Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Airline Settles With EEOC Over Failure To Grant Religious Accommodation
County Reverses Order On Removing Stars and Angels From Christmas Trees
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
"War on Christmas" Subsides
Because the furor was media-driven in the first place, media mentions seem as good a metric as any. After 2005, Google Trends shows a continuous decline in searches for and mentions of the "war on Christmas." Media mentions of a "war on Christmas" have fallen steadily as well, according to Nexis: There were 431 articles mentioning it as of Dec. 17, 2006; 187 by that time in 2007; 155 in 2008; and 97 in 2009. Even Fox News, the network that pushed the story in the winter of 2005, has essentially stopped talking about it: At this time in 2005, Fox had aired 80 episodes explicitly referring to the "war on Christmas"; in 2006, there were 24; in 2007, 11; in 2008, five; and three so far this year. The departure in 2008 of Fox News host John Gibson, who penned The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot To Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, may have had something to do with it.
As a result, some groups dedicated to secularism and the separation of church and state — the anti-Christmas warriors — have gotten fewer invitations to debate the issue on radio and TV.
Baghdad Conference Focuses On Future of Iraqi Christians
Defendant Gets Light Sentence From Tribal Court For Bald Eagle Act Violation
Obama Gives Christmas Message To Children At D.C. Boys and Girls Club
THE PRESIDENT: I think one thing that's important to remember is that, even though there's a lot of fun at Christmas, you know, you got -- especially when it's snowy like this, so it's pretty outside, you got the Christmas tree, you got the Christmas cookies, you've got presents. You know, I think that the most important thing is just to remember why we celebrate Christmas.
CHILD: I know!
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know?
CHILD: The birth of baby Jesus.
THE PRESIDENT: The birth of baby Jesus, and what he symbolizes for people all around the world is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect. And so I just hope that spirit of giving that's so important at Christmas, I hope all of you guys remember that as well. You know, it's not just about getting gifts but it's also doing something for other people....
CHILD: I know why we give gifts to other people.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is that?
CHILD: Because the three wise men gave gifts to baby Jesus.
THE PRESIDENT: That's exactly right.... You know, the three wise men, if you think about it, here are these guys, they have all this money, they've got all this wealth and power, and yet they took a long trip to a manger just to see a little baby. And it just shows you that just because you're powerful or you're wealthy, that's not what's important. What's important is what's -- the kind of spirit you have.
So I hope everybody has a spirit of kindness and thoughtfulness, and everybody is really thinking about how can they do for other people -- treating them well, because that's really the spirit of Christmas....THE PRESIDENT: ...[T]he thing that I want everybody to remember, the most important message I can leave is, is that you guys have so much potential -- one of you could end up being President some day. But it's only going to happen if you stay focused and you work hard in school.... That's the most important thing you can do.
Ethnic Limits For Political Positions In Bosnian Constitution Struck Down By European Court
Attorney Claims Religious Rights of Ft. Hood Shooting Suspect Are Being Infringed
Cuban Cardinal Will Give Christmas Message On State TV
Vatican Will Require Permission For Use of Pope's Name, Photo, Coat of Arms
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Bishops Continue To Oppose Senate Health Care Bill-- Looking At Why
At issue is nine pages of language (pp. 38-46 of Manager's Amendment) on how abortion coverage will be handled. It provides (1) any state may elect to bar abortion coverage in policies offered through the Exchange in that state; (2) elsewhere each insurance company may decide whether or not its plans will cover abortion services; (3) if a plan does cover abortions, no federal subsidy may be used to pay for that coverage; (4) instead the insurer must collect a separate payment from the insured for that coverage and segregate those funds for use for abortion services.
The Bishops' concern seems to be that under this arrangement, abortion coverage will still be in some policies that receive government subsidies, so long as a separate check is written for the part of the premium applicable to that coverage. Instead, according to a Dec. 14 letter from the Bishops, they want language in the House bill that was proposed as an amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson, but was defeated by the Senate. That language provides that no federal funds could be used "to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion coverage." After that loss, Sen. Nelson negotiated the language in the Manager's Amendment and according to AP argued that the differences were "about a staple." By that he means that the disagreement is over whether abortion coverage-- which would be paid for separately in either case-- would be a part of the subsidized policy (not acceptable to the Bishops) or in a separate rider stapled to it (acceptable to the Bishops).
As an aside, the U.S. is not the only country struggling with the abortion issue. Interfax reported yesterday that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed amendments to the country's Federal Advertising Law banning the advertising of abortions in a wide variety of media and locations. Many of the restrictions seem to be aimed at preventing advertising of abortions to minors.
NY Court Upholds Bifurcated Arbitration Procedure By Rabbinical Tribunal
Mexico City Approves Gay Marriage, Adoptions
5th Circuit: Town Not Liable For Police Officer's Infringement of Preachers' Rights
There is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, so another basis must be found if the town is to be held liable. The court rejected three different bases for liability that were urged by plaintiffs. It concluded that Columbia did not have a custom or practice of applying inapplicable statutes to limit the preachers’ rights to demonstrate because of the graphic nature of their signs; 2) the town did not ratify the police officer's decision to violate the preachers’ rights; and 3) Columbia did not have a policy of failing to adequately train its police officers on the rights of protesters. AP yesterday reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)
Indian Court Orders Participation For Dalit Village In Hindu Festival
County Removes Stars and Angels From Its Christmas Trees
Anglican Priest Sues His Attorney For Malpractice After He Loses Fraud Suit
In his malpractice suit, Moyer claims that his former lawyer, John H. Lewis, Jr., and his law firm, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, mishandled his deposition and failed to present certain key evidence to the jury. The law firm has counterclaimed alleging that the malpractice suit was brought in bad faith. Attorney Lewis, who had been close friends with Moyer, handled the trial and pre-trial for him pro bono. Now though the law firm's counterclaim includes a claim for $66,000 in unpaid legal fees, apparently for legal work since the trial responding to the lawsuit by the Diocese that is attempting to regain control of Good Shepherd.
6th Circuit Upholds Deportation To Jordan of Christian Couple, Rejecting Persecution Claims
Monday, December 21, 2009
Israel's High Court Finds Alternative To Contempt In Kosher Certification Challenge
Child Support Fight Over Home Schooling and Catholic Beliefs Back In Appeals Court
A second issue involved the wife's contention that she should be able to show that there was an ongoing agreement between her and her husband that she not work outside the home so she could properly raise her children during her visitation times. The court held that the law of the case required exclusion of this evidence since the court of appeals in the original divorce case held that any claimed agreement flowing from the Catholic marriage ceremony is unenforceable under the statute of frauds since it is an agreement made on the consideration of marriage that is not in writing.