This case about separation of Church and State cuts in the opposite direction of most. This time the Church is asking for the State to stay out of it's decisions rather than for the State asking the Church to stay out it's purview.
The dilemma in all of the discussions about Church and State over issues of Law is that our European, Mid-Eastern (Moslem)(Jewish) society basis it's fundamental ideology of Law on the Moses story and the history of his recording on Mount Sinai "The Ten Commandments."
While some will be quick to exclaim these a "Universally Accepted precepts of Law" to be frank without substantiation from a majority of other societies on the globe of which our United States is composed, they are a minority opinion.
Yet in the light that they (the ten commandments) are given the weight they are, the commandment "do not give false witness" for me bears on this case.
The First Amendment charges the Government two things with respect to Church and State. One: to not "bear witness" to any one Church in favor of another Church. And there for relieving the Government of "(not) bear(ing) any false witness." And Two: to guarantee a Church the freedom "to bear witness." There for placing the Church in responsibility to remain truthful.
The plaintiff in this case, IMHO, has made the accusation that his employer has "given false witness", i.e. broken faith, in firing him without cause. By contradicting it's self acting counter to the teachings of it's lord Jesus, the Church's actions are a "false witness." The Church has claimed the plaintiff was teaching in contradiction to doctrine.
The doctrine this Church is standing on is the widely know teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Which being a doctrine of forgiveness. Speaks to the plaintiffs case. And a doctrine of tolerance for peoples' of all walks of life. Which speaks to the plaintiffs case. A doctrine of the history of sin, i.e. false witness, and other moral unacceptable conduct. Which speaks to the plaintiffs case. And a doctrine of judgement for hypocrisy in religious authority. Which speaks to the plaintiffs case.
If this were a doctrine that was remote and widely unaccepted and disputed the Court might find the premise of "ministerial exception" would hold. But as this doctrine is so widely known and ingrained in our premise of judicial law that to apply "exception" would and should be the exception.
If both the Church and the State are founded on the premise of Judeo-Christian "do not bear false witness" it is the Courts' duty to judge if this Church "changing horses in mid-stream" and claiming one day teaching of historical facts is in line with it's profit and then when the historical facts run counter to their racial bias the next day it is not in line with their profit. Whether that is "bearing false witness." And find for the plaintiff.
SCOTUS.BLOG-CASES
EMERGENCY DOCKET PETITIONS STATISTICS NEWSFEED
ABOUT
PETITIONS OF THE WEEK
Christian school renews effort to expand religious freedom over employment
By Kalvis Golde
on Mar 17, 2023 at 5:45 pm
The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.
Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Court extended a First Amendment protection known as the “ministerial exception,” a court-created doctrine that bars courts from reviewing employment decisions by religious employers about their ministers. Last year, four justices issued a statement regarding the denial of a petition that sought to further expand the types of workers who qualify as a minister covered by the exception. Writing for the group, Justice Samuel Alito indicated that although the case was not a suitable candidate for Supreme Court review at that point, the Christian college that filed the petition could return to the court down the road.
That dispute settled in December. But with four justices — the number it takes to grant a petition — signaling their interest in expanding the independence of religious institutions to make employment decisions, it was only a matter of time before another case came to the court. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, at what stage of litigation the ministerial exception should come into play.
Gregory Tucker was a science teacher at Faith Christian Academy, a religious school operated by the nondenominational Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colorado. Tucker later took on an additional position at the school known by two names: Director of Student Life and Chaplain. Three years into this role, he began planning Faith Christian’s weekly chapel meetings.
In January 2018, Tucker held one of these meetings on the issue of race and faith. Initially supported by the school, Tucker’s discussion drew heated criticism from parents for covering topics that included white privilege and systemic bias against people of color. Things devolved quickly from there. Explaining that it disagreed with Tucker’s reading of scripture, Faith Christian took away his supervision of weekly chapel meetings. Tucker resisted, and the school demoted him to his teaching duties only. By the end of February, it had fired him outright.
Tucker sued Faith Christian for wrongful termination and argued that the decision to fire him violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because he had opposed alleged race discrimination at the school. The school asked for the case to be dismissed under the ministerial exception.
Both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit refused to quash Tucker’s lawsuit. Whether Tucker served as a minister is a difficult question for a jury to answer, the 10th Circuit explained. Although the ministerial exception might ultimately shield Faith Christian from liability, the court ruled, it does not protect the school against having to litigate Tucker’s lawsuit at all.
In Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker, the school asks the justices to step in. Faith Christian argues that the question whether Tucker is a “minister” and the decision to fire him are matters of internal church doctrine, and that subjecting it to a long and costly trial would violate the purpose of the First Amendment’s protections for religious employers. In the case denied last February, four justices concluded that the ministerial-exception determination wasn’t yet ready for review. Here, the school contends, the timing issue itself is the question.
The group representing Faith Christian filed another petition, Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Belya, raising similar issues. In that case, the question is whether a church can invoke the First Amendment to avoid a defamation suit from a former priest suspended in light of allegations that he forged documents to be appointed as a bishop.
Comments