Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School is a very bad school

It’s a loophole, sure, but an important one. Because it pertains solely to the internal affairs of the church, who the church chooses to represent itself and in what capacity. But internal matters are all that get protected. Basically, it’s saying that if they want to fuck each other over, that’s their business. We, the secular state, are not getting involved, because that way lies madness.

You do realize that that wording effectively repeals the establishment clause, don’t you? Because it does. It says, “All we have to do is catch this religious group we don’t like breaking some law, anylaw, and we can make it impossible for them to continue as a religious organization, says so right there in the Constitution.”

Well, then, a lawyer can work on the wording. But the alternative is to let all self-proclaimed ‘church’ organizations blatantly violate laws without any legal punishment — and that, IMHO, is worse.

Do you want separation of church and state or not?

Not if it means that church-affiliated organizations are able to do things like: not provide emergency contraception to victims of assault, not provide abortions to women who are dying, fire people at will for reasons which violate federal law, cover up (and facilitate) sexual abuse scandals, and have blatant political lobbying while not paying taxes.

Here’s the thing: the churches (a lot of them) don’t want separation of church and state. They just want the separation to be one-way — i.e. the state doesn’t regulate them, but they’re free to attempt to get the state to do whatever they want and to trample all over federal regulations. This is not about separation of church and state — this is about letting certain organizations blatantly violate federal law without anyone being able to properly punish them.

A  janitor who labeled a “minister” but has only janitorial tasks with no bona fide religious element to the position would not be considered as “minister” and the position would not be covered by the “ministerial exception.”

That’s great. My janitor teaches religious education on alternating Mondays between 10:30 and 10:45 am to second-graders.

Again, what this means is that the schools will benefit financially from the fact that they don’t have to follow laws about not firing people for being disabled. (There’s a very clear alternative solution to this: ban religiously-supplied education. It’s like eliminating corporate personhood as a result of Citizen’s United — it may result in a lot of damage, but they were the ones who started it.)

”
Well, then, a lawyer can work on the wording.”

OK, so you haven’t really thought this through. You’re shooting from the hip here.

“Not…”

Let’s just stop right there, and think about all the consequences of that word. I’ll wait.

“the churches (a lot of them) don’t want separation of church and state.”

That’s nice for them. But let’s not help them weaken the barrier, shall we?

“This is not about separation of church and state — this is about letting certain organizations blatantly violate federal law without anyone being able to properly punish them.”

Actually, no, it is about separation. Because the organization in question is a church.

Look, you can’t strengthen separation be punishing the churches, because you have to weaken separation in order to gain the power to punish the churches. And that door swings both ways. Unless of course you simply outlaw religion. And as a progressive atheist, I don’t want to live in that America.

OK, so you haven’t really thought this through. You’re shooting from the hip here.

Right, and you have. Because your decisions — to sacrifice the ADA in exchange for what, exactly? — are well-thought out and reasonable.

Furthermore, all those women who are assaulted can just go to another hospital. The women who are dying — they can just go to another hospital. The people who are fired for reasons which violate federal law can just suffer, because God forbid we touch the churches which — everyone knows — aren’t actively trying to destroy the establishment clause.

Oh, and those tax-empt buildings sitting at valuable locations can go on being tax-exempt.

But it’s clear you don’t give a fuck about any of that, so why should I bother continuing this conversation with you?

Not if it means that church-affiliated organizations are able to do things like: not provide emergency contraception to victims of assault, not provide abortions to women who are dying, fire people at will for reasons which violate federal law, cover up (and facilitate) sexual abuse scandals, and have blatant political lobbying while not paying taxes.

Wait….you think if we drop the Establishment Clause, it will make abortion EASIER TO GET?

Oh, honey.   No. Just…no.
Right, and you have. Because your decisions — to sacrifice the ADA in exchange for what, exactly? — are well-thought out and reasonable.

Actually, the ADA shouldn’t have applied here, again, see: the woman was a formally trained minister who said in court testimony that she saw herself as part of the ministry.  And, again, it SUCKS that the Lutherans took advantage of this.  And it SUCKS that we can’t do anything about it. BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ISN’T TO PROTECT THE LUTHERANS. Or really, any Christian denomination, because Christians make up a vast majority in this country. 

It’s to keep Congress from passing this law: “The practice of any Religion other than the Christian Religion shall be forbidden.”  Or this one: “Due to security concern, the practice of the Islamic religion is forbidden.”  Or this one: “From this date forward, all candidates for public office shall be a professed member of a Christian denomination.” It allows Wiccans and Jews and Muslims to control and choose who gets to teach them, because AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE- the ministerial exception allows them to state “must be Wiccan” or “must be Jewish” or “must be Muslim” as a condition of employment, IN “VIOLATION” of FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.

Furthermore, all those women who are assaulted can just go to another hospital. The women who are dying – they can just go to another hospital. The people who are fired for reasons which violate federal law can just suffer, because God forbid we touch the churches which — everyone knows — aren’t actively trying to destroy the establishment clause. And what about all those soldiers who just want to worship whoever they want? Tough  shit, right, because now the national religion is Christianity and being a Wiccan Federal Employee is veboten.  When you mix church and state, you don’t get “taxed churches.” You get FUCKING POGROMS.

“…for what, exactly?”

Say it with me now: Separation of Church and State

Look, the hospital issue is a)not an ADA or EEO issue, and b)represents the kind of measure, life-and-limb harm that has long been seen as a vested state interest that has long been considered an exception to the Establishment Clause (like, say, human sacrifice), and strawman anyway, which you can go burn on your own time.

“the churches which — everyone knows — aren’t actively trying to destroy the establishment clause.”

I don’t understand why you’re in such goddamned hurry to help them. Do you figure, when the dust clears, your side will win?

“But it’s clear you don’t give a fuck about any of that, so why should I bother continuing this conversation with you?”

Sure, pal, you let me know when you come down off your cross.

Not really. Parochial schools don’t pay dick. Charter schools either.

Try the Conservapedia edition. 

“Not being orthodox” /= “having a physical disability”. I’m not a big fan of Christianity, but I don’t know ANY denomination that explicitly makes that case. 

 A lot of hospitals are owned and operated by churches. Mostly Catholic or other conservative churches, and frequently there are no others in the area. And the USCCB has, IIRC, also said that it’s okay for their hopsitals to ignore the patients’ wishes, if the bishops think it’s necessary for their spiritual growth. Even if the patient is dying, even if they have a legally valid medical directive and a power of attorney.

The church body apparently mandates that all workplace problems be handled in-house

And if they’d done a better job of handling it, she might not have felt the need to sue.
Yep, they’re a**holes.

While people here are debating abstracts such as the rights of the church and conveying the correct “tone’ in chastising their actions, we must remember that this lady is out of a job. And this is during a time when triple-digit unemployment rates are the norm.

Worst still, teachers, particularly in public schools, are being laid off left and right. So now, not only does she have a chronic illness that’s probably expensive to treat, she’s possibly without medical insurance and a steady source of income if she hasn’t found another job already.

The repercussions of firing her during such a vulnerable period should be obvious to that church yet they just did not give a damn.  It couldn’t have been about the money. After all, they did choose to spend thousands of money to take this case to the Supreme Court….which was probably much more than what they would’ve ended up paying the lady if they had allowed her to return. They just wanted the right to screw over their employees with impunity just like these big corporations. 

Since when did churches start taking their cues on morality from Walmart?

Also, the school was able to provide evidence that it was not unilaterally and capriciously applying the title “minister” in this case. The teacher had, through the school, sought out the title, and had used it to describe herself.

Don’t know if it’s been pointed out yet, but the school in question does have a non-arbitrary reason for considering the teacher’s behavior contrary to their religious doctrine:  1 Corinthians 6: 1- 8.

Let me hasten to add that I think that the school in question wrongly applies this teaching;  in context, it clearly means “Stop making us look like douchehats in front of the Mundanes”, and this case is a clear example of EPICFAIL in that regards.

Not to mention the follow-up admonition from Paul that this prohibition of lawsuits was not meant as a license to “cheat and do wrong to your brothers and sisters”;  if anything, it was a call to treat fellow members of the church more than fairly, in order to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.”

So it is unfair to accuse the church school of merely looking for an excuse to save money that had nothing to do with their religion’s teachings.

It does remain perfectly fair to label that behavior as “asshole”-ish.

Scratch it back in, Mr. Thomson.  The King will remain a tyrant.

Tangential note: I saw this old letter which shows that religious schools have a long and storied history of meddling where they damn well shouldn’t be.

It is interesting and possibly illuminating to see which organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the school…

Er, you’re still missing the facts, here. It’s a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) church. That’s mainstream Protestantism, not “evangelicals”, though the LCMS is one of the more conservative mainstream churches. It was also pointed out that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) is *also* a mainstream Protestant church, even more liberal/lefty than most mainstream churches, so don’t be misled by the name. Either branch of Lutheranism is about as ‘evangelical’ (in the modern sense) as the Roman Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, in the historical sense of ‘evangelical’ as preached back in the 16th century, the Lutheran churches did call themselves Evangelical. Do not confuse historical and modern/political meanings.