What do you think? Read more here.
I admit that this is as far from tasteful as one can get but I also think that if this were a statue of any other character then the teen would not be facing prison time.
What do you think? Read more here.
0 Comments
Thinking about ceremonial deism, a major component of religion/government conflict.
"[A] reference to religion is not more likely to be harmless merely because it is 'ceremonial.' In many circumstances (such as in schools, as we see in the Ahlquist scenario), ceremonies are where citizens learn how to define patriotism. If we are defining patriotism according to religious language and beliefs, how can we say that the 'ceremony' is harmless, or that the language has 'lost its ...significant religious content'?" The Preamble to the Iowa Constitution reads: "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa..." The Preamble doesn't really do much. Does the wording bother you? Is it harmful? Is it something that ought to be changed? Would it be different if it specifically referenced Jesus? Why or why not? Maybe this is a conversation worth having in our first official meeting this year. What do you think? Read the full article here. "'The decision is unfortunate in that the judge did not take seriously the ramifications of polygamy, which are the the oppression of women and children – it’s just the way the system works,' said Marci Hamilton, a professor at Cardozo School of Law."
It's difficult for me to think about this right now. I am inclined to agree with Hamilton, but I read a book over the summer which suggested the nation's polygamy ban was a result of religious discrimination (people thought Mormonism was too novel and weird to be protected). This article doesn't really get into the legal arguments... maybe that would help me figure out where I fall on this. Where are you falling? Read the full article here. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act "prohibits a state or local government from substantially burdening the religious exercise of an institutionalized person, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means available to further that interest." It is, in effect, the same as RFRA - the law on which the 'Hobby Lobby' decision rested.
I'm skeptical of both RFRA and RLUIPA, but this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case in favor of Holt, at least from the way this article describes it. Maybe the case is more nuanced than it seems. What do you think? Read the full article here. "In a 2011 investigation, Livingston claimed that the sessions were held to help cure a range of issues including drug addictions and yeast infections. A judge ruled Livingston's claim was not believable and the evidence suggested 'knowing and reckless conduct which creates an immediate risk of physical harm.'"
His religious beliefs aren't believable? Am I misreading that? What do you think? Click here to read the full article. This is really interesting; and not too surprising, either. It's nearly impossible to fight de facto discrimination. Only de jure discrimination tends to be outlawed, and that means blatant activity only. There is no recourse for the re-segregation of schools because it's allegedly done by free choice. So what is "the garb of rationality"? What can we expect to see more of? Is it likely the "animus test" will doom gay marriage if it reaches SCOTUS?
What do you think? Click here to read the full article. This woman is will to make a martyr of herself so as to incite more discussion of a "war again Christianity"- a figment of Fox New's imagination. What this woman is truly doing is to alienate her fellow citizens in her attempt to turn our democracy into a theocracy.
Click here to read the full article. "Alito said the court might hear the case, but not now, according to McElroy.
"The lawyer said conservatives don't think the establishment clause -- which prevents the government from creating a national religion or church -- is very clear and that its tests are not working very well." What do you think? Click here to read the full article and watch the video. |