Posted on 10/05/2011 9:47:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today, the Obama administration will invite the Supreme Court to open a new front in the culture wars. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC concerns a commissioned minister, Cheryl Perich, who taught elementary school and led chapel devotions at a small Lutheran school outside Detroit. Ms. Perich became ill and was replaced in the classroom by a substitute. In the middle of the school year she sought to return and then, instead of attempting to work out the dispute through the church's reconciliation process, she threatened to sue.
As relations broke down, the church congregation voted to withdraw her "call" to the ministry, and she ceased to be eligible for her prior job. She sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with the support of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The federal statutes outlawing employment discrimination based on race, sex, age and disability contain no express exception for church employers. But for 40 years lower courts have applied a "ministerial exception," which bars the government from any role in deciding who should be a minister. Courts have reasoned that the separation between church and state protects the ability of churches to choose their own clergy just as it protects the state from any control by churches. The Supreme Court has never spoken to the issue.
But who counts as a minister? Cheryl Perich's duties included leading students in prayer and worship, but she also taught secular subjects, using ordinary secular textbooks. The sole disagreement in the lower courts was whether her job was sufficiently religious to be considered ministerial. The Supreme Court will consider, for the first time, how to make that determination.
But the Obama Justice Department has now asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This would mean that, in every future case, a court—and not the church—would decide whether the church's reasons for firing or not hiring a minister were good enough.
Not necessarily. Eliminate all tax exemptions and special treatments for charitable organizations and the government has no stake in the matter. Problem goes away. THAT is what was intended by Separation of Church and State.
It is not the government’s role to decide on the polity of religious denominations. If this woman was no longer a minister BY THEIR RULES, then she was no longer a minister by their rules.
Do I think a teacher in their school system should be called a “minister”? No.
But that has nothing to do with whether they believe so.
The next thing you know, the Obama admin will sue the Catholic Church over some nun not being allowed to be a priest. The same thing. Catholic beliefs say “no”. There is no way Scotus can say “yes” without violating free exercise and establishment clauses.
" ... a commissioned minister, Cheryl Perich ... "
God gave us the rules and regs, all we have to do is obey.
When man decides he's more capable than God, only evil can result.
I suggest Lutherans and Methodists and anyone else ordaining women, confess and repent and put back the old landmarks you were commanded not to remove.
Wonder how this would effect the Justice Bros.
This is interesting.
We are heading into a situation where the Church will be in the exact same position as it was during its first 2 centuries in Rome.
After the mass shooting by the “christian” in Norway I did some digging and found that the Norwegian government appoints a fair number of church officials and imposes certain standards.
Hang on. How does suddenly introducing taxing authority remove the government's stake? How would you tax a church or a charity? Why would you want to?
Goverment gets involved in private corporations all the time. Why do you think eliminating the tax exemptions makes government less likely to get involved? It seems like they would be more likely to get involved, because then churches would just be another business to government.
And "THAT" was never intented by separation of church and state. Our founding fathers recognized that God was supreme over government. That government shouldn't be taxing God, because God is the higher authority. Like it or not, THAT's what the founding father's intended. They recognized God as evidenced by references to Him in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. They never intended Freedom of Religion to be Freedom from Religion. They even put in the constitution a prohibition on government prohibiting the free expression of religion. They just didn't want government dictating to religion or dictating religion to individuals.
I agree!
This has nothing to do with whether a church is tax-exempt or not. It's trying to apply laws banning job discrimination to tell a church who they can have as a minister. It's the same law that would be applied to a for-profit, taxable corporation.
"The government has no stake in the matter" is worth nothing in an era of massive government intrusion into the private sector. The Obama Administration thinks it "has a stake" in everything you do and in every economic decision you make.
I think the Catholic Church would be the main target if this case is decided in favor of the government.
Lord, have mercy.
Good post, BTW. Right on!
Your religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with whether the supreme court and the obama administration should be telling a religious denomination what their beliefs should be.
My kids are in a private Christian school and they rotate who leads the chapel time monthly. I guess it will come down to whether having a pastoral degree was required for her to be hired as a teacher and leader of chapel time.
They make the case out as to how churches can conduct their business, but the root of the problem is government regulation of what should be freedom of association rights in any context. If we didn’t tolerate the government dictating how businesses can hire and who can be fired, there would never be this question of how much government can intrude into a church’s internal affairs.
RE: And “THAT” was never intented by separation of church and state. Our founding fathers recognized that God was supreme over government. That government shouldn’t be taxing God, because God is the higher authority.
________________________
Let’s be a little cautious here when we try to apply what the founding fathers had in mind with what we have today.
For starters I doubt if there were any significant number of Muslims living in the USA with mosques anywhere.
I am not sure how the framers would react if there were a significant minority of Muslims living in America in the 18th century wanting Sharia Law to be recognized in the just established country.
RE: The next thing you know, the Obama admin will sue the Catholic Church over some nun not being allowed to be a priest.
Yep, and we can extend it even further.
With an increasing number of states recognizing gay marriage, banning discrimination against LGBT and now the military allowing gays to openly serve, what’s to stop a church that teaches that the homosexual lifestyle is against God’s laws from withholding tax exemption because their rules are violating secular law?
That's a determination no court can make. And when the courts come in the front door, liberty goes outt he back door. The "ministers" become licensed liturgists for the State.
That sounds like China. You can practice any religion you want to and the Party will tell you exactly how, when and where.
I am sure that is precisely what will happen, and the gates of evil from this will be opened wide.
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.