E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.
A Christian school in Thousand Oaks, Calif., is suing two former teachers who threatened a lawsuit over the school's requirement to provide proof of faith.
When the Godspeak Church bought Little Oaks Elementary in 2009, it started requiring employees to fill out questionnaires that asked whether they attended church, which church they attended and what the pastor had to say about their beliefs.
"We do believe their personal rights were violated," said the teachers' attorney, Dawn Coulson.
Coulson said Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara received their questionnaires last summer. After they refused to fill out the form, they were not rehired. The teachers then filed paperwork saying they intended to sue.
The school's attorney, Rick Kahdeman, said the church exercised its constitutional right to freedom of religion. He said that trumps any claim the teachers may have under state equal employment laws.
"The teachers chose not to [fill out the paperwork], and they knew it was a condition of employment," Kahdeman said.
Coulson contends that California's employment laws protect her clients, in part, because the school northwest of Los Angeles was purchased by a church as a for-profit entity, not a nonprofit. She said employers can't require such questionnaires as a basis for employment, even if they are churches.
"That would be like the church buying shares in IBM, and IBM saying, 'We can now discriminate, based on religion,'" Coulson said.
"That issue is totally irrelevant because the rights of the school come from the First Amendment to the Constitution," Kahdeman countered.
Kahdeman is suing the two teachers and their attorneys in federal court.
Leave a Comment:
These a-holes need to be taxed. Every way they want to screw someone they now call it freedom of religion BUT they are taking a political stance and defying the law, thus they should be taxed heavily.
This school is being taxed.
Funny, the school claims that it violates their freedom of religion, but doesn't this violate the teachers' freedom of religion?
I would go one step further: As a business, the U.S. Supreme Court has regularly ruled that businesses are not entitled to same level of free speech as an individual is. Just look at the limitations put on political spending, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limits how close to an election a corporation can air political ads, as examples.
I would think that the rights of the individual trumps the rights of the corporation here too.
The teachers threatened to sue first.
Why work for a private Christian school when you know its beliefs but you do not share them? The school is within its rights to practice religious freedom.
What's wrong with the teachers answering simple questions about their faith?
Silverton....your ignorance is showing. How would you deal with it if tomorrow the company you work for was bought by...say a chinese firm. You suddenly get a questionnaire about how you like Communism. Going to fill out that form? Quit your job?
"What's wrong with the teachers answering simple questions about their faith?"
EVERYTHING when it's mandatory. What a person believes should be private unless they wish to share it.
Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara
@gbgentleman
Your ignorance is showing. I went to private schools for the first half of my life K4-7th grade. Even for a student you have to have "proof of faith" or at least recommendation from a Pastor to the school regarding the child. Parents pay quite a bit of money to get their children a get education at these schools.
Now for teachers it is reasonable for the school to ask for proof of faith, after all, it would be hypocritical to teach something, somewhere you don't believe. This is why we have catholic schools and christian schools; I even believe we might even have some islamic schools. This all to avoid conflict of interest. Point being, you don't go willing work for a place in which you know it will conflict with your faith. THAT is just asking for trouble.
The school is in its right for asking for "proof of faith," you might not think its right, but thye have their right to do so, on account of its a Christian school, and they have their own standards. Most people will be hard pressed to NOT find a Christian school which does not do this. It is like applying to the FBI, and the FBI asking for the right to look at your tax files to make sure you are a good civil resident. So NOT out of line.
Nonsense. The school is in violation of employment laws. They are not a church, they are a for-profit school. That makes them a business that is required to follow employment law, When religious institutions begin to think they are exempt from such laws we are on a very slippery slope. They are already trying to insert religion into our laws and now want to pick and choose what laws they want to follow.
If that's the game they want to play, the government should pull the tax-exempt status of churches and other religions. I doubt that's the route they want to go so they should follow the law and shut-up.
It is good these two people brought suit and it doesn't matter that they knew the requirements in advance. They are trying to make an example of this type of institutional law-breaker and I hope they win.
Wow, this sounds like something from the Middle East, uh, without the chopping of heads and stuff. but it is still similar. Religious fanaticism is the root of all evil.
Lazarus
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...so why is it religions are allowed to discriminate on the basis of belief?
What I would like to know, is what exactly the church is suing the teachers for? Did I miss this somewhere? If there is ANY justice in the world, the churches case will be dropped and these teachers will be well compensated for being discriminated against.
Between big money and religious fanatics, this country is just about completely @!$%#ed!!!!!
Silly sun(son) worshipers, rights are for individuals!!!!!!
Sounds pretty much par for the course to me!!!! They don't care if they are good teachers or good people for that matter ... they want control of their faith ... can't have them teaching evolution ... now can we!
This case would all hinge on whether the school is completely private or whether it takes governmental funds. Much like your employer can demand that you take a urine test, a private entity can have a wide degree of latitude on rule for employment, unless those rules are not permitted by law. The courts recently have given business and not-for-profits a lot more power. You can also thank your "right to work" legislation. Clearly, a good test case for some limits.
I agree with you all the way except for the whole liberal US thing.
I don't see anything liberal about a growing police state whose government allows big money and religious fanatics to @!$%# all over the rest of the population.
Sounds a lot more like we live in the rightwing US to me.
Tax all "Churches" to the fullest extent of the code.
I refuse to subsidize their pre-modern ignorance and intolerance.
Sounds more like persecution by religion.
What I would really like to ask these hypocritical church leaders, is if they would be okay with a secular organization opening a business and refusing to hire superstitious employees under the protection of freedom of/from religion? Hmmmmm?
ImlovingAZ
Even for a student you have to have "proof of faith" or at least recommendation from a Pastor to the school regarding the child.
Maybe your school does, but most private Daycare, elementary, Middle and High don't require a statement of faith (even catholic schools). They may promote that the entire family goes to church, and some inquire about the parent's faith, but for the most part these functions are seen as a mission field and they hope that by the time the kids leave they are believers.
Never stop asking questions.
Although I like your screen name, clearly you don't read very closely making your opinons worth far less.
The school in question is a for profit school. There is no exemption status for them so they pay taxes.
Not only did you miss that in the article, but a previous post corrected someone else who said the same thing.
Myname123 said:
From the Article:
Rehired, as in they worked there in the last school year and were not rehired for the current year. I'd say it's a good analogy.
For those of you saying why would they teach something they don't believe in, you know that other things are taught at private schools besides religion, right? What if these were two English teachers, or math teachers. They don't need to be of the same religion to properly teach math...or for that matter to follow an approved course selection.
My name
Is it really in the violation of laws if it is for profit? From what I see there is no difference between a for profit and a not for profit if their goal is to Honor their faith while doing business. It's a bit harder to honor that faith if you are not hiring only people who also are sworn to that faith.
@!$%# it! If we can pick apart the 2nd Amendment, why not the 1st?
@MyName,
When a company changes owners, there is a "rehiring" process whereby, the current employees must be "rehired" by the new owners, despite being the same company. Additionally, many new teachers (teachers in their first - fifth years) are contracted to the schools and are "rehired" on a regular basis. In both cases, the process is usually a formality. The latter can be used to protect schools from lengthy firings involving the Unions when a teacher is a bad fit with the school. It also allows for teachers to move more freely from school to school within a county, or even state.
This instance sounds like it falls under the first, whereby the teachers had existing contracts and were current employees. When the school was bought, the church required a rehiring process that included the questionnaire.
I hope the two teachers continue with their lawsuit. As the school is for-profit, it is NOT considered a religious institution and hence can NOT discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation per federal law.
As an aside, in 2000 years (assuming the human species still exists and we haven't killed ourselves off like those on Easter Island) are we going to look back at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in the same way we currently look at Greek and Roman mythology?
If the new owners had used their heads, all they would have had to require was that the teachers had some sort of theology background or education. That's all. I am on the side of the teachers for this reason, plus the fact that the constitution guarantees "freedom from religious persecution", i.e. no one can be discriminated against because of or in spite of their religious preference...or not.
@Kevin C-752389 The US Supreme Court has given corporations the same rights as people. "Corporate Personhood" is why there are so many big money campaign donors now. There is no limit.
IMloving AZ seems to be wearing their ignorance like a flag. None of the religious schools here in our area require 'proof of faith' in order to attend. The Catholic schools require everyone to take a religious studies course, and to attend mass with their classmates. However, if you are not Catholic, you may sit quietly without fear of retribution.
But a school does, this is a common practice in schools across the country.
This is why it's illegal. For anyone who wants to read the actual wording of the law it's The Civil Rights Act (1964) Title VII:
I hope the school and the church behind it get pounded in court like an altar boy forcibly bent over a Priest's desk.
Freedom FROM religion - is that too much to ask for?
Businesses are bought and sold on a daily basis. This is no different. Any businessperson will tell you that when a company comes under new leadership, the organizational culture, focus, and human capital needs change. The school went from being secular to Christian and the curriculum at a Christian school is basic education (reading, writing, math, etc.), scripture, and God centered values and morals. To teach this type of curriculum, along with life application, you have to have knowledge of the subjects and live them. The school has a responsibility to review qualifications of prospective teachers to ensure that they are capable of providing the children with the education the parents want them to have. The questionnaire would have been part of that process. The teachers had every right to decline to complete the questionnaire and the school had every right refuse to hire someone whose ability to teach the curriculum they could not validate. No one’s rights were violated.
That the teachers sued for violation of their civil rights does not mean the school gets the same protections, because it's a business. Our laws are designed more to protect individuals from corporations, not the other way around. Otherwise, there'd be no stopping, say, Walmart from sending armed thugs to your house to force you to shop in their stores if they claimed your refusing to shop there was a threat to their very survival. That's an extreme example, I'm aware, but in principle, it's the same thing.
The school is a business. It is, therefore, in a position to be able to easily abuse individuals, given its greater access to resources, financial and otherwise. So, it must be held to a higher standard of conduct toward people than people are toward it.
That said, no business, especially a for-profit business, has a right to discriminate based on religion, and why these businesses who keep claiming they do have gotten it in their heads that they're exempt from every federal law, court ruling and other decree that says they aren't allowed to engage in such discrimination is quite beyond me. A business' "freedom of religion" isn't being violated when it's forbidden to discriminate on the basis of religion, because a business really is not a person, no matter what Citizens United wants to convince people to believe.
I believe the Supreme Court ruled on this type of issue just 12 months ago in a case involving a teacher in a religious school. It was Unanimous - even the Liberal Justices rejected the teacher's claim. Here's a quote on the case;
"The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission."
I'm surprised the teachers' lawyer doesn't seem to know the law. Regardless of what non-religious people might think is 'fair', the issue has been settled.
Here's a link;
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-11/justice/justice_supreme-court-discrimination_1_contract-teacher-social-studies-federal-courts?_s=PM:JUSTICE
myname123
I believe religion is a protected class according to our civil rights act. It would be similar to firing someone because of their race or sex, also protected classes.
Is it okay to fire someone because they're not a Christian? How about if they are black?
It seems so oddly twisted the way churches are trying to use the word "freedom" to describe limiting people's choices and options.
Anything that limits the control of religious organizations on their members simultaneously increases individual religious freedom.
Example:
We demand the freedom to deny our employees the freedom to make birth control choices. Wait. What?
More christian idiocy. Why not throw all their employees into the river to see if they would float?
For those who say the school is violating the teachers rights. The school's sign say Christian school. The school takes money from the parents as a Christian school. If the teachers are not teaching Christianity then that would be false advertising on the part of the school. The school could be considered as a ministry. as per the Hosanna Tabor decision. For those not up on this it is a Supreme Court decision re: a teacher in a religious school. Check the decision out.
Roy Wilson,
You're missing the fact that the school in the case you mentioned is a nonprofit institution. The school in this article is a for-profit business, kind of like Hobby Lobby. It might have some involvement with religion, but it's still a public business and is, therefore, held to higher standards of conduct (i.e. nondiscrimination). Only nonprofit religious organizations are allowed to engage in such unevolved behavior as discrimination.
Lovemymeme’s – wrong.
You need to go back and read the law again. The law allows that a company may have a bona fide occupational qualification. In that instance, they can use that as a determination in their hiring decisions.
For a church, that can be a specific religion or belief. For a strip club, that can be a gender.
The BFOQ provision of Title VII provides that:
[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise…
ROY WILSON-336103
In this case, there was gray area suggesting that teachers were also otherwise members of the clergy. That's a bit different since you can fire someone for not doing their job (in her case, a minister). She was also fired for cause being insubordination. They put their ducks in a row before they fired her.
They didn't just come out and say "You're not Christian, we're firing you."
I knew it wasn't going to be long before the haters, naysayers, and religious bigots got on here venting their personal frustrations concerning faith. How about the people don't lie on their applications, or better yet, not apply for a job they aren't willing to be honest about?
Three things;
1. It's a "Christian" Private school. If you aren't religious, don't go there...or work there.
2. I understand that the organization who bought the school is the entity responsible for the questionaire, so they should be held responsible for violating US employment laws. They DO NOT have the right to enquire into their employee's beliefs. By the same token, if you work for a Christian organization, wouldn't it follow that you would be expected to be Christian?
3. They probably would have been kicked to the curb if they didn't believe in "Creationism".
I simpathize that these people wish to keep their jobs, but I have had to suck it up quite a few times working for the military. You don't have "choices" when it comes to who you work for, or what they expect you to do most of the time, you just have to do it. If they answer the question honestly and they are fired...guess what, they would probably end up owning the school.
It sounds to me like they weren't rehired because they refused to fill out the necessary paper-work. As long as the church/school doesn't require them to be a specific religion in order to work there, the school isn't in the wrong. The teachers turned in incomplete applications, period. They weren't "rehired" because they failed to complete the required paperwork. I'm pretty sure if they put "atheist" or "Satanist" on the paperwork and THEN didn't get rehired, they would have a leg to stand on regarding discrimination. But that isn't what happened. They decided to be lazy and completely ignore that page of the job application and it came back to bite them. In this economy, businesses can afford to be picky with their employees. I would rather someone be completely honest and fill out an entire job application than have someone skip over a portion completely because they don't feel I need to know. Completing the paperwork honestly says a lot about a person, and their ability to work well within the new policies and procedures. Refusing to even fill out that part of the paperwork also says a lot: it shows that the person is stubborn, closed minded, and most likely doesn't take change or the introduction to new ideas and curriculum very well. Which would you rather work with?
myname123
You might want to go and read the story or check out the local versions. The school's defense indicates they are using freedom of religion for this decision and that the teachers knew filling out the questionnaire was a requirement of employment. And here is their justification to defend it.
Here's the direct quote: "The school's attorney, Rick Kahdeman, said the church exercised its constitutional right to freedom of religion. He said that trumps any claim the teachers may have under state equal employment laws."
So yeah, they could have been atheists, but the same defense would apply. Sounds to me that they knew exactly what basis they were not rehired for.
Since when is what church you attend and how often you attend a requirement for teaching? You can be a good person with values and morals without being a Christian or a member of any other religious group. The article didn't state what classes these two teachers taught, but I'll bet that it wasn't a religous course. So what does their personal beliefs have to do with English, math, science, and history? Nothing. When applying for a job, do you write down what church you attend and how often you attend? Do you have your pastor affirm your beliefs before you are employed? No, because it's against the law. I'm with the teachers on this one.
Religion! What a sorry mess. The costs in lives and money historically, are, and continue to be, astronomical. Look at the hotbed of this sh^t in the middle east. Talk about living and dying for, at best, wistful bullsh^t!
Daysie D, Did you even read the article?
Most private schools (and public schools before the teachers get tenure, if available) have year to year contracts with their teachers, so the argument about firing versus rehiring needs to recognize that.
This is a PRIVATE SCHOOL that people pay for their children to be taught a CHRISTIAN
LIFESTYLE BY CHRISTIAN TEACHERS. If you are not a christian ,teach at a public school.
Knowing, as I do, that NBC is wont to omit pertinent information that doesn't suit their agenda, I did a little checking.
The facts that NBC INTENTIONALLY left out of this article are very much relevant to the issue.
These two teachers were UNDER CONTRACT to the school. When the church bought the school, they HONORED the teachers' contracts.
It was only after those contracts EXPIRED that the church then declined to enter into NEW contracts with the teachers.
These teachers threatened to sue the church to try to FORCE them to enter into NEW contracts, which the school has every right to refuse to do. The church simply filed suit to proactively protect themselves from the teachers' threat of legal action.
As usual, NBC demonstrates that they are NOT journalists. They are an agenda-driven propoganda outlet.
myname123
They did, and if their defense matched that argument, then this wouldn't be an issue.
The problem is that this is the defense they are suggesting: "The school's attorney, Rick Kahdeman, said the church exercised its constitutional right to freedom of religion. He said that trumps any claim the teachers may have under state equal employment laws."
If they were omitted for not supplying required information, why bring freedom of religion into it? Instead of saying "They didn't complete this form as a condition for employment, therefore they were not considered for further employment" and made zero mention of religion, this case wouldn't have legs. In this case, the church is claiming that freedom of religion trumps state employment laws.
Does that sound like the argument someone would make for not furnishing required information to you? It doesn't to me.
Repojam "ROY WILSON-336103 In this case, there was gray area suggesting that teachers were also otherwise members of the clergy"
The teacher in the Supreme Court case also alleged that her duties were almost entirely secular - That argument was rejected - Let's look at the Majority ruling again;
"The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission."
I doubt that the issue of 'non/for profit' was a deciding factor. The fact is that a religious school has the right to determine who will help 'teach their faith, and carry out their mission'.
This case has certainly gotten the Liberals 'riled up' (again), hasn't it?
Repojam "In this case, the church is claiming that freedom of religion trumps state employment laws."
According to a unanimous Supreme Court decision from 2012, it does;
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-11/justice/justice_supreme-court-discrimination_1_contract-teacher-social-studies-federal-courts?_s=PM:JUSTICE
I think you are all missing the real issue here.
This Christian School did not infringe on any personal or religious rights of the teachers as some have stipulated here. This is a Private School funded by a Private Church. Therefore this school does not fall under the Constitutional Guidelines of "Separation of Church and State." For a School to fall under those guidelines, the school must be a public school OR receiving Federal Funding Grants, which allows the Government to insist on following federal separation guidelines. That is not the case here, this private christian school is completely funded by the Private Church that owns it and parent contributions.
And furthermore, the teachers personal religious freedoms were not being infringed on. What we have here is a private christian school with a teaching curriculum that requires teachers to be a positive spiritual example to its students. The school wasn't trying to manipulate how the teachers believed in God; the school was simply asking IF the teachers believed in God. Why? Because a negative or neutral answer is a strong indication of a teaching style that is against the schools' curriculum and against the type of spiritual education the parents are paying for and expecting for their children.
Let me give you a few examples of why many of you are wrong here: Under your thinking, Amish Communities could not build their own private schools, use their own teachers and teach God to their young without being Constitutionally illegal. Of course this is wrong. Why? Because these are private christian schools that aren't receiving federal funding and don't fall under the constitutional requirement of "Separation of Church and State.". This is no different than you owning a private building on your property and setting the guidelines and policies of hiring an independent contract and stipulating the policies of their contractual employment.
This isn't about the school paying taxes either; every business pays taxes, people.. The criteria for federal school guidelines is federal funding; which opens up the Constitutional requirements. That's not happening here. Nope, bottom line... Like it or not, the school is right... The teachers Constitutional Rights were not infringed on; the school wasn't manipulating how they believed in GOD, simply asking for a Educational Curriculum falling in line with the spiritual curriculum established prior to the teachers applying for positions at this privately funded school. It's not up to a private christian school to change its teaching style to satisfy the whims of a couple of disgruntled teachers. It is up to the teachers to follow the teaching policies in place of a private christian school cirriculum.
Like it or not, the teachers are wrong.. They may get some media face time; but, they will lose this battle in court...
I see this as even more simple than a freedom of religion issue. If this story was about a high end night club and instead of teachers you were talking about hostesses, and instead of religion you were talking about their weight, then this not only would not be news but the cases would be thrown out of court. It is simple, the job here is for teachers of faith and the teachers lied about their faith, and when asked to back it up, they couldn't produce proof and their contracts were not renewed. In the nightclub, if the hostess gained a bunch of weight, she would be canned. Square hole requires square peg. The employees in question did NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB. Simple as that.
Say you contracted to hire an IT guy for your business for a year and after a year you knew that he did NOT meet the requirements for the job, but maybe you didn't think to get proof of his certifications in the areas the job required. Would you offer him a new contract at the end of a year if he failed to produce proof of those certifications? And what if he sued? The requirements of this job in this article were to have a certain faith and teach that faith along with the teaching requirements. These teachers didn't have that, and the school made a mistake in not asking for proof in the beginning, so when it became obvious, they added that requirement and didn't extend the contract. If these teachers had reached tenure where they weren't rehired each year then it might be an employment issue, but then the school would do what EVERY business does and find ways to write them up 3 times and then fire them for cause. Simply not rehiring these people leaves their resumes untainted and allows them to go get a job at a non-religious private school. Quite frankly, these teachers are very short sighted and this will follow them for years and make it more difficult to find a new job. Every year hundreds of teachers don't get renewed in every state. Usually it isn't even for a legitimate reason. This school has a legitimate reason.
I understand employee rights and all, but all too often they protect people who are simply unqualified for a job and weren't vetted well enough, and it is like pulling teeth for an employer to get rid of them. If it is my money I am paying these people, I should be able to get rid of them. In some states I can fire someone because I don't like the shoes he wore, yet in others I have to spend months losing money and business looking for mistakes so I can write him up three times before firing him.
Morons who send their kids to this type of school should be charged with child abuse!!!!!
Brainwashing by any other name...
Here's MY question:
On what basis is the SCHOOL suing the TEACHERS ?
And on WHAT basis is the school suing the teachers' ATTORNEY ?
It cant be malicious prosecution because the "teacher v. School" suit has not been adjudicated yet. It cant be abuse of process because even if the teachers lose, there was probable cause to initiate an maintain the suit. It cant be Intentional (or negligent) infliction of emotional distress because an "entity" (school) cant suffer emotional distress.
Anyone ?
A few points not covered by the article: 1) are there owners of the school other than the church? There is an implied "no" but not explicit; 2) are the students accepted on a religious basis; 3) where do the profits of the school go. If the school is solely owned by the church and if the profits go solely to the church then the courts will probably accept the school as a permanente fund-raiser and thus protected by the First Amendment. If the students are accepted on a religious basis then that would strengthen the religious nature of the school but absent that it is not a case-killer.
The RWNJs are here crying "nobody infringed on their religious rights" and that may actually be debatable but the fact that this private, for profit, business was guilty of discriminatory hiring practices is cut and @!$%#ing dry!
For those saying they weren't "rehired" because they didn't fill out the paperwork... The questionaire itself was a violation of the law. Employers are not allowed to ask about religion, just like they aren't allowed to ask if you're pregnant or other issues that are private.
Do teachers in Muslim Schools are Christians?
If the School is Advertised as a Christian School they should teach Christians values , and is in their right to accept only teachers that share their faith. I don't send my kids to a Christian School where teachers do not teach according my faith. That is not a secular School.
Yes it is completely different. What you refer to is a lie, a myth like the"liberal media" the "gay agenda" or the idiotic fantasy that supply side/trickle down economics works.
Unless the school is private and revolves around race or religion, there is no indoctrination going on.
Not only is what you say incorrect, it is the exact opposite of the truth!
Yes, I did read the article - poorly written that it is. The school did not merely ask if they were Christian (which I would be ok with as it is a Christian school). They wanted to know what church they attended, how often they attended services, and required a pastor to submit proof of their beliefs. I'm unsure of how you prove a belief of someone else. That kind of questioning goes too far into someone's personal life and beliefs. The questionnaire should have simply asked "Are you a member of a Christian denomination? Will you follow the approved course curriculum for a Christian school?" End of story.
I would like to know what is proof of religion? Why can't folks just believe and be done with it.
ROY WILSON-336103
The link referenced shows she was fired for causes other than religion and that was not the primary motivator concerning her employment. This is a case of different circumstances. The issue regarding religion which is a primary affirmative defense in this case was largely untouched in the case you are referencing.
@ Living
Someone is going to brainwash the children, whether it is a liberal/progressive agenda from the public school system or a Christian education system. Why not chose which you think will do a better job at the actual education part (that would be a private school, according to test scores) and be more in line with what you personally believe? Oh, that's right because if they think differently than yourself, they are wrong and ignorant, right? I think the exact same way you do though; people that send their children to a school where they are taught that your parents values don't matter and that they are antiquated, where the teachers have to deal with poorly behaved children and can't to anything about it, where bullying/sex on a school bus cannot be stopped by a bus driver, and where you need to have an armed police officer sitting in the parking lot while school is in because of the fight and weapons brought to school ought to be charged with child abuse. Works both ways sir.
livinginthewoods "Morons who send their kids to this type of school should be charged with child abuse!!!!!"
I guess you think it's better to send your kids to a public school where they can learn about drugs, promiscuity, and how to be a 'gang-banger'. So what future do you want for YOUR kids?
You shouldn't complain too much - they have to pay extra money to send their kids to private school AND pay the taxes to send your kids to public school.
Hahahhaaha!!!!
Dance piggies! Dance!!!!
Hahahahaha!!!
Go smoke some more bible and jack off to bill o'reily
Repojam "This is a case of different circumstances"
Every case has different circumstances, but I don't see any material difference.
But, of course, neither one of us gets to make that decision. I guess we'll see how far this case goes, but having to overcome a 9-0 ruling in the other case, I wouldn't 'put my money' on the teacher in this case.
I guess it's time to find something else to look at - Bye, and 'Have a Nice Day' :)
I believe the school in question for that ruling is actually more of a church and operates as a non-profit organization.
The school in question in THIS article is going to be run as a for-profit business. I believe this makes all the difference in the world, but we shall see if it goes to court. If one can run a business (whether it's private or not) and exempt themselves from employment requirements simply by stating they're "religiously affiliated" it presents a slippery slope type argument. For example, a private, for-profit business could say they're "religiously affiliated" and promptly fire all they're homosexual employees, or they're female employees, or minority employees.
The question of profit vs. non-profit is very relevant to this case IMO.
livinginthewoods--- No religion involved other than the religion you put into it. There is no discrimination either. These people failed to fill out the forms as a condition of employment, they could have filled them out and put not applicable on the form, this would have met the conditions of the employer and not subjected them to any form of supposed discrimination. It is simple I give you forms to fill out for employment you do not fill them out, I do not hire you. Any HR person will tell you a possible candidate for hire is quickly not considered for a variety of reasons but not filling out paperwork properly is the biggest dis-qualifier. There are many people who do not get hired for a lot of reasons, but if these people had a case it would already be in court. This is a private school not a public entity.
If religious tests are allowed for employment then they should also be allowed for patronage. A restaraunt could post signs "Help Wanted", "Muslims need not apply", or a store could post a sign that says:
"CHRISTIANS ONLY - NO JEWS, HINDU, MUSLIMS OR BUDDHISTS", "PLEASE STATE YOUR FAITH AT THE DOOR AND PROVIDE A NOTARIZED LETTER FROM YOUR PASTOR, IN ORDER TO BE SERVED".
I believe the Church owned business cannot make a religious test for employment.
I am thoroughly sick of athiests and communists trying to destroy anything Christian. This is a Christian School and if you don't want to deal with the faith don't apply there and don't send you kid there. SIMPLE even for the puny athiest and communists minds.
It isn't legal to ask someone on an application or in an interview for their race, religion or age. Some jobs will ask these questions on a separate anonymous form for government census reasons but you don not have to fill them out.
I got in a lot of trouble once for asking someone in an interview how old they were... If you work for a casino or bar you can ask and verify that that person is over 21, but beyond that you don't need to give your age during the application and interview process because it could be used as a form of discrimination. Same goes with religion.
If these teachers can prove that they were denied a job because of their religious beliefs (and I suspect that based on the information in the article) then they certainly have a strong case. They will more than likely win as this violates the Civil Rights Act.
They already worked at this school with no problem. A church buys it, all the employees need to be rehired. As part of the application process these teachers were asked for their religious views. When they refused to comply they were not hired. Coupled with the fact that they were already teachers at this school, and I assume that other teachers were rehired after answering the questions to the satisfaction of the church, I think it is pretty clear that they were denied employment because of their religious views. This is illegal discrimination. I think I would sue too...
In this case the First Amendment is on the side of the teachers who are being denied employment based on their religious views. Typically individual rights trump a businesses. If religious freedom is the only defense the school is using, I don't think they have a leg to stand on in court.
Daysie D re #1.47, I totally agree with your post and could add that it shouldn't matter your race or sexual preferences as well. As parents the utmost importance is the best quallified teacher for your kids. That truly is the end of story. However this was not the case at the private Thousand Oaks School to which they sought employment. These teachers knew what was expected and decided to ignore the rules and lawyered up when they were challenged. A fine example to set for the students. You don't agree with a law? Then just don't obey it!
Really? You mean to tell me that public schools never ever push their own political agenda? If that is what you believe that, then you are a complete hypocrite! My son comes home telling me about things told to them at school, and I have to shake my head. I have to explain to him, it is not fact, and his teachers are giving an opinion. Then I have to explain my opinion on the subjects. Teachers in public schools do not give both sides of a topic. They only give the liberal side. So you my friend are completely misinformed.
foolishness abounds,
You mean NBC left something out to get its liberal readers to dance along with its ignorance. Say it isnt so. But living in the woods says that the media is not liberal. So surely this must be some type of mistake. lol
Liberals, NBC played you, again.
Why is it people on here discuss everything BUT the issue in the article? It seems that the courts have ruled that religion-based schools, regardless of the religion, have a right to ensure that those who are teaching perscribe to the beliefs of the school. They aren't JUST teaching reading and writing, but also their belief system. And whether or not you think Christianity (or islam, or hinduism, etc.) is valid, they have that freedom and that right. It is also understood that if you take a job there, you need to share the same value system. The fact that these teachers sued instead of filling out the survey is a pretty good indication that they were the type of people the school WOULDN'T want teaching there.
All schools have contracts to sign refusal to sign or false statements are grounds for immediate dismissal I don’t blame them not one bit for not wanting a hundred little atheist, liberals that they now have to put money into to deprograming! I guess it’s illegal to ask them if they ever been convicted for a felony?
Bruce, that survey went beyond the bounds needed to confirm the belief of the teachers. It just should have asked "Are you a Christian and will you follow the approved curriculum?" Anything beyond that is unnecessary.
A for-profit school does not qualify for the religious exemption regarding anti-discrimination laws.
That simple. Your business is not a religious institution, and therefore must abide by civil law. I mean really, how much more sacrilegeous can you get? I'm pretty sure there is a particular passage in the Bible where Jesus addresses just this sort of issue, in fact, I recall it being one of the few (if only) instances where Jesus actually gets pissed off about something.
Mammon seems to be the object of worship for far too many "Christians" these days.

Lol - you mean the side based on reality and fact rather than hyperbole? Let me guess, you consider the theory of evolution to be the "liberal side" of biology?
But really, if you think that teachers only give the lib side - try attending school in the Bible Belt, you might quickly learn that is not the case. I'd hate to burst your sweeping generalizations, though, because they make whoever opposes your views sound that much more credible.
Does it make a difference whether the teacher teaches religion or math ?
People keep making the "they weren't hired because of incomplete applications" defense, but if the application is a violation of federal law, you don't have to fill it out. You shouldn't fill it out, and if they use that as a basis for hiring or not hiring you, the business has broken the law. Asking about someones religion is proscribed, and the teachers have the right to leave that section blank. The school fully admits this is why they weren't rehired. So the question then becomes, is the school required to adhere to federal employment guidelines? As a for profit entity, I'm leaning towards yes.
Also I went to a private, Catholic school. I'm not Catholic, I'm not even particularly religious. They didn't ask that except for when we had a Mass or Reconciliation, and then only to know if I was going to participate. There were no questionnaires. I can't speak to the hiring process for our teachers, about half of them were nuns. Religion was never really discussed outside of the class for it (well, in Social Studies/History). I can't even imagine going to a school where it's seen as important to other subjects.
Why would you guess that? Felons don't fall under anti-discrimination protections regarding their status as a felon. What a stupid thing to say....
Fenderbluesjr re: #1.82 - they were already employed previously by the school before the change of ownership. The article doesn't give any information if they were good teachers or not. (It really is appalling journalism on the writer's part.) If the teachers believed that this questionnaire is beyond the bounds needed for employment, I would agree. I would find it appalling to be fired because I refused to tell them how often I go to church or that I needed a pastor's proof of faith (whatever that is supposed to be) in order to continue to perform my job. That the school said they're refusal to provide answers is an infringement of the school's (aka inanimate object) right to religous freedom is absurd. How is it preventing the school (aka a building therefore an inanimate object - see I learned something in Catholic school) from praying to God? Businesses are not people. Churches are not people. People are people. And an individual has a right to worship the deity they prefer (or not) without someone trying to infringe upon that right. I'm also still not clear why the school is suing. That horrible journalism again.
newscover
A question for anyone who shares the above opinion- Would you want your child being taught science or history by someone who believes the Earth is 5,000 years old and that ape and man are unrelated??
The shoe looks a little different when it's on the other foot.
Nope, actually I think evolution should be taught in all public schools! But when a teacher is talking about history and politics, I think they should be teaching both the Democrat and Republican sides, because as we all know, they are not always the same... lol.
Shuklack,
Keep your ignorance in check and read the story from another source. NBC did only present the liberal side. There is more to the story. Keep on goose stepping though.
Religion = Garbage anyway you look at it, worldwide. Have a good look what it does to a society and what those frigging "pastors" carve out for themselves.
Charlatans, all of them. Tax them bastards and make 'em work. Yes, I know work is a 4 letter word but, we all do it, except the church clowns.
What more is there to it?
Private businesses that do not qualify for religious exemption are not allowed, by law, to discriminate based on religion. The end.
Ever so typical of theocrats to confuse neutrality with persecution, though.
The religious right's position has some interesting theological implications. Their stance is that corporations are people, that people have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and that corporations therefore have a constitutional right to impose religion. Does a corporation have a soul? Does a Christian corporation get to go to heaven?
This one is pretty clear-cut. The school may be owned by a church, but it is a for-profit business which is taxed as such. This means that it is NOT by any stretch of the imagination protected as a church would be. When they exchanged God for Mammon, they broke that link.
What the Constitution forbids is the federal government setting up a state religion or requiring political candidates to belong to a specific religion. This is California law which specifically forbids any religious test for employment. They do not make an exception for church-owned for-profit businesses or schools. In the view of the Law, there is no difference in this school requiring this questionnaire and the same document being a condition of employment at McDonald's.
California has chosen (as have many states) to extend constitutional protection for political candidates to candidates for jobs and users of services which receive money from the state or which are regulated by the state. This is not something they made up to favor one religion over another, but instead is a barrier to such an establishment by businesses. I am old enough to remember when stores had separate entrances for "Colored" and there were signs that said, "We cater to White trade only." There is no difference in a state striking down such an attitude about race and a state striking down the identical attitude about religion. In there South there used to be statements that had to be signed in which the job candidate/holder swore that he had no more than 1/64 "alien" blood.
I am Christian and you right wing nutjob Christians make me ashamed to say so. Just because public schools don't teach the lie that the earth is only 5000 years old or that Adam and Eve were the first humans. If you want to believe that then you have to believe in insest otherwise who was Cain's wife?????? Did God creat cave fish that have eyeballs but have skin covering thos eyeballs because nothing can be seen in the absents of light or did they evolve because they didn't need to see even though they had eyeballs??? Those fish exist or do you deny their existance as well???
The earth is millions of years old, there were dinosuars and Neanderthals, there is proof of them but I guess you want to believe that those are fakes as well. There are animals that prefer the same sex, did God make a mistake there??? There are penguins, both male, that just raised a chick together in a male female relationship!!!
Adam and Eve were the first of God's Chosen People and were not the only humans on earth. I send my grandson to school to learn the truth about science, math, etc. People that want to teach their children about creationism should be charge with child abuse because they are retarding that child's education and their ablity to fit into the real world. Religion has no place in our government or in our schools. That is what they have churches for. Like I said, I am Christian but I don't go to church because if I don't believe what you do than I am a non-beliver. My faith is very strong and I have a close personal relationship with my God. That is the key work, personal and I don't try to force what I believe on other people!!!!
Oh by the way, I am disabled and earned my SSDI and I live below the povertey level but I have always paid for my house phone and I don't have a cell phone because I can't afford it. Please tell me, just where is this line to get the free phones???? I just got a whole $22 a month raise and I am raising my grandson with no financial help and because of that raise it cost me the whole $55 a month in the food stamps I was getting to help feed the both of us. Now I don't get a dime in help anywhere. Maybe we with go on vacation with that windfall of $22!!!
@Kevin C-752389, "Funny, the school claims that it violates their freedom of religion, but doesn't this violate the teachers' freedom of religion?"
No, it doesn't, not in the Constitutional sense. The 1st Amendment protects speech and religion from government restriction only.
BTW: Why do institutions that do not practice religious tolerance complain so loudly when other religions or denominations are as intolerant?
When you have a Christian school it is MOST important to know what the beliefs of the teachers are. If I want my children to know the truth about God, Jesus, salvation and how much Jesus loves them I don't want someone who only teaches it to tell them, I want someone who knows and has experienced salvation to teach them.
This is important also in putting forth a unified stand for the children to see in the school. I wish public schools had a unified stand but they really don't.
Excuse me Garden?? If you read you Bible you are spreading lies about God's word
It's a little frightening how many of you posters have no clue how freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and seperation of church and state work within the law.
To the person that talked about Title VII, I quote FROM Title VII:
"(a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities
This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities"
So the school is allowed to do this.
Also it should be noted that they did not infringe on the religious rights of the two people by not hiring them. They are still free to practice whatever religious beliefs that they want, and their failure to hire them has no effect on that.
Let's all get familiar with the law before commenting on it and we will be able to have a much more intelligent discussion...
Debora, I am curious if you interview your children's teachers to find out if they have experienced salvation. Is a little salvation ok or is there a measureable amount that is sufficient? What if their level of salvation isn't equal to yours or what you think your children deserve? What is your recourse then?
I attended Catholic school for years. Never in my classes outside of religion class did we ever discuss religion. I learned math in math class, science in science class, history in history class, nothing in gym, etc. The beliefs of my teachers was never brought up and, frankly, unimportant to me. If my day consisted of hearing "Jesus loves you" in every class, I think I might have had more sick days. Church is the proper setting for those "truths" you want your kids to learn. School is for the academics. They should teach more critical thinking in school and less learning to the test.
@Tim,
Why not cite California law since that is what is being dealt with. Besides, this is a for-profit business. Its religious affiliation is secondary and not particularly relevant. Also, to correct your spin -- the women were employees whose contracts were not renewed for the explicit reason of refusing to fill out a questionaire that would also allow the business to interrogate the women's pastor, neighbors, and friends as to the sincerity of their religious beliefs.
So, this "school" expects religious tolerance, but shows none. Pretty sad twisting of Christian principles. My guess is that they are trying to weed out teachers who do not support Creationism or similar ideology. That is so unsupported by their actual religion that there is hardly a religious basis for the firing.
This reminds me that, when someone finishes at the top of the class, someone also finishes at the bottom. And he, too, is practicing law.
Gosh! There are so many failings in logic and reason missing both from many postings as well as the initial article itself.
Were the teachers employed by the school? Yes. The teachers continued to work for the "Godspeak" (the very name sounds like a joke!) group after they purchased the Little Oaks school in 2009.
2009 - That's three years in which these two teachers were employed by this school. I am assuming, of course, that they were grandfathered in and not hired after the godspeak bunch bought the school. The teachers were mailed the questionnaire over the summer (2012). When they refused to fill out the form, they were not rehired the following year.
Indeed, it is NOT permitted by law. Since the teachers' employment had continued following the purchase of the school, they had a reasonable expectation of, barring poor (classroom) performance, continued employment by the school. (Their prior employment with the school, both under Little Oaks and, subsequently, under Godspeak, was not contingent upon a proof of faith. This was something introduced after three years of employment under the new ownership.
PRECISELY! The school is not having its freedom to practice religion/faith in any way, shape, or form. It is a structure and not an entity. (this, determined by the Supreme Court) Furthermore, the people within that structure or business are not having their rights to worship as they choose being impinged. HOWEVER, these two teachers, as well as those who completed the form, are now having their employment hinge on whether or not the school approves of their choice of religion. (Jim Jones and L.Ron would be so proud!) This, in its entirety represents a violation of one's freedom of religion. I daresay a
person could have been teacher of the year 12 years running but couldn't get a job there if s/he was of some religion not theirs. The stupid lawyer Kahdeman, hereinafter referred to as SLK, has gotten the entire concept of freedom of religion all wrong. It doesn't mean, as SLK seems to think, that churches/religions have the freedom to do whatever they want. It means the church cannot force itself on anyone else. That, in fact, was one of the driving forces that drove America's early English settlers to leave their homeland. They did not want to worship and the Anglican church of the king but, if they did not, their public privileges were severely infringed upon. Thus, when they came to America, they set in stone, as it were, the concept that no one could force their religion on anyone else and the government had no control
over religion and vice versa. SLK, at least, failed to read the Constitution during law school. It goes back to that old, "When someone finishes at the top of the class …
Okay, Silverton,
I'll take your points one at a time.
First: "The teachers threatened to sue first."
True. But the teachers sued on specific legal grounds. As I previously pointed out, the women were already employed by the school, and by its present owners, for three years. Based on performance, they had no reason to expect that this employment would not continue. And based solely on their refusal to complete the questionnaire , which is illegal on the face of it but a fact which will undoubtedly be determined in whole by the Supreme Court in a couple of years, they have been surreptitiously removed from the school employment roster and refused further employment with that school. This based as much on the school's inability to determine their religious standing as anything else.
Next: "Why work for a private Christian school when you know its beliefs but you do not share them?"
The issue of whether this is truly a Christian school aside, you are assuming these women are not, themselves, Christian in their own beliefs. There is nothing to support this assumption.
And: "The school is within its rights to practice religious freedom."
The teachers are not infringing on or attempting to prevent the school from practicing its 'religious freedom' (See above regarding structure vs entity)nor are they attempting to prevent the people within the school system from practicing their religious beliefs as they see fit. In fact, this was never a matter in the initial lawsuit. The rationale behind the women's lawsuit was that the school system was using religion as an excuse to remove them from their positions with the school although there had been no cause of action to dismiss them prior to their refusal to complete the questionnaire.
Third: "What's wrong with the teachers answering simple questions about their faith?"
Well, nothing. Nothing at all. If that is their choice to do so. But the fact that the school has insisted they do so as a condition of employment crosses the line. That would be something akin to requiring them to reveal all information about their private sex lives to the school as a condition of employment. (Which the
Supreme Court also ruled off bounds.)
Bottom line. As long as they do their jobs well and there is no cause of action – outside the school's condition of completing the illegal questionnaire – the school has no grounds on which to dismiss the teachers.
The one proviso here is that, if the teachers signed an "At Will" contract with the school, then there does not need to be any cause of action and the teachers' employment was at the grace of the school. Therefore, the school may, indeed not renew their contract and that's pretty much that. Though I doubt seriously the women would be filing a lawsuit were that the case.
Didn't mean to single you out Silverman, you were merely the top of the list and there is too much misinformation to discuss in such a short-form forum.
Debora @ #1.104: When you have a Christian school it is MOST important to know what the beliefs of the teachers are. If I want my children to know the truth about God, Jesus, salvation and how much Jesus loves them I don't want someone who only teaches it to tell them, I want someone who knows and has experienced salvation to teach them.
Funny, if I want my children to know the truth about God and Jesus I want someone who knows how to treat people as Christ instructed. I want someone who lives with an awareness of God and whose life emulates the teachings of Christ. Oh, yeah. And there are no credentials for that. Some of the biggest "heathens" in the world live the most Christ-like lives of generosity, compassion, non-judgmental sharing, and caring for others without regard for whether they have the right credentials or not. THAT is what I would want my children to learn. I'll teach them the rest from my perspective because THAT would me MY job.
Ok, oh so high and mighty christians...answer this one. A Buddhist applies to the school and fills out the "faith" paperwork required. By far the best candidate for the job and doesn't get hired. Does he have a claim against the school?
I don't have a problem with christianity...just the people who practice (pollute) it.
No claim. My son goes to a Catholic school. In his school the ciriculum is church based with faith lessons included in his class during the day. So teachers need to know the faith to teach it when it is part of the lesson. When the teacher needs to teach the faith the school does need to know if they know the religious beliefs. I wouldnt hire a HS math teach to teach HS english. Nor would I hire a buddist to teach a catholic or christion ciriculum.
Never mind the fact that they had to get proof of their faith from a pastor, which would not be possible if they didn't have one. That would make filling out the paperwork quite difficult, wouldn't it!
Just felt it worth pointing out that, although many moved because of religious persecution, some of those then in turn persecuted other people because of their religion. It wasn't all laughs and giggles between different faiths.
I taught 2nd grade at a Catholic School (2nd grade is the 1st Communion year). I've never been baptized, I was upfront about that, several students in my class were not Catholic - I'm not even baptized as anything...
I went to mass twice a week with my class, I did not take communion, my students knew I wasn't Catholic - the parents were happy with my teaching - for a few months (since I wasn't Catholic), I would switch classes for 30 minutes with another 2nd grade teacher - she taught my class religion - I taught her class spelling...she got tired of it and I took over the "religion" part - the school had a curriculum for it, I followed the book - it really wasn't a big deal.
The main purpose of the school was to teach - reading, math, science, history.... other than going to mass twice a week - it was like most other schools.
It is interesting that the minions posting on here defending the "christian" school's right to behave in such a decidedly un-American fashion consistently omit the important fact that the "school" is a for profit employer. This was clearly stated in the article and has been mentioned in numerous posts. "roy wilson" even went so far as to post a link to a case that was against a non-profit, hoping that no one would actually check his facts. When someone called him on it, he brushed it off as if it were irrelevant.
The question arising from this observation? Why is it that the people defending this "school's" position are required to lie and deceive in doing so? What kind of "god" requires his devotees to be grossly dishonest? Who is it that these people are worshiping?
From Daysie D:
I remember driving down the road with my Grandfather one Sunday. We went past a church and he pointed at the parking lot and said, "Look! It's Sunday. All the bad people have to go to church!"
@JusticeNonexistent,
I don't see how being a christian to any exstent is a bona fide qualification for teaching middle school science. At least not after the Pope apologized to Copernicus.
You know all of those who don't have a relationship with Christ expect born again Christians; who believe God's word and not the word of the evolutionist, are expected to be perfect. We are not perfect in any way just as all other human beings. No one is perfect. Thank God He is still working on me and He promised me he would never leave me or forsake me.
So many want to watch humans instead of keeping their eyes on Jesus who is; daily, changing us to be what he wants us to be. You can call us hypocrites, or what ever you want it doesn't matter, at least we are keeping our eyes on Jesus and His word. Not pretending that we are better than anyone else.
Shock, it is truly amazing that ALL people are not in church according to your grandfather's words. God says none are righteous/good, NO not one. Romans 3:10
My Children went to Christian school and I knew all of their teachers. I went to church with them, if you don't know the people teaching your children God's word why would you let them teach their school.
If you go to a public school and/or send your children to a public school then you get who you get.
You're pretending you're better than others RIGHT NOW DEBORA. Christ almighty this is ridiculous now. I went to a Catholic school, my parents would have been appalled had they taught religion in, say, math or biology. Rightfully so. I'm pretty certain my kids believe in God about a much as they believe in Santa Claus. I have personal faith but I'm not the least bit religious, if they are or aren't is up to them.
cristians are really going all out dease days for deir faith and most of them are now gun owners now i see a cristian taliban on the rise
and i dont believe dey practice what dey preach
Very likely Bob, if they bought the school as a for-profit enterprise, it will be taxed. That doesn't mean the whole church gets taxed and they are NOT defying the law. Since the school is now a religious school, being a part of the religious denomination with which the school is affiliated is a reasonable condition of employment. Exactly what political stance are they taking? None.
I think a fair exchange would be in order: the teachers provide proof of faith the school provides proof of God. Case closed.
Joemike, you're way off base there, buddy. They did NOT simply ask about religious affiliation, which might make sense. They asked questions about the QUALITY of their faith. That's essentially an Islamist view on religious belief. When religions get into the "my belief is better/stronger than your belief" argument, they are dangerous.
religion becomes dangerous when individuals go out and kill others in the name of God or Allah
If you run a for-profit enterprise, I question whether you can require such disclosures on the part of your employees.
One's personal beliefs are one's own business, not that of your employer.
But today businesses feel entitled to require employees submit to drug tests, refrain from smoking and, apparently, make declarations about their faith.
We are all gradually being transformed into serfs.
"religion becomes dangerous when individuals go out and kill others in the name of God or Allah"
Glenn, what about when religion causes the loss of employment which directly supports a family?
It might be OK if they are teaching religion but not Math or History or anything else.
Glenn, what about when religion causes the loss of employment which directly supports a family
Go see your leader Obama for a job and a free phone. you believe in socialsim right?
If the school could provide proof of God, the teacher's wouldn't have to have faith, would they?
Uh...Glenn...you might want to check on that free phone. Your old pal Reagan did it first, then your pal Bush made the cell phones. Of course when you people are beat dead to rights because you're just not quite smart enough to hold an adult argument you resort to insulting someone on a personal level and, at the same time, make ridiculous baseless claims.
When you get out of high school, though, maybe your debate skills will be a little more honed. Until then, perhaps you should do a little research before you open your enormously ignorant mouth. What a phenomenal christian you must be, though. You've shown so much love and tolerance for your fellow man...just like every other "christian", I know.
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
Yeah, Glenn... you can find them with the WMD we found in Iraq...
Also, when you say "socialism", are you talking about making sure everyone is fed, even when there doesn't seem to be enough, making sure everyone can be healed, making sure the poor have shelter and warmth? I don't know what kind of diabolical madman would be into such an evil concept. What kind of christian could possibly believe in socialism, right?
Reaper said:
They don't care, they're of the mind set that if they just keep repeating the same lie, it will become true.
but if the school is "for-profit" then it's not really part of a religious denomination, it's a private business which are subject to federal laws that prohibit using race, religion, or sexual orientation for hiring/firing purposes.
/stand
/clap
This is a very scary post.
"This is a very scary post" referring to JoeMike404 post #2 above.
But today businesses feel entitled to require employees submit to drug tests, refrain from smoking and, apparently, make declarations about their faith.
We are all gradually being transformed into serfs
About 2 years ago I was applying for a job through a staffing agency and they actually expected prospective employees to sign a form giving them permission to access all of their medical health records as well!
Absolutely none of you are required to send your children to a religious school. Absolutely none of you are required to work in a religious school. But if you work for one I can see requiring proof of belief. Now you cannot be a Catholic and teach Catholic and be pro-choice because that belief is contra-indicated by Catholic teaching all the way back to the 1st century Didache No matter what that idiot Biden says. You cannot be a Baptist and teach Baptist and go drinking every Saturday night. It is contra-indicated by the teachings of the faith. To teach anything to children you have to live it. Two groups of people know when you are faking it children and bikers.
Church attendance is not proof of one's faith. If the two teachers did not attend church, and therefore could not fill out the form, who is to say they aren't believers?
The Christian Taliban is taking shape in the US.
As far as I'm familiar with employment law, it is illegal for them to even ASK what faith the prospective or current teachers have. If the teachers mention it in conversation, that's one thing, but the employer should not even be probing for that kind of information, regardless of the nature of the business.
Religious employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion only when hiring in their non-profit sectors. They can discriminate, force people to sign "personal contracts" like refraining from smoking, drinking, premarital sex, etc., all they want when they hire in that capacity. But, this is a for-profit school, meaning they are open to the public, cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, and all the other protected classes.
We founded this country to be a secular nation, beholden to no religion. There is a reason for this, and even though the religious people scream and yell and bitch and moan about it, we hold to the value of secularism in government and in our public life. This is what allows people of all religions and none to get along without constantly killing each other (for the most part). The churches were given a really sweet deal by the government: stay out of politics, we won't tax your coffers. The churches are routinely finding ways around their end of the bargain. I say it's time we teach them what it means to violate an agreement.
No, Atheist, a Taliban-like action would be to force a private person or entity to act in violation of their beliefs.
You know, like Obama does.
Monkey,
I agree with your direction, but you do have to allow for productivity. When employees are taking a smoke break for 15 minutes of every hour they work, they are waisting over two hours of productivity. Drugs are self explanatory...Most employers allow for a 15 minute break twice a day and 30 minutes to an hour for lunch. So you need to look at the context of your examples before you use them.
That being said, yes, corporate America is turning into a Seudo-Japan where the employee is expected to sacrifice him, or her, self for the good of the Company. I personally known literally hundreds of people who produce their butts off, but don't receive any recognition, myself included on occasion. Some managers will keep their "workhorses" busy while they have their buddies and suck-ups for their social groups, and guess who gets promoted?
Annie-322924
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word "faith".
As an IT professional I like to call us "wage serfs". they think we will be OK with all the infringements on our private rights/life just because they are paying wages. Of course, many places of employment do not even offer a "living wage".
Secondarily, many on this vine ask that if you don't follow Christian beliefs then why are you applying for a job at a Christain school, or worse, the FOR PROFIT school/company sets these rules for emplyment, if you don't like the rules, then pound sand. The pure authoritarian followers in this country are who are taking us donw the tubes.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
What’s so hard about the question? Do you believe in Christ? (yes) (no) (maybe ) (not Sure ) (just seen him on the street corner) (not only no, but Hell no!)Only liberals would make this something it’s not!
They also asked for a church attendance record, and a recommendation from a Pastor.
How delusional do you have to be to think that isn't a major violation of employment law?
Capt Tripps
You think it is a violation of law to ask for references on a job application??? Really??? I guess 99.9% of employers are in violation of the law. Either that or they aren't the "delusional" ones.
A for-profit school does not qualify for the religious exemption regarding anti-discrimination laws.
That simple. Your business is not a religious institution, and therefore must abide by civil law. I mean really, how much more sacrilegeous can you get? I'm pretty sure there is a particular passage in the Bible where Jesus addresses just this sort of issue, in fact, I recall it being one of the few (if only) instances where Jesus actually gets pissed off about something.
Mammon seems to be the object of worship for far too many "Christians" these days.

Don't be obtuse. When it's for the purposes of religious discrimination by a for-profit business it clearly violates anti-discrimination statutes of which such businesses must abide.
How, exactly, does one "prove" their faith? Faith is a belief, the acceptance of an idea. How do you "prove" that?
Church attendance only proves that your body was physically present during a religious event. It has nothing to do with your state of mind, or belief. One can physically be present at a church, yet not accept the belief.
Furthermore, simply saying that you believe means nothing. That is the funny thing about words, you can say whatever you want. I can say whatever I want... I can say that I believe in the tooth fairy, but they are just words and do not reflect actual beliefs.
One can not "prove" faith. How can one person say, with concrete evidence, what another person believes? Unless you can inhabit the mind of another person, you do not know. This is nothing more than a witch hunt. Perhaps they can throw these teachers in the water to see if they float.
The story slants your way now doesn't it? It's fun to go after the Christians isn't it?
NO ONE WAS FIRED. Instead of taking their chances and filling out the questionnaire, the teachers refused and threatened to sue. The school's lawsuit is basically a pre-emptive strike. The school never said that if you didn't adhere to certain beliefs that you would not be hired. The real question here isn't about religion, but about whether or not a potential employee can be denied because they refuse to follow the application process, and if that process is unreasonable. After the 2008 election, I interviewed for a job at a law firm. I was actually asked who I voted for. I finessed a diplomatic answer that did not give away anything about my political ideology. However, I turned down the job when it was offered to me. MY choice. No lawsuit necessary. If you want to dress it up and make it about religion, go for it. You're already angry at a God you say doesn't exist, so logic is already out the window....
I didn't know that being angry about the institutionalization of religious discrimination is "being angry at a God you say doesn't exist"
Bit of a leap there.... unless of course you think it's God's will to institutionalize such discrimination, then I guess one could say it was being angry at God by-proxy of believers.
I realize I'm trying to be rational here but if this school is a "for profit business" then it is a "business" not a "religious institution". As a business it should be subject to the same State and Federal regulations as any other business. The LDS church owns Beneficial Financial Group. Is that company allowed to thumb their noses at State and Federal regulations? ...No, of course not...it's for profit.
yea and even chistianity differs from church to church some pastors making up deir own rules for what's right or wrong with blind faith sheep following
i went to a service and could not bellieve how pregedist this pastor is saying that christianity is the only way and everybody else is going to hell
and that the blood of my children will be on my hands if dey dont follow christian views
christianity is the new taliban and soon to be extremists suiside bombers
Well I don't know about all that but "spell check" is a really cool feature.
Annie @ #2.1: I think a fair exchange would be in order: the teachers provide proof of faith the school provides proof of God. Case closed.
* joins the throng clamoring at the foot of Annie's post to cheer the sheer brilliance of the concept!*
"backcounrty" - It is obvious that Annie knows the meaning of the word "faith". That is what makes the post so funny. Sorry you missed the train.
So, "backcountry" you obviously agree that it is impossible and ridiculous for the cult "school" to ask for proof of faith. Glad to see you have come over to our side.
Its their propery, like it or lump it. Just because you want to sell your labor to someone does not give you the right to dictate how they use their property. The teachers should just find a more suitable workplace.
Plus, using the First Amendment as their argument could backfire, since that same amendment gives the teachers their right to freedom of religion and from religion.
phillykevin2
and anyone of color need not apply right ....or is that a horse of a different color?
their are LAWS that protect people against discrimination ...like this .....and the Church is not above the LAWS ....if they want to have only their religion then make it a non -profit ......that way they can take who ever they want ....................other wise they are subject to the labor laws of that state and the fed Government......which in case you did not know ( in the case of few post here they didn't) frowns on discrimination of race / creed / gender /religion ......
seeing your pic... I can see the need for discrimination due to satanic appearance.
I expect a more intelligent response from you child
Stellar answer Glenn! Darth Maul, Jesus, and Nurse Ratched would be proud! You are on FIRE today, man! I can't wait to hear what brilliance escapes your obviously brilliant mind next! I hope you get an opportunity to call someone a doo doo head or tell someone how stupid they are for believing in science! You'll sure show 'em!
......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..........................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.......................... .......
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\................................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... ..
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........
All of these comments crack me up!!! If running a for profit business, owned 100% by a non-profit church is subject to employment laws, try and get a job teaching at a catholic, for profit, school! Good luck on that if you are not only not christian but not catholic. The proift goes to a non-profit exempt church who is entitled to their beliefs and ensuring that their teachers teach the same belief. Part of the shool's mandatory cirriculum is religion classes. Therefore, if the teacher is , for instance, an athiest, how can they teach religion classes? Thus the requirement for a statement of faith for their teachers!!!!! Again, if the two teachers refuse to fill out the questionare, they should find employment somewhere else!!!
...
...
yeah...
If they're making a profit, then they're not exactly a "non-profit" are they?
I'll tell you what. If they want to run the school as a true "non-profit," that is they DO NOT make a profit, then they can exempt themselves from all the employment requirements they want and I won't argue with them. Until then, they're running a BUSINESS and they should have to follow the laws like the rest of us...
I agree with some of you, However for the most part I see the problem with this country why we are suffering as we are, due to the ignorance of the majority of the people who live in it. There are so many GODLESS, entitle-minded, narrow minded, bigoted, self righteous (Not just religious thinkers) unwilling to let someone else believe in, how, or where they may. Without standing at the side picketing and forcing their self perceived opinions onto any passersby that does not view things as they do. These people have a right to run their school as they please, the the teachers have the right to either conform to the outlines of the employment, or consider another source of employment.
Sorry I have grown tired of all garbage of forced opinion, and legal procedures offered to people who think they are entitled to a free-bee at the expense of the American tax payers. (And, Yes! You/we will be paying for part of this nonsense as the elected official is the judge who's salary you pay for, comes from taxed income. That is if you are part of the system and pay taxes.)
We as an educated people need to pull away from these friviolus acts and become more aware of the BIG picture. If that is possible.
Enough of the soap box.
These idiot anti-Christians use seperation of church and state wrongly constantly to get thier attack on religion done but whoa, that can't count when it comes to what a Christian School can require to be a teacher. Just like all the idiots they want thier cake and to eat ours too.
Let a few of them apply to teach at a Muslim school and see the reception they get. Oh, but the liberal manics would think that is ok.
This country was founded on Christianty, and as far as I am concerned, we as a country need to get back to our Christian roots. These teachers knew this was part of being hired. Looks to me like the teachers were just looking for a reason to file a lawsuit to make a little extra money. They are teaching in a CHRISTIAN school. Why wouldn't they want to answer those questions? I don't feel, if a person is applying for employment in a CHRISTIAN school these questions are out of the ordinary.
Drowning Grover:
You obviously dont know what a non-profit organization IS.
FYI - an NPO's charter simply is that they DO make a profit, but all profits are put back into the Organization.
ACATS 45 and others:
I don't believe the problem is simply "...filling out a questionnaire"; it's the nature of the questionnaire.
To obtain employment, for instance, you may be required to show proof of citizenship; you may not be required to take a loyalty oath or show proof of Democratic/Republican registration as well. In this case, as others have pointed out, these teachers are not being asked if they are simply Christian, but also what kind of Christian and to what degree they practice their faith.
Joe McCarthy would be so proud!
As an aside, the necessity for compartmentalizing your Christianity doesn't say much for the philosophy as a whole, does it?
ACATS45 - if any of that were true, this school would qualify as a non-profit.
Since it doesn't, I'd have to venture a guess that you just made that sh!t up.
The church is out of line... again. Not that it wasnt unexpected. Their religious freedom only covers themselves personally. Not everyone else around you. That includes employees. An employee has the same freedom of religion that the employer has.
Everyone has tyhe same right to privacy too. Especially in matters of faith. However, I can see the school having the right to ask the teachers to sign a contract where they must declare they are christians, entending to teach christian teachings. But the inquiry into their faithfulness should end there.
But the government requiring Muslim footbaths at a Catholic school named after Our Lady of the Lake because surprise there are Catholic shrines there. That isn't out of line. (facepalm)
Let me see, you’re a parent and you send your six, seven, eight year old to the school so he can get a little of your faith! Your kid comes home and your sitting around the dinner table the mother tells little jenny not till dad says a prayer, and little jenny says why? There is no God! There is no heaven there is no hell! and the mother says where did you hear that? And jenny says; that’s what our teacher Mrs. Jones told us! So, yes they have that right!
So, Justice, I surmise that you would be alright in requiring the DNC to hire a registered Teaparty member, eh?
And the next thing you know the government will be forcing them to hire blacks(sarc).
Again, it is very interesting, "lonereb", "cutme...", and "mpa" that you willfully omit the fact that this cult "school" is a for profit employer and, again, I have to ask what kind of "god" is it that forces you to be deceitful?
It is a very common stereotype that "evangelicals" are brainwashed, greedy liars. Do you feel empowered when you help to prove that impression?
Religion is just a way to control people and that's just whats happening here.
That's a real Christian attitude for the Christian School. Drag your employees into court to gain profit.
Yea California, I'm so happy I moved out of that sue happy state.
People wonder why the state is broke and large cities with in the state are filing bankruptcy.
You have it exactly BACKWARDS, Black Sheep.
It was the teachers that hired a lawyer and threatened the school with legal action. The school just preemptively filed suit to protect themselves from the teachers' threat.
Uhh, Foolish ?
You know how some pets look like their masters ?
Well, some people's names on here are "descriptive" as well...like yours.
TELL US - what are the causes of action against the teachers and their attorneys ?
AND...Blacksheep (i.e., Sheepish) ?
TELL us - IS it lawsuits that has put California in its poor position ? Or is it things like State employee benefits ? (real hard one here....as EVERY state politician says the latter - but I'm SURE you know better).
California is taxing everything out of existence they have no choice but to move to another state so our federal government can (use) them even harder! Employee benafits is just a smoke screen at what is really going on behind the scene!
Why can't the school just take it on faith that they have faith? I mean sooner or latter they will find out if they believe as they believe. It's a bit prejudiced.
There is a world of difference between Religion and Faith...
A For Profit Church, c'mon!
for profit church's school
Therefore a business, subject to the rules and regs of employment which forbids discrinination based on among other things religion. If your employer is an atheist and demands you provide a completed questionaire on your particular flavor of superstition what will you do? The obvious purpose of such an excercise would be to fire your ass due to the misalignment of philosophies. You would then make a decision to either lie about your beliefs if at odds or simply quit, would that seem fair to you? Why should your employer be required to employ persons that subscribe to sheepherder myths. Oh, but that would be discriminatory wouldn't it and it would be as wrong as what this school is doing. If you agree that the school is right then you have no complaint when it is you that becomes the target.
So someone who lies on the form is OK?
After Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Kathryn Sebellius you ask why no one will take someone's word for their faith anymore. The poster children of Christian in name only.
Perhaps I missed something but what are the two former teachers sued FOR? All I could gather is that they are being sued for threatening to sue.
The teachers first hired a lawyer and threatened the school with legal action.
The school, by preemptively filing suit against the teachers, have made themselves the plaintiff rather than the defendent in any court case.
Great answer, :foolish", but, Henry asks the RIGHT question.
(and, "no", your answer is not an answer at all. There is no cause of action called "They started it first")
Jeff, I refer to foolish people, like you, that "abound".
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. If the defendent wishes, they can petition the court to dismiss the suit on merit. Then it is up to the judge to decide.
In this case, even though the school and the teachers both honored the prior contracts, neither party was required to enter into new contracts. But, these two teachers have publicly threatened to sue the school to force them to do so.
Try reversing the circumstances. If these two teachers, upon fulfilment of their contractual obligations, had decided that they wished to take jobs elsewhere for ANY reason, do you think that the school would have grounds to sue them to force them to stay?
Contracts exist for a reason. If either party fails to fulfill their obligations under the contract, that party is in breach and is subject to penalty. But, once the contract expires, neither party has any further obligation to the other.
Well, "foolish", once again, you prove your moniker.
You speak like you know what you're talking about - nothing could be farther from the truth. You see, the difference between you and me, is that you assume and then proceed on your assumptions; for instance, my post was asking about what causes of action COULD there be against the TEACHERS (and their lawyer) - YOU respond on a "contract" basis.
So, YOU blindly proceed as if it's a contract.
I, on the other hand, went to the source and got my info.
The suit against the teachers had nothing to DO with "contract"; it is based on :
Count 1: "Violation of the Free Exercise Claus of the U.S. Constitution";
Court 2: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause (U.S. Constitution);
Count 3: Violation of the Establishment Clause (U.S. Constitution);
Count 4: Violation of the Free Exercise Clause (CALIFORNIA Constitution).
The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court, Central Dist. of Ca. (Western Div) under case number:
CV13-00472.
NOW - dont you feel a little silly ? (or just "foolish?)
The church is not acting very Christian.
Anton Levy is calling you...
that's darth maul, a movie character.
Glenn-2827821.. When a person resorts to attacking the person they have lost all credibility...
Anton Levy? Is he Darth's agent?
Typical atheist answer that a religion or faith is being unreasonable for not bowing down to the atheist or liberal way of thinking
LOL @ this. Annie 322924 said it best.
I think the scariest part of all of this is that there is a religious institution brainwashing in children, during their formative years.
They say the mold is broken at 13.
"Brainwashing"?
Just what do you think the left-wing teachers unions have been doing from kindergarten through college for decades?
You just described all schools and governments!
No biases in homeschooling, now, is there?
Anyone else find it ironic that they want proof of faith? Isn't faith accepting something without proof?
Now we wouldn't want a pedophile applying would we? or a satanist? Seems the Catholics should have a similar questionaire about homosexuality for those becoming priests... to weed them out before they cause harm.
Lol, excellent Chris, faith is not required to believe what is true.
Chris : I know this is challenging to you... but requiring faith, what is meant here is asking what you believe in the interpretation of the scriptures or denomination of church affiliation... in other words is what they were asking as "proof of faith"..
But of course asking for proof of faith is an excuse for demanding proof of behavior, since it is behavior that all churches are set up to control. Faith is just the illusion.
Glenn, homosexuality has very little to do with pedophilia.
@okiejoe:
Glenn, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
Fixed it for you.
I was going to say the same thing to Glenn. Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. The majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males, regardless of whether they abuse boys or girls. Homosexual men (those that have sexual interest and activity with other adult men) make up less than one percent of pedophiles.
And the school is "for profit", therefore they have to follow the laws. Also, I too, do not understand what the school is suing the teachers for.
I am a Christian but I would not presume to teach at a Presbyterian school. We do not interpret John 6 the same way. Not to mention quite a few other passages. I could not possibly teach their version of salvation I don't either believe or understand it. It would not be Christian for me to violate the 8th commandment and massacre teaching their faith to their children not to mention in my faith I would also be violating the fifth commandment.
lonereb, you do know that Presbyterians ARE Christians, don't you? So when you say you are a Christian, what exactly do you mean? I am just curious and also annoyed by the way SOME people have taken over the word Christian as if everyone else isn't one.
Chris:
On a slightly related Note, I dont know if you saw the news yesterday where a church-owned hospital caused the deaths of 2 fetuses my malpractice.
They WON the suit, claiming that a "fetus is not a person".
How's THAT for an "about-face"?
I also don't believe that going to church proves that somebody has faith or is a believer. I have met people who are strong believers, but don't attend church regularly-they don't need external affirmation for their beliefs, or they grew tired of witnessing hypocrisy (or other behaviors) within their church and decided to follow more faithfully on their own. I've also met people who go to church pretty much for the sole purpose of being seen at church, or because it is expected of them, and they would be ostracized from the community for not doing so.
"Faith" The assured expectation of things hoped for. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is like walking on water without getting wet, it can be done!
Yes, it's called a "BOAT".
Whether those questionnaires are legal, they sure are creepy. I would not be eager to work there, or have anything else to do with them.
This is a very sloppy article. Why is the school suing the former teachers? What is the school claiming for damages? Under what possible legal theory would such a suit have any merit whatsoever? As far as I can tell the school just didn't hire them because they failed to sign the faith statement. That's hardly grounds to sue somebody and if that's all they have this will be thrown out as soon as a Judge see its.
Joe S: This is a very sloppy article...As far as I can tell the school just didn't hire them because they failed to sign the faith statement.
It's not a sloppy article - it's sloppy reading.
...the Godspeak Church...started requiring employees to fill out questionnaires that asked whether they attended church, which church they attended and what the pastor had to say about their beliefs.
That's not just signing a "faith statement" (whatever that is), it's a requirement of specific beliefs, attested to by someone (the pastor) who is in no position to know what their beliefs may be.
OK... but that still doesn't explain why the CHURCH is suing the EMPLOYEES. I could see the other way around. But what does the Church have to sue over?
Proof of religious faith? Is this the 1600's? WHO provides proof of WHAT? Some member of the clergy can determine and declare "proof" of someone else's faith or thought?
I saw this headline and expected to find them throwing applicants into the river with their hands tied behind their backs to see if they sink or swim, as in the days of the witch trials.
What total, and dangerous nonsense. It they are operating as a business, they are subject to the laws that govern.
let's not be so extreme with your conclusions.. no one is being burned at the stake here like what the Catholics used to do to christians...
I thought Catholics were Christians.
that's what you get for thinking instead of researching
Thank you for showing your true colors Glenn; brainwashed evangelical. I have done my research and I know that Catholics are Christian. Heck, they were Christians long before your brand was invented. I know this and I'm not Catholic.
The "research" you were fed by your "church" was cherry picked. Try using REAL sources of information. It'll open your eyes in amazing ways. I saw too much of this kind of "Christian" understanding when I lived in the south. The brainwashing was frightening.
Redhead: Wouldn't it be that this Glenn is... Beck? (Because I'm quite sure he's acting like him)...
Hate to break it to you Glen but the Catholic Church was the only Christian church for a few hundred years before other christian churches/denominations showed up. Do a little research on your own before believing everything your own church says.
Glenn don't be so quick to dump on Catholics or we will bring up Thomas More, John Fisher and a host of Catholics beheaded and hung by "christians " in England.Close Blackbelt Marine the Catholic Church was the only Christian church for 1500 years before Martin Luther.
Now children remember the liberal quotes " separation of church and state"
The government has no business in the affairs of the church decisions.
you can conclude that since there was prayer and church services at the capitol in Washington DC, that the wall of separation only applied to law restricting religion and not the other way around !
Mr. Beck, is that you?
church is not bound by government under the 1st Amendment regarding religion and practices. when a individual (whether he's in a church or not)breaks a civil law regarding murder, stealing, child abuse etc. he is bound by civil law
try reading the 1st Amendment
Phillykev,
You're arguing with an idiot, save your breath. He has no clue what labor law is, probably never worked a day in his life. Dumb sorry troll that he is.
Do the right thing" join the Freedom From Religion Foundation. FFRF.ORG
Check out the Hosanna Tabor decision from the Supreme Court. It may change your view of what the labor laws can compel religious schools to do. It depended on the fact that in that case the teacher was considered a minister and therefore was not just an employee.
Sorry, Glen, but you're WAYYY off.
The Gov. had the right to make Utah renounce polygamy as a condition of its admission into the union.
The Gov. had the right to outlaw human sacrifice;
The examples are almost unlimited.
I agree with employment at will, the usual standard before all the special interest groups take over. The churches can employ whomever they want. The state should not control it.
That's not the issue, Jim.
But, we are not talking about a church here. We are talking about a business, a for profit business. Just because they are affiliated, does not make them a religious organization.
And, to you, Glen. You missed the point. WHO decides how legitimate someone's faith is? By WHAT criteria? WHAt is legitimate? It is all so dammed intangible, anyway, and so dammed contrived to suit what anyone wants to believe.
The ex-teachers are looking for a big pay day in court. The school is positioning themselves for the fight.
It has nothing to do with personal rights. It is all about our crappy tort system and the ease with which money can be extorted by the threat of a suit and the cost of defence.
No they are not and the teachers have a right to sue, they maybe a church but when they established a business that has nothing to do with there not-for-profit status, they must abide by all laws governing any other business. The question for the church is who are you to tell me what I must believe and what I should follow, further, where are the parents in this.
Hosanna Tabor SCOTUS decision will affect all of these cases before you wax profound better read it.
interesting
Glenn Beck?
Leroy my boy!
Lol. hey Glenn, sorry you lost your tv show...
never had one but will you sponsor me? lol
I'm sorry but I have to agree with the church on this one. Granted it's a bit over the top but consider this; Do you think a Baptist church should hire a Methodist minister? Would the Methodist be able to sue the Baptist church for discrimination if they were not hired?
Christian is Christian, or it's supposed to be. If the Methodist minister were good at his/her job, why not? If churches want to preach politics from the pulpit, and use the political system to their advantage, they have to be ready to take it, as well as dish it. And it's high time they started paying taxes, if they're going to play politics.
Different level of employment, a church can limit who they hire as a pastor. The question is: Do you think a Baptist church should hire a Methodist janitor?
Also the Baptist Church is a not for profit entity (or supposed to be) the schoolwas bought as a for profit business - IMHO that negates the 1st ammendment question. Next thing we will read is the Church in question wants their profits from the school to be tax exempt.
Actually it's even a step further than that. Should a Methodist janitor working for a for-profit private company be fired from his job for failing to prove that he's Baptist when a Baptist church buys out the company? Because that is a close analogy to what happened here.
Fl biker chick the Methodist cannot teach Baptist theology nor can the Baptist teach Methodist theology they don't know or understand it. Certain bible passages are understood so differently. I could not teach either because I understand John 6: 51-66 and Luke22:19-21 so differently from both of them I would be willing to die over it. And no I would never want a member of another denomination as janitor in my church handling the bread and the wine in the set up before Mass as our janitor does even though it isn't yet consecrated.
Captain Hammers
Your point is totally irrelevant. The teachers were not "fired".
The school honored the teachers' contracts until they expired. The school chose not to enter into NEW contracts with them. There is no law that requires the school to do so.
As usual, NBC omitted the pertinent facts.
'god' is an idiotic idea promoted by immoral people to control and pacify the weak minded. We REALLY need to keep our kids away from this kind of crap.
Some consider the religious indoctrination of children to be a form of child abuse. Not sure if I'd go that far, but it certainly seems irresponsible to present a ludicrous, nonsensical superstition to children as fact.
Please tell me you aren't serious. A God hater preaching about immorality??? The same God haters I see on Newsvine are the same ones supporting same sex marriage and abortion (murder) and you have the audacity to accuse Christians of immorality?
and the alternative is ? "Doest what thou wilt is the whole of the law"? Aleister Crowley(a satanist)
Has society as a whole in America progressed since the 60's...?
Society as a whole in America has not progressed much since the wild west days.
you're correct> it has degressed more rapidly since the 60's
Please take us back to the "good ole days", Glenn! The days when religion was used to justify slavery and later segregation, etc., etc., etc. and the church could have you burned at the stake, if they liked. Yes, we have clearly degressed since then
Unfortunately you do not know what Christianity really is if you equate it to burning people at the stake.
Yes, there was actually very little witch burning. It is MUCH more justified equating it to pedophilia.
@ Mr. Steady & Glenn:
Athiests aren't god haters. You can't hate something you don't think exists. Furthermore, Glenn, they are not satanists either. If someone believes there is no god, then that extends to there is no satan.
Good day to all.
Right, leroy, quite often they were either hanged or drowned.
Mr. Steady - You seem to be of the opinion that abortion is murder. Remember that well over 30% of all pregnancies end in mis-carriage, what's medically known as "spontaneous abortion". The christians will say that this is 'gods will' ... to me, that makes 'god' the biggest baby murderer around.
Forcing someone else to espouse your religious beliefs is NOT, by any stretch, "freedom of religion." Why is it that the people who crow the loudest about being "patriots" (i.e., right-wing Christians) are always the first to trample upon those rights that define America? I hope these two teachers sue their a**es off.
first of all .. it's apparent you don't understand the 1st Amendment. I beg you to re-read it
All of you who are spouting like you know something about the first amendment in regards to religious schools. Please catch up read the Hosanna Tabor decision by SCOTUS. It is going to change how every one of these church/school questions is decided. Your state labor laws will not pre-empt the decision by the Supreme Court. And read the first amendment not what some body says it says but what it actually says. It says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,... For you atheists the new push is that since you are acting in a manner of the worst of religion in history the claim is that the government by restricting everyone else to please you is establishing atheism as a state religion in fact. And though Glenn and I have very little in common I think we will stand shoulder to shoulder to fight that becoming reality.
It sounds like the two teachers are far better off being rid of these two faced scum bags. Go read " Mien Kamp" . It's all in there. The whole plan and ways to impliment.
We have the public school system and it's doing a fantastic job of spitting out socialist, God hating evolutionist, with an increasing bent on destroying freedoms and the Constitution.
phillykevin - would you be willing to take a bit of un asked for advice from an old lady? While I agree with much that you have posted you ruin your arguments by the name calling etc. You will never convince a person like Beck of anything, he is just out to get folks like us riled up and calling him names and than he can pull out all the right wing names and toss them back. This is not adult debate.
Now that said - I think I need to go find him on a gun control discussion and argue the 2nd ammendment wording with him.
you are so full of misunderstanding
Phillykevin do you? Not the theoretical socialist because theoretical people do not exist. But have you studied socialism in action? You know those wonderful socialists in Germany The National Socialists (nazi), the socialists in Russia the ones who killed 62 million of their own people Union of Soviet Socialist Russia, Or maybe the wonderful socialists in China 75-200 million of their own people killed and counting. Cambodia those socialists killed half the population of the country. I wonder if they all claimed to be socialists why you don't accept the deaths of 1.8 million of my people in a 6 yr time period as your legacy. You are quick to blame religion for death but in the 19 centuries before the 20th century all people killed in the name of religion only amounted to 4.5 million. In the name of socialism , nationalism and atheism in WW I 20 million were killed, in WW II 50 million were killed. It was the bloodiest century in man's history. And before you bring up the Inquisition the number you always claim as killed is twice the population of the known world at the time. So if that happened how come you are here to talk about it?
Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Glenn - since I assume you are one who espouses that our laws should be based on the founding fathers:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. "
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."
- John Adams or George Washingto (I have seen attributed to both men)
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religions in it."
- John Adams
Given that our founding fathers believed as they did - the separation of Church and State interpretation is appropriate and thus IMHO the school has no grounds to discriminate as they are not a religious (CHURCH WORSHIP) entity but an educational entity whose job it is to educate kids in non-religious areas.
It is a Christian School. If the school wants top hire people who profess to be Christians they should have that right. Some of you here are so full of hatred towrad christian values it is terrible. These teachers can get a job in another school that does not require faith.
No, joenumbers, it is a for-profit business that just happened to be bought by a church. For-profit makes it a business, there for subject to business laws. Therefore, the teachers cannot be discriminated against because of whatever faith they have/lack.
Joe, then the question should only be "Are you a Christian?" Having to give the name of your church, the number of times you attend and a letter of religious belief from you pastor is stepping way over the line for employment. I don't think it's a hatred of christian values so much as the hypocriscy of its teachings and how some Christians interpret them as well as the failing leadership of the Vatican.
Daysie D that doesn't make sense I would answer yes but I couldn't teach their version of Christian beliefs I don't know or believe them. And Daisie the Vatican's leadership is not failing because your generation of CINO's is dying and the new generation of Catholics says the cafeteria is closed. Young Catholics are pro-life and pro-belief in the real teachings of the faith. The real Vatican II not the "spirit" of Vatican II. We just have to wait for the flower children to go quietly into the night. For proof 650,000 people mostly Catholic and Christian marched in cold weather and snow last Friday from the National Mall past the Capitol and over to the Supreme Court building. and Saturday 50,000 did the same in San Francisco all pro-life. Mostly young.
I was raised a Catholic but I eventually came to the realization that this denomination was not for me. I can't and don't believe a lot of they teach anymore. So I left. But you must realize that many people don't even follow the tenets of their faith. Treat others they way you want to be treated. Love one another. Very hippie stuff. Jesus was practically the first flower child. The Vatican is failing. I'm still waiting for them to clean up the pedophile priests and have them face justice for their crimes. They are attacking nun now because they choose to help the poor and needy instead of yelling at gay people that they are sinners. That is not leadership. That's a cult. I also will not engage you in the anti-choice/pro-choice debate. It has nothing to do with this article. And you wouldn't understand my position anyway.
Nothing like a story like this to bring out the God hater, Christian hater, bigots. Just what NBC planned.
It is impossible to "hate" that which you do not believe exists. Some of the more militant atheists may hate god believers, but NONE of them hate "god."
Ah, Leroy, that's a subtlety that is beyond them.
Mr Steady - intersting you assume that if a person is not supportive of theschools position than they are "God Haters..." now I could assume you are a bigot but I dont. I assume you are a person with strong beliefs - well guess what not all of us who oppose the schools position Hate God or are non-believers. Many of us recognize that our beliefs are personal and we dont need to go around proclaiming our virtues, rather we go around trying to do good and help others in quiet ways.
I would have to say if death and all this crap is around me I don't think I could believe in it either its all about the positions you in experience you gain that helps you pull away from something we don't see clearly around you but got to remember this is the world the upper power created (governments) look at everything we have it all prevents us from the real picture. (war, work, poverty, and party's just a small amount of distractions. Just hope sooner or later everyone starts waking up. and realize its up to use gods need us just like we need them
corrections and realize its up to us, Gods need us just like we need them we all have our strengths
leroy you may not hate the god you don't believe in but you do hate the people who believe in him. It shows in the way you try to make them disappear. Someone in another country has rated the US a stage four in religious persecution on a five stage persecution index. leroy am I supposed to take consolation in that when I end up in jail for my beliefs? That you don't hate me but a large number of your people while not hating me think it is perfectly ok to make me living my beliefs a crime. Yeah we don't get that subtlety.
"leroy you may not hate the god you don't believe in but you do hate the people who believe in him."
Excuse me? Granted, this wasn't directed at me, but who are you to say who hates who? The vast majority of my family is Christian and I sure as @!$%# don't hate them. Just because someone doesn't agree with something, quite certainly does NOT mean they hate the people that do. How's that broad brush and pigeon-holing working out for you? And who is trying to make your beliefs a crime? Reputable link, Reb.
Schools run by churches should be able to specify what the teachers teach, but not what they believe in their personal lives.
No they shouldn't, when they're "for profit".
Well it is all going to come down on how this is effected by the Hosanna Tabor decision. Sparrow you better catch up with that one.
Sooo, Steve:
Hospitals which are owned by Christians should be able to decide which doctors can be hired ? Which patients can be treated ?
No, you'd better catch up on that one, it had to do with an appointed position within an institution, not a forced oath for employment.