Comments: Takin' On the Man

Strongly said, which is appropriate.

Posted by Lawrence Krubner at May 20, 2004 10:41 AM

It's interesting. I wonder if there should be a distinction in law between religious organizations and other non-profit groups. There are certainly instances where religious faith and practice require accomodation from the law, though, so some form of formal recognition is clearly necessary.

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 20, 2004 07:57 PM

What instances?

Posted by Anne at May 20, 2004 07:59 PM

Ummm.... The two that come to mind are parochial schools and building codes. The fact that religious schools predate state-sponsored schools does not mean that the state had to let them continue operating, and they operate under different rules than the public school system, including the ability, if they don't take the wrong kind of federal money, to discriminate in hiring based on religion. And churches apparently are exempt from some of the zoning strictures faced by private individuals or companies, on the grounds that applying those rules to the churches would constitute a restriction of free exercise of religion.

We can argue about whether it is necessary to make exceptions for religious institutions, though, if you want. I'm not really sure where I come down on the question, myself.

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 27, 2004 12:06 AM

I don't know that I'm prepared to argue that. :) It's honestly not a topic that I ever gave much thought to before I started reading about the extent of the Catholic church's criminal culpability in the child-abuse scandals.

This is just my knee-jerk reaction - that criminal is criminal,and that whatever delicacy our courts feel about prosecuting a criminal who happens to have chosen that profession needs to be eliminated.

Posted by Anne at May 29, 2004 12:09 PM