Hosanna-Tabor: U.S. Supreme Court Church-State Decision Protects the Church

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is one of the most important Religion Clause cases of the last fifty years.

...There is a difference between a secular approach to governance and secularism, an ideology at odds with properly accommodating religious faith,churches,religious institutions and religious speakers.

...The Establishment Clause was intended to protect against the establishment of a National Church and a forced adherence to its doctrine by all citizens. It was more aptly understood as an Anti-Establishment Clause.

Sadly, the interpretation of the Clause has devolved into an interpretation of a Church/State separation which is hostile to religious institutions, discriminates against people of faith and seeks to censor religious speech and expression in the public square.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was intended to protect religious institutions and people of faith in their vital role in speaking and acting in an authentically pluralistic society so as to offer their contribution to the common good.

It was presumed that the values informed by religious faith were to be esteemed and welcomed because they actually serve the common good. Sadly, the Free Exercise Clause has been turned on its head - and is now used all too often to silence the Church and the religious speaker and actor.

Finally, the Free Speech clause has been subverted entirely. When the message and the messenger being examined under its increasingly hostile scrutiny is determined by the "State" to be speaking a "religious" or even a "moral" message, its important protections no longer apply.

Religious or "moral" speech is now routinely censored. This is one of the dangers of what Pope Benedict XVI once labeled a "Dictatorship of Relativism". In a culture where there is no objective truth, those who claim otherwise become perceived as a threat.

So, given the growing hostility we now encounter in this Nation and much of the West, this resounding reaffirmation of the rights of Churches and religious institutions to operate freely and follow their own internal doctrine - as well as to determine their own way of resolving their own disputes - at least protects the Church and Religious Institutions for awhile.

However, those of us who know that objective truths such as the fundamental human right to life and the primacy of marriage and the family and society founded upon it have universal applicability cannot rest. Decisions such as Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission simply give us more time.

We know that the truths we proclaim about the dignity of every human person, marriage and authentic human freedom are not simply a matter of our religious doctrine. We also know they cannot be contained within the walls of our churches. They are the very sources of our liberty and are grounded in the Natural Law.

Values informed by the by the Jewish and Christian heritage of the West have given rise to its entire approach to self governance. We cannot - we must not- and we will not - allow them to remain behind the walls of our Church buildings.

After all, that violates our underlying mission - which permeates our entire reason for existence. The Christian faith may be personal, but it is not private. Its message is profoundly public, meant for the whole world. And its messengers will never stop proclaiming it in word, lifestyle and deed.

from site:

Ms Perich attempted to argue that she was in essence a lay employee since she was not ordained clergy. She further argued that she essentially taught “secular” subjects and thus did not fall under what has been called the “ministerial exemption” to certain Federal legislation.

The School claimed that she was “called” according to their internal doctrinal schema. Further, that all teaching at the school was a part of the mission of the Church. Finally, they maintained that the Church’s internal dispute resolution system was to be followed because this was a Church institution.

The fact that the decision of the US Supreme Court was unanimous adds to its weight; coupled with the issuance of three substantial opinions. The Court sets forth in its legal analysis a wide array of assistance for lawyers engaged in defending Churches and religious institutions.

That has become essential these days as hostility toward the Church grows under our secularist regime. There is a difference between a secular approach to governance and secularism, an ideology at odds with properly accommodating religious faith,churches,religious institutions and religious speakers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.