Thankfully, the Supreme Court was unanimous on this question.

It shows the creepy agenda of the Obama administration, arguing for government control even in church and religious administrations.

"Religious organizations won a landmark victory Wednesday as the Supreme Court held that churches have the right to make employment decisions free from government interference over discrimination laws.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers........."

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-for-religion/

It would have been nice, too, if the court had gone a bit further and ordered religions to keep out of government.

Prox I couldnt agree more

A totally bogus decision. This did not have to do with church freedom but with an teacher of secular subjects (that means non-church related, to you Republicans) with a disability who was fired.

What did this decison have to do with, "It shows the creepy agenda of the Obama administration, arguing for government control even in church and religious administrations."?

Originally Posted by ProximaMan

It would have been nice, too, if the court had gone a bit further and ordered religions to keep out of government.

What does this mean???????

Should it be against the law for anyone but a proven atheist to be a government employee or hold government office?

We have freedom of religion. No one ever promised you freedom "from" religion.

are you kidding me? Your hatred for Obama leads to this post? Again,are you kidding me?

Originally Posted by buggyone

A totally bogus decision. This did not have to do with church freedom but with an teacher of secular subjects (that means non-church related, to you Republicans) with a disability who was fired.

What did this decison have to do with, "It shows the creepy agenda of the Obama administration, arguing for government control even in church and religious administrations."?

She was a teacher of religion "and was designated a commissioned minister". From the Supreme Court Opinion published at NYTimes:

"The Synod classifies its school teachers into two categories: "called" and "lay." "Called" teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. To be eligible to be considered "called," a teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study.

Once called, a teacher receives the formal title "Minister of Religion, Commissioned." "Lay" teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. Although lay and called teachers at Hosanna-Tabor generally performed the same duties, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable.

After respondent Cheryl Perich completed the required training, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted the call and was designated a commissioned minister. In addition to teaching secular subjects, Perich taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service. Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.

Perich developed narcolepsy and began the 2004-2005 school year on disability leave. In January 2005, she notified the school principal that she would be able to report to work in February. The principal responded that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill Perich's position for the remainder of the school year. The principal also expressed concern that Perich was not yet ready to return to the classroom. The congregation subsequently offered to pay......
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...otus-text.html

How could any thinking person think the federal government should over-ride the decisions of church ministers over their "ministers" and religion teachers????

Originally Posted by waynet

are you kidding me? Your hatred for Obama leads to this post? Again,are you kidding me?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against an Obama Administration argument and the OP posting a thread about it leads to cries of hatred for Obama himself? That is sure some strong kool-aid.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

What does this mean???????

Should it be against the law for anyone but a proven atheist to be a government employee or hold government office?

We have freedom of religion. No one ever promised you freedom "from" religion.

If you have a real difficult time understanding what I said I feel very bad for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion View Post
What does this mean???????

Should it be against the law for anyone but a proven atheist to be a government employee or hold government office?

We have freedom of religion. No one ever promised you freedom "from" religion.


If you have a real difficult time understanding what I said I feel very bad for you.

Reply With Quote

I am not a fan of religious right wing politics and I am a independent, But I don't know what you mean either.
So you don't have to feel "bad" for him or me please explain!

I am not clear at all what you mean.

Originally Posted by ProximaMan

If you have a real difficult time understanding what I said I feel very bad for you.

If you have trouble explaining a rationale I feel very bad for you.

Interesting thing that was just pointed out to me...

So this woman develops narcolepsy and goes for treatment. She comes back and they've replaced her with a *lay* teacher, according to the article quoted earlier. She then sues on the grounds of a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Church.

So a church can trump legal or Constitutional protections because they're a church.

Ok, so it was the Lutherans this time. What if it was a Muslim school claiming something under sharia law prevented this person from resuming teaching her 'secular' classes?

Originally Posted by djplong

What if it was a Muslim school claiming something under sharia law prevented this person from resuming teaching her 'secular' classes?

I don't think they would touch it with a ten foot pole.

Yeah, the comment I heard was "Ok, so Lutheran synod = Good, Islamic sharia = Bad"