SCOTUS Rejects Church/State Cases
The decidedly right-leaning SCOTUS has only been at work a couple of hours and already set the stage by refusing to grant certiorari to two church-state cases and social conservative groups are not going to be pleased. High Court won’t hear two religion cases – Yahoo! News.
One case was about religious organizations paying for worker’s birth control health insurance benefits. NY requires them to and various social service agencies said it violated their 1st amendment right to practice their religion which says birth control is sinful. I think this was a good ruling. Birth control isn’t just to prevent births. It is widely used for control of conditions like endometriosis, very painful period cramps and treatment of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, so it is a health care product like any other. My sister was 13 when she got her period and her cramps were so bad that she almost passed out. They crippled her. My parents were not happy about the birth control option, but it made the world of difference for her health, so they did it. It was that, or have her take prescription painkillers every month.
The other case was over a group of evangelicals who want to hold religious services at a public library. The court in San Francisco said no. Well, get my smelling salts. Who would have expected San Fran to make that ruling? Well, SCOTUS reviewed the case and sees no reason for them to review it. I’m not sure how I feel about this. Even though I’m not a huge fan of organized religion, you know that I love me some Jesus:) and I hate to see a needy group that can’t afford their own place, be turned away. Isn’t it possible for them to use a room in the library as long as they aren’t disturbing the rest of the library or trying to involve the library patrons? The Associated Press: Court Turns Down Evangelical Group
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “SCOTUS Rejects Church/State Cases”
[...] Jonathan Bailey wrote an interesting post today!.Here’s a quick excerptThe decidedly right-leaning SCOTUS has only been at work a couple of hours and already set the stage by refusing to grant certiorari to two church-state cases and social conservative groups are not going to be pleased. … [...]
Smelling salts, eh?
As a member of the Hebrew tribe, I am well aware that most Christians, while not necessarily anti-Semitic, do hold strange and distorted views of Judaism.
I find it deeply troubling that these people would have a “right,” as the poster implies, to have my tax dollars subsidize their controversial and threatening worship.
If they were meeting there to knit or play bingo, that’s another story. But worship? People singing praises to their God(s) in a public library? That doesn’t fail a gut check for you?
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMy parents were not happy about the birth control option, but it made the world of difference for her health, so they did it. It was that, or have her take prescription painkillers every month. The other case was over a group of … [...]
beaverton_jewboy, doesn’t really fail any gut-check for me, and I’m a rather militant atheist myself. If you argue that allowing a group to use a library amounts to subsidizing that activity, you could make that argument for almost anyone. What if a really nasty political group wants to hold a meeting, like the KKK or the neonazis or some such garbage? I’m sure that any SF library would love to ban them, while accepting a Human Rights Watch meeting with open arms. It FEELS right, but it’s basically choosing who gets in the door on the basis of ideology, which public facilities should not be in the business of doing.
Likewise, I don’t see why a faith group should have any less right to a public room than any other group. I dislike the special treatment that religious faith is given in this country, but that doesn’t mean I think they should get WORSE treatment. As long as they don’t disturb anyone or take up too much of the time/space available (something that should apply to any group) my gut feeling is that they should not be barred from the library.
The bottom line; what would be the reaction if Muslims wanted to use a library for prayers?
What about a voodoo session?
If religious groups are to have ‘equal’ considetation, then all religious groups should.
Consequences have to be considered. With some controversies, it works better to simply avoid them when possible.
[...] SCOTUS Rejects Church/State Cases » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Doma, true, if one religious group is allowed all of them should, satanists or whatever. Again, that goes for everything. I’m sure political groups hold meetings there; if you allow the local chapter of say, MoveOn to use the room, you need to allow NAMBLA to do so as well. If you start banning people on the basis that under the same rules people you really don’t like will get in then the room will just have to stand empty.
Lynx-
I see what you’re saying. And I suspect they would have argued the same thing, I believe it’s called “Viewpoint Neutrality,” though I could be wrong.
Even a KKK meeting, as messed up as it is, is an attempt at civic participation. They are dealing with political issues, and serving a secular purpose. As I said, if the Church in question were having some activity, even a Bible study, that’d be different. But they were having a worship service. If you read the AP article, they are blatant about trying to proselytize library patrons. That crosses the line from having the library house a group’s activity, to having the library assist a religious group.
And I get the feeling they were being, if not loud, disruptive to patrons. If any group, even The Super-Gay Quilting Bee, started asking patrons if they wanted to take up gay quilting while the patrons were trying to read their Kirk/Spock Fanfiction on library computers, they’d get kicked out, too.
But that’s a practicality. In the ideal, religion in this country is required to find it’s own way without government handouts. In return, we get unprecedented religious freedom. Even thought the Fundies cry foul, it’s a system which has benefitted them, and all of us, immensely. We shouldn’t chip away at the separation between church and state, and I’m glad the SC didn’t feel the need to rehash a good ruling. I’m surprised, fankly. But pleased.
What about L Ron Hubbard books in the library???
OK, just kidding.
“If you start banning people on the basis that under the same rules people you really don’t like will get in then the room will just have to stand empty.”
When my children argued about shared toys, I sometimes settled the argument by taking away the toys. It wasn’t a principled, philosophical solution.
It was 1) to save my sanity, and 2) to give everyone a time-out, a chance to calm down and find a compromise.
These days, when EVERYTHING is controversial, an empty room may be the only way out.
In more rational times, I would favor allowing the room used for quilting bees fingerpainting classes
or other like activities.
There are rational compromises available to communities, parhaps by instituting some basic guidelines. The empty room solution is not necessarily the best solution. It becomes the only solution only when people take an all-or-nothing attitude.
Of course, when I say things like ‘rational’ and ‘compromise’, I’m probably thinking of another planet, or, at least, another time.