or, "JT: You're wrong!"
How's
that for a
provocative post title?
But seriously. It seems like we're doing this a lot lately, JT and I. Rebutting each other I mean. (*teehee immature giggles*)
You know why? Because part of being in law school, or a philosopher, or a thinking person devoted to logic, is to parse arguments -- to find holes in them, and to play devil's advocate.
That said, when I write this rebuttal please don't think that I advocate the Pope's position. I'm just showing you the flip side of the coin. Feel free to respond with "Ravenna: You're wrong!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As JT (not-so) kindly
pointed out yesterday, there's proposed equal rights legislation in the UK that which has the Pope in a tizzy. I heard about it on BBC radio, not to give away the secret to how I come up with blog topics, and I think the
BBC News article covers it well.
What's got the Pope so upset exactly? Well, one way to phrase it would be to say that he wants the Church to retain the right to discriminate against homosexuals. That's the way that makes the Church and all religions look downright evil (a point I don't personally contest). The other way to phrase it would be in a legal context -- to say that he wants the Church to retain independent governance and freedom from religious interference.
Sound familiar?
This would never even make the news in America, let alone make legislation. Because we have that little thing called the "Free Exercise" clause. When I took a class on non-profit organizations last Spring, I was appalled but in no way surprised to find that religious organizations can do basically anything they want without the government stepping in and mandating what or how. And you know what?
That's how we want it! It's the same clause that prevents government mandating we pray in schools, the same clause that makes courthouses remove the 10 commandments from their walls, and the same clause that lets
Westboro Baptist decry "God Hates Fags!" whether we agree with it or not.
We shouldn't be pissed off at the Pope for demanding of the UK government what they are entitled to, and what they would have (what all Churches do have) in America: the ability to say to the legislators "Yeah that's nice, but what has it got to do with
us?"
If there's a problem here, it isn't with the Church per se. It's with the law, and the institution of law.
Don't ask "Why does the Church want special treatment?" Instead ask yourself, "Why does the law afford special treatment to religious organizations?"
I think if you probe into the First Amendment, its purposes, history, and caselaw long enough, you'll be surprised by your answer.
Comments (12)
Great post! Wish I could rec it. :P
I counter with a question: what if the Catholic Church received funding from the UK gov't? (The government is already dropping 20 million euros on the pope's upcoming visit) Wouldn't that entitle the government to demand that the Church doesn't discriminate?
Also...what kind of ass fights for his right to be a discriminatory goon? Oh yeah, a religious one. :P
JT
I mean, how dare anybody disagree with me!?!?! I'm always right and can't handle it if somebody makes an argument attempting to prove my stance on an issue wrong! I'm so closed-minded! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
JT
@Zerowing21 - Nice impression of a fundie
Another way to look at the issue is through speech rights and the freedom of association.
I think it's always tricky finding the right balances of rights and purpose, whether through First Amendment speech rights or the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause.
"Don't ask "Why does the Church want special treatment?" Instead ask yourself, "Why does the law afford special treatment to religious organizations?"
Because religion is stupid. When lotsa people take something very stupid, very seriously, messed up shit is bound to go down.
So rather than religion being treated as another system of thought, and as opposed to religious ideas being protected under merely speech, they all get special protection. It's as much to protect the religious from one another as it is to protect the state and the poltiical process from religion's undue effects.
I find this discussion intriguing. Please help me to understand through another context.
Sooooo........If a church believed black people didn't belong in a their church, they would be within their rights to discriminate against black people in their hiring practices based on religious freedom. Would that be correct?
@cal2323 - Basically yes. If it's a legitimate Church, and it can be established that their dogma legitimately says that, they're free to do it.
What we have right now is a situation where that part of dogma isn't upheld (if present at all). Couple that with a caselaw and Amendment providing strict scrutiny for policies that discriminate against people based on race/nationality, and you get a very different result. (e.g., no Church does that and if they did it would likely be stricken down in the US).
@cal2323 - The American Constitutional Speech and Free Exercise dimensions of this case seem to be heading in opposite directions.
1. The conservative Supreme Court of the past couple decades have been reluctant to accomodate religion when religious practices or belief rubs against state or federal laws.
For instance, if my religion dictates that I must smoke pot to see God, my freedom of religion doesn't strike down or help me dodge employment laws as they relate to illicit drugs. The Court has backed state laws as long as long as there is a good secular purpose.
2. On the other hand, the Court has been much more amenable to discrimination as a matter of speech rights. Emergent in the freedom of speech is the freedom of association. For instance, it would be legal for me to start a gay-hating club. It is within my speech rights to try to affect whatever political or socail change..
My freedom of speech in this matter, however, would be suppressed if the state dictated that I must admit gays or gay civil right activists into the club-- even if there's an anti-discrimination law on the books. It would infringe on my freedom of association.
So if racial discrimination were a core component of the practices of your hypothetical church, then I think on the basis of #2, under speech rights, they would be able to get away with discrimination.
@HappyLemming - Your assessment of the SCOTUS of late is eerily accurate.
@RaVnR - I took an undergrad. class on it quarter. I had in mind Oregon v. Smith, Boy Scouts v. Dale. =P
I'd be a lot happier about religious organizations discriminating folk if they weren't sheltered from taxes as they are. If they receive public money, (or keep money that should rightfully be owed to the state,) then they should abide by the laws for public institutions.
@kjenn - This.
You can do whatever the hell you want until you take government money. Then you should abide by government laws, or suck it up and reject the money.
- John