Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

8 Responses

  1. belledame222
    belledame222 October 9, 2006 at 11:41 am |

    Well, and this is an excellent point, wrt the nun: the bad evol secular humanist state would’ve been MORE protective of her, God-fearing woman though she was. i think that ought to be a big talking point: hello, the point of “separation of Church and State” was NOT, was NEVER “muhahaha, we are out to destroy religion;” it was the SEPARATION OF POWERS. HUMAN powers. Powers and principalities?

    and yes, corporation + largescale religious institution + government = fascism = theocracy= RUN FOR THE HILLS, THEY’RE TAKING OVER THE WORLD, PINKY!

  2. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe October 9, 2006 at 11:55 am |

    I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop: Large corporations will declare themselves to be religions.

  3. Linnaeus
    Linnaeus October 9, 2006 at 12:56 pm |

    Arthur Jensen’s speech in Network might turn out to be prescient after all.

  4. RevJen
    RevJen October 9, 2006 at 5:55 pm |

    Actually, the Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist, which was founding in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy. Although it is not required that one be a member of the Christian Science church to work for the paper, it is still an official publication of a recognized church.

    The New York Times article is helpful in some ways, but, by bringing up a few extreme examples, it excites liberal passions in a way that might tend to obscure the damage that setting new precedent could cause vis a vis the separation of church and state in this country.

    I admit that I work for a religious institution. While my denomination ordains women and LGBT people, each church is independent — deciding for themselves whether calling a “non-traditional” pastor is right for the folks who worship there. I believe that this policy must be allowed to continue if we are to truly have the freedom to practice religion in our own ways.

    We don’t ask everyone to agree with us, but we do ask that we be allowed to live out the rights and freedoms promised to us by the Constitution. Unfortunately, this sometimes means that religious institutions appear to “get away with” something that a secular employer would not be allowed.

    I do think it’s important to make sure that if an institution claims to be religious, it can show how its work lives out the faith, doctine, and mission of the ecclesial body to which it is related.

  5. Blue
    Blue October 9, 2006 at 11:56 pm |

    I have always considered the exemption of religious organizations from the ADA as useful to the financial challenges of all the small church (mosque, temple) buildings that don’t meet accessibility standards and may never be able to raise the funds to, for example, install an elevator. The ADA took years to kick in and apply to all public transport and employers of various sizes of businesses, so in that sense exemption of religious orgs seemed to make sense.

  6. Blue
    Blue October 10, 2006 at 12:17 am |

    I don’t disagree with those points.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.