Supreme Court Religion Decision/Hosana Case

A small Protestant church and school, less than 100, that would ordain its teachers fired an employee/pastor for what appears to be health related reasons.

The defrocked woman sued under the EEOC saying she was being fired for health reasons not religious reasons. The church maintained it should get to choose who its pastors are.

All nine justices came down on the side of the church maintaining that it should have the right to choose who its pastors are. This ruling is huge! Really expands the seperation of church and state to the point that they don't have to obey US labor laws.

FredHayek wrote: A small Protestant church and school, less than 100, that would ordain its teachers fired an employee/pastor for what appears to be health related reasons.

The defrocked woman sued under the EEOC saying she was being fired for health reasons not religious reasons. The church maintained it should get to choose who its pastors are.

All nine justices came down on the side of the church maintaining that it should have the right to choose who its pastors are. This ruling is huge! Really expands the seperation of church and state to the point that they don't have to obey US labor laws.

Why don't you link to the actual story. And while you are at it... you could comment on ALL THE DETAIL... most of which you left out... on purpose. Ok... I guess you're answering your own question from the other thread... "do you think people who participate here are smarter than the general population or stupider"... you're stupider.

Now for the real details...

"The Court, in upholding the right of churches to select their own ministers without government interference, has confirmed a critical religious liberty in our country," Harrison said in a written statement. "The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod places great emphasis on the religious education of its children and the important role of commissioned ministers in promoting our faith, so we are thankful that the Court has confirmed our church's right to decide who will be serving as ministers in our churches and schools."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/fait ... z1jHQOV4yN

If you read the article... there is a lot more than Fred made it out to be.

I could link to the whole decision but I don't think most people have the time nor desire to read it.
And you are just spitting out what the reporters and the church say, but more important is going to be the long term effect. The biggest case affirming the support of church freedom in over 20 years. And IMO, overstepping. One example reported in the Post today says that a Catholic university could choose to fire their religious teachers without cause but not their secular ones. Doesn't this sound a little bizarre?

And also historic was the court all supporting the same decision. You would think at least Ruth Bader Ginsburg would dissent. Personally I can't remember the last time the Supremes did that. Can you?

Usually a clear cut case never makes it this high.

FredHayek wrote: I could link to the whole decision but I don't think most people have the time nor desire to read it.
And you are just spitting out what the reporters and the church say, but more important is going to be the long term effect. The biggest case affirming the support of church freedom in over 20 years. And IMO, overstepping. One example reported in the Post today says that a Catholic university could choose to fire their religious teachers without cause but not their secular ones. Doesn't this sound a little bizarre?

And also historic was the court all supporting the same decision. You would think at least Ruth Bader Ginsburg would dissent. Personally I can't remember the last time the Supremes did that. Can you?

Usually a clear cut case never makes it this high.

You totally miss the point. If you read the basics of the ruling, you will see that "The Court, in upholding the right of churches to select their own ministers without government interference...[/i]" This woman was considered a MINISTER, not just an employee. The right for a church or a religious organization to decide who is a qualified minister or who is not a qualified minister is as old as this country. You're the one who is ignoring what could be a long term effect if this foundational religious freedom concept was shoved aside.

And if you "don't think most people have the time nor desire to read it" then why in hell did you post the topic in the first place? Evidently you didn't have the time or desire to read it either since your retelling of the ruling was half-assed.

You think this is a clear cut case, but if it was, why did it make it to the Supreme Court?

FredHayek wrote: You think this is a clear cut case, but if it was, why did it make it to the Supreme Court?

It's clear cut now.

Here's my thoughts

The case establishes that a church can act like its own government - with its own standards, rules, etc.

The implications are fairly vast - and I would not be surprised to see a lot of "ministries" develop, and grow around this single decision.

- Christian colleges will declare their faculty ministers
- The number of so-called "ministries" will grow dramatically
- Job security will diminish -
- "Orthodoxy" will increase
- The case will be the seed of increasing Christian radicalism.

I'm not trying to stir up fear in anyone - but this is what I see growing out of this case.
(I'm an evangelical Christian - and I'm not so sure I'd call this a good decision for the faith) )

so you think the crusaders are on their way back? it was my understanding that no federal laws were broken to my knowledge.

bailey bud wrote: Here's my thoughts

The case establishes that a church can act like its own government - with its own standards, rules, etc.

The implications are fairly vast - and I would not be surprised to see a lot of "ministries" develop, and grow around this single decision.

- Christian colleges will declare their faculty ministers
- The number of so-called "ministries" will grow dramatically
- Job security will diminish -
- "Orthodoxy" will increase
- The case will be the seed of increasing Christian radicalism.

I'm not trying to stir up fear in anyone - but this is what I see growing out of this case.
(I'm an evangelical Christian - and I'm not so sure I'd call this a good decision for the faith) )

Your so right... this is absolutely scary... I don't doubt that in 3 or 4 years we will be seeing beheadings of non-believers on Sunday afternoon after services... hopefully Homeland Security will be able to put a halt to this before it gets out of hand.

Twin - there's obviously boundaries to church independence - I don't think the church will gravitate as far as you suggest (I presume tongue-in-cheek).

Nonetheless - I do think this decision moves the faith into a more extreme direction. At the same time - there are limits for extremes.

My own opinion is that this decision will promote orthodoxy over civility. (a buzzword that has regrettably been hijacked by the Dems).