Religious Freedom Lately: Open Doors Report, Booze On Planes And Title IX

Female soldiers in North Korea. Creative Commons photo.

WASHINGTON— Violence at the Capitol Building dominated headlines across the country last week, and religion news was no exception.

But while most of our media dissected the spiritual aspect of QAnon, investigated pastors’ links to the rioters, and examined the Christian symbols present in photos from the protest, smaller but important stories slipped through.

This week we look at the ongoing persecution of Christians worldwide with a report from Open Doors. You won’t be surprised by the worst nation in the world for Christians, but the details might intrigue you.

We also look at the complicated case of a Muslim flight attendant seeking exemption from her duties of handling alcohol — her union has made the issue a lot more difficult.

Finally, a court case surrounding a lesbian teaching at a Catholic school has opened a discussion of what exactly a church is and is not culpable for in the hiring of a minister — in this case, a music director.

Surprising Nobody, North Korea Is The Worst Nation For Christians

Open Doors, a non-profit organization focused on combating Christian persecution around the world, released their 2021 report on the most dangerous nations for believers in Christianity.

North Korea topped the list for the 20th year in a row. The hermit kingdom is known for its strict and unforgiving ban on religious worship, and widespread executions of Christians is well-known.

“Most Christians are unable to meet with other believers, and have to keep their faith entirely hidden. There are even stories of husbands and wives not knowing, for many years, that their spouse was also a Christian,” the report states.

However, despite the violence and high risk of continued worship, a small but resilient population of Christians still exists within North Korea.

Open Doors reports that “secret workers are keeping 90,000 North Korean believers alive with vital food and aid through safe houses and networks in China, as well as providing Bibles, training through Christian radio broadcasting, and providing shelter and training for North Korean refugees in China.”

Afghanistan and Libya occupy the second and third spots on the list, respectively. Violence against Christians in both nations is attributed to “clan oppression,” or the practice of large family communities disowning or even murdering members that convert away from Islam.

“If a Christian’s family discovers they have converted, their family, clan or tribe has to save its “honor” by disowning the believer, or even killing them,” Open Doors writes about Afghanistan. “Christians from a Muslim background can also be sectioned in a psychiatric hospital, because leaving Islam is considered a sign of insanity.”

Large areas of Afghanistan are also controlled by the Taliban, making open practice or gathering of believers virtually impossible.

Someone Has To Serve The Drinks

The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a lower court’s decision in the case of a Muslim flight attendant who filed a lawsuit against her employer over the handling of alcohol in the workplace.

Charee Stanley began working for ExpressJet as a flight attendant in 2013, a few weeks after converting to Islam. As part of her job responsibilities, Stanley was expected to serve alcohol to patrons in tandem with other flight attendants. Due to spiritual guidance from her imam, Stanley was uncomfortable with handling the drinks.

According to court documents:

Stanley spoke to Inflight Operations Manager Melanie Brown the following day. Because Stanley's next assigned flight was "within minutes" of departing, Brown suggested Stanley ask the other flight attendant to handle all of the alcoholic beverages prepared and served during the flight. At this point, the parties' accounts diverge. Stanley claimed she understood this would be a permanent solution going forward, while Brown thought this was a temporary accommodation for ‘that specific flight’ because Stanley ‘was beginning to observe Ramadan.’

Stanley continued to ask fellow attendants to handle the full service of alcohol for all subsequent flights with ExpressJet. After several complaints from other flight attendants, ExpressJet held a meeting with Stanley to discuss options moving forward for employment.

Stanley additionally claimed that while serving as a flight attendant and not serving alcohol, coworkers made disparaging remarks about her reading foreign spiritual books. She also alleged that her hijab became a point of harassment.

ExpressJet offered three options to Stanley: agree to prepare and serve alcohol, take leave and attempt to find an alternative position within the company, or voluntarily resign. 

Stanley rejected all three options and submitted a formal request for accommodation similar to her previous practices of refraining from handling alcohol on flights. After a failure to reach agreement, Stanley filed a discrimination suit.

The Supreme Court denied review and upheld a lower court’s ruling that because the issue at the center of the suit implemented Stanley’s union and their collective bargaining agreement, the dispute should be arbitrated under the federal Railway Labor Act.

Ministerial Exemptions Apply To Workplace Politics, Too

A district court in Pennsylvania sided with a Catholic school after a teacher filed an employment discrimination action against it related to her sexuality.

Noel Koenke filed suit against her former employer, St. Joseph’s University, where she served as Assistant Director for Music and Worship until 2017. Koenke is a homosexual woman, and sued the school under Title IX for discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

Koenke alleged that she was subjected to “a hostile work environment and tangible adverse employment actions, which included, inter alia, the imposition of impermissible conditions on her continued employment, impermissible differential treatment regarding the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment, and a constructive discharge."

Koenke did not dispute her role as a “minister” under the law. However, she contended that her ministerial exemption did not absolve her employer from culpability for non-tangible discrimination -- in this case for a hostile work environment.

The court ruled in favor of St. Joseph’s University, writing that “hostile work environment claims, particularly those brought pursuant to Title VII or Title IX, clearly fall within the scope of cases banned by the ministerial exception.” 

The court also noted that "other federal courts have held that the ministerial exception applies to non-tangible employment discrimination claims, such as hostile work environment claims."

Timothy Nerozzi is a writer and editor from northeastern Pennsylvania. He covers religious issues with a focus on the Catholic Church and Japanese society and culture.