Supreme Court to decide whether churches should have final say on who their ministers should be

posted at 6:10 pm on October 12, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Last week, President Obama’s Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in a case that pits religious protections against the courts’ ordinary ability to intervene in a labor dispute to prevent discrimination.

In the early 2000s, Cheryl Perich was a “called teacher” or “commissioned minister” at  Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich. As such, she taught religious classes, led students in prayer and incorporated religious teachings into secular subjects like math, science, social studies and art.

But in 2004, she was diagnosed with narcolepsy and became unable to teach the fall semester that year. When she failed to return to school in January 2005, the school hired a replacement teacher. The school wanted to “peacefully release” Perich from her “call,” but Perich demanded she be reinstated — and threatened to sue the school if she wasn’t. It was that threat of a lawsuit — not Perich’s narcolepsy — that led the congregation to “rescind her call” (i.e. fire her). Apparently, it’s against church teaching to take an internal dispute of that sort to the secular courts.

But, now, the Obama DOJ wants the courts to force the Lutheran church and school to reinstate Perich, saying that the school fired Perich in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.

“Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits,” said Kruger. “And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims.”

In other words, in the interest of protecting parochial school teachers from discrimination for disabilities, the courts ought to be able to tell churches they have to retain someone as a minister. Again, the school didn’t fire Perich because she had a “disability”; they rescinded her call because she violated church teaching by threatening to sue. But even supposing Perich’s narcolepsy was the reason she was fired, the school’s decision ought to be protected under the “ministerial exception”:

But the ADA contains the same “ministerial exception” as other civil rights laws, a 40-year-old doctrine that precludes courts from interfering in matters “involving the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministerial employees.” The idea is that you can’t use civil rights laws to force Catholic churches to hire female priests, or orthodox synagogues to ordain Catholics, without running afoul of the First Amendment.

It’s easy to see, though, why this isn’t so clear-cut:

The courts of appeals have for years struggled with questions about this ministerial exception, ranging from “What is a minister?” to “How the hell should we know what a minister is?” We can agree that the cafeteria lady isn’t a minister. But what about a secular teacher who performs some religious duties?

That’s what makes this a case to watch: The Supreme Court will presumably at last clarify the issue. As Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com writes, “What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Scary – very scary

gophergirl on October 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Yes another fine Holder case. Narcolepsy? Isn’t that where you just all of a sudden go to sleep? Sorry if I’m wrong about that but if it is that doesn’t sound like the best teacher for elementary students..

sandee on October 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

The court should leave them alone entirely. I don’t like the idea of government intervening in church matters no matter how morally correct they might think it is.

sharrukin on October 12, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Apparently, it’s against church teaching to take an internal dispute of that sort to the secular courts.

Indeed! The New Testament is quite clear on this.

1 Corinthians 6

1When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

There are additional passages (ex. Matthew 5, Matthew 18, Romans 12) that also speak to conflict.

flyfisher on October 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Yes another fine Holder case. Narcolepsy? Isn’t that where you just all of a sudden go to sleep? Sorry if I’m wrong about that but if it is that doesn’t sound like the best teacher for elementary students..

sandee on October 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Although it’s refreshing to see the teacher fall asleep in class…

JetBoy on October 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Cripe

cmsinaz on October 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Let’s keep ministers and priests that sexually abuse because they have a “disability”. That is where this is going….

ladyingray on October 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I have a friend who lost his CDL because of narcolepsy
-
Picking winners and losers based on his preferences again… The Obamanation.
-

RalphyBoy on October 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

0bama is determined to actually save one job before he loses his.

pedestrian on October 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Get ready for the Catholic Church to be hauled into court for not performing same-sex “weddings”.

Elections matter.

olesparkie on October 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

It will take the Judgement of Solomon to decide this case.

[sorry]

SlaveDog on October 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Next step: “Hate Speech” as in Canada.

kingsjester on October 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

The court should leave them alone entirely. I don’t like the idea of government intervening in church matters no matter how morally correct they might think it is.

sharrukin on October 12, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Yeah, what happened to their lauded “Separation of Church and State” argument???

mrsmwp on October 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

This is what my faith says will be coming along! Will the SC deal with the rop type ministers or just those of the Christian or Jewish faith? Gotta pray that those precious few who believe in our Constitution on the SC are in good health to stay till bho is outta here. God Bless our Republic. BTW, I will not submit. I pray for the pastor and family in iran who now is under major harm with this new krap coming from our country with this ‘terrorists act’ that came out yesterday.
L

letget on October 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

As an atheist, I support the church on this 100%.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

What a forked tongue this Admin speaks with. I thot they were all about separation of Church and State. But as usual with them it’s just a one way street, keeping the Church out of the State.

I hope the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

bluefox on October 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

If you have separation of Church and State, you have separation. Anything else is a lie.

Having said that, perhaps the problem lies is the mixing of callings.

OldEnglish on October 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

The chickenssssssss are coming hommmeeee to rroooooooosssst!

maynila on October 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

OldEnglish on October 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

is in … Oh, nurse!

OldEnglish on October 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Yeah, what happened to their lauded “Separation of Church and State” argument???

mrsmwp on October 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM

That only applies when they want it to. When they are attacking the Church it gets sidelined.

sharrukin on October 12, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Reichkirche, anyone?

coldwarrior on October 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Listened to Daniel Pipes speak this week.

Reminds me – what if this were a mosque and not a church. All the same arguments???

Compare this to the blatant misruling by a British judge, excusing a Muslim husband for speeding to get home to his SECOND WIFE.

fred5678 on October 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I hope that the court hears the case and then in its decision grinds the Executive Branch into the dust.

There are some rock solid authors wearing black robes in that building that actually attended law school the day they taught law – unlike some other “Constitutional Lecturers” that we know.

If you have separation of Church and State, you have separation. Anything else is a lie.

Having said that, perhaps the problem lies is the mixing of callings.

OldEnglish on October 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

For the record, the separation is not in the Constitution, in case it needs to be mentioned. The separation of church and state is contained within a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, CT.

turfmann on October 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

In fact, she was originally simply a secular teacher at that school, then became a “call teacher” performing religious duties. Sorry, but when she changed her status, she lost that protection.

rbj on October 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The courts of appeals have for years struggled with questions about this ministerial exception, ranging from “What is a minister?” to “How the hell should we know what a minister is?” We can agree that the cafeteria lady isn’t a minister. But what about a secular teacher who performs some religious duties?

What if the cafeteria lady leads the lunch prayer? What if she’s a volunteer? So no, we can’t agree that cafeteria lady isn’t a minister.

BTW, there is no law that says when you lawyer-up in a police interview that the person you call for counsel has to be a member of the state bar. Attorney-client privilege is extended to whoever you consider to be your attorney, not the state.

I don’t see a legal distinction here. God does not require his shepherds to be graduates from the finest seminaries. And neither does the state.

BobMbx on October 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Reminds me – what if this were a mosque and not a church. All the same arguments???

fred5678 on October 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I’m going to excuse the bigoted nature of your question and state quite clearly. . . YEP!

What if it were a Temple. . . YEP!

How about a Synagogue. . . YEP!

How about a group of people who hold their god-construct to be a flying spaghetti monster and they called their place of worship the Pasta Palace. . . .YEP!

I’ll grant the following exception. . .if it can be shown that filling suit against the congregation and their agent is NOT in their religious teachings, the Church loses. Otherwise, all the same arguments. . .YEP!

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM

So help me if this is a 5-4 decision with liberal judges in the minority…

scotash on October 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM

For the record, the separation is not in the Constitution, in case it needs to be mentioned. The separation of church and state is contained within a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, CT.

turfmann on October 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Immaterial unless you want to argue against “separation of church and State”, if so, you should probably find another case with which to challenge precedent.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 7:01 PM

turfmann on October 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

For the record, I did need telling. Thank you for clarifying the situation. It makes things a bit less certain.

OldEnglish on October 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Freedom living liberals strike again!

gwelf on October 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Remind me again what is forcing me to continue to go to a church, to continue to give to a church, in which Bagboy Holder is forcing the minister choice? Is the most corrupt piece of garbage that’s ever run Justice going to force me back to that particular church?

Is the typical leftist dumb@$$ capable of thinking to that next logical step?

MNHawk on October 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM

As an atheist, I support the church on this 100%.

Jason Coleman on October 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

I’ll make that “two atheists for the church.”

BierManVA on October 12, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I would think that this job would require someone to stay awake!! I wonder what the DOJ would do if she were a bus driver instead of a teacher?

tommer74 on October 12, 2011 at 7:10 PM

It’s easy to see, though, why this isn’t so clear-cut:

On the contrary. This is a very easy call. Who has the right to determine who is or is not a minister? The government? Really?

This shows clearly just how little respect Obama has for religious freedom.

tom on October 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Give em an inch, and they’ll take a mile or two or more!

capejasmine on October 12, 2011 at 7:13 PM

BTW, my prediction is that SCOTUS decides not to take up the case.

tom on October 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM

“What is at stake is the ________ Amendment and the ________ freedom of all Americans.”
Justice Marshall must be spinning in his grave, as the Supreme Court routinely supersedes the legislative process, and the amendment procedure…

Frank_D on October 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM

ADA…another stinking legacy from GHWB!!! Get rid of that also. My Dad worked for as Fortune 50 company. A new plant was required to put in a wheelchair ramp. The plant manager said the ramp may be used twice in five years and the money used for that ramp would have added two more jobs in the plant.
And I have a bad back and have to stoop to use the sinks and towel dispensers at wheelchair height.
UGH!!!

Amendment X on October 12, 2011 at 7:18 PM

SCOTUS is not the only entity that has a right to decide on the Constituionality of such matters.
The states have every right to tell the Federal Govt to f%^& off.
They’re just freaking cowards.
The states are ball-less.
They don’t evidently make Americans any more like they did around 1776-up to 1900.
The Progressives, AKA weak kneed pu$$y pantywaisted coward beta & omegas have taken over.

Badger40 on October 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Get ready for the Catholic Church to be hauled into court for not performing same-sex “weddings”.

No, first it’ll be the discrimination lawsuits by aging, gray haired women who want to be priests.

englishqueen01 on October 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Of course this is an outrage.

We need the federal government appointing ministers just to make sure the churches are toeing the line.

Midas on October 12, 2011 at 8:10 PM

It will take the Judgement of Solomon to decide this case.

[sorry]

SlaveDog on October 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

One has to wonder if the sling of David or the lions in the coliseum are coming next.It is clear that we are about to enter an age of great persecution again.

Maybe Haley will ask the new Caesar to “set that stuff aside for the election” or something.

Don L on October 12, 2011 at 8:14 PM

A church school is a church school–the concept of religious teaching, reference to God and prayer going on in any class is assumed. As such, there are always doctrinal statements and codes of conducts for all staff. The case should never have gotten this far.

It occurred to me that Presbyterian ministers don’t go around trying to force Baptist churches to hire them, etc., etc. This is all about being able to set up lawsuits targeting–in all probability Christians and Jews.

No other administration would have ever done something like this.

INC on October 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Get ready for the Catholic Church to be hauled into court for not performing same-sex “weddings”.

Elections matter.

olesparkie on October 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

It’s not just Catholics. Orthodox Jew and some ‘religiously’ conservative Jews won’t perform them either.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Reichkirche, anyone?

coldwarrior on October 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM

You nailed it.

INC on October 12, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I would think that this job would require someone to stay awake!! I wonder what the DOJ would do if she were a bus driver instead of a teacher?

tommer74 on October 12, 2011 at 7:10 PM

It would all depend on weather she was a muslim bus driver or not.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 12, 2011 at 8:26 PM

What happened to Separation of Church and State? If it happens to this church it will happen to all churches. So then the Government can tell the pastors of churches what to preach and who can preach. It is the first stages of a Dictatorship. First they have to take away the guns and then the take away the Bibles, then it’s the churches run by the state and then the press…….etc. How many times have we seen this and when is the GOP going to wake up and do something about this? Why aren’t we hearing about this, other places besides here. This is very disturbing and very dangerous. Where’s the outrage?

flytier on October 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM

flyfisher on October 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

We said!

flytier on October 12, 2011 at 8:42 PM

turfmann on October 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

It was the Baptist that wanted a Separation of Church and State because they did not want a National church (Congregational) as was the case with the Church of England. The Congregationalists in Mass. wanted the have a church state and the Baptist insisted that they be free to worship as they chose and not be persecuted as they were in England, the reason they came to America and Rhode Island to begin with.

flytier on October 12, 2011 at 8:48 PM

flyfisher on October 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

We Well said!

flytier on October 12, 2011 at 8:42 PM

flytier on October 12, 2011 at 8:48 PM

I thought obama was a Christian? That’s what we were told. If so, what’s up with this?

CH on October 12, 2011 at 8:55 PM

The easy answer is for all ministers to be licensed by the federal government after passing government tests – that will clarify who is a minister. /sarc

We already know where our moral superiors in DC come down on the issue of making all other decisions for us.

in_awe on October 12, 2011 at 9:01 PM

In the battle for ultimate power in people’s lives…..how can we be surprised when the President is a disciple of Alinsky……who hailed Lucifer as the first “rebel”?

Obama is the DOTUS!

PappyD61 on October 12, 2011 at 9:27 PM

More bureaucrats = fewer rights.

Remember that when you next vote. It may be the last time you’re able.

EA_MAN on October 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM

What part of “Shall not prohibit the free exercise therof” is confusing to anyone?

Hiya Ciska on October 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

The courts of appeals have for years struggled with questions about this ministerial exception, ranging from “What is a minister?” to “How the hell should we know what a minister is?” We can agree that the cafeteria lady isn’t a minister. But what about a secular teacher who performs some religious duties?

As a Lutheran I can emphatically state that the definition of who a called minister is, is very clearly defined. Teachers and pastors receive calls. The cafeteria lady, administrative assistant, and other people who work in the church are not called, they are hired. The other error in this statement is the fact that this lady is not a “secular teacher” She might teach secular subjects, but by the church’s definition and call, she is not a secular worker, she is a called worker in the church whose call is to teach students in a parochial school. No gray lines here.

That whole train of argument is a red herring anyway. Churches should be free to hire and fire as they see fit in accordance with their doctrine and practice? Is that unfair? That’s for members of the church to decide, the person affected is free to associate with other denominations if they find that offensive.

AZfederalist on October 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

When it’s convenient for these leftist clowns they drag out this “Separation of Church & State” (which the constitution NEVER says)! And when it’s convenient for them they want it thrown out! OH NO that court house can’t have a poster with the 10 commandments on it! NO we can’t have the church sticking its nose into politics! But now they want the government to tell a church how to operate! The hypocrisy of the Dumb-Ass party and the communist left knows no bounds!

Confederate on October 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Who is the Government to tell a church whom they should hire or fire from a position of religions authority? Seems very clear cut to me. The moment she wins, one legged and one armed ministers will never be “called” again, because it will be impossible to get rid of them.

unclesmrgol on October 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM

When it’s convenient for these leftist clowns they drag out this “Separation of Church & State” (which the constitution NEVER says)!

Oh yes it does! Couple the 1st Amendment with the 14th and you have (a) the Government not being able to meddle in religious matters and (b) the States being unable to either.

The flip side is that the Government and the State must never invoke or display symbols of a particular religion as part of their official function — for to do so is the establishment of a state religiomn.

If you allow the display in a judge’s chambers of a Crucifix or the Star of David or the Ten Commandments, then you must also be open to having a judge display a pentangle or a crescent and star.

In the end, this will come down to what was written in the minister’s contract.

unclesmrgol on October 13, 2011 at 12:24 AM

What part of “Shall not prohibit the free exercise therof” is confusing to anyone?

It’s got to be that “free” part. See, ’cause when people are free they may do things the leftists don’t like. Like, you know, expect members of a religion to be adherents of that religion’s doctrines…especially when those doctrines are un-PC.

englishqueen01 on October 13, 2011 at 6:54 AM

If Obama’s position prevails it would be a violation of Federal discrimination laws for a Baptist Church to require its Pastoral candidates to be Christian.

tommyboy on October 13, 2011 at 7:59 AM

This is the logical conclusion of what liberals want to do – they want to turn churches into just another institution that they can use courts to force change upon, thus destroying the churches in the process.

I’ve always maintained that as good intended as anti-discrimination laws are (to a degree, they are all way over-broad), they have destroyed the freedom of association. There is no longer any freedom of association in the U.S. You cannot have freedom of association if it does not include the freedom to exclude for any reason.

Once you come up with a reason to force any group to admit “x”, then that group is no longer freely associating. Also, once you do it – the gov’t and courts will always expand the scope until there is nobody you cannot exclude. A women’s group can’t exclude men and a men’s group can’t exclude women. A polish group can’t exclude the non-polish and a church can’t exclude someone who defies its teachings.

this will probably come out like the PGA case where the Court decided it could determine what was “integral to the game” and allowed someone to use a cart. Here the Court will decide what is “integral” to the Religion in determining whether the ADA applied. thus, the court will take upon itself the authority to determine a religion’s tenets.

There is no freedom left in this country. The fact that this is even a case – that it even made it to the Supreme Court – that there is even a question whether or not a Church can decide these things for itself demonstrates we have no true freedom left. It does not matter what the outcome of the case is.

It is truly sad that the left hates freedom so much.

Monkeytoe on October 13, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Let’s keep ministers and priests that sexually abuse because they have a “disability”. That is where this is going….
ladyingray on October 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I think the more immediate effect would be to force Church schools to accept all sorts of depraved people as teachers.

tommyboy on October 13, 2011 at 8:23 AM

If you allow the display in a judge’s chambers of a Crucifix or the Star of David or the Ten Commandments, then you must also be open to having a judge display a pentangle or a crescent and star.

unclesmrgol on October 13, 2011 at 12:24 AM

To which particular ‘religion’ does the Ten Commandments uniquely belong?

Also: the display of the Ten Commandments in or at a courthouse has nothing to do with an expression of religious belief, per se. The Ten Commandments have been posted at courthouses for the simple and fundamental reason that they are an essential, foundational part of the British system of law & jurisprudence that the American judicial system is derived from.

As far as the judge displaying religious symbols in his/her own chambers, who cares? That’s the judge’s office; stick that crescent moon or pentagram or idol of Cthulu right next to the family photos.

That said: to deny that Christianity — and a society based on Christian principles & practice — was the primary foundational worldview of the men who designed the American system is to be utterly ignorant of American history.

Harpazo on October 13, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Churches should be free to hire and fire as they see fit in accordance with their doctrine and practice? Is that unfair? That’s for members of the church to decide, the person affected is free to associate with other denominations if they find that offensive.

AZfederalist on October 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM

I could make this same case for hiring in all arenas of the private sector. Or deciding who will rent an apartment from a private landlord.
But yet, they cannot ‘discriminate’ against those they find undesirable, for whatever reason.
I’m not for white lunch counters & water fountains.
But what I am for is being able to pick & choose who you wish to associate with, hire, rent out your property to etc.
These are freedoms that have already been taken away from us.
It will continue.

Badger40 on October 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Harpazo on October 13, 2011 at 9:04 AM

I agree.

Badger40 on October 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM

The Ten Commandments have been posted at courthouses for the simple and fundamental reason that they are an essential, foundational part of the British system of law & jurisprudence that the American judicial system is derived from.

Harpazo on October 13, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Really?
Murder, stealing and perjury are the only commandments that are punishable under our legal system. There is no law against having another god besides Yahweh or taking his name in vain. No one can be prosecuted for coveting a neighbor’s property or for making graven images or failing to observe the Sabbath.

The ten commandments are a set of bronze-age societal rules (and there are plenty more than 10 in the Bible) that have virtually no relevance to a modern nation. The near universal revulsion to execution by stoning is clear proof of that.

Bill Maher put it best: the Bible is God’s big book of bad ideas.

Back on topic: Religions don’t get carte blanche to discriminate. I’ll be interested to see how this issue plays out.

chumpThreads on October 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Murder, stealing and perjury are the only commandments that are punishable under our legal system… Back on topic: Religions don’t get carte blanche to discriminate. I’ll be interested to see how this issue plays out. chumpThreads on October 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Adultery is illegal in many states too. And coveting can be illegal, which is why you can be prosecuted for conspiracy to rob a bank even if you never rob it.

And churches are exempt from compliance with many laws, precisely because of the problems we can foresee if this case is decided in favor of the “victim.”

Akzed on October 13, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Can I sue a fine resturant for not hiring (or firing) me as a chef because I can’t cook. Of course not, cooking is part of the specialized skill requirements of the job.

In like manner, a church, and only the church, should be able to determine who it ordains (akin to certifying) and calls (akin to hiring) for its ministries (akin to qualifying jobs), or not call, based on its requirement to adhere to its teachings (specialized skills).

In this case the minister (she is not denying she is a called minister) was let go because she violated church teaching. Seems very clear to me.

AverageJoe on October 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Harpazo on October 13, 2011 at 9:04 AM

They belong to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They do not belong to Buddhism, Hinduism, or Wicca, for example.

There are ethical and moral positions contained within the Ten Commandments with which I would expect any official in our Government to be in agreement, but there are also demands of a jealous God — which definitely align them to particular faiths.

For example, consider the First Commandment — “I am the Lord thy God, Who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage — thou shalt have no Gods before Me.” That’s definitely a religious statement.

unclesmrgol on October 13, 2011 at 2:31 PM