There's a whole lot of moronity (not a word, but it should be) contained in those seven paragraphs, but the one that irked me is the case of Catholic Charities. If they employed only Catholics, they'd be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits - but employing non-Catholics makes them a secular organization. I'd say "unbelievable" ... only I do believe it.

I could work up more rage if they paid taxes.

Harry:

They do, of course.

It is hard to argue that the Connecticut case tramples on 1st Amendment rights. It doesn't stop any state employee from donating to the Boy Scouts, it is just left off of the list of charities. Noone is prevented from joining the Boy Scouts, or from supporting them. They are not left off of the list because they are religious, it is because they discriminate in their membership. It doesn't matter that the Scouts discriminate based on their religious values, because the state's case isn't based on the reason for the discrimination, only the facto of discrimination.

It is like the case of the Muslim woman in Florida who didn't get a driver's licence because she wouldn't allow her photograph to be taken because of her religious beliefs. The state is not discriminating against her by denying her a license, it is enforcing a requirement that is applied to all drivers.

Robert:

The discrimination has nothing to do with their charity status in the first instance, while the photograph is central to the licensing process. If any accomodation short of the phoitograph could be made it would have been required. For instance, suppose FL only opened its DMV during the hours of the Sabbath and Orthodox Jews could therefore never get licenses. Even if the intent was not discriminatory they'd be required to open at another hour.

Well, if the Boy Scouts are getting pulled from the charities list, or won't be allowed to lease a park, because they discriminate against homosexuals, then it is only fair that Catholic organizations feel that same heat because Catholicism discriminates against women.

(BTW--in the absence of an irony emoticon, I find the hypothetical latter to be as offensive as the actual former)

Yes, but their right to do so is protected. Your delicate emotions aren't.

oj-

The state now touches just about every aspect of life in this country, from cradle to grave. If secularism is the religion of the state the traditional mediating institutions of our history are done. I know that pleases our resident atheists but they should be very sure that they want what they are going to get. Absolute state secualrism will destroy the freedoms most take for granted. The "religiously vibrant" society which is so appreciated by Jeff and Harry will be a thing of the past. As always, we all should be careful what we wish for, particulary when what is wished has never existed.

Tom:

Yes, in an increasingly secularized society, where you have to assume there's some significant possibility that the fellow citizen you're interacting with is amoral, what alternative is there to a thoroughgoing statism?

Its doubtful that Harry could work up more rage even then. His rage tends to be focused on the closed Chick-fil-As of the world.

I dunno about that, jefferson.

I have in my hand a press release from the Rutherford Institute concerning one Brian Cherrix, who is to be executed tomorrow.

"In response to a request for religious accommodation for a death row inmate by John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the Commonwealth of Virginia has agreed to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the inmate regarding an autopsy that was being demanded by the state. . . .

"Believing that the autopsy would violate his Christian beliefs against mutilating and destroying God's temple, described in the Bible as the human body, Cherrix objected. . .

"The Commonwealth of Virginia is to be commended for doing the right thing in this situation and for recognizing that Brian Lee Cherrix's constitutional right -- in life in in death -- to have his sincerely held religious belief protected outweighs the Commonwealth's interest in an autopsy."

Apparently, as with Chick-Fil-A, sincerely held religious beliefs are a one-way street. Brian Cherrix sodomized and murdered a 24-year-old mother of two who was working as a pizza deliverer.

I guess her body wasn't a temple.

Truly, there is nothing in this world more disgusting than a Christian in full cry.

Harry:

You obviously haven't seen About Schmidt.

Never even heard of it.

It may surprise you to learn that I supported quite a few of Rutherford's jabs at the loonier side of secularism. But there are some things a decent person cannot do, and what they did is beyond indecent.

I understand that decency is not among the 7 cardinal virtues.

"Yes, but their right to do so is protected. Your delicate emotions aren't."

OJ:

You don't take agreement very well, do you?

BTW--regarding Catholic Charities. You seem to forget a substantial portion (I think I heard just over 50%) of their funding comes from state grants. That just might have something to do with the court's decision that they are not a religious organization.

If CC doesn't want to provide contraceptives as part of their medical plan, they are free to. All they have to do is stop taking state money.

Of course, no one said that taking a stand on principle would be cost-free.

Jeff:

Yes, that is a sensible solution. So the only ones who would lose would be those who need help.

OJ:

The sensible solution is to understand that if you take the government's coin, you have to expect to dance to the government's tune.

Catholic Charities name is not sufficient to make it a religious organization--they get taxpayer support, and hire non-Catholics. Catholic Charities is a corporation, and is getting treated like one.

Of course they should only hire Catholics and then it's a moot point.

That, and stopping taking state money, to rely on private donations instead. Then they become a religious organization.

But until then, they aren't.

That's just silly. The Constitution enshrined mandartory tithes in several states. It can't be unconstitutional for churches to get state money.

What do you know of the California State Constitution, or its corporation laws? And where are those mandatory tithes today?

Catholic Charities is not a church, any more than the United Way is.

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs."

The state is establishing a religion

It seems that "...without discrimination or preference ..." angle is pretty fundamental.

Catholic Charities is no more a religion than the United Way is. Unless, of course, you are going to extend a preference to an organization identical to others of its kind, except for claims of religious affiliation.

Jeff:

Exactly, that means the government can't discriminate or prefer.

Tax exemptions are by definition preference.

Discrimination works both ways, but the tendency has always been towards Christianity.

Watching Christians scream about this is like watching a little kid with a cookie in his mouth and one in each hand jump up and down because his brother also is getting a cookie.

Harry:

Exactly. CA can't use exemptions to pick and choose between religions. They have to be universal.