Religious Farce
Today I stumbled onto part two of a four part series in The New York Times entitled "In God's Name." Part two describes the shield from employee suits any religious organization in the United States enjoys. Dubbed "the ministerial exception," the judiciary in the U.S. almost uniformly refuses to hear any cases brought by current or former employees against any organization founded by a religious organization. In some cases suits brought are related to the functioning of actual establishments of worship. In many others worship has little or nothing to do with the organization: schools, hospitals and even the famous Focus on the Family, a political action group.
The separation of church and state, which was probably more intended to protect the government from religion than vice versa, has been used to excuse all manner of unconscionable activity. Examples cited in the article include a woman who was ejected from a convent after becoming ill with cancer, who not only lost her health insurance and modest income, but her home as well. A female chaplain was fired from a Catholic university, she claims, because she refused to be silent and complicit in the sexual harassment of women that existed on campus. A Jewish Rabbi was simply dismissed after negotiations for his retirement failed, most likely because he has been diagnosed with Parkinson's and his wife with breast cancer and the congregation in question simply didn't want to foot the bill. Anyone of these would be an actionable offense were the plaintiffs not employed by a religious organization.
The claim is that government has no business interfering with the teachings and practices of any religious organization, and I would agree...to a point. Government has no business dictating or even questioning beliefs or worship practices. Government is not in the business of interpreting scripture. On the other hand, government is in the business of interpreting law. If religious groups participate in commercial activities then those activities should be subject to the same laws as any other commercial enterprise...again, to a point.
If the organization in question can demonstrate that an employee has violated morals or standards of the community, then they are free to act as they see fit. Obviously a religious community wouldn't want to condone the predatory actions of a pedophile in their clergy. Nor should an organization with injunctions against homosexuality be required to hire a homosexual. Nevertheless, it should be incumbent on the religious organization to demonstrate a continuous, long-standing tradition against any activity or behavior. Quoting an obscure passage of scripture heretofore not a part of the religious consciousness or traditions of a particular community doesn't count.
In the case of the dismissed novice, the convent, of course, disputes the claim they ejected her from the order because she was ill. Not that it matters. She has no legal standing regardless. But if not because she became ill, what then was the reason for her dismissal? Did she violate her vows to the order? Was she caught stealing? Dipping into the sacramental wine? Not only is no reason given for her dismissal, lawyers for the convent state, "[For the courts] to even begin to inquire into that decision-making process, we believe, crosses the line set by the First Amendment." In other words, religious organizations feel they have carte blanche to do as they please.
It is beyond ironic that institutions supposedly founded on principles of charity and compassion are engaging in blatantly unjust and miserly activities that leaves those affected praying for the kindness of strangers and rescue by government programs. One would expect religious institutions would find such actions abhorrent and would be able to police themselves. One would think employees of religious organizations could appeal to higher authority within their religion to combat unjust practices that seem to stand in direct violation of the principles preached from the pulpit. All too often, it seems, there are two standards: one for religious authority and one for the layman.