Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws

January 30, 2008

Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws

by Joseph Kosten

Two recent events involving Roman Catholic hierarchy have once again brought the issue of religious liberty and state affairs into public view. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver and Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis are both dealing with issues at Catholic institutions that demand insights from Christian faith, not just public policy. While the particulars of the two cases differ, the underlying principle of religious liberty permeates every aspect of both conflicts.

According to proposed Colorado House Bill 1080 (HB 1080), its enactment would “limit the applicability of the exception from compliance with employment nondiscrimination laws for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies when employing persons to provide services that are funded with government funds.” While ending discrimination appears to be a noble endeavor, this bill actually attacks something very different. It attacks the heart of religious organizations of every denomination.

The freedom to hire without government interference is vital to the survival of religious institutions. In order to effectively promote the message of the organization, both the individual and the message must be in harmony. In all cases, the message consists of either the purpose of the organization, or the product, or both together. (Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver is the largest non-government human services provider in the Rocky Mountain West.) When an individual employed by the religious organization does not share in the harmony of intent, the organization suffers due to this lack of common purpose. This is the case made by Archbishop Chaput. His concern for Catholic Charities and its mission sparked his quick response to the proposed Colorado bill. “When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be ‘Catholic,’ it will end its services,” he said. For Archbishop Chaput, the very life of the organization depends on coherence with its Catholic identity.

Directly related to the issue of religious freedom is the St. Louis case. Recently, Jesuit-run Saint Louis University experienced its own crisis of identity when well-loved basketball coach Rick Majerus publicly championed pro-abortion causes at a Hillary Rodham Clinton rally in the city. Of course, Coach Majerus has the freedom of speech to applaud whatever cause he desires. However, because he works for a Catholic university, he has a responsibility to not publicly demean the mission and beliefs of that organization. By disagreeing with the Catholic Church on core matters of faith and morals, Coach Majerus is blocking the achievement of the purpose of Saint Louis University’s existence.

Archbishop Burke’s demand for disciplinary action against Coach Majerus comes from a deep understanding of Catholic Church law and the need for unity in all fields. Majerus answered: “These beliefs are ingrained in me. My First Amendment right to free speech supersedes anything that the archbishop would order me to do.” Coach Majerus errs. When he accepted the opportunity to coach basketball at a Catholic institution, he agreed to behave in a way befitting a representative of that institution. That being said, the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is quite clear, and Coach Majerus betrayed the trust placed in him.

Without the liberty to decide who represents its views and who disperses its message to the public, a religious institution or organization lays bare its most vulnerable aspect and welcomes destruction from within. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious institutions may not function within a state, nor does it mean that they can not decide who they hire. Religious liberty demands that an institution be free to decide its own end, and to choose its representatives.

Joseph Kosten is currently pursuing a Masters and Doctorate in Social Communications at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and has been an Acton Rome office intern since September 2006.

Comments

David Bump:

Speaking of other organizations that wouldn't put up with dissenters -- can you imagine a dissenter in another organization wanting and expecting to remain a part of it? If I found myself disagreeing so strongly with such an important point as in these cases, you couldn't pay me enough to stay! But people think they can belong to churches and work for church organizations and pick and choose which of the doctrines they will agree with! And there are also many people who would just LOVE to force the issue and bring expensive lawsuits explicitly to destroy churches! We MUST give the "free expression" clause of the First Amendment every bit of consideration and force as the "establishment" clause -- or better yet, bring the current interpretation of that one back to its original intent.

Kathleen Flippen: falcon1_5@ayhoo.com

Can you imagine N.O.W. or Planned Parenthood being forced to hire a pro-life, pro-abstinence advocate who would speak out against their policies publicly? They aren't religious groups, but their right to hire whoever best represents their interests and is most in line with their policies would never be questioned by lawmakers.

bill greene: whitneygre@aol.com

I ran a small business for over twenty years and found it essential to maintain a roster of compatible and cooperative emplyees in order to fulfill our mission and satisfy our clients. My concerns were not as critical as those would be for a religious organization, but even on a lesser scale I had to have the authority to hire and fire as I thought best. The problem drinker, the perennially late arriver, the dumb, even the unattractive in features or personality, all might pose a threat to my business. These considerations pale to insignificance compared to the head coach going public against his Church's beliefs! But that is what the twin idiot ideologies of diversity and moral relativism have brought to modern American institutions. I have studied the emergence of such destructive social concepts in past societies and find that once most free nations became affluent, a new elite of soft-science intellectuals usurped control from those who had built the society, and with their newly-imposed and faulty ideas, brought on Decline. Thomas Sowell has explained this phenomenon in "A Conflict of Visions," and "Knowledge abd Decisions," and he lays the blame for the resulting Decline in vitality of a nation on these new intelligentsias, which tend strongly to oppose religious expression and seek to advance a secular society. Those objectives are implicit in their authoritarian goal of centralizing government power in their own hands, pulling the strings, and pursuing their social-human engineering experiments. With friends like that who needs enemies ? I have summarized how this process has led to the Decline of most past successfull civilizations, that were created in the first place, without such elites, by the common people of the locale. See www.thecommongenius.com for more on this. My book, "Common Genius," also extracts from history the actual process whereby Christianity played a major supporting role in enabling those ordinary people to create free and affluent societies. It has been almost 400 years since America was founded by devout individuals fleeing their government's oppressive intrusion into their religios lives. It has taken over three centuries, but the central managers have resurfaced, and as I show in my book, they are reversing the fundamnetal traditions and beliefs that made us great.

Rabbi Louis J. Feldman: theologicalethic@aol.com

More power to you! I shudder when I think that a Jewish institution could be forced to hire a bacon
eating, Sabbath desecrating atheist. Religious institutions have have the freedom to hire staff that affirms the mission of the institution or at least does not publicly oppose it.

I remember an administrator from an Arizona Indian reservation saying that he does not want a worker on the reservation who does not speak the language and understand the culture of the local Indians. He is right.

If the government really believes in "diversaity", let its members get out of our business and let us do our job.

Acton Commentary