The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld widespread Christian exceptionalism with an employment law case. (LINK) Cheryl Perich was teaching at a Lutheran Church school in Michigan. Though she taught secular subjects, she was also required by the school to lead students in prayers. She took a leave of absence to receive medical treatment for narcolepsy. Upon her return, she was told that she had been replaced, and that she would be fired if she didn't resign.
Ordinarily, this kind of practice is illegal. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects workers from being fired over medical leave. Based on the ADA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on her behalf. In response, the school cited an exemption granted to religious schools, claiming that she was a "minister" because she led prayers.
In the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts cited precedent back to the Magna Carta, and stated that imposing an unwanted "minister" on a religious organization was tantamount to violation of the right to free speech.
This case represents a a larger meta-discussion regarding the hierarchy of religion and law in America. Already, there are numerous exemptions for churches and religious organizations, both from laws and taxation. In many states, religious day cares are exempt from virtually all government oversight. This has led to thousands of abused children and even several cases of wrongful death. Religious parents are allowed to opt out of mandatory vaccinations for school attendance, which seriously jeopardizes herd immunity and threatens entire communities with epidemic.
In practice, American legislators have placed religion above law. They have said that when a law disagrees with a person's unprovable, non-scientific supernatural beliefs, the person is justified in ignoring the law, even if it causes harm to other people. Opponents of religious exceptionalism point out that this is the exact opposite of remaining neutral towards religion. It is blatant favoritism. Neutrality would be the equal treatment of all citizens and organizations, regardless of religious orientation.
Religious exceptionalism is a slippery slope indeed. If a person's subjective religious beliefs are justification enough to ignore one law, where do we draw the hard line? We have already crossed the lines of personal injury and discrimination -- many times over. We have granted the church immunity from taxation while overlooking their blatant political activism. We have overlooked religious pandering in the workplace. We have ignored gross misrepresentation of non-believers in the media. What is left sacred in the constitutional principle of non-favoritism?
We must also address the glaring religious bias of the Supreme Court itself. Unlike every other U.S. court, Supreme Court justices are not bound by an ethics code of religious or political impartiality. Justice Antonin Scalia has removed all doubt where his loyalties lie. He was quoted, on the record, saying: “The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.” (LINK) It is also no triviality to point out that Scalia played a crucial role in appointing George W. Bush, an evangelical Christian, to the White House.
Roberts himself is far from squeaky clean. In 1992, he came down on the side of prayer in schools. He sided against protecting homosexuals from discrimination in a Colorado case. He has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade given the chance. (LINK)
To space aliens with no historical context, it would be difficult to sell America as anything other than a nation which favors Christianity, both legally and culturally. This case is yet another nail in the coffin of egalitarianism.
Comments