Justices Recognize ‘Ministerial Exception’ to Job Bias Laws - NYTimes.com

Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected the Executive Branch arguments that a religious group should be viewed the same as any other organized group of people under civil rights legislation and administration policy. This decision shows that the Constitution clearly protects freedom of religion and trumps the desire of the Congress or the Executive to meddle in non-secular affairs.

"Many religious groups were outraged when the Obama administration argued in support of Ms. Perich, saying this was evidence that the administration was hostile to historically protected religious liberties.


The administration had told the justices that their analysis of Ms. Perich’s case should be essentially the same whether she had been employed by a church, a labor union, a social club or any other group with free-association rights under the First Amendment. That position received withering criticism when the case was argued in October, and it was soundly rejected in Wednesday’s decision."

Toleration and Islamic Law - WSJ.com

This from the Wall Street Journal (Subscription may be required to view the complete article) earlier in the week. The archbishop is far off base to think that more than one legal system can exist in a democracy. England and the other countries with large Muslim populations should be clear and crisp on this issue. Only one legal system is possible in a democracy. Otherwise the democracy begins a slide down slippery slope to chaos or worse.

"The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, earned an unusual rebuke from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week for suggesting that some version of Islamic -- "Shariah" -- law would inevitably be introduced in Britain. Even in rejecting the idea, however, Mr. Brown noted that some aspects of Shariah could be accommodated on a "case-by-case" basis.

This exchange highlights an issue that is fast reaching a boiling point in Britain and other Western countries with increasingly assertive Muslim communities. Can a modern democracy house more than one legal system, even on a limited basis, and remain a democracy as we have come to understand that term over the past two centuries?.."

"...Permitting any portion of the body politic to have its legal rights defined by community, rather than citizenship, would be a giant step backward. It is by no means clear how Western societies could practice such accommodation, even on a limited basis, without undercutting their social compact."

(Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

The Economist piece on the subject skillfully points out the fallacy of creating more than one legal system in a democracy. Acuiescence would play right into the hands of those who would detroy democracy...and the demographics are on the side of the Muslims. Thew archbishop had best keep his mouth shut on this subject.

Toleration and Islamic Law - WSJ.com

Taking Science on Faith - New York Times

In this column by Paul Davies, he argues that science and religion are equally faith-based. Scientists have no explanation why the laws of our universe are what they are and immutable. They can only discover and explain them. He argues that other universes, if they exist could have different laws and the meta-laws that govern existence can only be accepted by faith.

Most scientists have difficulty believing in a Supreme Being that created and set all things in order, yet their reasoning and discovery invariably come up against 'the beginning.' It is irrational for them to say they have not faith when beginnings and 'meta-laws cannot be explained.

Kudos to Davies for writing this cogent piece and to the Times for publishing it.

Taking Science on Faith - New York Times