Search

Results

Homily stories

28 Apr 2013 - Fifth Sunday of Easter, Cycle C

Montgomery, Alabama took an unexpected turn toward establishing a new order in race relations in March 2013 when the city’s police chief issued an apology to Congressman John Lewis, a leader in the 1960s civil rights movement, for the role Montgomery police played in the support of unjust laws and racial discrimination. Lewis was moved to tears by the gesture, particularly when Murphy removed his badge and offered it to Lewis as a “symbol of reconciliation.” “I’ve been arrested and jailed many times,” Lewis said, “and never has a police officer offered to apologize. . . . For a young police officer—a young, white police officer . . . who had not even been born 52 years ago when this all took place—to give me his badge . . .” “It was a very easy decision to make,” said Murphy, “because it was the right thing to do. Montgomery, Alabama, and the United States needs to heal. What [Congressman Lewis] stood for has changed our city for the better, and I’m most indebted to him. The citizens of Montgomery are indebted to him for his acts of bravery and courage. . . . Segregation was a horrendous institution that scarred this country for many years. . . . But it’s a new day, . . . and we need to continue to move forward.”

discrimination

Restricted
Church and state debate partnerships

15 Feb 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday's reading from 1st Corinthians, Saint Paul mentions that he tries "to please everyone in every way." After his announcement late last week that he was creating a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, President Barack Obama will have to walk a delicate line on the issue of church-state separation if he expects to please everyone involved. The president outlined the plan for the new office at the annual National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, emphasizing his intention to treat religious and secular groups fairly and to preserve church-state separation laws that critics of the Bush Administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives felt were blurred in the past eight years. "The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another-or even religious groups over secular groups," Obama said at the breakfast. "It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state." Since the election, Obama aides have met with dozens of groups with a stake in faith-based initiatives, including traditional social service providers such as Catholic Charities USA, progressive faith-based coalitions, and Bush White House veterans like Stanley Carlson-Thies, who helped design faith-based initiatives for Bush. The team also heard from opponents of faith-based initiatives, including Jewish groups worried about state-supported Christianity. The biggest question for Obama is how he'll handle Bush's policy of allowing faith-based groups to use religious background as a factor in hiring for government-funded positions. In announcing his faith-based office, Obama delayed a decision on the matter until further legal review. Advocates of church-state separation and liberal backers of faith-based initiatives view the Bush policy, which exempts religious groups from federal nondiscrimination rules attached to government funds, as illegal, while some religious groups and those on the right see it as an essential safeguard for faith-based organizations' rights to exercise religious convictions. Source: Articles by Anne Stopper for PBS.org Online NewsHour, Dan Gilgoff for U.S. News & World Report, and Ecumenical News International

barack obama nondiscrimination national prayer breakfast religion and state church and state religious freedom

Restricted
Lifting the veil on religious bigotry

07 Mar 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

"The Lord secures justice and the rights of all the oppressed," the psalmist informs us this Sunday. The Oregon legislature last week took a step in the same direction by giving their final approval to end a longstanding ban on teachers wearing head scarves or other religious dress. The ban had been enacted in 1923 during a time of anti-Catholic bigotry to keep Catholic nuns from teaching in public schools. Supporters of the legislation called ending the prohibition a historic step toward religious freedom and nondiscrimination in a state that has performed poorly in those arenas in the past. Christian teachers have long been allowed to wear crosses in Oregon public schools, but head scarves and turbans have not been permitted. Opponents of the change, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, say they want the legislature to slow down and think harder about the ramifications. They say the rights of students, particularly impressionable elementary pupils, to be free from religious indoctrination at school should be front and center. Steven Green, director of Willamette University's Center for Law, Religion, and Democracy, said that in his 20-year career studying and litigating freedom of religion cases, he has never seen a lawsuit prompted by a teacher's dress alone, apart from words and conduct. Proponents hailed Wednesday's vote as a victory for Muslim women and others who have been kept from teaching in Oregon by a faith that compels them to cover their heads. More than a dozen Oregonians wearing head scarves and turbans watched as lawmakers from both parties approved the bill, with four Republicans and four Democrats opposed. Afterward Muslim and Sikh leaders predicted more young people from their faith communities would enter teaching, knowing they would not have to choose between honoring their beliefs and teaching in public schools. "This is the way it's supposed to be," said Bahadur Singh, a member of the Sikh Temple of Salem. The bill now heads to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who is expected to sign it. Source: Articles by Betsy Hammond for the Oregonian and UPI.com

discrimination freedom of religion steven green public schools head scarves religious garb oregon religious freedom Muslims sikhs

Restricted
Gender discrimination deadly for daughters in Asia

14 Mar 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In this Sunday's gospel we hear the story of a father who loved both his sons, even the prodigal one who "was lost and has been found." Daughters, however, don't fare nearly as well in Asia, according to a United Nations report released Monday, International Woman's Day. Female infanticide, sex-selective abortion, and discrimination in health care are common practices, especially in China and India. Asia is "missing" about 96 million women who have died from discriminatory health care and neglect or who were never born at all, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimated in its report. Female infanticide and sex-selective abortion have caused a severe gender imbalance, and the problem is worsening despite rapid economic growth in the region. "The old mindset with its preference for male children has now combined with modern medical technology" that makes it easier to predict and abort unborn girls, said Anuradha Rajivan, the report's lead author. "It is not just female infanticide but sex-selective abortion of unborn girls that cause so-called 'missing' females," she said, contrasting the issue with recent improvements in female life expectancy and education. The UNDP report found that East Asia had the world's highest male-female sex ratio at birth, with 119 boys born for every 100 girls. This far exceeded the global world average of 107 boys for every 100 girls. "Females cannot take survival for granted," it said. "Today, the Asia-Pacific region is at a crossroads," the report said. "Whether gender equality is pushed aside or pursued with greater energy amid the economic downturn depends on actions taken or not taken now by governments." Source: An article by Ben Sheppard for Agence France Press

asia abortion girls daughters united nations development program undp infanticide anuradha rajivan gender discrimination

Restricted
Discrimination defined online way out of line

27 Feb 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Saint Paul encourages the Corinthians not to be judgmental but rather to wait for the Lord who “will bring to light what is hidden.” A judgmental definition of religious discrimination had been hidden in an obscure document on a university website for years without apparently raising a stir. After receiving complaints last week, however, the University of California at Davis eliminated the text that defined religious discrimination in the United States as "institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian" because it was itself discriminatory The definition appeared in an online glossary of a "Principles of Community" diversity statement to which students and students groups were asked to pledge their commitment. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal aid group, says one of its lawyers notified UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi last week that the language violated the constitutional rights of Christian students. Campus spokeswoman Julia Ann Easley said the university removed the glossary the same day. The school's Office of Campus Community Relations estimates the definition had been around for six or seven years. Source: An article by the Associated Press

discrimination christians alliance defense fund university of california at davis religious discrimination

Restricted
Discrimination defined online way out of line

27 Feb 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Saint Paul encourages the Corinthians not to be judgmental but rather to wait for the Lord who “will bring to light what is hidden.” A judgmental definition of religious discrimination had been hidden in an obscure document on a university website for years without apparently raising a stir. After receiving complaints last week, however, the University of California at Davis eliminated the text that defined religious discrimination in the United States as "institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian" because it was itself discriminatory The definition appeared in an online glossary of a "Principles of Community" diversity statement to which students and students groups were asked to pledge their commitment. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal aid group, says one of its lawyers notified UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi last week that the language violated the constitutional rights of Christian students. Campus spokeswoman Julia Ann Easley said the university removed the glossary the same day. The school's Office of Campus Community Relations estimates the definition had been around for six or seven years. Source: An article by the Associated Press

discrimination christians alliance defense fund university of california at davis religious discrimination

Restricted
Supreme Court rules Wal-Mart suit is not a class act

26 Jun 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In the reading from 1 Corinthians for this Sunday’s Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, Saint Paul speaks of our mystical communion with Christ and one another: “We, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” Throwing out the largest class-action employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that 1.5 million female workers of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not be treated as a single body. The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. By a 5-4 vote the high court said the suit could not go forward as a class-action claim because the plaintiffs could not show Wal-Mart had a common policy of discriminating against women. Instead, the company allowed individual store managers to decide on pay levels and promotions, the justices said. "In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. Because class actions are suitable for resolving disputes that turn on a common issue, the lawsuit cannot go forward, Scalia said. The ruling is not only a victory for Wal-Mart but is also likely to shield large employers from similar claims that rely on statistics suggesting bias based on the race or gender of employees. Had civil-rights lawyers succeeded in the case, they had hoped to bring other suits against large employers who allegedly relegate women or minorities to lower-paying jobs. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Ginsburg said that both the statistics presented by the plaintiffs and their individual accounts were evidence that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture.” “The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,” she wrote. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware.” Sources: Articles by David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times and Adam Liptak for the New York Times

discrimination women supreme court antonin scalia ruth bader ginsburg class action

Restricted
The dream turns 50

01 Sep 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“The just rejoice and exult before God” and “are glad and rejoice” as they praise God’s name, the psalmist says this Sunday. The nation this week praises and remembers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s stirring “I have a dream” speech, a call for racial justice issued 50 years ago at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.Speaking on Wednesday in front of the Lincoln Memorial where King and others addressed the crowds, President Barack Obama said the entire world drew strength from the March on Washington 50 years ago and that advances in securing voting rights, civil rights, and the eradication of legalized discrimination of African Americans show that part of Dr. King's goals were achieved, but continued economic inequality and stagnant wages show that only part of King.'s dreams have been fulfilled.God prepares a home for the poor, says the psalmist. The nation, however, has a ways to go when it comes to poverty rates, said the president, citing income inequality and disparities in the unemployment rate between blacks and whites as examples. Tying the 1963 demonstration to concerns about economic inequality today, Obama reminded people that jobs were a central goal of those marching years ago.Obama was among a host of people who honored King and those who assembled 50 years ago. African American luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey and civil-rights icon U.S. Rep. John Lewis also hailed King's message. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spoke as well, along with members of King´s family.The 1963 march is seen as a masterpiece of nonviolent protest, a day of speeches, prayer, and song that included gospel singer Mahalia Jackson and folk singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan. Participants then were advocating for basic freedoms later enshrined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most sweeping civil-rights legislation since Reconstruction, which outlawed discrimination against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities and women and banned discriminatory voting-registration practices.Homily hint: In 1979 the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops issued Brothers and Sisters to Us, which begins with this strong statement: “Racism is an evil which endures in our society and in our church.” The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington is a teachable moment when faith communities can use the bishops’ document to look both at progress made and promises yet to keep. Sources: Articles by Jared A. Favole and Elizabeth Williamson for the Wall StreetJournal and Peter Baker and Sheryl Gay Stolberg for the New York Times

poverty march for jobs and freedom economic inequality voting rights jobs anniversaries martin luther king jr barack obama discrimination Civil rights march on washington

Restricted
Exploring the word

07 Oct 2012 - Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B

Many of us would be happy to take gender off the table. Gender issues prove divisive in state, church, society, and often family. Let me say as a female I wasn’t particularly conscious right away of the way gender shaped my future. Having five sisters and two brothers, I suspect I viewed the female as the norm. But from the playground to the classroom, from the pews to the doctor’s office to the work place, gradually it was impressed on me that in most places, man was the norm. Being a woman made me an aberration to be accommodated. Even exclusive language insists I’m a “man” until proven otherwise. Whose idea was it that there should be complementarity anyway? Genesis 1 pins the rap on God. From darkness to light, from day to night, from sea to land and birds to fish, creation seems a testimony to God’s pleasure in diversity. The term suitable partner suggests a similar complementarity rather than hierarchy in the original relationship of man and woman. Who started domination and subordination? Genesis 3 pins that rap on us. Everything gets messier after that. Where inequality rules, power struggles are unavoidable. Maybe your wife and kids are olive plants around your table in the family photo, but once released from the snapshot, there tends to be conflict. “Original conflict,” it should be added, goes viral in this sad new world. Domination and subordination become normative. The pattern is repeated between generations, races, languages, religions, and any other distinction you can draw. Someone is always on top, which implies someone else is on the bottom. The new lines of creation are established, and it seems there’s no going back to the happy realm of “suitable partners.” On this “Respect Life” Sunday, how do we put the toothpaste back in the tube when it comes to our damaged social relationships? In a world without power struggles, we wouldn’t have moral dilemmas about how to care for our aging members, the value of the unborn, the rightful place of those who are mentally or physically different, the rights of the undocumented, our responsibility toward the economically disadvantaged. The only reason we question these matters is because we have all internally embraced the reality of domination and subordination. Some of us have more rights than others, by virtue of who we are to start with—or if we’re given the chance to start at all. To solve the problem, we have to go back to the beginning, to the issue of complementarity. We have to heal the rift in our mindset that some are born to win and others to lose; that one kind of person is intrinsically more valuable than another. That is our original sin, perhaps: that we have failed at partnership in favor of power. Related scripture links Human loneliness not the plan: Gen. 2:18 Jesus’ invitation to divine unity: John 17:6-26 The interdependence of community: 1 Cor. 12:12-26 Make my joy complete by your unanimity: Phil. 2:2 Behavior of united people: Col. 3:12-14 Catechism links Sacrament of matrimony: CCC 1601-1658

Authors Alice Camille

gender discrimination partnership conflict

Restricted
Toyota settles credit discrimination claim

07 Feb 2016 - Preaching the News for Sunday

After guiding the disciples to drop their nets to a record haul of fish, the risen Christ calmed a fearful Simon Peter by assuring him that “from now on you will be catching men.” It appears that Toyota’s financing arm ensnared minority buyers in higher priced loans than white buyers. In an agreement with federal regulators to make amends, Toyota Motor Credit Corp. will pay as much as $21.9 million to black and Asian borrowers who paid more for auto loans than whites. The lender had been targeted as part of a broad probe into auto lending practices that has led to similar settlements with other major auto credit companies. The agencies didn't find that Toyota Motor Credit discriminated directly, but rather that the automaker's dealerships increased interest rates more for black and Asian borrowers than for whites. “No consumer should be forced to pay more money for a loan because of their race or national origin,” U.S. Atty. Eileen M. Decker of the Central District of California said in a statement announcing the settlement. Homily hint: Racial discrimination in the U.S. has moved from being blatant to being subtle and difficult to detect, yet it persists. The effort to uncover and address subtle discrimination helps us all, minority and white alike, by holding us all accountable to a higher command—to treat one another as we would wish to be treated. For more on the discrimination settlement with Toyota lenders, see: Toyota will compensate black and Asian borrowers to settle bias investigation

discrimination golden rule

Restricted

← Previous 1 2 Next →