Monday, October 16, 2006

this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Faith-Based ProfitsPublished: October 16, 2006

Mary Rosati, a novice training to be a nun in Toledo, Ohio, says that after she received a diagnosis of breast cancer, her mother superior dismissed her. If Ms. Rosati had had a nonreligious job, she might have won a lawsuit against her diocese (which denies the charge). But a federal judge dismissed her suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act, declining to second-guess the church’s “ecclesiastical decision.”

Ms. Rosati’s story is one of many that Diana Henriques told in a recent Times series examining the fast-changing legal status of churches and religious-affiliated institutions. The series showed that the wall between church and state is being replaced by a platform that raises religious organizations to a higher legal plane than their secular counterparts.

Day care centers with religious affiliations are exempted in some states from licensing requirements. Churches can expand in ways that would violate zoning ordinances if a nonreligious builder did the same thing, and they are permitted, in some localities, to operate lavish facilities, like state-of-the-art gyms, without paying property taxes.

Some of the most disturbing stories, like Ms. Rosati’s, involve employment discrimination. Ms. Henriques told of a New Mexico rabbi who was dismissed after developing Parkinson’s disease and found himself blocked from suing, and of nurses in a 44,000-employee health care system operated by the Seventh Day Adventists barred from joining unions.

Religious institutions should be protected from excessive intrusion by government. Judges should not tell churches who they have to hire as ministers, or meddle in doctrinal disputes. But under pressure from politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only tangentially related to religion.

In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers. ...

No comments: