NLRB Claims authority over Church Schools

[Intense]

If the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why are there laws that recognize institutes of religion and give them tax-exempt status?

I have long wondered the same thing.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[edjax1952]

Originally stated by jillian

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

If the Declaration of Independence does not have force of law, that leaves the United States of America as an illegitimate governing body.

 

[Intense]

Originally stated by jillian

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

If the Declaration of Independence does not have force of law, that leaves the United States of America as an illegitimate governing body.

It served until the Articles of Confederation came into being, which served until the Constitution was ratified, I would think.

 

[clevergirl]

I will concede that the title of the article is biased. There was not decree. The right wing is just as guilty of twisting facts as the left in many cases.
I posted the article to bring to light that agencies under Obama, and his Democratic left wing crew (mostly appointed by Obama) are attempting to make a sweeping effort to expand the dictates of government control once more.

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

Unalienable Rights where there is the Will to Enforce them, be it through the Individual, the Group, the Society, or the Government. They actually exist even where there is no Law or Government. It is for Good Government to Recognize Inalienable Right's, to Establish and Defend them. Yes, there is no force of law behind the Declaration of Independence, only Intention. Agreed. The Declaration also establishes that there is a limit in principle and Theory, to the Jurisdiction and Power of Government, that there are boundaries. The Mechanism created to serve the will of the People, does not take precedent over the will of the people. It is not of more value than that which it was purposed to serve. Measure twice, cut once still applies, so does accountability and transparency. Every machine needs tuning and maintenance.

Sometimes there is a choice to be made between Principle and Government, just like every other creation, there is a danger of going astray. We may argue over what going astray is, or where the line is crossed, granted, let's try to agree that we do need to be vigilant about what gets imposed on others by mandate, and qualify it, and limit the harm that is done.

An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.

A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.

 

[Intense]

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

Unalienable Rights where there is the Will to Enforce them, be it through the Individual, the Group, the Society, or the Government. They actually exist even where there is no Law or Government. It is for Good Government to Recognize Inalienable Right's, to Establish and Defend them. Yes, there is no force of law behind the Declaration of Independence, only Intention. Agreed. The Declaration also establishes that there is a limit in principle and Theory, to the Jurisdiction and Power of Government, that there are boundaries. The Mechanism created to serve the will of the People, does not take precedent over the will of the people. It is not of more value than that which it was purposed to serve. Measure twice, cut once still applies, so does accountability and transparency. Every machine needs tuning and maintenance.

Sometimes there is a choice to be made between Principle and Government, just like every other creation, there is a danger of going astray. We may argue over what going astray is, or where the line is crossed, granted, let's try to agree that we do need to be vigilant about what gets imposed on others by mandate, and qualify it, and limit the harm that is done.

An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.

A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.

An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.

If you were illegally enslaved you would lose your freedom, if you were robbed you would lose your property, if you were murdered you would lose your life, these things being unalienable mean that, in a just society there will be consequence. We believe in the distinction between Right and Wrong. It does not make you bullet proof. When we establish Justice we create, maintain, and enforce a code of laws designed, at best, to be fair, equitable, and fair in nature to each of us, something that compliments our quality of life.

 

[edjax1952]

originally stated by clevergirl

A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

What does a Social Security number have to do with any of your unalienable rights? Are you so indoctrinated into governmental control that you consider a Social Security Number to be one of your unalienable rights as a citizen? If so, we are in more trouble than I first imagined.

 

[MeBelle]

I see many nuns out of a job?

Problem with original premise is schools run by churches are private schools, paid for by parents in addition to taxes parents already pay to the IRS which fund public schools. If parents cannot afford the entire tuition, the church will work on a sliding fee scale or bestow grants to students. In some cases, the church may require parents of students to put some 'skin in the game' by requiring parents to volunteer in the private school.

 

[konradv]

in other words, you posted meaningless trash.

as for your nonsense about "inalienable rights", rights simply don't exist unless they're enforced by government. ask anyone japanese who was interned during WWII.

and the declaration of independence does not have force of law.

you seem to have a problem differentiating between propaganda and reality.

Unalienable Rights where there is the Will to Enforce them, be it through the Individual, the Group, the Society, or the Government. They actually exist even where there is no Law or Government. It is for Good Government to Recognize Inalienable Right's, to Establish and Defend them. Yes, there is no force of law behind the Declaration of Independence, only Intention. Agreed. The Declaration also establishes that there is a limit in principle and Theory, to the Jurisdiction and Power of Government, that there are boundaries. The Mechanism created to serve the will of the People, does not take precedent over the will of the people. It is not of more value than that which it was purposed to serve. Measure twice, cut once still applies, so does accountability and transparency. Every machine needs tuning and maintenance.

Sometimes there is a choice to be made between Principle and Government, just like every other creation, there is a danger of going astray. We may argue over what going astray is, or where the line is crossed, granted, let's try to agree that we do need to be vigilant about what gets imposed on others by mandate, and qualify it, and limit the harm that is done.

An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.

A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.

There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.

 

[saveliberty]

There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.

The Framers sure thought there were unalienable rights. It is more that the right cannot be transferred to another. For instance my right to free speech cannot be given to someone else. I may choose not to use it, but transferring it cannot be done.

In many ways they are also rights that every human being should have and do, despite the oppression by others.

When you state there is no such thing as unalienable rights, you sound like a third world dictator.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the NLRB is right.

The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.

A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.

So what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the NLRB is right.

The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.

A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.

With this premise, a church cannot create a school for its paritioners to attend that teach basic values, principles, including the sciences of math, science and social studies, in a manner that they consider to be important (the same as a private school). A church school should only teach religious doctrine, straight up, and should not have the ability to teach the application of this doctrine as it applies to everyday life?

You have a problem with that?

Why don't we turn it around and see if a problem really does exist.

Let us take Lexington School for the Deaf in NYC. The NLRB, under Sarah Palin, arbitrarily decides that the school is not purely focused on deaf people because some it actually teaches science and math. They then declare that the school should be forced to comply with labor law, and stop discriminating against people who can hear, and forces them to hire staff that not only is not deaf, but they do not know sign language.

Would you have a problem with that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd bet good money that if you dig deep enough, what you'll find in all the cases that came up in this thread is that the religious organizations in question accepted some form of Federal Aid.

Here's the thing, once you accept Federal or State Aid, in the form of vouchers, grants, loans, etc. you open up a whole Pandora's box of things you have to do to keep that aid flowing. That in particular is why I'm against most voucher programs, as once you start that money flowing towards Churches, I guarantee that the red tape will follow.

That is not completely true.

Many religious organizations accept federal aid, and are not forced to compromise their values.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the NLRB is right.

The role of churches is NOT to become something other than a church.

A church founded university that is not ENTIRELY focused on matters religious is NOT a church, it is a university of higher education.

That is a big fail. I know that in NY religious institutions serve regularly in nonreligious function. Shelters, Pantry's, Food Banks, Soup Kitchens, Schools, State Special Education Schools, Charter Schools, Colleges, in which the Property is used. Religious Articles are covered up or removed so the space is neutral. Neither the Local, State, or Federal Authorities have had a problem with that. Keep stirring up shit though.

If a Church sets up a Soup Kitchen, are they responsible to the Health Dept. or not?

Yes, but that does not make them responsible to everything else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah that is a good point, edjax, one that I cannot entirely dismiss as irrelevant.

But the point of freedom of religion is to keep RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

When a church goes into another business other than devine worship, it ought to be subjec tto the same laws as every other organization in THAT business.

The problem is deciding when a Church has stepped outside the boundry of what CHURCHES are first and foremost all about.

When a Church is in the business of providing SECULAR education, then it is no longer JUST a church.

Hogwash! If my church is forbidden to teach me how to live my faith in concordane with the world around me (secular) it is forbidden to teach it's doctrine.

If I go to Boston College (Jesuit, I think, isn't it?) and major in GEOLOGY, am I studying religion?

No, I am not.

Ergo, that instiution is NOT exclusively doing CHURCH business, it is now about the business of being and educational institute.

As an institution of higher learning it ought to be subject to the exact same laws as every other insitute of higher learning.

Now if BC ONLY taught theology, THEN of course, the government ought to stay the hell out of its business.

But it ain't so let's not pretend otherwise, okay?

Does that mean that church schools cannot teach non religious subjects? Boston College requires that you study theology as part of its core curriculum, that makes it a religious college, even if it actually teaches science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's the basis of the suit? I can't seem to find it. If we're talking worker protections, as implied by the fact that the NLRB is involved, how does that amount to interference with religion?

Peter N. Kirstein » Blog Archive » St Xavier University v NLRB in Adjunct Faculty Efforts to Unionize

It reffers to the right of the school to reject unionization of the educators because it is a church (private) school. The disagreement is that the school should not have non-catholic educators if it want to retain the priveledge of a church (private) school. At least that is what I get from it.

What about their being a religiously-backed institution makes them immune to labor laws?

The fact that the labor laws in question specifically exempt them might have something to do with it, but that is just me being nitpicky.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unalienable Rights where there is the Will to Enforce them, be it through the Individual, the Group, the Society, or the Government. They actually exist even where there is no Law or Government. It is for Good Government to Recognize Inalienable Right's, to Establish and Defend them. Yes, there is no force of law behind the Declaration of Independence, only Intention. Agreed. The Declaration also establishes that there is a limit in principle and Theory, to the Jurisdiction and Power of Government, that there are boundaries. The Mechanism created to serve the will of the People, does not take precedent over the will of the people. It is not of more value than that which it was purposed to serve. Measure twice, cut once still applies, so does accountability and transparency. Every machine needs tuning and maintenance.

Sometimes there is a choice to be made between Principle and Government, just like every other creation, there is a danger of going astray. We may argue over what going astray is, or where the line is crossed, granted, let's try to agree that we do need to be vigilant about what gets imposed on others by mandate, and qualify it, and limit the harm that is done.

An unalienable right is a right that no government can give to you or take from you. It is a right granted us by the mere fact that we are a sentient being that we think independently of one another and can reason.

A few exceptions of unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.

An inalienable right is a right that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.

There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.

Governments exist to restrict rights, not grant them. Why do some people have problems with that concept?

 

[editec]

Silly debate.

You have something invisible (called rights) that cannot be taken away from you.

Show me any right you think you have and I'll explain to you how easily any idiot with gun can take it away from you.

You have rights within a society by law, at best!

And those only exist assuming that the society is fair and just.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is more "Super PAC" union crap! Obama and his Justice department are Big Brother fascists if ever there were any! He is using organized labor to strike at the very freedoms our nation was founded on whenever it suits his purposes.

How exactly are Obama and his DOJ ‘fascist’? Do you even understand what the term means? Obviously not if you apply it to Obama. And how exactly is organized labor ‘threatening’ our fundamental freedoms?

Then THEY need to go to work at non PRIVATE institution!

By what authority?

Why should they be compelled to leave their jobs because their employer doesn’t want to be subject to labor laws?

There's no such thing as "unalienable" rights, such as you describe. Absent a government rights don't exist. You may think you have rights granted to you, but if I'm stronger, the only right you have is to sit meekly by while I take all you have.

They are indeed inalienable – codified by the Constitution, that they may be violated doesn’t mitigate this fact.

It’s not enough for President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board to target the Boeing plant in South Carolina. Now the NLRB thinks it can tell a church school when it’s not religious enough.

The issue isn’t labor laws as applied to religious institutions per se but whether or not certain employees meet the standard to be potentially exempt from regulation. The question is: does the NLRB have the authority to make that determination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issue isn’t labor laws as applied to religious institutions per se but whether or not certain employees meet the standard to be potentially exempt from regulation. The question is: does the NLRB have the authority to make that determination.

Actually, that is not an issue at all. You claim to believe the Supreme Court can rewrite the Constitution, yet you conveniently ignore decisions that you do not like.

NLRB V. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, 440 U. S. 490 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Thanks for proving you are a partisan hack, and are just being pretentious when you point to legal decisions.