Obama, oh hell no...

I guess the supremes dont like Obama micromanaging the church...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/11/supreme-court-delivers-knockout-punch-to-white-house/

Wednesday the ​

United States

​

Supreme Court

delivered a knockout blow to the ​

White House

in the cause of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to dermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”Citing well-known legal precedent dating as far back as Reconstruction, the court made it clear that it is not up to the government to contradict a faith’s determination as to who should -- and should not -- be performing religious functions.The Supreme Court clearly announced Wednesday that the First Amendment itself gives special recognition to the rights of religious organizations and rejected the government’s view that the Religion Clauses of the Constitution don’t apply to religious organizations’ freedom to select their own ministers, priests, rabbis and Imans.The Court also took aim at Plaintiff’s Cheryl Perich’s claims for back pay finding that such relief would operate as an unconstitutional penalty against a religious institution for terminating an unwanted minister and exercising its constitutional right to make decisions about internal church governance. Unfortunately, the federal government has become expert in imposing penalties for practicing one’s faith.As the new year rolls on, Americans face even greater issues in their desire to retain their religious freedom. The mandates of ObamaCare -- with its narrowly tailored if not measly conscience exemptions protecting some religious orders from compliance -- will mandate thousands of other religious organizations ranging from educational institutions to insurance companies to insure and/or provide procedures like free sterilization and abortifacients like Plan B known to be violative of many Christians and Jewish faiths.Will the government continue to test the bounds of religious liberty? Will the government continue to pick fights against religious freedom? Will the government continue to demand that Americans violate their faith tenets or worse from an intolerant government? Only time will tell. But for today, the founding fathers are smiling down at a Supreme Court that could not agree more about how wrong-headed our government is in trying to hijack our constitutional right to religious liberty.Peter Johnson, Jr. is a Fox News Legal Analyst and attorney.He has also successfully litigated issues with regard to the rights of religious organizations.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/11/supreme-court-delivers-knockout-punch-to-white-house/#ixzz1jCx51mco​

Click to expand...

[h=2]Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text[/h]
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-shudders-at-large-block-of-uninterrupted-te,16932/

can't disagree with the SCOTUS decision, let the churches be as batshit insane as they want for all i care.

the article reeks of bias... lol

the justice department does its due diligence to ensure the INTERPRETATION of the constitution is up to date and to make sure there is recent precedent to decide these types of situations and it's an attack on free speech, blah blah blah blah.....

*yawn.....

nobody said shit when the bush administration gave millions of tax payer dollars to religious organizations pushing Abstinence message... that infringes on the 'non establishment' part of religious freedom... but then again... he wasn't a muslim kenyan....

Fuck the church. They have no say. First off all churches accept government pork, except the Church of Satan. That disqualifies all other churches from using employment discrimination. Yeah I say this even though I'm against the Civil Rights Act, because this is already stated in the equal protection clause of the constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection


" By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights."

The Boy Scouts already tried that bullshit, so now they don't accept government money or use government property like public schools, or military bases anymore.

Let's actually do separation of church and state. See how long until all churches fail!

So, since there is a separation between church and state you think it is perfectly ok for the government to decide the hiring and firing practices at the Church?

Maybe they should elect the cardinals too eh?

This shows just how far into private lives, private businesses etc that the Obama administration feels it has the right to go. It is an abuse of power for them to have even tried this bullshit.

NLXSK1 said:

It is an abuse of power for them to have even tried this bullshit.

Click to expand...

how did they abuse their power? they did something they were entitled to do, and as you can see, not everyone agrees with you.

i agree with the SCOTUS, but not with your spin on this. they did not abuse any powers in any way.

UncleBuck said:

how did they abuse their power? they did something they were entitled to do, and as you can see, not everyone agrees with you.

i agree with the SCOTUS, but not with your spin on this. they did not abuse any powers in any way.

Click to expand...

They were abusing their power by trying to make staffing management decisions at a church. It was an abuse of power and the entire SCOTUS supported my argument. They overreached in this case and many other cases.

Does this mean all the supposed abuse n00bs have to take on Scientology's ship the Freewinds, Sea Org, is cool now???

Whenever SCOTUS votes unanimously on anything it means someone wasn't thinking very clearly when they brought the case to begin with.

Fuck obama admin... All its done is lie and now this!

I wonder how far up our asses he will want ro go given another 4yrs?

NLXSK1 said:

They were abusing their power by trying to make staffing management decisions at a church. It was an abuse of power and the entire SCOTUS supported my argument. They overreached in this case and many other cases.

Click to expand...

That is until it comes to light that yet another Priest has been violating altar boys, AGAIN. Then we'd be crying for his head on a stake, and pissed off that the courts can do nothing!!!

Fuck priests!

Fucking scumbag filth of the earths!

All of em seem to fit the match for a pedo, do they take some course at te vatican?

I doubt it, but one thing I've always wondered is why don't they more closely scrutinize applicants for jobs that involve almost exclusive contact with minors? Granted, the majority of the applicants really want to work with kids, but it would seem to me that those are the kind of positions a pedophile would try for as well. It seems to me that any applicant for any position involving children should be scrutinized very thoroughly. It wouldn't be fool proof by any means, but it would help with the known pedophiles.

Back to topic, sorry for the side trip.

redivider said:

the article reeks of bias... lol

the justice department does its due diligence to ensure the INTERPRETATION of the constitution is up to date and to make sure there is recent precedent to decide these types of situations and it's an attack on free speech, blah blah blah blah.....

*yawn.....

nobody said shit when the bush administration gave millions of tax payer dollars to religious organizations pushing Abstinence message... that infringes on the 'non establishment' part of religious freedom... but then again... he wasn't a muslim kenyan....

Click to expand...

I did! Fuck em both.

NLXSK1 said:

So, since there is a separation between church and state you think it is perfectly ok for the government to decide the hiring and firing practices at the Church?

.

Click to expand...

Exactly - separation of church and state runs both ways, No church in government and no government in church.

canndo said:

Exactly - separation of church and state runs both ways, No church in government and no government in church.

Click to expand...

Isn't the government also stepping in by giving churches an exemption from a law the rest of us are liable to?

NLXSK1 said:

They were abusing their power by trying to make staffing management decisions at a church. It was an abuse of power and the entire SCOTUS supported my argument. They overreached in this case and many other cases.

Click to expand...

the minister claimed discrimination, the obama administration supported them, the case went to the supreme court, as they are entitled to do.

no abuse of power there. an abuse of power would be to act in defiance of what the SCOTUS has now dictated. get it?

PetFlora said:

deleted​

Click to expand...

If Ron Paul is our only hope we're truly screwed.

petflora, i deleted your post as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just an endorsement of a candidate. if you want to discuss your candidate, there are several (many, actually) threads open where you are free to do so. thank you.