On Faith-Based Discrimination

Sounds juicy, huh?

The NY Times published an article today -

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/09religious.html?ex=1318046400&en=52db2f8f5c943ba8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

- covering many cases over the last few years when Americans were unable to sue their employers because of the First Ammendment. Stories covered in the article include:

1) A middle-aged novice in a Catholic diocese who contracted breast cancer and was asked to leave by the Mother Superior because, "I don't think we can take care of her" - causing the novice to lose her health coverage in the process.

2) A nun who achieved the role of Chaplain at a university and then was demoted due to her gender.

3) A Methodist Minister who had served his congregation for 30 years who was forced to leave solely because he turned 70 even though his congregation fought to keep him.

4) Teachers at a religious school who are not allowed to unionize.

5) Hospital workers for one of the largest private hospital chains who are not allowed to unionize and are expected to show signs of deep faith.

All of this is legal and constantly happening due to the First Ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") In particular, these businesses are protected by ministerial exception, sometimes called the church autonomy doctrine. It turns out that judges across the U. S. will not touch these cases with a ten-foot cross. There's a particualr case discussed in the article in which a judge did just that but he died 3 weeks later, opening the door for the writer of the dissenting opinion to overturn his decision.

Now, this is a delicate area. Certainly a church should be free to hire ministers who hold to the church's tenets of faith. Obviously, a Christian school teacher should be expected to be (and behave like) a Christian. But what about secretaries at the schools? What about nurses at religious, non-profit hospitals? What about (wait for it ... wait for it ...) security personnel at faith-based prisons?

In most cases that are actually brought to court, the complainant is losing a job, health benefits, and pension. In the article, these people are losing their jobs due to their age, gender, and health status. Imagine what would happen if WalMart fired a clerk because she'd blown the whistle on sexual harrassment (that was well-known throughout the store). She'd win in an instant. Every lawyer would run screaming. But that's exactly what happened to Lynette M. Petruska. She notified her superiors of a case of sexual misconduct by a senior official, resisted efforts to cover up the case, and opposed proposals to weaken the sexual harrassment policies. What's worse, when she was let go, her supervisor informed her that she was being let go solely because of her gender (she was the first female chaplain at the university) and not because of any religious doctrine.

You know that whole slippery slope thing? I hate it as an argument. Nonetheless, I do have images of an icy incline up ahead. For a long time, judges have used their discretion to decide whether a certain institution (church, school, hospital, prison) is "religious enough" to be protected under ministerial exception. Recently, those guidelines were softened allowing the entrance of tons of nominally religious universities and hospitals (Yale was a divinity school for Christ's sake!).

Do you see where we're going? Schools, hospitals and, more recently in FL, prisons that have had to abide by standard anti-discrimination laws are now possibly eligible for loosened standards. What if hospitals could fire Muslim orderlies? Or if a university could get rid of that nefarious theology professor because he doesn't hold to all the fundamental tenets of the school's faith? (Remember, we're not talking about the little Christian middle school down the road, we're possibly talking about many well-known and secular-seeming colleges and universities.)
What if the cafeteria staff at the new faith-based prison in Gainesville, FL were not allowed to be members of the union that guarantees them decent pay, hours, and benefits?

I have long been convinced that freedom of religion, the spirit of it at least, was intended to keep individuals from being persecuted for their faith. I honestly have a problem with churches and denominations (which are, let's face, international organizations - companies which traffic in hundreds of millions of dollars) being able to function completely tax-free and outside of our legal system. We always say proudly that our president is not above the law (yes, I sense the irony - I'm actually forcing down the bile right now) yet, we allow our clergy to be just that!

I hope, as our democracy keeps maturing, that we're able to get a grip on this difficult and passion-filled issue. The irony, of course, is that we'd expect the instituions of faith and morality to do right by their employees.