I don't see how this would exempt them from Title IX unless it's part of Catholic doctrine that male athletes get more resources than women. I get that it would allow them to defund women's seminary classes, but everything else? And, yes, I really can't see how they could continue to receive federal funds, though all the Bush-era changes may mean I'm wrong on that.
I'm with the first commenter on Rob's facebook page: "I'm with the first commenter there: it looks like a misreading of their argument to say that they want to be classified as a "house of worship.""
Title IX isn't just about sports. Its about equal access in general and covers school policies on things like harassment and sexual misconduct, things that neither universities nor the Catholic Church have a good record of handling well.
2: That point was raised at The Other Place, but I'm not sure how it makes a difference. Whether you are classifying universities as houses of worship or merely extending the exemptions that houses of worship have to universities, the net effect is an argument that can carry over onto Title IX.
Also, the reliance on Ex Corde Ecclesiae seems wobbly to me, or it would if the Supremes hadn't basically said that the sincerity/reality of religious beliefs shouldn't be questioned at all. Unless they actually affirm Ex Corde Eccllesiae in some internal policy/document or public pronouncements, which you'd think they'd mention if it were the case, how can it be held to represent their religious views?
Speaking of, holy shit I hadn't realised that Title IX has a beauty pageant exception.
4: I think that an institution arguing that actually, it's a house of worship, not a university, rather than that privileges extending to houses of worship should extend to it as well, matters beyond the particular issue of Title IX.
Whatever they're arguing for, it does seem like they're saying that religious freedom requires the government to make law applying to them that matches their religion's description of the world. Rather like Hobby Lobby demanding deference for their misunderstanding of what contraception scientifically is.
The government not only has to allow you to believe what you want. It has to re-arrange social structures as if what you believe were true.
The "as if what you believe were true" part is and has always been the case. When it comes to free exercise or RFRA claims, you have to take the expressed beliefs as they come (in theory you can inquire into whether they're sincerely held rather than purely opportunistic, but that's different, and generally toothless). That doesn't mean anyone has to re-arrange social structures--that's where things like "significant burden" and "compelling government interest" come in--you can claim all the massive restrictions you want, but that's not enough to get you an accommodation. Although Hobby Lobby of course threw all that into chaos.
it seems to me that this will hurt faculty recruitment. I wouldn't want to work at a house of worship.
10: Not just that, but you'd think they'd have to fire all faculty who didn't hold to the Nicean Creed before they could make the argument with a straight face.
11: Faculty, shmaculty! The big issue is can they still recruit non-Catholic football players?
And now that I've taken a quick look at the complaint, 2 is right. They're not claiming to be a house of worship. They're saying that the regulatory exemption to the contraceptive (so-called) mandate is too narrow to satisfy the demands of the First Amendment and RFRA, if it does not extend to them what it extends to houses of worship. If they were to succeed in challenging that reg it wouldn't automatically carry over into a Title IX context (although it might well point in that direction and queue up a good case).
I see the comment I wanted to make in this thread is somehow pwned by 2.
I'm with the fifteenth commenter. The second commenter is right about the first commenter.
ACTUALLY, there have only been ten commenters in this thread so far.
Comment 6 seems like the most true and useful, though. WTF?
I'm with the sixteenth commenter here.
They are not asking to be reclassified as a house of worship. They are objecting to the (overly narrow, as they see it; and historically/culturally Protestant, as they also see it, though they don't say that in their brief) equation of "religious institution = house of worship," and are arguing that institutions other than houses of worship (schools, hospitals, universities, e.g.) can also have a religious mission which should allow them to be classified as religious institutions.
Catholics seem to be wonderful people individually, but you get a group of them together and give them some power and everything goes to hell (supreme court, notre dame, catholic church). Why is that?
Shorter 20: "I can't work out why this immense, wealthy, utterly unaccountable bureaucracy dominated by Italians with lifetime job security and no independent oversight keeps producing such bad results."
19 explains the issue rather well, but: if it's reclassified as a "religious institution" does that in fact affect its funding, as the OP suggested?
23: people with a historically carb-rich diet who sing and drink a lot, anyway.
Not automatically; there'd have to be lawsuits about it. And in the legal state of affairs where a major university is deemed to be a religious institution for the purpose of being exempt from otherwise generally applicable laws, there's pretty much no chance that the same courts would turn around and decide that the university's federal funding should therefore go away.
They are not asking to be reclassified as a house of worship. They are objecting to the (overly narrow, as they see it; and historically/culturally Protestant, as they also see it, though they don't say that in their brief) equation of "religious institution = house of worship," and are arguing that institutions other than houses of worship (schools, hospitals, universities, e.g.) can also have a religious mission which should allow them to be classified as religious institutions.
Which is fine, but, you know, Notre Dame receives a bunch of federal research money. If that research money is being used for religious purposes, it's illegal. And if it's not being used for religious purposes, then clearly at least some of what Notre Dame does can in fact be "severed from the Church" and hence should be subject to the mandate.
What about federal money used to pay tuition? I'm fairly certain at least some students are using that to take classes on Catholic theology but I don't think that counts as illegal use of federal money.
If that research money is being used for religious purposes, it's illegal.
This is not a statement that's true in any simple, clear sense. Imagine, e.g., a Jesuit physicist who thinks of his research (which is completely conventional secular research) as a form of worship in that it gives him insight into the mind of God. That doesn't make him automatically ineligible for NSF grants.
Maybe the Hobby Lobby decision is designed to boost employment among lawyers as much as anything.
Which reminds me of that guy that flies into Mississippi from Chicago three days a month to perform abortions. He had a very deep sense of Christian calling about the whole thing.
What others have said about the legal issues.
Philosophers are too smart too, and should not, ever comment on legal issues, because they invariably get them wrong wrong wrong (maybe on the assumption that the law is a comprehensible and logical system amenable to the kind of reasoning philosophers do). It's some kind of professional fallacy, or at least one that seems to have been constant for years in blogs that I read.
The historically/culturally Protestant point is a good one. Yes, indeed, historically it was the Catholic church's view that it should do a lot more than just run houses of worship. Other things it thought it should run: schools, hospitals, universities, farms, mills, law courts, wars, countries.
Oops, forgot. Also: prisons, forced-labour camps.
32: There was a philosophy professor that took early retirement from Inedible Nut University and got a law degree and worked at my law firm for a few years before retiring again. I can't really say whether he was any good at lawyering.
The separation of church and state is a form of bigotry against Catholics. Is that the argument?
I daydream about a draconianly simple interpretation of the First Amendment -- no legal recognition of the existence of religious organizations at all. No tax exemptions, no exemptions from generally applicable law, nothing. (I guess I'd save religion as a category for antidiscrimination law.)
Stops all the arguing. People can be as religious as they like on their own time, but the government isn't going to get involved.
This is not a realistic daydream, of course.
Wait, daydreams are supposed to be realistic?
Other things it thought it should run: schools, hospitals, universities, farms, mills, law courts, wars, countries.
To be fair, these are also things the head of the Church of England thought he/she should run.
These sorts of debates always make me feel vaguely hostile (okay, not really that vague) toward religious people of all stripes. Which I know is entirely unfair so I try to keep it in check, but goda'mighty. Your deeply held beliefs aren't given sufficient deference? Take a number.
I daydream about a draconianly simple interpretation of the First Amendment -- no legal recognition of the existence of religious organizations at all. No tax exemptions, no exemptions from generally applicable law, nothing.
This is the setup to the excellent Ken MacLeod novel "The Night Sessions" (seriously, read it if you haven't already, he hasn't written better before or since; if you have read it and that's where you got the idea from, then good, isn't it?)
To be fair, these are also things the head of the Church of England thought he/she should run.
And, in fact, does run.
39: I don't think my civil rights are seriously endangered by the erosion of the wall of separation between Church and Bingo.
Back before they started legalizing casinos and state lotteries, church hall bingo was a big deal. It was the only legal gambling option for many people.
Commercially run bingo halls have been a thing in the UK for decades. One of the biggest chains is called Mecca. Yes, this has provoked protest, but bizarrely not as much as you would think.
I've never heard of a commercially run bingo hall here.
That's because you're groaning under theocratic bingo restrictions.
Wasn't the English reformation driven primarily by Henry VIII's desire to wrest control of the valuable bingo concessions from the Catholic Church?
Guys, there is no special First Amendment or overall legal category called "houses of worship." The tax code, and the ACA, have a tiered system -- religiously affiliated nonlrofits have to file a return, even though they are tax-exempt; churches, aka houses of worship, do not. Regulations imementing the ACA adopted this distinction, so that if you're a religiously affiliated nonprofit you can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage completely by sending a letter (the private insurer then has to pay itself for the cost of providing contraception to anyone who wants it). "Houses of worship" under these very specific regulations don't have to have contraceptive coverage at all and don't have to send a letter (though the government could also implement a requirement that the private insurer pay for contraception of house of worship employees who want it; in fact, the government didn't do so because it didn't seem like there'd be a need for this rule). Notre Dame's argument is that the act of sending the letter is itself an undue burden under RFRA, because even though they wouldn't have to pay for contraception they're being asked to do something that an ordinary church wouldn't do. This is a deeply crazy argument for "undue burden" (and one they've lost on to date)but it's also very specific to the the regulations at issue here and isn't some broader classification dispute.
LB's crazy daydream is more or less US Constitutional law, with some exceptions, under the First Amendment after Smith. But Congress didn't like that and passed RFRA. And then the Supreme Court didn't like that, and held (in one of the worst decisions in my lifetime) that RFRA doesn't apply to the states because Congress can't tell states to protect freedoms uner the 14th amendment at any greater level than those freedoms are arbitrarily defined by the Supreme Court.
Stops all the arguing.
Where such laws have been enacted in countries with large religious populations and strong religious institutions, this has generally not been the result. Or rather, the arguments have moved from being legal to violent.
||
This Mary Timony tearing apart John Mayer thing on AV Club that's going around at the other place is priceless, and it put me onto the whole Hate Songs column which is great fun. The guy from Gwar reviewing "Get Outta My Dreams (and into my car)" includes the sentence "Many nights I've spent humping blue whale carcasses."
|>
||
OT, but this week's issue of Science really should have had a picture of Rutger Hauer on the cover.
|>
I can't work out why this immense, wealthy, utterly unaccountable bureaucracy dominated by Italians with lifetime job security and no independent oversight keeps producing such bad results.
"Italian" should probably be replaced by "Irish," at least in an American context. Controversy!
You know, when I'm amongst my own "people with a historically carb-rich diet who sing and drink a lot" [I'm just a potatoeater, of course], I'm often the ultraliberal and annoyingly overeducated naysayer, the malcontent, the uncompromising critic of Mother Church. But here at unfogged, I sometimes feel a perverse impulse to go in other direction, I wonder why that is?
In an American context, at any rate, Catholic institutions (schools, hospitals, charitable organizations, universities) do not actually produce consistently bad results. To the contrary, some of the results they routinely produce are actually moderately to very, very good; and I might even make so bold as to claim that RC institutions could even serve as a model for secular initiatives which aim at producing the same sort of results (the alleviation of the effects of poverty, the education of disadvantaged youth; and etc. etc.).
"in other direction" S/B "in the other direction"
||
There is absolutely nothing in the Tucson airport, and my friend can't get here to pick us up for like an hour.
|>
I've made the same observation in the last few months: I don't feel like a liberal at this blog, but to my extended family, my own relatives and their spouses, I'm the thing itself.
It isn't perversity or contrariness, it's a different frame of reference. At either place things may be taken for granted that really shouldn't be, but those will be different things. So the schizoid feeling of being to everybody's left when you're not to everybody's right.
I think we all pass by and work near people with whom we wouldn't dare exchange opinions. And my wife and I are members of an online community where politics are off limits, so it isn't just irl.
Sometimes I'll be having a conversation and referring to opinions, to "other conversations," and realize that these here at this blog are likely to be the only other conversations, on these issues, that I'll have all day, all week. People hearing such a reference must think I talk a lot more than I do.
55.last: that "some of the results are very good" is a hell of a curate's egg statement.
I've never heard of a commercially run bingo hall here.
There's a bingo hall a block away from me that appears to be commercially run, or at least there's no indication that it's run by any other sort of institution (though it may be). It's on the first floor of a two-story building, the second story of which is a preschool. The two have the same name, but it's the name of the street they're on so it's not clear if there's any actual connection between the two. The whole setup is kind of weird, though.
To 36 - yes, from the Catholic Church's perspective (inasmuch as it can be said to have a singular perspective) separation of Church and State is a bad thing. The pope argued against it back in the day (cf. Unam Sanctam, from 1302) and many prominent and respected Catholic theologians still do.
Surely if any religious denomination can be said to have a singular perspective on anything it's the Catholic Church.
Well, I suppose it can change its views over time, by moving from one position of inerrant certainty to another.
10-12, 19 & OP
Jane (as far as I can tell, accurately) says that Nd is arguing that not-houses-of-worship "can also have a religious mission which should allow them to be classified as religious institutions"
But I don't see how that gets around the points in 10-12. I worked there, as faculty, for a brief and horrific period, and so know first hand that there is no requirement (none official, at any rate) to avow Catholic principles or practices as a condition of employment. There's a spot on the form one fills out when one accepts employment there (at least, as faculty) that asks one to list one's religious affiliation, and I made damn sure I wrote in something that would make it unmistakably clear that I am as far from Catholic as possible. At no point did one have to sign any document or avow in any context that one would support, uphold, endorse, or otherwise approve of general or specific Catholic policies or practices. They're still an awful, discriminatory institution, but at least officially, they don't have any kind of religious test for employment. In whatever sense they have a "religious mission" it seems quite unlike the sense in which houses-of-worship have a "religious mission". Not that that will stop the Catholics on the SC who gave us the Hobby-Lobby decision... but still.