This type of problem unfortunately is bound to happen when you get the government involved in hiring people. As distasteful as it may sound to some, ultimately, one has to let private sector employers make their own decisions who to hire and who to fire (as long as no contract is being violated or fraud is not being committed). I don’t like that we have “religious exceptions” to laws. If a law needs a “religious exception”, then it probably doesn’t need to be a law in the first place.

This is Marxism in action. I am reminded of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It is so sad that the citizens have the TEA Party on one side and the ABORTION Party on the other with nothing in the middle.

Mal, please look more closely: the Tea Party IS the middle.

Also please note the Nazis worked in a pretty similar way.  Totalitarianism always opposes Christian freedom.

Frankly this doesn’t surprise me. Obama and his Czars/Administration are pushing for their warped Marxist beliefs in every aspect of our lives. Unfortunately the whole Democratic Party has been taken over by extremists who love abortion, destroying embryos of research, pushing euthanasia/assisted suicide, the radical gay agenda destroying traditional marriage & family, brainwashing our school children with their immoral “sex education”, and destroying the Christian religion! Maybe that’s why Obama didn’t want the Nativity scene displayed but he did have a Christmas decoration with Mao’s picture hanging on the Washington, DC christmas tree! We are being taken over and many Americans don’t even know it!

Unfortunately, Catholics are so poorly informed, so ignorant of their faith, that a majority supported the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual president in history in 2008. The bishops who, if they had any sense of responsibility to their flocks and canon law, should have already issued edicts of excommunication to the Kennedys, Pelosis, Sebeliuses, Cuomos, etc., are silent except for a brave few. Pathetic.

So go ahead. Vote for Obama again next year.

Please CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN!!!  This can be stopped if there is enough outcry from the public and legislative leaders of this country!

Try reading for yourself the nature of the case rather than re-post what someone else wrote in their blog.

The Appeals Court Decision (not linked to in this blog) is here:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0065p-06.pdf

and the DOJ amicus is here:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/3mer/2mer/2010-0553.mer.aa.pdf

Here’s what the blogger is leaving out:  The plaintiff is a teacher whose classes are mostly secular in nature.  Although she was required to take a quick accreditation course to meet the school’s religious requirements, the extent to which she was involved in teaching religion was limited.  She was diagnosed with a disability, placed on leave, and then when she was given doctor’s clearance to return to work, the school board suggested that she resign (with limited benefits) on the basis that the board and some anonymous parents were concerned about her ability to perform her duties . . . . as a teacher.  She showed up to work when she was able and quickly dismissed because another instructor had assumed her duties. 
She was not dismissed on the basis of the “Religious Exception” the bloggers imply.  She is suing because her disability was highlighted as the reason for her dismissal.  It had nothing to do with free speech or that what she taught was inconsistent with Church teaching.

AZJoe: I have not read either, but as St. Francis preached with his presence, having the presence of an abortion advocate or Obamaphile or anything, that although the teacher did not teach, still may be interpreted as aquiesence to the moral evil, even use of contraception. This is a fact. Horror of horrors, there was a teacher teaching religion in a Catholic Highschool who had been divorced and remarried twice. NICE, something one would want their children to learn. Moses said to drive evil from your midst. Children in school are minor children and a captive audience who have not reached the age of majority and are unable to reach informed consent, so scandal is everywhere.
@Catholic for Ron Paul: If a law needs a “religious exception”, then it probably doesn’t need to be a law in the first place. Amen

This is most obviously NOT a religious issue, the woman was fired because she had narcolepsy, a MEDICAL condition.  The woman is absolutely within her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Now, I don’t like the Americans with Disabilities Act one bit, but it is constitutional, and it was passed into law fair-and-square, and even churches are required to obey the law of the land in secular matters.

This DOJ brief is entirely an assault on religious freedom – particularly, the right of religious organizations to operate entirely according to the dictates of their particular religious beliefs. The amicus brief is drawing a sharp line between ordained ministers (those who preach on Sundays, for instance, or officiate at weddings and funerals) and all other employees of a church. Essentially, this lays the groundwork for a host of legal challenges to the ability of a church to hire and fire as they deem necessary. For instance: Let’s say a Southern Baptist church hires a janitor to maintain and clean the church. Two years later, this janitor converts to Islam. Does the church have the right to fire him? The DOJ would say no. Or, let’s say an Assemblies of God church hires a woman to be a church secretary. Some time later, the woman comes out as a lesbian. Does the church have the right to fire her? As she is not performing a strictly religious or ecclesiastical function, the DOJ would seem to be arguing the church does not. Or a Missouri Synod Lutheran church is hiring a worship director. A musician who is publicly known to be gay applies for the position, and is not hired. He then sues, alleging discrimination. Does the church have the right to not hire him because of his sexual orientation? That would be an interesting case under the DOJ’s argument, because playing music could be defined as a primarily secular pursuit.

But I don’t think that is the primary target here. Rather, it seems to me that this argument is a way for left-wing activists in the Obama administration to begin crashing in the doors at private religious schools. Should the DOJ’s amicus argument hold sway, it would have a chilling effect, in particular, on church-affiliated primary schools, as it would allow the government to decide who is teaching children at those schools. And from there, who knows?

And, yes, for those who couldn’t tell, I DID read the amicus brief.

I haven’t read the amicus brief, but I did read that Cheryl Perich wasn’t a Muslim, nor a lesbian, nor WICCAN, nor a child molester, nor anything contrary to Evangelical Lutheran doctrine.  She was a qualified, capable teacher who was fired over a medical condition.  This is just NOT a religious case, it’s about the American’s With Disabilities Act.  This case is about employment law, NOT religious freedom.

Thank you for this insightful post.  It may be among the best written, on governmental intervention, referencing their own claims of “Seperation Of Church and State” which don’t any longer seem to serve them (“them” being the governmental powers that be.)  When will political leaders stop playing ping pong with the Law that is supposed to serve not diminish its people?  Ironic is that they seem to want to use the weapons that they weild against us (the very laws that they write) to justify their defiance of the same laws.

AzJoe even though I would contest your argument (yes the NCR article failed to mention the teacher’s disability, a relative nonissue being that the disability made her unable to perform in a teaching capacity and the parents had their wits about them in objecting to her re-employment) the case is indeed about inappropriate governmental intervention.  Maybe a more appropriate response would have been to put her in a position suited to her physical abilities.  Not for me to say.  I am not the employer here.  Neither is the DOJ.  That is the whole point isn’t it?

Is this a case of discrimination against disabilities (which I abhor)?  Or is it a case of discrimination against a Christian Organization?  If she weren’t pursing litigation—and that weren’t her primary posture, would it have been possible for them to work something out?  Yes, definitely.  What it’s all about.  This case is undeniably a “Separation of Church and State” Issue She may succeed in exploiting the whole thing.  Sad but true.  I am giving attention to your links (citing the actual case—thank you for providing them) and not randomly giving voice to a nameless blog.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Thank you Pat Archibald.

One more comment I just finished reading the brief and it seemed to me to be an elaborate snowjob on the necessity (on the part of the courts) to clearly define the purpose of ministry and the Christian mission of the school.  Am I mistaken, or is that not the job of the school administration?  What evidence if any was presented about the teacher’s fitness to teach?  Her medical status to my thinking was not adequately addressed by the brief.  This is what I got:  “a trial would focus on issues such as whether Perich was disabled within the meaning of the ADA,

whether Perich opposed a practice that was unlawful under the ADA, and whether

Hosanna-Tabor violated the ADA in its treatment of Perich.” 

I agree with AZ Joe that this is clearly an ADA issue but I also agree with the other posters about the avenue pursued in the NCR article.

She seems to want to use the ADA as justification to challenge her dismissal, which seems reasonalbe in light of the circumstances.  No actual attention was given to her ability or inability to perform which is the issue at hand.

This is what makes this particular case a case for first ammendment consideration, not because the school is squawking, but because the courts have turned it into a case for consideration.  They created the firestorm not the school.

As so often happens in media accounts, the story at hand, her ability or inability to perform professional duties, was overlooked.

Because the courts exploited her complaint it got moved to the realm of first ammendment rights.  The courts did this she did not.

The end result is her willing participation in it all.  When she appeared for duty against instruction not to, she laid the gambit for what would ensue, stating her legal obligations.

Truth be told, were the school to operate on her say-so and employ her they would open themselves for other more serious and legitimate legal ramifications—numbering among them negligence.

The courts turned it into a first ammendment fiasco when it should have left to the EEOC to decide her physical viability as a teacher under the ADA.

The supreme court lit the fire that caused the explosion.  This case never should have made it that far.

Hence the attack on the first ammendment.  It’s what the courts did not what the case did.

You can thank Cass Sunstein obama’s regulatory czar for this.

The baha’i lost at the 7th Circuit..  Obama is doing his part to further the idea that Religious Establishment = Incorporated Business..

also.. If you know about the pedophilia promotion conference.. read Pink Swastika..

it’s happening all over again..

Some of you need to read the case (ie Pat Archbold).  More propaganda to bring on the Obama bashing.  Very Christ like behavior.

If indeed this case attempts to empower the Federal (DOJ)to allow lawsuits against churches and church related colleges and universities becuase they fired persons whose religious views and teaching were contrary to that institution’s religious views, there is indeed a critical flaw here.  All such institutions with which I have been affiliated with, having served on a number of their boards of trustees, have potential employees sign a document that they understand and agree with that institution’s philosophy/theology and will abide by such positions.  Such persons are in breach of contract when they disavow or disregard that document of compliance and thus render their contract null and void.  Period.

Please explain what Obama has in any way to do with this case?

Adrienne—

The president is the Chief Executive of the United States.  He delegates part of his authority to others to carry out his duties.  The Attorney General and the Justice Department represent his policy choices as far as legal questions are concerned. 

So, since his Department of Justice has filed a brief, they are doing so on behalf of President Obama.  If he disagreed with the policy in the DoJ’s brief, he could instruct them to withdraw the brief.  The presumption is that the president agrees with the legal positions of those to whom he has delegated authority, since he has the power to choose those people, set their priorities, and control what they do (at least to some extent). 

The president takes an oath to “see to it that the laws be faithfully executed” - it is his principle duty as president.  Therefore he must believe that the government has the proper authority to impose decisions on religious organizations in the manner represented by the DoJ brief.

To those who wish to argue that the facts of this case mean that the position of the Dept. of Justice is not aimed at imposing on religious organizations (because it’s not a clear issue of imposing a religious doctrine)  - you clearly do not understand how precedent is built upon. 

Those who wish to change a legal doctrine do so in stages.  They set a precedent with a sympathetic case (the unfortunate disable woman) and then once the principle is embodied in legal case law, they then apply it to other, more controversial cases.  The principle is the same (i.e. teachers in religious schools are not ministers, so there’s no ministerial exception to permit religious schools to choose them free of government refulation).  And then this principle gets applied to the homosexual activist, the satanist, or whoever you please.  No one would choose these latter cases as the first time to establish the legal principle, because it is too obvious that such applications are a violation of religious liberty.  Better to start with an “easy case” and then bulid upon it. 

This happens every day in the law.  The Dept. of Justice knows exactly what it is doing, and what the implications of their position are for future cases.  That’s why churches have to fight against this kind of sympathetic plaintiff, in order to keep the principle in place.

Thank you, sallyr, who, at 6:01 august 20, posted by far the most intelligent response. Too bad the uniformed, naive people who said this is just Obama bashing and we should see that this is supposedly just about disability have NO CLUE how precedent works.

sallyr, Judgements are made everyday that Presidents have never turned over.  States make laws that are against the constitution and yet the President has never stepped in to change it.  You explanation is like saying the man who shot up ABC company was acting on behalf of the CEO because he was hired by a represntative of the CEO which speaks upon his behalf so it’s really the CEO fault.  Now apply your same logic to any organization and you’ll probably have excuses as to why it doesn’t apply.  Yes, Obama appointed these people, but no Obama nor the appointee agree on every issue.  People are different and make bad or good decisions even when they are lead by someone with opposing views.

Everyone really should read the brief if they want to speak on the issue. The facts of the case seem to be clearly in the defendant’s favor, as she was not allowed to continue to teach, first based on her disability, then her termination was for being “disruptive” by threating legal action if they did not reinstate her, as she had been cleared to work.

That being said, the DoJ brief attempts to take it much further than just the argument stated about retaliation (which is quite correct - threating to fire someone because they say they’ll take legal action is unacceptable, regardless of religious affiliation). Instead of merely focusing on this, which I believe was ACLU’s argument, DoJ does do a small amount of work suggesting limiting the religious exemption. Whether the Court will use this portion as well is unclear, though I’d think/hope they’d avoid that section.

Everet’s comment is the most sensible yet.  Clearly, the fundamental issue here is LABOR LAW, not RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Although it is true that a teacher at a Religious School clearly serves in a ministerial capacity, in this case, it appears that Hosanna-Tabor failed to follow the guidelines for employees with disabilities and the ministerial exception is silent. Ms.Perich was replaced before she was given the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not her disability would interfere with her job performance. I think the Justice Department will use this case as an opportunity to redefine the meaning of the ministerial exception so that Religious institutions will no longer be able to make sure that those persons they hire support the Religious mission of that particular Religious institution. If the Justice Department tries to interfere with the Right of Religious institutions to hire persons who support the Religious mission of that particular Religious institution, it would be a violation of our First Amendment Right.

mrsceecee, I don’t believe the DoJ is comparable to someone who is a) a private individual, b) not as high on the company totem pole, and c) clearly not on any sane company’s official business.  Silence speaks volumes, if only to say that the POTUS doesn’t think it is worth his time.  That’s a matter of priorities, not just difference of opinion.