The Supreme Court's Religious Freedom Reality Check
Few subjects prompt louder cries of anguish than suppressed religious liberty. Many Christians worry that precious freedoms are "under assault." Talk about a "war on religion" trips off the tongues of many activists.
We are right to be concerned, because religious freedom is vital and necessary for the health of society. This is why the 2009 Manhattan Declaration considers it a core concern, and why key Catholic and evangelical leaders now work together to protect it. The question is: Are we on the verge of secular totalitarianism, as some activists seem to suggest?
Christian concerns about a suffocating secularism go back decades. Yet activists who sound the alarms today fear more than the loss of a religious perspective in public life. Religious identity itself is at stake, and along with it, freedom of conscience.
Colleges and universities pressure campus fellowships to admit leaders hostile to Christian moral teaching. Governments that partner with Christian groups are now severing ties because faith groups refuse to place needy children with homosexual couples. Hospitals seek to strip medical workers' conscience protections; they strong-arm nurses into assisting with abortions. Bureaucrats bully religious employers into bankrolling health plans that include contraceptives or the morning-after pill.
Attempts to constrict religious liberty are indeed terrifyingly real; hence we understand the rhetoric of grave threats and imminent dangers. But in the midst of all this, a blessedly reassuring Supreme Court decision has arrived. We hope it will rouse the doomsday prophets from their fatalistic crouch.
In mid-January, the court issued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC ruling. The case pitted a Missouri-Synod Lutheran school in suburban Detroit against a disgruntled former teacher. After battling back from narcolepsy, Cheryl Perich requested her job back. School officials doubted Perich's fitness to teach. So they found a replacement and asked her to resign. Then, Perich threatened to file an employment discrimination lawsuit. But school officials fired her, because she transgressed a denominational rule to resolve disputes internally.
The court unanimously sided with the church and school. Religious institutions must retain the right to decide, in Chief Justice John Roberts's felicitous phrasing, who will "personify" their beliefs. The opinion affirmed a "ministerial exception" to workplace-discrimination law. It grounded this exception in both the no-establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Perich taught secular subjects, but she also gave doctrinal and moral instruction. She did so as a commissioned Lutheran minister. Allowing her suit to proceed would empower the courts to second-guess the school's assessment of her ministerial competence.
"The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," Roberts concluded. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission."
We wholeheartedly endorse the Supreme Court's opinion. Government micromanagement of faith-based hiring and firing undercuts free-exercise rights intolerably. But many people don't see things this way. They sympathize with Perich. They abhor the church's exemption from rules that protect workers from prejudice. Our culture instinctively recoils at the notion of discrimination.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 12 comments
See all comments
David Mueller
It is necessary to keep two things distinct: 1. The SC case had *nothing* to do with whether the teacher should have been fired or not. That was precisely what the SC decided--it was not within their jurisdiction, because she was within the category of the "ministerial exception". The Appellate Court had reversed the original Fed Court decision to throw out the case. The Ap. Crt. ruled that she *was not* a "minister of religion", in spite of her and the church-body's designation of her as such. (She *accepted* such designation, at first, then tried to argue against her own status, when it came to the suit.) The SC ruled that the fed courts have no business determining for a church who their ministers are. She was not fired because of her disability. She was fired because she sued in secular court, and did not pursue redress within the church body using its own processes. She may well have "won" had she done so. But she didn't. (The school is closed now, anyway.)
Richard MITTWEDE
Alan Beagley - The LCMS rosters teachers as "Ministers of Religion, Commissioned." As such, though not ordained, she would have been receiving part of her salary as the "ministers housing allowance."
Alan Beagley
The church got around the normal antidiscrimination laws by declaring her to be a "minister," but if she really was a minister, she should have been able to have part or all of her salary classified as "minister's housing allowance" (and therefore non-taxable, but included as income for Social Security contribution purposes). If she was not able to do so, as I suspect she was not (because she was not ordained), then calling her a "minister" was bogus.