Search

Results

How far should free speech go?

03 Oct 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“Do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,” counsels this Sunday’s second reading. Hate speech by an infamous Kansas church group whose leader clearly knows no shame may be the hot-button case of record during the U.S. Supreme Court term that opens this Friday. When Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed in Anbar province in Iraq in 2006, Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr. of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church showed up with his small band of followers at the fallen Marine’s funeral at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. They were not there to mourn but to insult--or exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, they say. Church members held up signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell." Among other things, Phelps' self-styled church preaches that God is punishing America because of its tolerance for homosexuality, especially in the military. Phelps also posted an "epic poem" online titled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder," which among other things tells his parents, "You raised him for the devil." The fallen Marine’s father sued. Albert Snyder said the Phelps' protests aggravated his diabetes and depression and that he vomited when he read the "epic poem." Snyder prevailed on his claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and won a large damage award, but that ruling was reversed on appeal. There is, not surprisingly, a groundswell of support for Snyder's case. U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, minority leader Mitch McConnell, and 40 other Senators--ranging from Barbara Boxer on the left to David Vitter on the right--have signed a friend-of-the court brief urging the court to reverse the lower court’s decision and reinstate the verdict against Phelps. Another brief is signed by the attorneys general of 48 states and the District of Columbia. But the question remains, will the Supreme Court--historically reluctant to restrict speech, even offensive speech--rule for Snyder or leave him with a lament similar to that of Habakkuk’s in the first reading: ”I cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not intervene.' "? Source: An article by Adam Cohen for TIME

supreme court freedom of speech us supreme court free speech albert snyder westboro baptist church fred w phelps matthew snyder first amendment

Restricted
President praises mettle of Medal of Freedom honorees

20 Feb 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“So let no one boast about human beings,” writes Saint Paul to the early church at Corinth in this Sunday’s epistle, adding, “the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God.” President Barack Obama nevertheless found good cause to praise 15 Americans, including a former president, when presenting them with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in a ceremony Tuesday. The award, which is the highest civilian honor the U.S. government bestows, is given to individuals who have made "especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors," according to the White House. Former president George H.W. Bush, Sr. was among those honored. "We honor George Herbert Walker Bush for service to America that spanned nearly 70 years . . . . His life is a testament that public service is a noble calling," the president said. "It was the steady diplomatic hand of President Bush that made possible an achievement once thought impossible--ending the Cold War without firing a shot," Obama said. Recipients don't speak at the ceremony; the president delivers a speech that singles out each person's achievements and then awards the medals. Obama also honored NBA Hall of Famer Bill Russell; cellist Yo-Yo Ma; billionaire investor Warren Buffett; poet Maya Angelou; John H. Adams, cofounder of the Natural Resources Defense Council; and John J. Sweeney, former president of the AFL-CIO. Rounding out the list of honorees were artist Jasper Johns; Gerda Weissmann Klein, a writer and Holocaust survivor; Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader in the civil rights movement; Tom Little, an optometrist killed by the Taliban in August who received the honor posthumously; Sylvia Mendez, a Latino civil rights activist; German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who was unable to attend); St. Louis Cardinals' Hall of Famer Stan Musial; and Jean Kennedy Smith, an advocate for the disabled. An article by Perry Bacon, Jr. for the Washington Post

barack obama presidential medal of freedom george hw bush

Restricted
Supreme Court views violent videos as protected speech

03 Jul 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

This Sunday’s first reading promises that the savior will banish instruments of violence such as the warrior’s bow and declare peace to the nations. On Monday the highest court in the nation ruled that the sale or rental of violent video games to minors cannot be banished from the marketplace, striking down a California law that attempted to do so. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the California law violates the First Amendment. It was the latest ruling by the high court to take a broad view of free-speech rights. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his 18-page opinion. The decision scrambled the court's typical ideological lineup. Scalia, a conservative, was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and three justices on the court's more liberal wing--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately in favor of the same outcome, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, but the two expressed some disagreement with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer filed separate dissents. Scalia said that as far as the First Amendment is concerned, the viewing of violent videogames was essentially the same as reading books. "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," he wrote. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones." Alito and Roberts, while agreeing with the result, questioned the breadth of the majority's opinion. "The court is far too quick to dismiss the possibility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of playing violent video games) may be very different from anything that we have seen before," Alito wrote. The church’s perspective on violent videos was perhaps summed up by Cardinal William Keeler, former archbishop of Baltimore and a U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Communications consultant, in an interview several years ago. “The media's escalating use of graphic violence in speech and action” has desensitized many to the harm of such exposure, he said. “Families need to protect their homes. They wouldn't welcome visitors who trashed their homes, and they shouldn't welcome visitors through media who trash their minds.” Sources: Articles by Jess Bravin for the Wall Street Journal, Brett Molina for USA TODAY,Alan Liptak for the New York Times, and USCCB.ORG/comm/keeler.shtml

Violence Children video games supreme court freedom of speech first amendment antonin scalia minors william keeler

Restricted
Filipino Catholics' outrage forces art exhibit shutdown

14 Aug 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday’s reading from the Book of Isaiah, the Lord promises to “bring to my holy mountain” “all who keep the sabbath free from profanation.” An art exhibit at the state-run Cultural Center of the Philippines that combined Christian symbols with sexual objects struck many in this heavily Catholic country as profane. It was shut down this week after it provoked heated debate as well as threats and vandalism. The decision by the center’s board of directors Tuesday came after former first lady and art patron Imelda Marcos joined politicians and Roman Catholic church leaders in denouncing the exhibit. The board said it made the decision because of “an increasing number of threats to persons and property,” including the artists and cultural center staff. The exhibit by contemporary Filipino artists including Mideo Cruz prompted heated debate about freedom of expression, with President Benigno Aquino II describing it as offensive to the 85 percent of Filipinos who, like him, are Christian. Aquino said he reminded the cultural center that freedoms should be ennobling, and “when you stoke conflict, that is not an ennobling activity.” One sculpture portrayed Christ as Mickey Mouse while a collage combined an image of Christ with pictures of celebrities, commercial products, and characters from children’s TV shows. Condoms, rosaries, and wooden sexual symbols adorned the wall. Source: An article by the Associated Press

philippines art exhibitions freedom of expression cultural center of the philippines mideo cruz benigno aquino ii imelda marcos

Restricted
Immigration policies under fire

21 Aug 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Leaders face the challenge of modeling their leadership on God and of acting in ways pleasing to God, says Prepare the Word’s “Who’s listening” reflection on this Sunday’s readings. An Episcopal bishop, a Methodist bishop, and a Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop in Alabama have sued to overturn a harsh new state immigration law on the basis that it violates their right to free exercise of religion. The suit argues that the new legislation would “make it a crime to follow God’s command to be Good Samaritans.” Since June, when Republican Gov. Robert Bentley signed an immigration enforcement statute critics and supporters alike called the toughest in the country, the opposition has been vocal and constant. Protesters have marched, anxious farmers and contractors have confronted lawmakers, and the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups have sued and been backed by groups including teachers’ unions and 16 foreign countries. On August 1 the U.S. Justice Department joined the fray, contending, as it did in a similar suit in Arizona, that the state law preempts federal authority to administer and enforce immigration requirements. The same day, the four bishops sued. “The law,” said Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile, “attacks our core understanding of what it means to be a church.” While church leaders have spoken out against similar laws elsewhere, Alabama is the only state where senior church leaders have gone so far in formal, organized opposition. But the mandate in Alabama, a state the Pew Hispanic Center estimates is home to 120,000 illegal immigrants, goes further than any other. The law makes it a crime to transport, harbor, or rent property to people who are known to be in the country illegally, and it renders any contracts with illegal immigrants null. To some church leaders--who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services, or perform marriages and baptisms--the legislation essentially criminalizes basic parts of their Christian ministry. Framers of the law say that interpretation is a broad exaggeration. The provisions, they say, clearly pertain to human traffickers or employers actively seeking to skirt the law. Churches or people simply acting as Good Samaritans were not intended as targets of the statute, they say, nor would they be singled out in practice. Meanwhile, a federal program that is central to President Barack Obama’s immigration enforcement strategy is also stirring controversy, including protests by Latino and immigrant organizations in six cities in recent days who have stepped up their confrontation with the administration over the fast pace of deportations. Bearing signs that said “Stop Ripping Families Apart,” the protesters called for an end to the “Secure Communities” program, which they said had led to the deportation of victims who reported domestic violence to the police and to parents of American citizen children. Sources: Articles by Campbell Robertson and Julia Preston for the New York Times

barack obama freedom of religion immigration law secure communities immigration policy free exercise of religion thomas rodi alabama

Restricted
Religious liberty under fire, Catholic bishops assert

20 Nov 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Images of the Lord as shepherd dominate the readings for this Sunday’s solemnity of Christ the King. The psalmist, for example, wants for nothing because the Lord is the shepherd. The American Catholic bishops, in their role as shepherds of the U.S. church, expressed their dissatisfaction at the state of religious liberty in the nation during their annual three-day fall assembly in Baltimore this week. The psalmist says that the shepherd “guides me in right paths.” The bishops, however, feel stymied in their efforts to help guide the debate over moral issues in the public square. Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., the chairman of the bishops’ newly established committee on religious liberty, said the church would urge priests and laypeople to take up the religious liberty cause. Some commentators have criticized the bishops’ priorities, saying they are playing into the culture wars. John Gehring, Catholic outreach coordinator with Faith in Public Life, a religious advocacy group in Washington, said: “The bishops speak in hushed tones when it comes to poverty and economic justice issues, and use a big megaphone when it comes to abortion and religious liberty issues.” Sources: Articles by Nancy Frazier O’Brien, Mark Pattison, Patricia Zapor, and Carol Zimmermannfor Catholic News Service and Laurie Goodstein for the New York Times

same-sex marriage religious freedom timothy dolan united states conference of catholic bishops religious liberty william e lori contraception

Restricted
Churches criticize government contraceptive ruling

29 Jan 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

We are the people God shepherds, the flock God guides, the psalmist reminds us this Sunday. U.S. bishops, who shepherd dioceses across the nation, are upset with the Obama administration’s decision last Friday that religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and universities, will have to offer a broad range of birth-control coverage to employees. The administration gave the organizations an extra year to comply, and the ruling does not apply to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and some religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, but it comes as a blow to the interests of some religious authorities. “Never before in our U.S. history has the federal government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He spoke at a gathering in Washington, D.C. Monday to observe the annual March for Life. “At issue here . . . is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty,” DiNardo said. In the decision, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule requiring religiously affiliated groups enjoying nonprofit status to provide a broad range of services, from implanted contraceptive devices to the morning-after pill. Many such groups do not presently offer such coverage. “Generally, Christian colleges and organizations find the ruling to be outrageous,” said David Dockery, president of Union University, a school affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. “It puts us in a position of having to support something that we fundamentally oppose.” The Obama administration doesn’t see it that way. "This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "This proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." Religious-affiliated nonprofit organizations, many of which currently do not offer birth control coverage, have until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new rule. Other employers must begin covering the services from August 1, 2012. Sources: Articles by David Morgan for Reuters, Todd Starnes for FoxNews, and the Associated Press and a news release by usccb.org

kathleen sebelius freedom of religion nonprofit organizations contraception freedom of conscience david dockery department of health and human services daniel dinardo birth control

Restricted
Churches criticize government contraceptive ruling

29 Jan 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

We are the people God shepherds, the flock God guides, the psalmist reminds us this Sunday. U.S. bishops, who shepherd dioceses across the nation, are upset with the Obama administration’s decision last Friday that religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and universities, will have to offer a broad range of birth-control coverage to employees. The administration gave the organizations an extra year to comply, and the ruling does not apply to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and some religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, but it comes as a blow to the interests of some religious authorities. “Never before in our U.S. history has the federal government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He spoke at a gathering in Washington, D.C. Monday to observe the annual March for Life. “At issue here . . . is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty,” DiNardo said. In the decision, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule requiring religiously affiliated groups enjoying nonprofit status to provide a broad range of services, from implanted contraceptive devices to the morning-after pill. Many such groups do not presently offer such coverage. “Generally, Christian colleges and organizations find the ruling to be outrageous,” said David Dockery, president of Union University, a school affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. “It puts us in a position of having to support something that we fundamentally oppose.” The Obama administration doesn’t see it that way. "This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "This proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." Religious-affiliated nonprofit organizations, many of which currently do not offer birth control coverage, have until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new rule. Other employers must begin covering the services from August 1, 2012. Sources: Articles by David Morgan for Reuters, Todd Starnes for FoxNews, and the Associated Press and a news release by usccb.org

kathleen sebelius freedom of religion nonprofit organizations contraception freedom of conscience david dockery department of health and human services daniel dinardo birth control

Restricted
Bishop’s comments on president prove controversial

29 Apr 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“How often do you pray for the president?” asks PreparetheWord scripture commentator Alice Camille in discussing themes of leadership in the Sunday readings. Instead of a prayer for Barack Obama, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria, Illinois made a comparison from the pulpit between the president’s policies on religious freedom to those of Stalin and Hitler that has led to some heated criticisms, including a formal complaint filed with the IRS alleging the diocese violated its tax-exempt status. The diocese said the bishop’s statement haD been taken out of context.Jenky’s April 15 homily criticized actions proposed by the Obama administration regarding coverage of contraceptives in healthcare insurance plans. The bishop included those policies in a litany of government challenges the Catholic Church has overcome in previous centuries, including actions by Hitler and Stalin.The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed the IRS complaint last week, accusing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria of violating federal law by intervening in a political campaign.Faculty at the University of Notre Dame have petitioned for a clear and strong retraction from the bishop, who is a member of university's sponsoring Congregation of Holy Cross, or his removal from the university’s board of overseers, and the Anti-Defamation League wants the bishop to apologize for making the comparison between the president and those who practiced wholesale genocide.A spokeswoman for the diocese responded to the criticism by saying the bishop’s statements were misunderstood. “Based upon the current government’s threatened infringement upon the church’s religious exercise of its ministry, Bishop Jenky offered historical context and comparisons as a means to prevent a repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church and other religions,” said Patricia Gibson, chancellor of the Peoria Diocese. Sources: Articles by the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, and Manya A. Brachear for the Chicago Tribune

barack obama barry lynn diocese of peoria joseph stalin adolf hitler daniel r jenky catholic church university of notre dame religious freedom tax exemption

Restricted
Catholic institutions hope lawsuits may please the courts

27 May 2012 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday’s gospel reading from John 15, Jesus encourages his disciples to testify on his behalf just as the Advocate whom he sends will testify to him. Legal advocates representing a number of Catholic institutions will be testifying in court in coming months as they seek to stop a government mandate that most of their health care plans cover contraceptives. Forty-four Catholic dioceses, schools, hospitals, social agencies, and other institutions filed a dozen lawsuits in federal courts around the country on Monday, arguing that the rule violates their religious freedom.President Barack Obama had tried to defuse the controversy over the requirement back in February after religious groups complained that the exemption, which applied only to houses of worship and groups that employ only members of a specific faith, was too narrow. The president's proposal was not to expand the exemption but to allow religious universities and charities to have their health insurers offer and pay for the coverage. Even taking the actual benefits out of the hands of the religious organization “does not solve our moral dilemma,” said John Garvey, president of Catholic University of America, which is among the plaintiffs. “The only change the ‘accommodation’ offers is that the insurance company rather than the university would notify subscribers that the policy covers the mandated services.”In California, however, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of the Diocese of Stockton expressed some guarded concerns about the opening of this latest front in the U.S. bishops’ continuing religious liberty campaign. Blaire, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, affirmed his support for the goal of defending religious liberty but said, “I do think there are probably some different concerns with how it is being done.”Blaire said that he was concerned “that it be clear that what we are dealing with is a matter of religious liberty . . . . I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into a political issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops.” Sources: Articles by Nancy Frazier O'Brien for Catholic News Service, Ian Duncon for the Los AngelesTimes, Kaiser Health News, Julie Rovner for National Public Radio, and Kevin Clarke for America

religious freedom united states conference of catholic bishops insurance coverage contraception lawsuits stephen blaire

Restricted

← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next →