forum

This article is a forum in the court Decide in Fulton v Philadelphia.

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is the person in charge of the Conscience Project and was previously the legal counsel of the Catholic Association.

Anti-Catholic paranoia is no longer in the past. When Philadelphia severed its relationship with the Catholic Social Service (a foster care program run by the church), it was equivalent to putting up a “Catholics do not need to apply” sign outside its Public Service Department. City officials asked the agency to recognize same-sex marriage as a prerequisite for social services, but they were unsuccessful. Their request was ruthless (and downright annoying). In a foster care crisis, this disregard for religious beliefs will backfire anyway. And, as the Supreme Court explained on Thursday, this is unconstitutional.

The court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment’s free exercise guarantee. Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out in writing for the court that “CSS only seeks a facility that enables it to continue to serve the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not attempt to impose these beliefs. To anyone else.” He also pointed out that even New York City recognizes that CSS “has been a bright spot in New York City’s foster care system for a long time.” This is a point worth remembering.

The Catholic Church in Philadelphia has a long tradition of caring for children in need. Beginning in the early 1900s, the Catholic Children’s Bureau was established and composed of the Trinity Missionary Sisters, who were the early Catholic pioneers of American social work. Their work continues with the unremitting efforts of the CSS staff. In the 1950s, the city began to promote foster placement.CSS can today as long as Cooperate with the municipal government to place children in foster families.

I submitted a copy About Friends of the Court Supports CSS on behalf of former foster and adoptive parents and former foster children served by Catholic institutions. In the past 40 years, an adoptive parent, Winnie Perry, has raised more than 100 children through CSS. Perry believes that CSS was forced to shut down in Philadelphia as “terrible.” “Too many children need their help,” she exclaimed. Jamie Hill, a former foster child who grew up in a CSS-certified foster family, also stood up for the agency. How did Hill react when he learned that the city had severed ties with the agency? “We are better than this. This problem did not come up suddenly. This is part of the Catholic Church’s eternal teaching. I am really shocked that the government can force a religious organization to do something against their beliefs.”

Strangely, many civil rights organizations support the government in this situation. More importantly, the American Civil Liberties Union-an organization established to defend civil liberties- Representative intervener Who is on the side of the city.New York Times article Recently commented that the organization “risked abandoning its original and unique mission in pursuit of the glory of progress.” Its role is in Fulton Is a perfect example.

In the United States, the existence of many faith-inspired service groups like CSS is under unprecedented threat. This will have a huge impact on the social structure of the United States.The Bridgespan Group recently published a Learn In six samples of cities of different sizes and demographics, it was found that “organizations inspired by faith accounted for 40% of social safety net spending”. The beliefs that motivate the establishment of places of worship are also aligned with “non-profit organizations that seek to transform many of the religious doctrines of charity and caring for those most in need into professional services to communities across the country.”

The pressure of progressive ideas is now found in all levels of the Biden administration, as well as in many state and local governments across the country, and cannot tolerate truly diverse views—especially when these views are inspired Traditional religious teaching. In contrast, courts are reluctant to ignore the basic guarantees of the Constitution.Judgment in FultonLet me remind you that it is consistent.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the court’s decision.They are ready to consider how to deal with the previous decision of the court Employment Division v. Smith. in Smith, The court held that the Constitution did not require facilitation for religious opponents in a neutral, universally applicable law. Alito’s agreement correctly pointed out Smith “Suddenly, the precedent of nearly 40 years was pushed aside.” He argued that the decision was a “serious shelving” and “the time has come for a reexamination.”Justices Amy Connie Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also reserved the possibility of reconsideration. Smith future.

Alito’s 77-page consent will become an important blueprint for the court to review future cases involving religious anti-discrimination laws. And, make no mistake, these cases will come. Not long ago, Alito made a similar contribution to the court’s religious freedom jurisprudence.When the court unanimously decides Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission In 2012, when ruling that the federal discrimination law did not apply to the selection of religious leaders by religious organizations, Alito emphasized in his consent that the court should “pay attention to the functions performed by people working for religious organizations” when determining the status of ministers. He argued that the exception should apply to anyone who “leads a religious organization, performs worship services or important religious ceremonies or ceremonies, or serves as a messenger or teacher of his faith.”His analysis will constitute the court’s Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisi-Beru, Extend the ministerial exception to religious teachers in Catholic parish schools.

At the end of the day, Fulton This is an important condemnation of overzealous government officials who have weaponized anti-discrimination laws against traditional religious beliefs. Prepare for the reaction of dissatisfied progressives.