Why don't people understand that seperation of Church and State....

[tonypaladino]

Why don't people understand that seperation of Church and State goes both ways?

Link

A teacher and the NYCLU is suing the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn because she was fired for being pregnant out of wedlock.

The catholic church has stict guidlines for sexual behavior, and requires Catholic school teachers to abide by church guidelines. The NYCLU is claiming that her firing is a violation of Federal Employment laws.

The ACLU and it's local counterparts are the first ones to scream about seperation of church and state when religious values are brought into government, but they are ok with the federal government, through the EEOC, tell the church who it can and cannot hire.

Pure Hipocracy.

[whiskeytown]

hypocricy (or hypocrisy - both are valid and used in book titles) - but I won't let the misspelling alter my response.

the ACLU is the American CIVIL LIBERTIES union.

They are not pro govt. or anti govt. or pro religion or anti religion.

They believe the first step to a free democracy is the individual freedoms that we enjoy and that they should be preserved - that can be done thru any means - thru the govt. or otherwise. Mandated religious expressions, no - Govt. interference in religion - no - but they're not anti-religion either.

No one ever talks about the time they FOUGHT for a kid to say a prayer. The kid had a valdectorian prayer he wanted to give and the School said it would violate Seperation laws and the ACLU argued that if it was an individual expression, not a govt. enforced mandated prayer, that it was ok.

In this case, they're fighting for the woman to keep her job. In most states, you can't fire someone for moral issues - not in Minneapolis, for sure.

actually, it sounds like ACLU is involved because the firing is discriminatory because only women can be targeted. Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[censored], this discrimination is as old as the Bible - they were gonna stone a woman for adultry, but no one knows where the man she was caught with went during the story. Interesting enough, Jesus forgave her....where did he get the [censored] nerve to demand such a thing from Religious authorities I don't know.

but as the article states - "We're not going to tell the diocese what they can practice, but if they are applying their doctrine in a way that is not gender neutral, then it's illegal."

I don't see this as being nearly the about face you describe - you get all your info about the ACLU from the Rush Limbaugh program, don't you.

As an organized religion with tax-exempt status, they are still expected to comply with Federal/State employment laws and to not discriminate based on Gender in this regard, and failure to do should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

They are seperate, but they still have to comply with Federal Law to get their special benefits, and that includes not discriminating against female employees.

RB

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, Federal anti-discrimination laws have an excemtion for when it involves reasons necessary to the nature of the job. (There is a technical/legal term for this, but I am to tired to think of it) It is this principle that allows strip clubs to hire only young women, and a producer of a play to hire an actor of a particuar ethnicity to portray a historical character.

One of the duties of a teacher in a Catholic school is to teach the students about the catholic faith, and to abide by catholic principles. Allowing an obviously pregnant single woman is not within catholic principles, and it is the Diocese's right not to allow this woman in a classroom.

And btw- I was raised Catholic, but I do not practice, and have a lot of problems with the catholic church and specifically the diocese of brooklyn. The church is a terribly corrupt and immoral organization, but I feel strongly about the freedom of employers to hire whomever they see fit. A lot of people in this country thinks certain feedoms and rights are one way streets, and that's not the way it should be.

[whiskeytown]

and yet, if they want tax-exempt status, they are expected to abide by certain Federal standards...

I know of several religious colleges who won't take Federal money cause then they couldn't be discriminatory in who they take as students. They give up Federal money and exemptions so they can practice their business (not religion, but business) with their own special religious guidelines.

If the Catholic Church wants the right to hire and fire who they want without respect of the laws that give them protection and tax-exempt status, then they are expected to abide by those Federal guidelines and give up their tax-exempt status.

If the Catholic Church wants to give up it's tax exempt status and fire whoever it wants, I say go for it. They'll never go for it, of course, and thus we have to decide it in the courts.

Sometimes, the only solution is a courtroom. This is a good place for this disagreement.

RB

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, Federal anti-discrimination laws have an excemtion for when it involves reasons necessary to the nature of the job. (There is a technical/legal term for this, but I am to tired to think of it) It is this principle that allows strip clubs to hire only young women, and a producer of a play to hire an actor of a particuar ethnicity to portray a historical character.

One of the duties of a teacher in a Catholic school is to teach the students about the catholic faith, and to abide by catholic principles. Allowing an obviously pregnant single woman is not within catholic principles, and it is the Diocese's right not to allow this woman in a classroom.

And btw- I was raised Catholic, but I do not practice, and have a lot of problems with the catholic church and specifically the diocese of brooklyn. The church is a terribly corrupt and immoral organization, but I feel strongly about the freedom of employers to hire whomever they see fit. A lot of people in this country thinks certain feedoms and rights are one way streets, and that's not the way it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony,

Although I understand the general tenor of your post, Whiskey has framed the argument accurately & succinctly.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Catholic Church wants the right to hire and fire who they want without respect of the laws that give them protection and tax-exempt status, then they are expected to abide by those Federal guidelines and give up their tax-exempt status.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with your argument, Whiskey. You are saying the government is not interferring with the Church, because they could give up their tax exempt status if they wanted to pursue their own hiring policies.

If the choice is between setting their own hiring/firing guidelines based on their principles, or have the government take a big chunk of their funds, how is that not having the government involved with dictating their practices?

It reminds me of the scene in Casino where they catch the blackjack cheats. In the backroom DeNiro's character tells the guys he can keep the money and get his hand smashed with a hammer or he can leave without the money; he can't have both. That is what you are saying to the Church. You can have your principles or your money, but you cannot have both.

I think the OP's point is correct. People who complain about religion involved in government generally aren't as concerned with government trying to force its values on religious institutions.

[whiskeytown]

as with religion and individuals, there is an implicit yet unspoken agreement between them and the Govt.

The Govt. takes care of certain things, like protection via military, good roads, your education. Citizens pay for it and the Govt. organizes it - the implicit contract is that we will the obey the laws of the govt. as it pertains to oh, stealing, killing, and not do so.

If we disagree with those laws, we can leave, but otherwise, should we break them, it has to be settled in the court of law.

The seperation of Church and State is mostly to keep religion from interfering with the govt. and trying to establish itself as a theocracy. But it also tries to insulate religion from the state. However, the religion is still required to abide by the contract saying it won't commit job discrimination based on gender.

Since they have broken that implicit contract, it must be settled in court. It's the way it's worked ever since we started getting equal rights and diversity in this country.

People say "business should be able to hire and fire whoever they want irregardless" - yet we as the People say "If you are going to set up shop in this country, work and profit under our laws, enjoy our protections and tax breaks, then you WILL conduct yourself according to EEOC laws and we will not allow you to just go off and fire anyone willy-nilly."

Companies who have disagreed with this have moved manfacturing overseas - (sweatshops in Asia, anyone?) where they can engage in nice flagrant abuses of human rights...

BUT HERE IN THE US... that is what we have established as the law of the land.

I say it again - if they don't like it, they can do business elsewhere - otherwise compliance with Fed/State law is the price of doing business, and here in MN, for example, you have to have justified cause - primarly derliction of duty - since pregnancy doesn't affect how she does her job or in any way make her neglegent, and since they seem to be showing a habit of only firing women for this "transgression" which isn't even illegal, then yes, they are violating that contract.

It doesn't get any plainer then that...

RB

[JackWhite]

Help me out on this one, Whiskey. You are saying the Church needs to follow the same rules that anybody else does. General Motors cannot discriminate against women, so the Church shouldn't either. Last time I checked, women were not allowed to be priests. They were expressely discriminated against. If that is not blatant sex discrimination, then I have no idea what is.

Should the government tell the Church that it cannot discriminate on the basis of gender in determining who becomes a priest?

Since you are a big fan of everyone following the same rules, I am sure you agreed with those who sought to ban certain Indian tribes from using peyote. If you remember, they claimed it was part of their religious practices. Since you or I cannot smoke peyote, why should they? As you said, we should all live under the same rules and if you dont' like it, leave.

[whiskeytown]

or let it be decided in a court of law.

If you had your way it'd all be decided in the Court of Rush Limbaugh....thank god the founding fathers had more wisdom then the both of you.

The girl isn't a priest.....it isn't a religious job - she's a [censored] schoolteacher who was ALLOWED to have the job - she was just teaching at a Catholic High School is all and she's not a nun or anyone that's protected or prosecuted under clergy status.

you can take any absurd example to the nth degree to try to prove a sidepoint, but you can't seem to refute the core argument.

So to sum up - JW says - "Well, maybe GOD says it's ok to discriminate against women...so why can't we? - Religious freedom!!!"

fap fap fap fap fap...

RB

[Peter666]

Nobody should assume anything about the teacher. How she got pregnant and whether she is married or not is her business.

But if this teacher was publicly saying that she is unmarried and pregnant, then the school should be able to fire her for providing a bad example to the students. Morality is a core part of the curriculum and this situation would undermine that part of the education. If they can fire incompetent teachers, they should be allowed to fire her.

If however there was somebody nosy who initiated gossip and ruined her reputation through detraction, then the teacher should not be fired. She could leave her job to have the baby and come back under normal circumstances.