses it as another opportunity to rail against the administration.

The ministerial exception has been applied to protect the church in decisions made based on religious activities and beliefs. This was a case in which a woman who worked in a religiously affiliated school thought she had been fired in retaliation because she made a complaint about accomodations made for her disability. The gov't claimed that there is no such broad based exception that protects every employee of a religious supported entity, even if their duties are not relgious in nature. There was some precedent for this in other cases. The fear is that the exception is now so broad that religiously affiliated schools, including universities, can fire employees with no regard to employment discrimination. The EEOC did what it should have done - try to protect worker rights. Different courts had ruled differently on the issue so it was a proper question for the Supreme Court because of conflicting rulings.

hope · Guru

I did not know about that court case. Amazing. I must say I was impressed that Newt brought up the issue at the debate over the weekend. It is something that is not talked about enough, imo.

longprime · Guru

Surprised that this hasn't been before the SC before this.

I think it takes a forward thinking political figure to bring this to the front. Can you imagine an R President bring this to the SC? The possibility of losing the arguement is too great, even if the chances are small.

Oh, Doesn't the SC chooses the cases it wants to hear?

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 12th of January 2012 10:38:47 AM

winchester · Guru

Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation.

The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.

There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.

Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.

But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

Citing well-known legal precedent dating as far back as Reconstruction, the court made it clear that it is not up to the government to contradict a faith’s determination as to who should -- and should not -- be performing religious functions.

The Supreme Court clearly announced Wednesday that the First Amendment itself gives special recognition to the rights of religious organizations and rejected the government’s view that the Religion Clauses of the Constitution don’t apply to religious organizations’ freedom to select their own ministers, priests, rabbis and imams.

The Court also took aim at Plaintiff’s Cheryl Perich’s claims for back pay finding that such relief would operate as an unconstitutional penalty against a religious institution for terminating an unwanted minister and exercising its constitutional right to make decisions about internal church governance. Unfortunately, the federal government has become expert in imposing penalties for practicing one’s faith.

As the new year rolls on, Americans face even greater issues in their desire to retain their religious freedom. The mandates of ObamaCare -- with its narrowly tailored if not measly conscience exemptions protecting some religious orders from compliance -- will mandate thousands of other religious organizations ranging from educational institutions to insurance companies to insure and/or provide procedures like free sterilization and abortifacients like Plan B known to be violative of many Christians and Jewish faiths.

Will the government continue to test the bounds of religious liberty?

Will the government continue to pick fights against religious freedom?

Will the government continue to demand that Americans violate their faith tenets or worse from an intolerant government? Only time will tell.

But for today, the founding fathers are smiling down at a Supreme Court that could not agree more about how wrong-headed our government is in trying to hijack our constitutional right to religious liberty.

Peter Johnson, Jr. is a Fox News Legal Analyst and attorney.He has also successfully litigated issues with regard to the rights of religious organizations.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/11/supreme-court-delivers-knockout-punch-to-white-house/print#ixzz1jGNUaTTR