By Michael D. Peabody Like it or not, the GOP Primary season seems to be winding down. Mitt Romney is emerging as the clear winner, and while there may be […]
The real sleeper issue here, as it is with much of the political warfare of the present day, is money. Liberty magazine has consistently warned church organizations against taking state money. We have from the very beginning of the Faith-Based Initiative of the previous administration (an initiative still alive and kicking against the First Amendment establishment prick) warned that it is inimical to church-state separation for public monies to be used to advance any particular faith view. So it would seem a little ungrateful to the public purse for a church to object when the state applies generally applicable regulations to an operation it might tend to see as its pocket money project.
By Jason Hines – I would like to say that Franklin Graham’s appearance on “Morning Joe” was unique in this political season. On Tuesday, Graham was asked whether he thought […]
I think we have to start at the most basic point – what do we mean when we say “Christian nation?” Part of what makes the notion of a Christian nation unworkable is that I don’t think Christians in America (or anywhere else for that matter) could ever agree on what a Christian nation should be. If Christians can’t agree on what it is, how could the ever actualize it? In some of the comments on left on the Facebook page, some have noted that a Christian nation is impossible because of Christ’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:35-37) While this argument has merit, I mention it only to make the point that it would be hard to actualize a Christian nation if you had a contingent of Christians saying that having a nation is against the very premise of Christianity. In order to address the idea of what a Christian nation is, we have to define both what a nation is and what it means to be Christian.
In ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position to where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.
As it now stands, churches and charities are welcome to speak truth to power on the issues that matter – from opposing human trafficking, to lobbying for workplace accommodation for religious employees, to pursuing justice. Religious organizations just cannot support or oppose particular candidates or political parties. This is a good thing.
Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, held that the “ministerial exception” bars a school teacher from bringing employment discrimination claims against her […]
In the January/February 2012 issue of The Atlantic, Cullen Murphy writes about the history of torture and relates it to current events. Excerpt: “The new science of interrogation is not, […]
NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty addresses this question. Here is an excerpt followed by a link to the article: Americans’ religious liberties are under attack – or at least that’s what […]
On August 30, 2011, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” (Int. 632-A) into law clarifying what requirements employers are required to meet to demonstrate […]