Stanley Hauerwas: Article Analysis

After reading the likes of Stanley Hauerwas, who bemoaned the supposed loss of church influence in the modern world, it was interesting to read about the continued proliferation of religious exceptions and advantageous. I was quite frankly appalled by some of the rulings that have been given in favour of religious institutions. In many of the cases it seemed as if it was it was not the role of the courts to simply help ‘accommodate or protect’ religious organizations, but rather to grant them immunity and unchallenged free reign over their own practices. To start, I disagree with the logic used by Justice Roberts when he delivered the opinion of the court and ruled in favour of the Hosanna-Tabor Church and School. My first objection is that I do not believe that the church provided

The courts have continually ruled in favour of religious institutions even in cases where they have seemingly dismissed employees for solely because they are ill. As a result of the logic used in the aforementioned ruling nuns that are diagnosed with cancer, or rabbis that contract Parkinson’s disease, can simply be cast aside and left without medical coverage. These loyal and hardworking people, who provided dedicated services to their employers for years, are granted no legal protection. Rabbi Celnik said it so poignantly in the article Where Faith Abides (page 8) – they don’t teach you in rabbinical school that you can’t old or sick or you risk simply becoming a disposable commodity. That the courts would be unwilling to scrutinize religious organizations more closely when dealing with cases involving the dismissal of an employee due to health concerns is not only ignorant but morally reprehensible. It was my understanding that the law was supposed to protect the most vulnerable members of our society against exploitation by powerful interest groups but I guess I was