Posted on 10/01/2007 1:21:03 PM PDT by processing please hold
(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday refusing to get involved in two church-state disputes - one over religious organizations paying for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, the other over an evangelical group's plea to hold religious services at a public library.
The birth-control benefits dispute was triggered by a New York state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.
New York is one of 23 states that require employers offering prescription benefits to employees to cover birth control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.
Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued that New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.
"If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well," the groups said in urging the court to take their case. "And if it can compel church entities to subsidize abortions, it can require hospitals owned by churches to provide them."
Other Catholic and Baptist organizations are part of the lawsuit. Seventh-Day Adventist and Orthodox Jewish groups signed onto a brief filed in support of Catholic Charities.
In the library case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled that public libraries can block religious groups like the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries from worshipping in public meeting rooms.
The Contra Costa library system in the San Francisco Bay area allows groups to use its facilities for educational, cultural and community-related programs.
"Although religious worship is an important institution in any community, we disagree that anything remotely community-related must therefore be granted access to the Antioch Library meeting room," the appeals court concluded in a 2-1 decision.
Allowing worship services would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religious exercises, argued the Contra Costa County, Calif., Library Board, which operated the facility in Antioch, Calif.
In the dispute over making religious organizations subsidize contraceptives, the court rejected a challenge to a similar law in California.
"A church ought to be able to run its affairs and organize relationships with its employees in a way that's consistent with moral values and teachings," said Kevin Baine, a partner at the Williams and Connolly law firm who represents the religious organizations.
The New York law contains an exemption for churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion. Catholic Charities and the other groups sought the exemption, but they hire and serve people of different faiths.
New York's highest court ruled last year that the groups had to comply with the law. The 6-0 decision by the state Court of Appeals hinged on the determination that the groups are essentially social service agencies, not churches.
According to Planned Parenthood, the other states with similar laws are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.
The birth-control benefits case is Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo, 06-1550. The library case is Faith Center Church v. Glover, 06-1633.
Conversely though, if anyone wanted to ban one of those groups, apparently they can.
I think four have to agree as well.
The church may not pay taxes, but neither do other tax-exempt organizations which are allowed to use the library. However, the members of the those organizations pay taxes to support the library.
That said, I think you have put your finger on the solution: Pull the public funding from the libraries. Perhaps the members of the church could start a campaign to do just that.
I don't know.
Stunning it is.
Would the government have the power to close their doors if they don't have insurance? I don't attend church so I didn't know they carried insurance.
Why do churches have employees anyway?
Somebody's got to count the money in the offering plate. When I was a little girl our preacher did that. No employees.
And, fifty years ago lots of Christians considered it to be a lack of faith in God to have health insurance. Ain’t that something to think about.
It sure is.
Islam will be exempt. Actually there might not be a problem. Is it counter to their religion for Moslems to abort infidel babies?
I like the sound of that, pull their public funding.
You: Do American Christian citizens pay taxes? Where do Libraries get the money to be built and stocked?
I don't mean christian individuals can't use libraries. I'm saying churches can't use them for church use. Tax dollars can't be used to fund church worship and proslytizing and so on. Churches have to build their own places or use private buildings, not goverenment buildings. EIther that or they should pay taxes (but that would be a big mess). Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
Me: Certainly there are plenty of christians who liked the outcome of that vote.
You: Why would they like it?
Because there are plenty of christians who are liberal or libertarian and like the idea of the government and churches staying out of each other's business. There are christian and other mixed religoius groups who lobby for these things. If churches use tax dollars or government buildings, soon they start to rely on those dollars and then the government starts to control them. When people or organizations use government, they are beholden to government rules. Smart to keep it all seperate.
Does religion really need government to prop it up?
Choice means no choice for some. Anyway, what they need to do is just offer no drug benefits to anyone.
Well, other meeting groups and organizations aren't covered in the establishment clause. Its not just that churches don't pay taxes. Its that the government isn't allowed to support churches. You'd have to get that clause rewritten to include other non-profits to make it constitutional. Other churches make it just fine without using a government building for service or whatever. Why should the government help some that aren't making it? That's part of the reason for the establishment clause.
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin, 1790.
Does religion really need government to prop it up?
My first instinct is to say hell no. Because I start to worry about the islamic encroachment into our government. Then I ask myself, would a Christian majority government protect my religion from being swept away and replaced by islam? Would they get involved and get tangled up in the separation of church and state? We know islam hasn't the faintest idea of what separation of church and state means, their religion is their state.
Well, I've gone and confused myself now. Maybe you can parse out what I'm trying to say.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. - Catholic
Associate Justices
JOHN PAUL STEVENS
ANTONIN SCALIA - Catholic
ANTHONY M. KENNEDY - Catholic
DAVID H. SOUTER
CLARENCE THOMAS - Catholic
RUTH BADER GINSBURG
STEPHEN G. BREYER
SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. - Catholic
Retired Justice
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR
The problem is Kennedy. He was appointed in ‘88 after Bork got “Borked” and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew his name. Kennedy was third choice and was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate. IMHO, he’s an idiot and was a poor appointment.
Cardinal O’Connell would have shut down the hospitals and other agencies before complying with this law.
Now we’ll see what Cardinal Egan is made of. He simply CANNOT comply with this law and call himself a bishop.
Given the states listed with similar laws, there may be other cases (with similar but not identical facts) moving through the lower courts now.
"Catholic Charities and the other groups sought the exemption, but they hire and serve people of different faiths."
Easy solution, give only to Catholic poor and hire only Catholics, and serve people only of the Catholic faith. Shut down all the Catholic hospitals in NY and when people bitch and moan tell them to see the courts for service.
That might solve the problem.
"Allowing worship" or disallowing it seems beyond the scope of legitimate government functions. When a government agency finds itself in such a controversy, it is a good indication that it should be scaled back or abolished.
I've long given up that most Christian church leaders will follow their Godly conscience and replaced it with money. There must be some religious leaders who aren't hypocrites and put the word of God before the almighty dollar.
Indeed, some of the most vibrant Christian movements throughout history have occured in spite of (because of?) state opposition.
God doesn’t need the municipal Library, it’s the other war around.
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.