Churches and other Religious Organizations Play by Different Rules

[MineralMan]

There seems to be some misunderstandings for some about the church's right to discriminate.

Based on the First Amendment, churches and other religious organizations have an almost unlimited right to discriminate in just about any way they wish to. As long as they take no taxpayer funds and do not enjoy any special privileges from the government, such as lower-than-market-rate rent on facilities, they may discriminate as they please. This has been thoroughly tested in court.

As examples, Roman Catholic and other denominations discriminate against women in their clergy. It's wrong, but perfectly legal. A church may exclude any group, and on any grounds, including race, sex, or anything else they choose to use. A religious organization, such as the Knights of Columbus, for example, can exclude women from being members. A church-run school can be single-sex, exclude students on the basis of race, disability, or any other thing they choose - as long as they receive no funds from the government. There is no requirement for any religious organization to follow any of the country's laws regarding discrimination, as long as they do not accept money from the government.

This is an important thing to know when discussing churches and what they can and cannot do. If we forget that, we can easily make errors in our assumptions.

I think this is all wrong. But it is a fact.

[Angry Dragon]

1. But they do take taxpayer funds

They do not pay property taxes and then use public services, such as police, fire etc.

[patrice]

3. Good point.

I asked that somewhere here yesterday, why aren't those services & resources considered "funds" - they aren't free!!!

[MineralMan]

4. That has not proven sufficient to override this, though.

As I said, there's a huge amount of judicial precedent. The property tax exemption, along with other tax advantages, is not a direct acceptance of money, it seems. As for the police, fire, and other protection, the churches are made up of taxpaying citizens who are their members.

It's all been tried in attempts to get rid of some of the church's power to avoid many laws. The First Amendment seems to trump it all, historically. I don't see that going away, either. So, we're always having to tread gingerly around churches. That's especially true when it comes to human rights issues. You essentially have no human rights within any church, other than the ones allowed by that church. On the other hand, you can walk out and never come back to a church that doesn't afford you the same rights that are demanded by laws in other areas of life.

It's an interesting puzzle. As an atheist, I'd like all that stripped away from churches, with them having no privileges not shared with secular organizations. I'm not hopeful that will occur in my lifetime, though.

[kwassa]

7. Many churches promote human rights

The National Council of Churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches

The Council has supported minimum wage laws,<8> environmentalist policies, and affirmative action,<9> and played a significant role in the civil rights movement in the 1960s.<10> The Council's current justice work currently includes a portfolio of women's issues.

NCC partners with other faith-based groups, such as Bread for the World, Habitat for Humanity, and Children's Defense Fund, to press for broad policy initiatives that address poverty issues.<11> The Council helped launch the Let Justice Roll grassroots anti-poverty campaign that has been successful in raising the minimum wage in more than 20 states since 2005.<12>

The NCC Communication Commission is one of the founders of 'So We Might See', an interfaith coalition that promotes media access and representation by all faith traditions, ethnic and economic groups.Other coalition members are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Islamic Society of North America, Presbyterian News Service, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Communications, and the project's managing partner, United Church of Christ.

Look at the topics on the front page of the NCC web site.

http://www.ncccusa.org/

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, indeed they do. Many also do not.

This is not about what one or another church does. It's about what they are able to do. Some churches have discriminatory doctrines. The ones that do not are not an issue. Believe me, I'm more than aware of very good churches that are inclusive and promote human rights. I'm sure you're aware of many that are not. It is the fact that they can be discriminatory that this thread is about. Thank you for reading.

[kwassa]

10. You don't need to belong to any church that has a doctrine you don't like.

They are voluntary organizations. You and anyone else can walk out the door any time you want to.

[MineralMan]

12. I belong to no church at all. I am an atheist.

The First Amendment also enables me to criticize any church freely. Where a church is protective of human rights, it will have my praise. Where it is not, it will have my condemnation. The First Amendment is a very good thing.

[patrice]

2. I recc'd you, but someone . . . . ? nt

[MineralMan]

5. Recommendations and unrecommendations are meaningless.

The only thing that matters is the discussion. I will be glad when those features are gone in DU3. They get in the way, IMO.

[patrice]

14. I really agree! They're frequently about little more than clique-building. nt

[MineralMan]

15. I just pay no attention to them at all.

A thread I start is successful if people join the discussion. I'd rather have zero recommendations and lots of posts in the thread than dozens of recs and silence.

DU is about discussion. It's not about popularity contests. I've never played in those games. Some people agree with things I write. Others do not. We discuss the issues. It's all good.

[patrice]

17. I don't play those games either. I am, consequently, somewhat of an

"outsider" around here, even after 8 years.

[customerserviceguy]

18. Same here

Rec and unrec are only important to people who seem to need validation for their principles in order to have them. I feel the same way about "ignore", I have every ability to visually ignore someone without needing a button to do it. Been here since 2004, so I'm a fellow outsider with you!

[patrice]

21. Yep. I put someone on ignore once; thought the place was too boring without him/her; haven't had any

one on ignore for years now.

:hi: customerserviceguy :hi:

[customerserviceguy]

25. Yeah, frankly

I learn way more from the people I disagree with than from those who back me up. But, you're still someone I like to read, Patrice!

[MineralMan]

19. Well, I'm not sure who might consider themselves "insiders,"

frankly. I know that some do. I can't see it, really. I'm a member of DU. I post here. That's quite enough for me.

People read what I write. They like it, or they don't like it. They agree, or they don't agree. It doesn't really matter. I just write what I believe and let people decide for themselves. At almost 66 years of age, I'm immune to people not liking what I think. I know who I am and what I do and have done. It is what it is.

[patrice]

22. Right on, MineralMan. That is how I feel about it.

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

6. they have the right from the First Amendment

So this crap they did was extraneous whining and kvetching because that is who and what they are, flinty, small minded, ignorant people with nothing better to do in a world filled with need than complain about love not being to their liking.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, exactly. Some churches are small-minded and

espouse bigotry. It's a pity our Constitution protects their right to do so. We agree completely on this.

[kwassa]

11. That is the price of free speech.

You apparently believe in something less than complete free-speech?

[MineralMan]

13. Actually, I am 100% in favor of complete free speech.

That includes my freedom to criticize bigoted churches. I will exercise that right frequently, as you may find here on DU. I abhor bigotry, whatever its source. If a church practices bigotry, I will criticize it. Now, that's free speech, don't you think?

You can argue with me. That's also free speech. Are you in favor of church-based bigotry?

[kwassa]

23. I am not in favor of church-based bigotry.

Yet I am also willing to recognize that churches with practices that I don't agree with, and who exhibit bigotry on certain issues, also do some very good and valuable work in the world.

[MineralMan]

24. OK. I have no problem with that sentiment.

Do you also recognize that there are churches that are mysogynistic and homophobic? Churches fall into all sorts of categories, from ones that promote the very best of human endeavor to the very worst. There is nothing one can say, really, about churches that applies to all of them.

What makes you believe that I think all churches are bad? I don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort.I don't believe in supernatural entities of any kind, but that doesn't really matter. I judge churches in the same way I judge everything and everyone else - by behavior. If you behave well and justly, then I'm on your side. If you do not, I am not.

I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about, frankly.

[Sheepshank]

16. I guess I don't care about the religious microcosm

I have lived so long with seeing hate and bigotry from a huge portions of the religious community, that I think it's causing their own downfall. I'd love to be around when there is a community free of religious influence. Religious influences can't be legislated out, it creates too many martyrs. It can only be done by attrition.

Without that freedom to live their religion as their leaders prescribe, too many would be lulled into a false sense of how wonderful, inclusive and loving they all are. To be sure there are exceptions, but in my little next of the woods, there are almost invisible in the overwhleming blight of rw bigots. With this ruling, there is a clear and continued line in the sand of how so many will use religion to promote derision, division, hate, narrow minded opinions and conditional love and acceptance. For those faiths that fall outside of the group I mention, I would consider cream that may actually rise to the top. I'm ok with that.

[sarcasmo]

20. No more tax exemptions for churches or organizations that push political agendas.