Posted on 10/08/2011 11:47:15 AM PDT by marshmallow
In argument before the Supreme Court on an anti-discrimination case, the solicitor general—representing the Obama administration—said that the government would uphold the right of the Catholic Church to preserve an all-male priesthood, but only “because the balance of relative public and private interests is different in each case.”
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which a woman charged that she was wrongfully dismissed from a teaching position at a Lutheran school. School officials countered that the teacher had been dismissed because she did not accept the teachings of the church. The case turned on the “ministerial exception” that is traditionally according to religious bodies, allowing them to set the standards for their own religious personnel.
Leodra Kruger, making the case for the solicitor general, questioned the “ministerial exception” directly. When questioned by Chief Justice John Roberts on whether religious groups should have the right to judge the qualifications of their own key employees, she replied: “We don't see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such.”
When Justice Stephen Breyer pressed the issue, asking specifically whether the Catholic Church should be allowed to bar women from the priesthood, Kruger replied: “The government's general interest in eradicating discrimination in the workplace is simply not sufficient to justify changing the way that the Catholic Church chooses its priests, based on gender roles that are rooted in religious doctrine.” But by casting her legal argument in terms of the government’s interests, rather than the unchanging language of the First Amendment, she left open the possibility that at some future date, under different circumstances, the government could side with women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.
Several justices expressed qualms about Kruger’s legal reasoning during the oral arguments. When they eventually issue a ruling on the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case, the Supreme Court justices may reject the solicitor general’s logic and affirm the “ministerial exception.” But their decision could also making Hosanna a landmark case in the interpretation of the First Amendment—and in the Church’s defense of the all-male priesthood.
Supreme Court asks: could discrimination claim force female priests? (CNA)
Supreme Court case could affect suits against Church for discrimination (CWN, 9/22)
Yeah! The First and Forth Amendments
So help me understand Mr.Breyer,if your senile dementia can bear with me. The US Constitution Article III was written by the Constitutional Convention and adopted by Congress-and the States —and ALL Judges are administered solemn oath to make their opinions “agreeable to the Constitution.” (AM I right so far?” ) Now unless I am mistaken that US Constitution that Justice John Marshall said Marbury v. Madison ,1803 That opine said the Oath especially governs the Judges actions in their official conduct. And Unless I am mistaken the First Amendment clearly declares Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:” Still with me? sir? Modern myth and progressive Jurists like yourself who insist we cannot know the intent of the men who wrote that. And y’all tend to believe there is a Constitutional Separation of church and State.... and y’all apply that myth on regular basis against the cause of religion. Either y’all are LIARS on separation of church and State. Or the Government has absolutely NO Power over the Church No cause to be meddling in Religious affairs.
Thank you.
People who talk that kind of argle-bargle, you just know they're out to destroy everything we value in our culture. Someone press the Zot key ...
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Deaf teachers....
bookmark
Hermaphrodite hookers...
I would love to see the Supremes rule:
The Constitution explicitly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".Let them have fun with that.There is NO wording in the Constitution giving the Federal Government power to regulate discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
Any law or regulations which purport to give any federal entity the authority to question the decisions of any religious or religious-associated institution are hereby cancelled.
Interesting. Non-catholic (and liberal) Breyer asked a question that six of his colleagues--all Catholic (four and a half of them conservative)--might have felt too conflicted to ask.
Of course this is about the all male priesthood of the Catholic Church, and the male only position of most Baptist churches.
At root, though, this is about the right of a church to define its own doctrine. If that is not upheld, then every church in America is covertly a “Church of the US Government”, and simply awaiting the day the government steps in to pronounce new or changed rules.
Any denial that the government is targeting the male-only priesthood is also simply a matter of timing. The real issue is that they are not targeting it “NOW.”
A year, a decade, a century later, and then it might be just the right time.
Just like the Chinese select all of the Catholic bishops, now our Dear Leader, wants to select Catholic priests!
What type of Lutheran school was this? Was it WELS, LCMS or ELCA?
HOWEVER, if the government is interfering with the inner workings of the church then it is time for the churches to start openly interfering with the inner workings of the government.
Chief Justice Roberts was the initial one to raise the issue of the Church and the Priesthood. Breyer was just chiming in after the fact.
The Chief Justice raised the issue to draw out Leodra Kruger. It's called playing devil's advocate.
I can't see this Court daring to wade into the morass of determining qualifications for membership or leadership of religious organizations. I'm cautiously hopeful that the Court will kick the Obama administration square in the forehead with at least a 7-2 vote--maybe even 8-1 (Sotomayor is so stupid and arrogant, I can't accurately predict what that idiot might do).
Placemark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.