See people, it's the State that wants to tell the churches what to do, not the other way around, lol!

Just thought it was relevant to OZ because this issue comes up all the time here, yo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html

the court looked to several factors.

Ms. Perich was a “called” teacher..who had completed religious training and whom the school..considered a minister. She was fired, the school said,..for violating religious doctrine..by pursuing litigation..rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the church.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Americans United for..*Separation of Church and State,..said Wednesday’s decision could have..pernicious consequences,..by,
for instance,..barring suits from pastors who are sexually harassed.

“Blatant discrimination..is a social evil
we have worked hard to eradicate in the United States,” he said in a statement...“I’m afraid the court’s ruling today will make it harder to combat.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty,..called the ruling “a great day..for the First Amendment.”

“This decision,” he said in a statement, “makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance..of keeping internal church affairs..off limits to the government —because whoever chooses the minister..chooses the message.”

recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html?ref=us


The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the government cannot interfere in the hiring decisions of religious groups.

"The formula affirmed by the Court..is equality
when it suits the purpose of the religious organization,
inequality when it does not."
Andrew Arato, New York

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,”..Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision..that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity.

“But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

The decision gave only limited guidance
about how courts..should decide..who counts..as a minister,

saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html

Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.

Whatever its precise scope,..the ruling will have concrete consequences..for countless people employed..*by religious groups..to perform*..religious work.

I agree that any group should be allowed to hire and fire their own staff, within the law.
I would be worried about insisting that all disputes about employment in religious organisations were dealt with 'within the church' because churches have been known to hide dirty little secrets within their walls before...

Secularist have very little moral ground for complaint. How many conservative journalist work for the ABC/SBS. At least churches are honest about discriminating.

Any private person, or private organization (by private I mean, who does not receive any assistance, benefits or preferences from the government and its associated bodies or by listing themselves as public bodies), should be able to hire and fire anyone at any time as they please, for whatever reason or for no reason at all. Obviously, they would still need to abide by the agreements signed with their employees.

Churches should not flirt with the government in the first place, then such problems would not arise. Why would anyone anyway want to entrust their spiritual welfare with someone who flirts with the devil?

Funny, the Presbytarian church sacked an entire hospital board to enforce its mishapen church rules on abortion.

Three abortions, all well within the law, on women whose lives were directly threatened, or whose child was beyond hope, had been performed over a long period of time.

They then installed a bunch of far right extremists.

The doctors resigned and took out advertising to support the previous board, which was an intensely pro-xtian one anyway.

The hospital takes squillions of public tax dollars in to do work.

Religions can run their own hospitals, of course, but like their own mishapen faith schools, they should be funded from within their church mob, and from income that is taxable too.

The state has every right to impose the national law on all its citizens, that is what makes it a nation state.

Religions are not states, except in 'the usual suspect' nations, which seems to include nations like the USA and Israel these days, never mind the UK, and civil states cannot afford to have a parallel unaccountable religious state within the same borders.

Religion is, should be, a private affair between individuals and their mythical gods.

Yuyutsu wrote: Any private person, or private organization (by private I mean, who does not receive any assistance, benefits or preferences from the government and its associated bodies or by listing themselves as public bodies), should be able to hire and fire anyone at any time as they please, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.

But, religious organisations get all sorts of assistance, benefits and preferences from government, eg tax exemption. Where does that leave your argument?

This case seems rather strange - it was over a disability claim not a religious disagreement. (It's worth reading the comments on the original NYT article).

The ruling seems to imply that churches etc, can be exempt from all the rules of law if they chose.

Cossomby, religions are excused all sorts of laws right here in Oz.

Here's some notes on Jefferson's church state separation thoughts:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/peterson.htm

And here his full text:
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=512

He made it plain religion had to pay its own way, unlike here in Oz, and those who ran civil and religious institutions were only men (well, they were then) and were all as corruptable as any other man, so should refrain from imposing any form of religious special case on individuals or the state.

Too bad our politicians and church people do not support the separation of church and state, except where it allows, say, the Vatican to bugger children and get away with it or for drones like Garrett to pay off the extreme religious right with $222m of new ATO funds to plant evangelisers in every state school.

Of course, having a bleeding heart Baptist as a PM, following on from an evangelical supporting fruitcake, who followed on from John Winston Machievelli has not helped the Jeffersonian cause at all in our non secular nation state.

Dear Blue Cross,

"The state has every right to impose the national law on all its citizens, that is what makes it a nation state."

No, it hasn't.

The state has no more right to impose its ideas on innocent people who have not sought its protection and "assistance" than any other mafia or pirate gang. Its desire to make a "nation" should not come at the expense of ordinary people who do not wish to belong.

Having said so, if a church [stupidly] chooses to use the money which the state prints, then it must abide with the conditions and attached-strings that come with that money, such as paying taxes.

Religion indeed is and should be, a private affair between individuals and God (the worship of mythical gods may or may not constitute a part of one's religious path, subject to personal and cultural circumstances).

---

Regarding Israel, which you mentioned, Judaism is not a religion, never was. It is roughly closer to a nationality, which just happens to include a so-called 'religion' in its armoury. As such, you cannot blame the nation of Israel for doing what all nations do and always did, e.g. defend themselves (but you may blame it for posing as religious).

---

Dear Cossomby,

I absolutely agree. Religious organisations should not receive assistance, benefits or preferences from the government. Shame on those who do. It is an affront to God.

"The ruling seems to imply that churches etc, can be exempt from all the rules of law if they chose."

Everyone should be exempt, not only churches!

Yuyutsu

Sorry old boy, citizens can disagree with what their state says, thinks and does, but they are not able to opt out of being a citizen, unless, like Rupert, they ditch their citizenship.

If you want to have no citizen status, then you might end up in an airport waiting room for the rest of your life, should you choose to leave the safer enclosure of your own nation state.

Nice try for Judaism but it doesn't wash. Of course there are Jews who deny their god, and good on them too, but Israel likes to weave its religion into its foreign and domestic policy all the time, so it has lost its right to appear to be a secular state, as has Australia of course.

Israel's opponents, the ones it steals land from every day, also appear not to be the least bit 'secular' and fall into the same category as Israel.

There are no 'innocent parties' when nation states, or would be nation states, hide behind, inside and alongside the religions they think they belong to.

Dear Blue Cross,

"Sorry old boy... you might end up in an airport waiting room for the rest of your life"

This is an accurate description of present reality, not a moral argument. Any old mafioso could have created similar conditions and uttered similar threats.

"but Israel likes to weave its religion into its foreign and domestic policy all the time"

Well, shame on them for that, how much more so when their "religion" is not even a religion, but a nationality-tool.

"so it has lost its right to appear to be a secular state, as has Australia of course."

No - telling lies does not change what you are. Israel is still a secular state despite what it is saying... and so are its opponents!

Both Israel and its opponents should stop using "religion" as a weapon.

Runner,

Another year of generalising ahead?

"Secularist have very little moral ground for complaint".
So despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, sectarians are somehow instantly more moral?

Then

"How many conservative journalist work for the ABC/SBS".
Why not ask "How many priests are not paedophiles?"

Same dodgey argument.

The Nazis were honest about their discrimination too.

Otherwise, let the Churches do whatever they want as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.