June 5 the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission struck down the 2024 Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision against Catholic Charities, and, by extension, all religious organizations in that state. The state's highest court had made the arbitrary judgment that Catholic Charities is not “operated primarily for religious purposes” and, therefore, ineligible for an unemployment tax exemption. SCOTUS judged the stat's decision had violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and thus rendered a common sense victory for religious liberty throughout that state. It is part of the liberal and progressive narrowing of the interpretation of religious freedom to include only the narrow exercise of liberty to worship and to exclude other works of religious organizations as not protected -- from schools to charitable works. This trend to try and narrow the protection of religious freedom simply to the gathering for worship and evangelism has been ongoing for some time and flies in the face of history and practice today. It is another example of the egregious nature of those on the left to render illegal things from feeding the hungry to housing the homeless to preaching in public to praying in the streets (as in front of abortion clinics). This narrowing of what is religious and what is not is a threat and a real one to the religious liberty once unquestioned in America. It represents another example of the courts defining in place of the churches what constitutes who they are as churches and what they do.
This is, by the way, what is being appeals in the judgment rendered recently against the LCMS and the false idea that our corporate identity is somehow not who we are—even though it is our own self-declaration in the articles of incorporation, constitution, and bylaws of our Synod. Every overreach by courts to narrow certain religious works or functions from the legal definition of what is “religious” of what is the self-understanding of the churches demands a vigorous opposition and I am happy for this SCOTUS rejection. It should be noted that this court was not located in the traditional liberal enclaves of states and municipalities but in what might be described as the heartland of the US and the generally conservative Midwest. Pay attention folks. Elect people who are opposed to the liberal and progressive attempts to rein in our freedoms.
1 comment:
Although we strive to know the social positions and ethics, as well as the moral and religious beliefs of the people we elect, there are no guarantees that once in office, they will rule unwisely or against the values they profess to believe. Although we have more religious freedom in America than in many other lands, we continue to experience pressure from those who want to secularize the society and place religious faith into a weak and private space. The mere presence of Christianity is anathema to the pluralistic agenda, which seeks a “religion” of its own, a collective man made and Marxist dystopia which serves the needs of the state. For this reason, Christians cannot afford to be lethargic about the mission of the church, which is not simply financial benefits from the the government, but it is about witnessing and declaring the Gospel to a lost generation. Where the government is helpful, it is a blessing indeed, but where the government is “on our shoulders,” this too is as likely. In many parts of the world, the church is continually tested, suppressed, persecuted, hated, and the governments are burdensome, and these flocks of believers continue to thrive under God’s care and grace. Soli Deo Gloria
Post a Comment