I Pit Those who Believe in a War on Religion

[Sicks_Ate]

I wish this were a thread about the war on religion.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Lightnin

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Searching legal literature is harder than I thought, but apparently that was in regard to Voyager’s comment that the church is not allowed to discriminate against female employees. In the cited case the court seems to have found that religious-based discrimination can be permissible, as long as the relevant position is sufficiently ministerial:

For example, in EEOC v. Catholic University of America, Sister McDonough alleged that in denying her tenure in the Department of Cannon Law, the University discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. n104 Sister McDonough argued that the exception did not apply because [*1060] she was not an ordained minister, and her role at the University was more educational than religious. n105 The court disagreed, finding that her employment duties met the ministerial-function test because "although Sister McDonough [was] not a priest, she [was] a member of a religious order who sought a tenured professorship in a field that is of fundamental importance to the spiritual mission of her Church.”

Nexis Uni® - Sign In | LexisNexis

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Why, then, should Catholic Charities and similar organizations get the benefits of Church affiliation?

Because its an election year and Catholics are a swing vote that can be appeased by forcing the minimal cost onto insurance companies.

Of course I think that as a Christian Scientist (not particularly devout but pretty good at expressing moral outrage), insurance companies should have to pay for all the health care costs of all my employees. Or I am Amish and I don’t believe in insurance altogether so my bank shouldn’t have to comply with FDIC regulations or provide health insurance.

I mean we’d have to do that otherwise we run into an establishemnt of religion issue don’t we? I mean we can’t JUST mollify the Catholics right?

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

I’m not sure that’s entirely settled.

As I asked above, how does the President get the authority to order insurance companies to extend this kind of coverage?

Didn’t it come from the HHS Department? As part of the cabinet, the President’s within his rights to consult with, and decide on, rules that are going to be enforceable by the department. Health care and coverage is already currently enforced by them, aren’t they? Why blame the President for something that a government department is mandated to do?

That’s like saying that the President’s responsible for the FDA legalizing a certain drug, or rejecting one. Sure, the head of the FDA probably works with the President, but to think of it in terms of a personal attack by the President is misleading.

You should revise your question again to take that into account. As far as I’m concerned, this rule is perfectly fine for him to implement, and insurers have to do it

[elucidator]

Wouldn’t someone have mentioned it if his move were patently illegal? I seem to recall some rumors about an opposition party?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

No. The original rule was the one that’s the subject of this announcement. You can see the date at the top of the page: Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

The President’s change was just recently announced.

Since this appears to be exactly the same rule, I’m going to have to ask for a citation. Otherwise, it looks like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. are simply late to the party.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Since this appears to be exactly the same rule, I’m going to have to ask for a citation. Otherwise, it looks like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. are simply late to the party.

So, the President’s recent announcement was… What, then?

[Bricker]

@Lightnin

What of it? I must have left my legal precedents in my other pants.

Seriously, why do you do this? You know we’re not all lawyers here- so why do you expect us to be able to look up the exact case you’re talking about and give an informed legal opinion?

I cited this case in post #13.

[Voyager]

@Paranoid_Randroid

Searching legal literature is harder than I thought, but apparently that was in regard to Voyager’s comment that the church is not allowed to discriminate against female employees. In the cited case the court seems to have found that religious-based discrimination can be permissible, as long as the relevant position is sufficiently ministerial:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=12162

I was thinking more of people working in the Admissions Office. I was not disputing that the Church was allowed to discriminate in the selection of ministers.

[Voyager]

@Bricker

I cited this case in post #13.

You wrote

In EEOC v. Catholic University of America, the DC circuit held that:
…the Free Exercise Clause exempts the selection of clergy from Title VII and similar statutes and, as a consequence, precludes civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination suits by ministers against the church or religious institution employing them.

and I specifically mentioned that non-clergy (who would be closer to the people covered by the policy) were the issue. And also that direct of employees of churches are still covered by the exemption. So Post 13 was irrelevant to my question.
Again- are non-clerical employees of Catholic universities covered by anti-discrimination laws?

ETA: Now whether clerical employees of Catholic universities would be covered for contraception is an interesting point - but since I trust that they would never make use of it, the point would be moot.

[Bricker]

@Voyager

You wrote
and I specifically mentioned that non-clergy (who would be closer to the people covered by the policy) were the issue. And also that direct of employees of churches are still covered by the exemption. So Post 13 was irrelevant to my question.
Again- are non-clerical employees of Catholic universities covered by anti-discrimination laws?

ETA: Now whether clerical employees of Catholic universities would be covered for contraception is an interesting point - but since I trust that they would never make use of it, the point would be moot.

My bad. Thought I quoted more from that case. It involves a nun who sought tenure on the staff of Catholic University as a professor of canon law. (Full disclosure: I attended CUA and received a licentiate in canon law).

So EEOC v. CUA goes on to say:

Sister McDonough argues that even if the ministerial exception is still valid, the district court applied it too broadly in this case. She emphasizes the fact that she is not an ordained minister and argues that her duties were not pervasively religious. We find her first assertion immaterial and disagree with the second.
.
.
.
As a member of that faculty, she would be entrusted with instructing students in the “fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws” that governs the Church’s sacramental life, defines the rights and duties of its faithful and the responsibilities of their pastors, and guides its administration.
.
.
.
That the University did not assert any religious basis for denying Sister McDonough tenure does not affect our conclusion; nor does the fact that her application never reached the ecclesiastical levels of review. The focus under the ministerial exception is on the action taken, not possible motives:

[T]he free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects the act of a decision rather than a motivation behind it. In these sensitive areas, the state may no more require a minimum basis in doctrinal reasoning than it may supervise doctrinal content.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

So, the President’s recent announcement was… What, then?

What I’ve already said it was: the announcement of what was then to be the rule as actually adopted. Discussion between the administration and the USCCB has been going on since last year:

Last November, amid deepening tensions between the bishops and the administration over the pending contraception mandate and other issues, Obama invited Dolan to the Oval Office, where the two men shared what Dolan called a productive and “extraordinarily friendly” meeting.

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back.

Walker Nickless, the Bishop of the Diocese of Sioux City is warning whoever will listen that the contraception mandate in health care reform is literally a plot by the Devil that required “violent opposition.”

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What I’ve already said it was: the announcement of what was then to be the rule as actually adopted. Discussion between the administration and the USCCB has been going on since last year:

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back.

I’m trying to avoid actually wading through the rule announcements, so maybe you can simplify things for me.

In my understanding, the President (or his Cabinet designees) made two announcements in the most recent month or so:

1. That religious institutions would have to pay to cover insurance contraception costs for their employees, and

2. Then, after considerable backlash to (1), a revised plan whereby the insurance companies would have to directly absorb the costs for contraception coverage.

Is this correct? And are you saying now that one rule covered both situations?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What? No. I’m only talking about (1). I didn’t realize you had a problem with the second one.

[DianaG]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back.

Sarah Palin says she and other opponents are ready to fight to the death over it.

Promises, promises…

I eagerly await the list of martyrs.

[elucidator]

…Newt Gingrich offered plenty of red meat, at one point accusing President Obama of wanting to “declare war” on the Catholic Church after his reelection…

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-cpac-20120210,0,4113865.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+(L.A.+Times+-+Politics)

[carnivorousplant]

@DianaG

Sarah Palin says she and other opponents are ready to fight to the death over it.

I knew that Greta Van Susteren had moved to Fox some time ago, but I had no idea she had…“turned” is the best term I can think of.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

In my understanding, the President (or his Cabinet designees) made two announcements in the most recent month or so:

1. That religious institutions would have to pay to cover insurance contraception costs for their employees, and

2. Then, after considerable backlash to (1), a revised plan whereby the insurance companies would have to directly absorb the costs for contraception coverage.

Is this correct? And are you saying now that one rule covered both situations?

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What? No. I’m only talking about (1). I didn’t realize you had a problem with the second one.

I see now that I misunderstood your original question. I didn’t realize you objected to the insurer mandate, as opposed to the employer mandate, since the former is what the thread was about.

I assume Obama’s “compromise” will be delayed subject to a new comment period, since it hasn’t even been released in rule form yet. That is, if it ever actually gets implemented, since the original kerfuffle appears to have turned into an excuse for Catholics and the politically overwrought to complain about everything.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

Strange, perhaps, for someone who has defended the Church in another recent thread or two, but I just … don’t see what the big deal is with the contraception mandate. Even persons who I normally respect phrase it as a grave example of religious freedom being crushed under the government’s foot:

@Edward Feser

The United States Council of Catholic Bishops has vigorously denounced this act of tyranny, and is working to reverse it. That is good, and we Catholics should support their efforts.

[…]

How surprised should they [the USCCB, who the author purports to have heretofore been too lax enforcing Church teachings] be now that one of these Catholic politicians – Kathleen Sebelius – has moved on from promoting abortion “rights” to actively persecuting her fellow Catholics, while other Catholics in the administration (such as Vice President Joe Biden) stand by without protest?

Any problems someone might have with the policy on, say, economic grounds, those may be perfectly reasonable and we should be willing to entertain them. But we live in a society that has made its choice with respect to the pervasiveness of contraception. So long as money if fungible and the targeted institutions pay their employees in money, any high ground the bishops (and their allies) wish to maintain through opposition is illusory. And not merely that — it actively provokes the overwhelming proportion of society who can’t see why contraception should be illicit.

If anyone yearns for a different kind of society, it’s time to back up, regroup, and weigh your options over the long run. Try as hard as you can to sway public opinion — but shrill and ultimately futile hostility will (I think) gain you nothing.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

Accepting that this is true, how is it relevant?

Or did you mean to imply that because some Catholic priests were child rapists, the entirety of the American Catholic church, lay faithful, priests, and religious, are all barred from any say in the formation of this country’s laws?

Catholics may of course argue from the perspective of logic, but they have completely lost the moral high ground. Not because some Catholic priests were and are child rapists, but because the Catholic hierarchy covered it up, effectively enabling child rape. This makes the Catholic Church hierarchy’s claims of morality as strong as that of any organization that enables child rapists.