President Donald Trump says the government’s “attacks on communities of faith” are over as he hosts a dinner celebrating evangelical Christian leaders at the White House.
Trump says the government in recent years has tried to undermine religious freedom, but those days are over.
He’s pointing to efforts by his administration to secure the release of imprisoned pastors and limit federal funding for abortion providers.UPDATE: Here is the full text of the President's remarks.
In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.In the letter, Archbishop Vigano concludes:
Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick's abuses and resign along with all of them.
By singling out religious schools, and religious schools only, for discrimination, Maine violates the religious freedom and equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 7-2 majority in last year’s Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer decision, excluding a church “from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution…and cannot stand.” Armed with this recent decision, IJ and FLI’s clients intend to vindicate the principle that government programs cannot discriminate against religion.
At the August 2, 2018 motions hearing, counsel for both the Government and Defendants represented to the Court that Defendants' RFRA claim as a defense to criminal prosecution was an issue of first impression and that the applicability of RFRA to federal criminal law was an open question.... Subsequent to the hearing, however, the Government filed Supplemental Briefing that acknowledged RFRA's applicability to criminal prosecutions and its availability as a defense.... The Government now contends that Defendants' actions ... were not religious in nature and ... even assuming they were, the Government contends it has a compelling interest in protecting Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay....Brunswick News reports on the court's Order.
Officials stressed they were not rejected based on their religion but for their lack of respect for gender equality.[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
A Christian group has begun rallying churches and abortion opponents against the measure, saying that limiting damage awards in lawsuits sets an arbitrary value on human life, contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principles of justice and helping the poor....
The Family Council, which championed Arkansas’ ban on gay marriages, is organizing meetings with church leaders to call for the measure’s rejection.
“The Bible is full of references to justice, and [the proposal] creates an environment where the powerful can tip the scales of justice against everybody else, but especially the poor,” Jerry Cox, the Family Council’s head, said at a recent breakfast meeting with pastors.
Pastors were handed informational booklets emblazoned with the words “Don’t Put A Price Tag On Human Life.” Flyers left on each table offered attendees inserts for their church bulletins.
A Massachusetts Superior Court judge last week ordered Bedford’s Historic District Commission to allow the First Parish Church to install solar panels on the roof of the sanctuary. In what could be a precedent-setting decision, the congregation can install panels to generate electricity in keeping with a principle of “climate justice.” John Gibbons, senior minister of the church, said in a press release, “This ruling makes it possible for us to give more than lip service to our religious values, to walk our talk and to live in greater harmony with the rhythms of nature.”
In other words, parishioners believed they needed to do something to cut carbon emissions to protect the earth. That principle of their faith overruled a strict adherence to preservation of the historic character of their 200-year-old building.
make the point that the First Amendment will not yield to Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce so-called blasphemy laws here in the United States, whether through threats of violence or through the actions of complicit government officials.In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that WMATA did not engage in viewpoint discrimination in rejecting the ad. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky , according to the majority, raised an additional issue that the parties should have the opportunity to brief:
whether the discretion vested in a government official to permit or prohibit speech is “guided by objective, workable standards.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1891.... We must determine whether Guideline 9 is so broad as to provide WMATA with no meaningful constraint upon its exercise of the power to squelch.....
The parties’ briefs predate the decision in Mansky. Yet Mansky invites arguments about whether Guideline 9 is capable of reasoned application.Judge Henderson dissented, arguing that the suit should be dismissed on mootness grounds. WTOP reports on the decision.