The Church newsroom is beginning a series of statements about religious freedom. “Honoring religious freedom does not mean discarding other freedoms and social interests or subverting the law; religious freedom coexists with other legitimate (caveat alert) interests in society. Government has a critical role to . . . arbitrate the conflict of some rights with others.” So far so good.
Here’s the meaty paragraph where we discover where this series of articles is headed (at least if we use our X-Ray vision goggles to read between the lines): “Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources.” Such as? The article lists 2 vague examples and one ominous assertion:
- “Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways.” This is also pretty vague. Might we be talking about requiring adoption agencies to allow gay couples to adopt?
- “Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life.” This is pretty vague. Are we talking about Planned Parenthood getting funding from tax dollars? Doctors being required to perform abortions even if they are morally opposed?
- “These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience.” Are we talking about the rights of individuals or the rights of organizations? This reminds me of Mitt Romney’s “Corporations are people, my friend.” I get that organizations are comprised of people, but most rights we talk about are protections of individual rights from organizations, not the other way around. Do organizations merit rights like individuals do? What if they use those rights to supercede individual rights?
- “They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property.” Like, preventing discrimination?
- “They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities.” To prevent discrimination?
- “They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles, from health practitioners and other professionals to parents.” Because they broke discrimination laws?
- “In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded.” In favor of individual rights? Also, my college professors would have used a big swooshy “omit” on the phrase “and in many other circumstances” and written “name them!” in the margin.
- “And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often deceptively shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense.” IOW, the institution loses its freedoms big time for a small gain for individual freedoms.
- “In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them.” If I had written that sentence on a college essay, my teacher would have drawn through it with a big swooshy “omit” sign.
Is institutional freedom an oxymoron? Do organizations have rights like individuals or are laws in place to protect the rights of individuals from organizations? Is institutional freedom the same as religious freedom? Does it protect individual rights or is it at odds with them? Is it freedom to want to restrict the rights of others? Does it restrict our religious freedom for norms to make us seem quaint? Here are some possible examples of what “religious freedoms” might be curttailed:
- Organizations forced to follow equal opportunity practices in employment or school enrollment selection.
- Organizations not allowed to discriminate or create a hostile environment for individuals, including protected classes such as women, people of different religions, or homosexuals.
- Adoption agencies required to accept parents of various faiths or homosexual couples.
- Individual health practitioners or health organizations being required to perform procedures they disagree with (e.g. abortions).
- Restrictions on ministerial exemptions (see below).
Exponent II recently ran a fascinating (in a watching-a-train-wreck sort of way) Q&A about CES’s discriminatory policies toward women. I urge you to read their entire exchange, but here’s a great quotation that relates to the question of institutional freedom vs. individual rights:
Question: Is it true that mothers may not be seminary teachers?
Answer: No, that is not true. Mothers of young children are discouraged from being seminary teachers. (They are more than “discouraged” as you’ll see.)Question: So CES does hire mothers to be seminary teachers?
Answer: CES will hire mothers whose children are all over 18 and whose children have all graduated from high school.Question: What happens to a female seminary teacher who has a baby? Can she continue teaching seminary?
Answer: She stops teaching seminary when she has a baby.Question: She is fired?
Answer: No. Female seminary teachers understand this when they are hired. They know that they will only work as seminary teachers until they have children. (She’s not fired, but she can no longer work there. Hmmm.)Question: Do they have the option of continuing to teach when they become mothers?
Answer: They do not want to keep working full-time after they have children. They want to stay home with their children. (And we know this how?)Question: Doesn’t the Family Medical Leave Act require employers to allow mothers to return to work after maternity leave?
Answer: The Church has met all of the legal requirements to implement this policy.
Given that this policy is obviously discriminatory, how does it meet the legal requirements? Because these jobs are defined as ministerial which allows an exemption: “religious employers have consistently — and successfully — claimed an exemption from employment discrimination laws. This “ministerial exception” allows religious employers to avoid liability for discrimination when making employment decisions concerning employees who qualify as ministers.”
How do courts determine that a job is ministerial? They apply a “duties test that considers whether an employee’s job responsibilities render him “important to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the church.”” This clearly must be the CES stance as it does employ mothers with children at home in clerical roles (that have no ministerial exemption based on duties).
The conclusion CES and the church have made is that women with children between the ages of 0 and 18 in the home are not fit to be paid seminary or institute teachers. Likewise, neither are divorced men or women or single men. However, in areas where unpaid lay members teach, these restrictions do not apply. As a result, those in CES instructor areas (primarily Utah, Idaho and Mesa), very seldom hear a female perspective on the gospel in seminary or institute, and the organization is far more male-dominated than the church as a whole.
- Is it inconsistent that a working woman can hold a TR and be called to teach seminary on a volunteer basis, but not be considered fit to be paid to teach seminary or institute?
- Is this a proper use of “ministerial exception” or are seminary and institute teachers really no different than any of the unpaid ministerial positions in the church that do not have these restrictions?
- Would it infringe on the church’s rights if leglislation forced them to stop discriminating against women with children ages 0-18 in the home? Would it be worth it because of the individual rights protected in such an action? What about divorced men and women and single men?
Let’s get your perspective:
[poll id=”40″]
[poll id=”41″]
What other threats to religious freedoms do you believe we will see in the near future? Do you agree that organizations need to be protected as well as individuals?
The original newsroom articles concludes thusly:
“Given the depth of these conflicts and the controversy that they sometimes create, it is essential that all parties are civil as they negotiate these deeply important issues. . . . Each group, including religious individuals (not a group, BTW) and organizations (that’s the only group – there aren’t two groups – seriously, where is the editor?), is responsible to state its views reasonably in order to contribute to meaningful discussion.”
So let’s have a civil discussion, shall we?
Wheat & Tares 
Some of this has already been settled in the courts. World Vision has been upheld in it’s right to fire or not hire anyone it considers not to be Christian. Here in the Puget Sound area 2 employees were fired because they converted to religions not deemed “Christian”.
I think the church sees itself on the losing end eventually of the gay marriage fight with all that may portend and is trying to bolster it’s defenses against wherever that may go.
hawkgrrrl,
You talk of freedom but I don’t think you are defining it correctly. The idea is freedom from first strike aggression. To use government to force a company or church to do something it doesn’t want to is a first strike aggression. The individual has no right to a job from any institution. Likewise an institution has no right to force an individual to work for it.
The laws for corporations are skewed. The idea of a corporation is a statist idea, for it is truly made up of individuals and when it screws up or does something malicious (like first strike aggression) the people responsible in the organization should be held responsible, the immunity that individuals currently have in corporations is antithetical to liberty (being responsible for your own sins).
Two wrongs do not make a right. I think both the government and the the church are both on the wrong sides, sometimes. The church has not right to stop gay people getting married, neither do gay people have a right to force churches to marry them, neither does the government have a right to require a license to get married. All parties are using first strike aggression and they are all wrong to do so.
Yes, it may not be social acceptable for an organization to fire someone for having a baby but neither is it OK to use violence to force that company to do that which is socially acceptable. But individuals have the right to not patronage that company and they have the right to not work for them to begin with.
Hawk,
I always love your posts, they are usually good, but with all due respect who cares about these social issues at this time. The only issue that matters at this point is the aliening economy and the path towards bankruptcy. If we stay on the same path that is crushing Europe – the path to bankruptcy Obama has put us on we are finished as a nation. If the whole world freaks out when Greece or Spain is on the brink of bankruptcy; the whole world will collapse if the United States goes bankrupt. As of yesterday, our national debt just exceeded our national GDP. It will be a collapse of biblical proportions – riots, looting, arson, murder and a whole host of similar activity – absolute mayhem. The occupy wall street crowd times 100.
Will, I care about social issues. Just sayin’.
Hawk, I think in the first question, both answers are true. Presently the church has legal right to engage in what can be broadly defined as discriminatory.
(I would say this about volunteer seminary teachers — they normally teach only one early morning class a day, while paid seminary teachers are working full time. I can imagine someone who writes CES policy who does not want to encourage a mom to be working away from her small children would see a difference there. I’m not justifying their position, only pointing out that the two cases are not the same.)
“I always love your posts, they are usually good, but with all due respect who cares about these social issues at this time. ”
I care since my wife was turned down for a job at World Vision since she’s LDS. The Bill of Rights protects you from government but only statutes passed by legislature protect you from your employer like the railroad that made my dad work any shift, any day and without time off or the church that will fire you if you don’t pay tithing or get pregnant.
And before this post descends into a discussion of fiscal conservancy, remember all those who lost their jobs in the name of belt tightening and reduction in government.
First let me offer this caveat, I am not a lawyer. But it looks like CES got caught with its pants down and, like a child, is trying to make an excuse before getting swatted by the government. It seems CES is saying, “I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.” How ironic.
I dunno, Hawk. I mean I really do agree with everything you’ve written. And I think it’s really sad how CES operates. And I think the curtailing “religious freedom” nonsense the church is propagating is ridiculous (in a sense). I also agree that it is most unfortunate that judgmental attitudes about women, single men, etc. will most likely be the end result, coupled with a perpetuation of a male-dominated patriarchy.
But I think all those things on a moral level, which is not the same as what I believe the correct answer is. On an ethical level I have to agree with Jon. The gov’t has no more right to tell a corporation (and that’s what the church is) who to hire, and fire, than it does to tell an individual who to work for. That doesn’t make the actions of the church right by any means, nor does it justify their behavior, but I think the discussion of “rights” has to be clearly in the realm of ethical rights, and not moral obligations. So I would not be in favor of using gov’t to curtail their right to do what they’ve done, and in that sense, I CAN understand the rhetoric surrounding the infringement of religious freedom. Religious freedom has, is, and will be used as an excuse to do all kinds of immoral things. That’s the price we pay!
What should happen is that people should see how unfortunate this is and it should cause them to take pause and evaluate their religious choices and associations with the organization. But that’s unlikely to happen in an already male-dominated patriarchy.
What is most frustrating is the picking and choosing of when they want to play the religious freedom card. On the one hand they are against the government impinging upon their institutional freedom by crying religious freedom, but then they are happy to use the government to impinge upon other peoples civil freedom if it doesn’t match with their definition of what religious freedom involves.
The problem is that religious freedom is about the individual and their right to worship in whatever manner they want. It is not about corporate freedom. Just because the corporation is involved in helping other people worship it does not make it have the same rights as an individual.
#7: jmb275,
“The gov’t has no more right to tell a corporation (and that’s what the church is) who to hire, and fire.”
I don’t think that is true. There are all kinds of laws and rules on this.
Bob,
Just because there are laws on the book doesn’t mean that the government has that right.
Just like the constitution, it says the government shouldn’t do stuff and gives it a very limited purview of what it can do, yet the government doesn’t pay attention to it (only in a limited ways now days). Just because the government doesn’t follow it doesn’t mean it is right that they don’t follow it.
The rights we are talking about are natural rights, or God’s law, etc.
I was a volunteer CES Teacher for the last 7 years and I have to say I have become very disillusioned about the entire CES program. I grew in Utah and knew about women not being allowed to be seminary teacher and thought it was very unfair. After moving east and being ask to teach seminary I was very excited, however; (at least in the last two areas we have lived in) CES seems to have morphed into a prep program for BYU. In training meetings we were told to gloss over difficult questions students might bring up and we were taught to focus on cutesy little object lessons. I taught a large group of special needs students and when I objected to a new program that they couldn’t participate in, I was told to be quiet because the CES coordinator had recieved “revelation” and I needed to follow. When I continued to stand up for my students, I was released. All of my special needs students have now dropped out of seminary. I just feel like they cared more about feeding BYU enrollment and catering to the program than actually teaching the gospel and helping these wonderful kids feel the spirit. It is very disheartening to want to do your best in your calling and be told you are just a woman and if you don’t do what you are told, you are out.
Hawk, I think you conflate many things. Much of what there is concern about has been driven in the United States by what has happened to the Boy Scouts here and what has happened to churches in other countries.
Not to mention litigation against the Church and the results of similar litigation against the Boy Scouts.
There are real issues — though there is also what looks like real foolishness — we lack a doctrine to support excluding teachers only if they are paid full time — the interview should have asked if the policy is doctrinal or not …
Bess: “when I objected to a new program . . . I was told to be quiet.” Yep, sounds like prep for BYU all right!
Stephen M: I actually think you are quite right about the conflation (as CES is – I believe – quite independently run), but the article was so vague you could drive a mac truck between the lines. There was more room for speculation than content, evidently! Your point about the BSA is I’m sure correct, and based on other faiths’ experiences, I assume the article was also hand-wringing about the adoption agency of the church potentially being required to allow gay parents to adopt. So far, that hasn’t happened, but religions are worried about it.
Corporations don’t have a natural right to exist in the first place–the corporate business entity is a legal creation authorized by state statutes. As such, the various details and constraints of corporate existence can be as narrowly or broadly defined as the people who set public policy choose.
Re Kullervo-
Neither do governments. The government entity is a legal creation authorized by a document and the agreement of all the people (at least in our representative democracy). As such, the various details and constraints of government existence can be as narrowly or broadly defined as the people who allow it exist.
The corporation that is set up to oversee the running of the business side of the church should still adhere to gospel doctrine and principles or at least that is what I think. I can’t even imagine that the God that I believe in and that I was taught about by reasonable teachers and leaders that loves his daughters and sons equally is happy with the policies being set up by the “corporation”. It is discrimination and creates an unfair and unjust situation for everyone involved.
Paul, GBSmith, etc..
I did not say we shouldn’t care about social issues, I am simply saying they are irrelevant at this juncture. It is tantamount to worrying about whether you left the iron or stove on while you are watching your house burn to the ground.
By way of reiteration, if we don’t do something about these massive deficits and debt we will see the total destruction of the world wide economy. We can survive Greece or Spain; or Greece and Spain, but the world cannot survive the bankruptcy of our country that accounts for 25 percent of the total GDP.
This is WHY I embrace Libertarianism. The Church ought to be able to pursue its personnel practices as it sees fit. The Constitution does NOT guarantee s right to employment, nor does it prescribe conditions of same. If it wants to exclude mothers of young children from working seminary instructors, it had a right to do. ANY interference by a Governmental agency constitutes tyranny and should be vigorously resisted.
This does not mean that I agree with CES on restricting mothers of young children from being a Seminary instructor. I can think of quite a few situations where employment of same would not conflict with LDS practices. I simply defend the right of the Church to wisely spend the hard-won tithes that I and many others send in being able to hire and/or hire at its discretion.
Will,
I think the core issue is are warring. If we don’t stop stepping on the world then eventually we’ll get payback, and payback is hell – then we wouldn’t care a lick about money. Granted if you got rid of the federal reserve it would be less likely that we could whore ourselves around the world anymore.
Will, you asked, “who cares about these social issues at this time?” I answered you. I do.
You, of course, are welcome to worry about whatever you like.
If it was the 1950s, it still wouldn’t be right but it might not be so socially awkward.
Seriously, in today’s world, they are still telling women to stay home until kids are 18 and out of the house to teach???? There’s not even a choice given to families?
C’mon, man! We can be better than that.
Let individual families decide on work and family priorities, and CES should focus on best qualified teachers based on skill and experience. I vote, YES…it is discriminatory and makes any Christian group that does this kind of thing unChristian-like (or just plain silly).
will,
this topic is about CES. If you don’t care about social issues, please don’t sidetrack the discussion to the deficit. that’s the topic for another day.
it has always bothered me that women and single men were fired if they had children or didn’t marry. I don’t like to call it discrimination, but no other word makes sense. the parsing the church does on these issues is terrible. ya gotta call a spade a spade. it is discrimination.
In at least one case the judge has allowed a case to go forward against the Church because an older single man without any history was not excluded. /sigh
The judge basically claimed the guy looked gay, therefor he should have been seen as a danger to young girls (and don’t look at me that way, I am the one insisting it does not make sense.).
On the other hand, I have seen some gay adoptions and it appears they are just fine. Anyway, some interesting things going on.
If private monies are involved, the employer should be able to hire and fire anyone they want for any reason. They should be able to fire you if you are a man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, Hispanic, old, young, fat, dumb, smart, ugly, Mormon, non-Mormon or because of the way you dress or smell . It is their freaking money. Just like you should be able to spend your money at any business for any reason – because you think the girl behind the counter is hot, because they have the best prices, because they are convenient or because you just feel like it – it is your money and you should be able to spend it however you want.
Will, your argument could be used to say that any man should be able to spend his money on child prostitution. It is his money to spend, right?
#24: Will,
The world does not work your way.
Once you post your sign “help Wanted”, you give up a lot of your rights as to who can take that job.
It’s damn hard to fire someone for the reasons you give.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t think businesses (profit and non profit) should discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion/creed or sexual orientation.
Religions are a different matter, however. In principle, I don’t think they should be allowed to discriminate based on those above factors. Yet it becomes complicated when a government begins telling a religion what to believe and how to practice their faith.
It’s not just mormons, of course. A friend of mine’s mother was fired from her private Catholic school for getting divorced. (As an aside, the divorce was never recognized officially by the Roman Catholic church either – so somehow the legal divorce impacted her firing, but she is still technically married to her ex). At least that was the story I was told.
Was it right? Was it legal? I don’t know. I certainly don’t think it should be legal to fire someone for getting divorced from a philandering husband, but that’s just me (and of course these things are always complicated).
Would it be so out of the realm of the mormon faith to have a young mother working outside of the home? Is that really not doctrinal? What happened to hiring the best, most knowledgeable person for the job, regardless of race, gender or religion?
Then again, I don’t see why women can’t be ward clerks…particularly those who are accountants or CPAs.
Bob,
“The world does not work your way.”
Unfortunately, that’s right.
“Once you post your sign “help Wanted”, you give up a lot of your rights as to who can take that job.”
I know, it’s really stupid. I should be able to decide who I want to pay with my money.
“It’s damn hard to fire someone for the reasons you give.”
Again, really stupid.
Wow. The libertarians are really persuading me that libertarianism means might equals right, and I can’t get behind that. One of the great things about our country is that everyone can have their day in court, and those days in court set legal precedent that essentially changes the law. Because some groups are more vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation, I believe protecting their rights is vital to creating a non-hostile, fair society for all. No protection of individual rights has been proven time and again to bring out the worst in humanity. No thank you.
(#25 – Heber13) if you want to put up a red herring, make sure you’re in a fish market. Insulting Will and likening his position to the ‘right’ to indulge in child prostitution shows your utter immaturity, lack of intelligence, and intellectual feebleness.
While I take exception to the CES’s arcane employment practices, I champion its right to idiocy. We LDS DO have the ability to withold tithing funds as a counter, if you want to go “against” the Church leaders. Money talks, and you knows what walks…
Folks, it’s not just that a religion should have practically unfettered freedom in employment practices, its that ANYONE should enjoy that right. THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO ANY JOB, PERIOD. It’s Government interference in the labor market that causes chronic unemployment. Let the market seek its level, as well as eliminate welfare and other assorted subsides so the great unwashed will have to get off their collective duffs and perform an honest day’s work instead of sitting around, drinking malt liquor, eating chicken wings and griping about “da Man” or the “evil Corporations”.
“THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO ANY JOB, PERIOD.”
Not true. I have had many jobs under contracts__where I have had a “Right” to that job.
The courts award damages for wrongful Hiring terminations all the time.
Malt liquor and chicken wings means black (?). You should be better than that.
hawkgrrrl,
Your probably referring to others posts. But I don’t believe that might equals right. I believe love equals right and respecting our neighbors property equals right. On the contrary, believing that you can force others to part with their property unwillingly is a belief of might equals right.
Remember, it was the black people themselves that wrought such great change for equal rights in the south and it was not the government. Remember that in the south it was the government that made the laws that dictating that blacks sit in the back of the bus. It was the government that made it so blacks couldn’t enter restaurants. Remember two wrongs don’t make a right but that love truly conquers all and not only is love ideal but practical.
@jon-But the government did send the national guard to states to enforce desegregation. The Supreme Court voted that separate schools were not equal (Brown vs the Board of Ed.). The government did support the protests, protecting the human rights of people who were treated as less than human.
I do have a right to not be fired just because I’m female. Or because I’m black, brown, Jewish or Mormon. I deserve to be considered for hiring, regardless of these factors. Because for a long time, it was perfectly legal to hire or fire for those reasons. And I’m glad that’s no longer the case. If I’m fired, it’s because I’m doing a bad job, not because of the color of my skin.
aerin,
That was done after the fact. True freedoms and liberties start with the individuals.
You don’t have any such right to not be fired just because you are female. The current law makes it so you can’t (but it is fairly easy for employers to figure out other ways to fire you to skirt the law). It is based on property rights. If you force an employer through the state to keep you hired on then you have taken away their right to their property and you are the aggressor, not the employer. It may be legal for you to do this, but it is not ethical.
Take Christ’s commandment to love one another and stop the aggression. If we wish to live in a civil society we must take Christ’s teaching seriously.
#17:
I did not say we shouldn’t care about social issues, I am simply saying they are irrelevant at this juncture.
I don’t get it, Will. You say this, yet you comment on social issues all the time—usually on the side of denying civil rights to those who don’t obey the dictates of your ecclesiastical leaders.
@Douglas, (#30)
Hmmm…I guess I’d have to go with lack of intelligence.
Will, sorry if I insulted you. I totally retract my poor example…maybe it is closer to drugs or something else illegal that you can’t just spend your money on. I just thought it was a bit too callow on your part to state: #24 “It is their freaking money. Just like you should be able to spend your money at any business for any reason.” You have to work within the system, and discrimination considerations are a part of the system based on the country’s history.
Maybe it would help me if I could be given a good reason from CES why they won’t let mothers teach. I just think its too bad for 2 reasons: 1) The message it sends to women; and 2) the students aren’t able to get a balanced perspective. Perhaps it is just hitting a nerve that this seems to happen too many times in church because of the patriarchal nature of the institution.
Then again, I may be too stupid or immature to have a valid opinion about this.
Interest piece in the NY Times today that is pertinent to the discussion (at least at the beginning).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?hp
Heber,
This issue is best compared to when governments try and create tariffs on trade, it typically backfires. Almost anything is best when it is left to the free markets and allowing free individuals to make decisions and allowing them to learn from their decisions.
My first question is, do you really want to work for someone that you know does not want you working for them? Do you think you are going to get advancements and promotions and equal opportunity if they were compelled to hire you? Most importantly, do you think they won’t pretend that they are complying with the law, but are secretly working behind the scenes to hire whomever they want?
The bottom line is that employers will get who they want and it is just more overhead for them to abide by the law. For example, if they don’t what to hire someone for any reason (let’s say “a person with a green shirt” to take any controversial issues out of the discussion), they will simply find a list of candidates with green shirts that have other negative issues –poor job performance in the past, bad temper, irresponsible, etc. — and then find someone with another color shirt that has good credentials and then make the decision based on credentials, so the issue of a green shirt is not the deciding factor. It ‘s easy to do and is done all the time. To avoid being detected of patterns, the do other things such as hire consultants instead of employee’s etc – it is really pretty simple, it just requires overhead.
There was a guy that used to work at the movie theater with me, the managers didn’t like him. He got crappy hours an they were short hours at that. He quit. No need to fire him.
There was a law that was created that made it so people can’t work over 40 hours without overtime. So employers stopped letting their employees work over 40 hours. The people that needed the money began working at multiple jobs in order to make enough money.
There was a group of people that joined together and said if you want to hire us you will need to do all these things, we have high quality people in our workforce. You want to hire some of us? So they got hired with better pay and overtime.
Programming is a worldwide employment, employers can choose throughout the world whom they will hire. They can hire an american and have someone work that their native language is English (OMG, discrimination!) and pay extra for them, or they can hire abroad for cheaper. Many hire one or the other, depending on the quality of work they want done, etc.
Look, this is ridiculous. No wonder why this country is going to the crapper when nobody respects each others things. That’s like telling a kid they have to give away all their stuff to other kids because the other kids look funny. No, respecting each other is the better way. Stop the hate, just love one another.
I just wish CES as a whole would just go away. It’s not like we’re learning anything new from them anyway. Go find another outlet to find future GAs and spend the rest of that money warming up the hallways.
Oh and I believe the spirit of the law relates more to actual Sunday hires (our pastors, youth group leaders, nursery teachers, etc.) than random people teaching at a University (or in this case an ‘Institute of Religion’–thank you for the link GBSmith). So in theory, no the CES system should not be exempt from the law simply because one can be an active member and not attend Institute/Seminary. A Bishop is needed to perform religious acts. CES is not, using the law to justify the two as the same is a clear misunderstanding of what the law is intended for.
#39: Jon,
Most of your thinking is folklore. It even sounds like folklore: “There was this guy, there was this law’ there was this group, etc.
You say the boss is always the good guy, only looking to pay a hard worker. You say Labor Laws never helped the small guy. You say Unions never got it’s workers higher pay, or shorter hours. History shows different .
Re Hawkgrrrl-
In our current world where we legislate whatever morality some high minded individual(s) fancies, I agree that the recent court ruling on the matter is unfortunate. Religious institutions, if they participate in the workforce world, should have to abide by the same rules.
In my ideal world, the court ruling is a loss for liberty for everyone in the end, and the anti-discrimination laws on the books should be overturned. Legislating morality is stupid at best, and only creates more problems at worst. Legislating ethics, based on sound principles of non-aggression is a more solid foundation. If businesses engage in that type of discrimination, and we really find it offensive, we should not patronize them and they should fail.
The government is denying people their liberty and freedom to hire and sell to whomever they want? I believe is it actually the opposite. Because of non-discrimination laws, I have the freedom to work and earn a living to support my family. Because of non-discrimination laws, I have the freedom to go into a store or a restaurant and buy food for my family. What advantages would there be if we went back to separate but equal? Can economies thrive in a discriminatory environment?
Douglas:
Malt liquor; chicken wings; “da man”? Lovely veiled racist rant. That damned Warren court, right?
Bob,
Story #1, really happened, I was there.
Story #2, really happens, I live among a poorer people, growing up and as an adult. I know many people that work multiple jobs. Imagine if they only had to work one job with more hours. Don’t you think their lives would be simplified so they don’t to juggle two or three jobs? Don’t you think their lives would be simplified if they didn’t have to waste time going from one job to the next?
Story #3, really happens. My dad worked for the union as an electrician. One job he told me about was a job that they had cheaper laborers but they weren’t doing a good job, so they hired the union. So the company got better workers, which they had to pay extra money for.
You say I don’t like unions, but I just gave a positive story about a union. As long as they don’t use first strike aggression (or even second strike unless it is truly warranted according to God’s law) then they are OK by me. And yes, using the government to force people to do things with their property is first strike aggression.
Story #3, really happens. I’m switching from electrical engineering to computer programming as a career. There are people all over the world that try and get the same jobs, some people hire out, others hire in.
I had a professor in college tell me engineering was a bad profession to get into because they are going over seas. You know what I think about that? Good, as long as there is not government aggression (which there is, so that complicates matters a bit, but two wrongs do not make a right) then it is good that people do what they do best and we all become better off. It’s time to stop the being ethnocentric.
Also, I’ve never said the boss is always the good guy. Didn’t I praise unions? Doesn’t that imply that the boss isn’t always the good guy? Did I say that sometimes companies do things that aren’t socially acceptable and people have the right to not work there or patronize them?
Look Bob, you are stuck in the red vs blue paradigm. It’s time to stop cheering for your team and to look at the actual issues and think for yourself. To question ones beliefs. Truly, as I have said before, love is not only ideal but practical.
The ruling linked in the article above is fascinating. The church’s newsroom clearly had this case in mind (and potentially others). However, I think there’s still validity to questioning the stance of CES for members:
1) CES is allowed to discriminate for paid positions in completely different ways than the church routinely discriminates for volunteer roles. The message is that you are worthy enough to do it for free, but not to be paid (a very low salary) to do it. It is in fact the same job, teaching the same materials. I grant that the number of hours differs for the unpaid early morning teachers, but why can’t CES allow for part time or job share possibilities?
2) CES is (so it appears) covered by ministerial exception, but we have many positions (again, unpaid) like auxilliary presidents and teachers with no such restrictions. Clearly those roles are at least as ministerial, if not more. CES is out of step with the church’s general practices.
3) if a woman who works while her children are aged 0-18 is not worthy to be a minister, why is she worthy to hold a temple recommend? I believe CES is over the line here.
I think the church (not CES) needs to evaluate these inconsistencies. I don’t see how we as a church can justify the stance CES takes without being hypocritical and sending undesirable messages.
#46: Jon,
IMO__Love and Laissez Faire do not work well in economic system. Laws, Rules, Unions do.
@hawkgrrrl,
Your mincing a lot of words in this post. Just because the church doesn’t want to hire someone doesn’t equate to worthiness at all. Just because the church doesn’t want to hire someone it doesn’t hurt anybodies freedoms.
Sure you may not like their policies, leave it at that, but you shouldn’t try and use terms that mean something else to make your point.
@Bob,
It is your choice to choose violence over love. But don’t blame people when they try and fight back to give themselves freedom from your oppression.
I agree, laws and rules and unions can be good. But I believe that these laws, rules, and unions need to fall under God’s laws, i.e., there must be rule of law (laws apply to everyone equally), the rules must fall under natural law (they must not break the non-aggression principle), and unions must not use force/violence as a means to their ends. If these conditions are not met then it leads you down the path of chaotic anarchy where you are ruled by the oppression of your masters rather than the natural order of things (natural law/God’s law).
Jon – I disagree that is mincing words. It goes to the point of ministerial privilege, but stated in insider terms (worthiness = religiously qualified to be a minister). In a lay clergy church, these are relevant comparisons.
So you’re saying that all women in our church our unworthy since none of them can be bishop? The logic just doesn’t flow for me. Or maybe you’re saying that all men in the church are unworthy because they won’t let women be bishops? Either way, it doesn’t make sense to me.
“So you’re saying that all women in our church our unworthy since none of them can be bishop? The logic just doesn’t flow for me. Or maybe you’re saying that all men in the church are unworthy because they won’t let women be bishops? Either way, it doesn’t make sense to me.”
There’s a difference between gender as a disqualification for a calling, women as a bishop or man as RS pres. and a value/moral judgement that a woman with children can not be hired to teach for CES.
GBS is right – CES will hire women. Just not ones with kids ages 0-18. Conversely, they could fire all men with kids ages 0-18.
The best place for women with kids 0-18 is at home.
#55: Will, Did you mean to say:
“The best place for a women with 0-18 kids is at home”?
This has nothing to do with worthiness. This has to do with value/moral judgement. They aren’t saying a woman isn’t worthy, they are saying that their value judgment is that a woman with kids should be at home. I’m not saying this, that is what they are saying. That’s my point. I’m not saying that it is right or wrong, the only thing I’m saying is when they do this they are not calling the woman unworthy, they’re not calling her a sinner, they’re not saying she can’t go to the temple.
#57: Jon,
When a woman has kids in their teens, and in High School, why can’t she be in school at the same time? Why must she be at home?
Bob,
You make a lot of assumptions. I never said anything like that which you are questioning me about. I never said a woman who has young children must stay at home yet alone a woman who has teen-aged children.
#59: Jon,
You said it was not wrong(?) I say it is.
Bob,
All I said is the rights of the property owner trump the rights of the person wanting said property for themselves without consent of the person that owns the property. There is no voluntary transaction, therefore, there should be no transaction since neither party has an agreement.
A lot of the comments seem to conflate hawkgrrrl’s question with “Should any corporation have the right to discriminate with respect to employment?” The question in the OP is a bit more nuanced.
Should a religion have the right to discriminate for a ministerial position? Even though I’m an atheist, and even though I think the CES’s policy in this case is despicable, I don’t see how it could be made illegal without infringing on a religion’s right (in general) to set their own standards for what is required to be ordained a minister according to their faith. (Perhaps another reason religions shouldn’t have special tax exemptions?)
Re Hawk-
I couldn’t agree more.
I’m not following here. Why is worthiness an issue? CES won’t let a woman with kids 0-18 work because of their (clearly) moral belief that women should be home with the kids (isn’t this another lovely mixed message that our church sends? Conference talks say it’s okay, but actions say it’s not. Nice). But I don’t see how worthiness is involved? Can you explain your reasoning here?
It’s interesting to note that this only happens with CES (as near as I can tell). Plenty of women with kids 0-18 work for the church in general, though I’m not sure on the anti-discrimination laws that may or may not be involved.
Hawk:
It is also interesting that the linked supreme court decision was a 9-0 vote. So it’s pretty clear in this case that the people have, through the Constitution, said that religious institutions have had conferred upon them the right to decide what positions constitute ministerial duties ans qualify for the ministerial exemption to employment discrimination laws.
jmb275 – my use of “worthy” is probably problematic. I’m equating “qualified to minister” with “worthiness.” CES’ disqualification is saying that a women with kids aged 0-18 who works outside the home is not worthy/qualified to be a minister. But in our church, everyone is a minister. We give the sermons in church. We teach the lessons. We run the organizations. That’s ministering.
“Malt Liquor and Chicken Wings” – Did ANYONE get it? That’s from a great line by an arch-liberal, one Warren Beatty, from his liberal screed “Bulworth” (it was a darned good flick, though)…as the fictional Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth from CA…
(Referring to the Democratic Party’s relative indifference to the concerns of blacks)..”Isn’t it obvious? You can have a billion man march for all I care! What are you going to do, vote Republican? Hey, if you don’t put down that Malt Liquor and Chicken Wings, you’ll never get rid of a guy like me.”
Truth hurts, especially from the mouth of a liberal. The good news is that putting down what booze and snack food that you indulge in, and putting in an honest day’s work, tends to fatten the wallet and slim the waistline.
Bob,
Yes I did say the best place for women with kids is to be at home with them. And, yes there are exceptions. This is what God intended for sure.
#68: Will,
We agree, kids need their moms.
When I was first married with two babies, my wife was an RN and worked 7-3. When she got home, I went to work 3-11 at the Post Office. My bosss would punch me in if needed. I slept with my wife at night, we both had weekends off.
Today, my daughter live across the street from me. She has three teenage high school boys, who are out of her house 7-4. She also has to young daughters in a K-6 school. She works at that school while they are there.
Bob,
That is outstanding that you and your family do what it takes to have that sacred influence of their mother as much as possible. It is my witness that commitment will bless them forever.