Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_religious_cases
What do you all think?
2007-10-01 06:13:13 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm not sure why the separation of church and state is a one-way street.
If you don't want religion to intrude on your daily lives, then why should your daily life be forced upon my religion?
2007-10-01 06:16:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
In the contraception case, it looks as though a church is simply not being allowed to force its views on contraception on people it hires who are not members of the church. That doesn't seem too draconian. I am somewhat surprised that there is an exemption from the requirement for some church operations which do not have outsider involvement, but the government appears to be trying to be reasonably accomodating.
In the use of the library case, it does seem that the religious groups want to use public facilities free of charge to further religious matters. It may not seem that big a deal in the libraries, but if it is acceptable in libraries, why not in public buildings generally? In empty courtrooms, or in government offices?
The Supremes deny cases for all kinds of reason, not necessarily because they think the case was properly decided. Sometimes they don't think the case is important, that the record is not well-developed, or they just have other cases they are more interested in. Oh yes, and the court is lazy. It takes fewer cases now than it ever did.
.
2007-10-01 06:22:03 · answer #2 · answered by BAL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I applaud the courtroom's decision to go away those situations as they are. they are Constitutionally superb without granting assessment. A Catholic owned enterprise won't be able to assume that their workers are all Catholics. in the event that they are heavily unfavorable to start administration to that quantity, they're going to might desire to apply nuns in those positions. the standard public library is not extra an suitable place for worship centers than a public college is. Granting one faith the privilege of making use of the centers for worship (no longer in simple terms speech, yet non secular practices) could be favoritism. there is likewise no reason at the back of it. If the team would not have a place of worship of their very own, they might hire a private facility including a motel convention room or a room at a non-income enterprise's facility. in the event that they can't have the money for that, they might meet in one yet another's residing rooms.
2016-10-20 11:53:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the first case is pointless, as it's part of a health benefits package. If they don't believe in it, and they're hiring people who believe like them, then it's not an issue. If they're hiring regardless of religion, they have a legal obligation to provide it according to the law. Faith does not override laws.
In the second case, I think it's a little far fetched. If a religious group wants to use a private room in a government building, I don't see the problem. They aren't preaching at anyone, simply using available community space.
2007-10-01 06:23:46 · answer #4 · answered by Armless Joe, Bipedal Foe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They seem pretty straightfoward to me.
In the first case the law applies to the Catholic Church as an employer, not as a religion. The slippery slope argument they're trying to use is just a smoke-screen.
The second is completely frivolous. Public funds shouldn't be used to subsidize religion., and the library's policy is quite clear on that.
2007-10-01 06:44:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the supreme court is right in not hearing these cases. If Catholic Charities hired only Catholics, and served only Catholics, that would be one thing. The problem is that they hire people who aren't Catholic, and such people ought not be forced to adhere to Catholic teaching and doctrine.
I also wouldn't want church services in a library, unless they allowed Pagans and others to worship there as well. If they allow certain groups, that is quite nearly a tacit recognition and promotion of that faith.
2007-10-01 06:22:04 · answer #6 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic church is ridiculous. They say if they are forced to pay for birth control they can be forced to pay for abortions too.
Well, birth control helps eliminate the need for abortions - duh!
In my opinion, churches should be free to practice their religious values in church but when they act as employers, they are not acting as a religion, they are acting as a business and should be made to adhere to all labor laws.
I don't have a problem with a religious group using a public library meeting room as long as any community group can also use it on the same terms.
2007-10-01 06:32:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think they pick and chose like always and love to dodge the bullet unless the issue impacts the nation as a whole or is unbelievably stupid. They can only cert a limited quantity of cases so you could chose any one theme of appeal and find numerous examples of cases not heard or even entire bodies of law not addressed in a session.
2007-10-01 06:17:40 · answer #8 · answered by jct101 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regarding the first case I can not comment on at this moment; however, the second one I agree that prayer in a public building should NOT be allowed or prayer meeting or whatever.
2007-10-01 06:19:06 · answer #9 · answered by Imagine No Religion 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not understand why in this day and age there are people out there who are still speaking out against birth control. Like we don't have enough unwanted kids in the system
2007-10-01 06:17:17 · answer #10 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋