# Court Dismisses Claims Challenging All-Male Limits On Theology Faculty



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2008)

ADF Alliance Alert » Court Dismisses Claims Challenging All-Male Limits On Theology Faculty


----------



## turmeric (Mar 24, 2008)

Nice!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 24, 2008)

Good. Glad to see Paige Paterson had the cajones to stand by his convictions.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 24, 2008)




----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2008)

joshua said:


> And furthermore, why is it the Court's/State's/Government's business to meddle with anyway? I'm glad for the ruling, I suppose, but I'm very disappointed that the courts, _et al_ have _*any*_ jurisdiction over at all.



It revolved around an employment lawsuit. The court basically ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in a seminary/church employment matter.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 24, 2008)

Joshua,

Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions. 

It's comming folks. Most assuredly.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 24, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > And furthermore, why is it the Court's/State's/Government's business to meddle with anyway? I'm glad for the ruling, I suppose, but I'm very disappointed that the courts, _et al_ have _*any*_ jurisdiction over at all.
> ...



Thanks. I actually have a similar case heading for summary judgment hearing in a couple of weeks. This decision applies the same argument I'm using. I'll bring it up in oral argument.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 24, 2008)

No, I'm not missing the point. I know the law should protect the church, but the fact that it does now is only a fleeting remant of the true meaning behind the laws of our land. Just as every other piece of jurisprudence considered archaic by our liberalized judicial and legislative systems has been replaced with garbage that fits their agenda to enslave the public to governmental power, this too will be swept away to enslave the church to the will of the National government.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 24, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



I wanna help.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 24, 2008)

Zenas said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Yes, I hear you are a star at oral argument. It would be fun to have you. But it's already been briefed and I think it will be hard to get you admitted to the Washington bar by Friday after next, even _pro hace vice_.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 24, 2008)

Awwww shucks!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > victorbravo said:
> ...



C'mon, Vic! Surely you have some photocopies that could be made, or memos to be proofread!

After all, what are young associates for?


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 25, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Joshua,
> 
> Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions.
> 
> It's comming folks. Most assuredly.



Zenas,

Would this apply even in a case where the seminary / church under question were not a creature of the state? For example, if the seminary weren't organized under state law, would they be under the jurisdiction which they often find themselves under?

Adam


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua,
> ...



Incorporation has nothing to do with control. That is something espoused by "the church must never incorporate" types. Think about it. Can the courts rule on partnerships? Of course. How about a foreign entity? Of course.

Law are applied outside of direct jurisdiction. The protection of the Church is to be found in the 1st Amendment, not in incorporation or jurisdictional theory.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 25, 2008)

This brings up another question.
If accreditors can accept and decline who they wish based on criteria that would be acceptable to the government (like a quota for women), would the seminary have the same "cajones" when faced with losing accreditation?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2008)

But I think the question larryjf is if the State can force religious institutions to fit those quotas. See Geneva College v. State of PA concerning Geneva's right to make being a Christian a requirement for hiring and the right of Geneva to post job opportunities on a State-run job links website. The courts finally ruled that the State has no right to deny opportunity to companies who want to post job openings on a state-run website because of the colleges religious convictions.


----------



## reformedcop (Mar 25, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Joshua,
> 
> Our law doesn't function that way. Fortunately, the law protects the Church, for now, from being forced to violate it's own religious views and adopt the secular, which is what would happen were this court to hold otherwise. They would force the Seminary to abandon religious conviction and adopt secular religious views regarding women in teaching positions.
> 
> It's comming folks. Most assuredly.



Unfortunately  The writing is on the wall.


----------

