[Dialogue] Faith-Based Profits

[Harry Wainwright]

 <http://www.nytimes.com/>  <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/> 

  _____  

October 16, 2006

Editorial

Faith-Based Profits 

Mary Rosati, a novice training to be a nun in Toledo, Ohio, says that after
she received a diagnosis of breast cancer, her mother superior dismissed
her. If Ms. Rosati had had a nonreligious job, she might have won a lawsuit
against her diocese (which denies the charge). But a federal judge dismissed
her suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act, declining to
second-guess the church's "ecclesiastical decision."

Ms. Rosati's story is one of many that Diana Henriques told in a recent
Times series examining the fast-changing legal status of churches and
religious-affiliated institutions. The series showed that the wall between
church and state is being replaced by a platform that raises religious
organizations to a higher legal plane than their secular counterparts.

Day care centers with religious affiliations are exempted in some states
from licensing requirements. Churches can expand in ways that would violate
zoning ordinances if a nonreligious builder did the same thing, and they are
permitted, in some localities, to operate lavish facilities, like
state-of-the-art gyms, without paying property taxes.

Some of the most disturbing stories, like Ms. Rosati's, involve employment
discrimination. Ms. Henriques told of a New Mexico rabbi who was dismissed
after developing Parkinson's disease and found himself blocked from suing,
and of nurses in a 44,000-employee health care system operated by the
Seventh Day Adventists barred from joining unions.

Religious institutions should be protected from excessive intrusion by
government. Judges should not tell churches who they have to hire as
ministers, or meddle in doctrinal disputes. But under pressure from
politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and
federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It
is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only
tangentially related to religion.

In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for
religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First
Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be
free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair
competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of
much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Like most special-interest handouts, these privileges exist in large part
because the majority is not aware, or is not being heard. With property
taxes growing ever more burdensome, it is likely that localities will start
to give religious exemptions closer scrutiny. People who care about
discrimination-free workplaces, the right to unionize and children's safety
should also start to push back.

In a few places, at least, that has started. After Texas exempted religious
day care centers and drug-treatment programs from state licensing, a study
found that the "alternatively accredited" facilities had 10 times the rate
of abuse and neglect of the others, and several were investigated. In 2001,
the Texas Legislature, no enemy of organized religion, did the right thing
and ended the exemption.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061016/2ab6bdcf/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1810 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061016/2ab6bdcf/attachment.gif