Theology in the News

So called ‘blasphemy laws’ are used in Islamic nations to persecute, subjugate and intimidate religious minorities – such as Christians – and so I read with interest about a UN Human Rights Committee statement on freedom of speech, which states:

Laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.

Although this will be trumpeted as a triumph for secularists, this would – if adhered to – also set Christians free from the accusation of blasphemy.

Share this:

In a victory for religious liberty, a California judge July 28 struck from the ballot a San Francisco initiative that, if passed, would have banned circumcision.

A coalition of circumcision opponents had gathered around 7,700 signatures to place the issue on the November ballot, attempting to prohibit something that is at the heart of Judaism and Islam. It would have had no religious exception.

Judge Loretta M. Giorgi ruled that under California law, the state has regulatory power over medical procedures, the Los Angeles Times reported. She also found that it would violate the free exercise of religion.

SOURCE

Share this:

WASHINGTON — Capitol Hill police arrested 11 people — many of them members of the clergy — protesting the Republican House budget-cutting plan, a police spokeswoman said.

The group, organized by Common Cause’s president, the Rev. Bob Edgar, occupied the center of the historic Rotunda for more than a half hour Thursday, praying and singing until police closed the massive chamber and arrested the group, one by one.

Before officers closed the Rotunda, many visitors sang along, clapped, and filmed the prayers, although it was not clear that passersby understood what the group was protesting.

Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said they were trying to make a simple point.

“They were trying to send the message to Congress that the budget cannot be balanced on the backs of the poor, the middle class, or the neediest in society,” Boyle said.

She said that Edgar only decided on the action recently, because it appeared likely some sort of legislation would soon come out of Congress that hurts the vulnerable.

A police spokeswoman said the clergy members were cooperative, and were charged with demonstrating in the United States Capitol. They were expected to be released in the afternoon.

….continue

Share this:

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that barred the sale of violent video games to children. The 7-to-2 decision was the latest in a series of rulings protecting free speech, joining ones on funeral protests, videos showing cruelty to animals and political speech by corporations.

In a second decision Monday, the last day of the term, the court also struck down a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia., writing for five justices in the majority in the video games decision, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448, said video games were protected by the First Amendment.

“Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world),” Justice Scalia wrote. “That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.”

Depictions of violence, Justice Scalia added, have never been subject to government regulation. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed,” he wrote, recounting the gory plots of Snow White, Cinderella and Hansel and Gretel. High school reading lists and Saturday morning cartoons, too, he said, are riddled with violence.

…..continue

Share this:

The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.

We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.

We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.

Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.

SOURCE

Share this:

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, thus ending a seven year battle involving two separate cases, one originating in California and the other in New Hampshire. The Knights of Columbus, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, played a key role in defending the Pledge as a “defendant intervenor” in both cases.

“The Knights of Columbus is proud to have played a major role in successfully defending the constitutionality of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance,” Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said. “We were instrumental in persuading Congress to add those words to the Pledge in 1954, and they express a fundamental belief that we have held as a nation since our founding, that we ‘are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.’ The notion that this somehow violates the First Amendment has now been soundly rejected by both the First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court has now allowed both decisions to stand. It is a victory for common sense.”

The Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in March 2010 and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the California case in March 2011. The First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in November 2011 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case yesterday, June 13, 2011.

Hat-tip: Lisa Graas

Share this:

I will always endeavour to bring us positive news coming out of the Muslim world, no matter how slender the morsels.

This is a case in point and revolves around the the Hamayouni Decree, which is a draconian law dating back to the Ottomon empire regulating Church construction and maintenance, which does not apply to mosques.

This from Wiki:

The law requires that each permit must be issued by the Egyptian President.

The requirements are complex, and frequently arbitrary, for building and repairing churches or church-owned buildings. These culminate in the requirement that the State President must personally approve all building applications, and the Provincial Governors must approve all applications for repairs, even for something as small as repairing a toilet or a broken window.

This law is of course wielded to inhibit Church construction and renovation.

The good news is that a proposed new law would overturn this:

During a meeting on Wednesday, the Egyptian government approved a unified law on the construction of places of worship. Under the law, governors will be authorized to license the building, demolishing, replacing, restoring, or modifying of places of worship, as well as associated expansions or repairs, so long as they follow certain conditions.

According to a government statement, the legislation will be put up for public discussion before final approval.

….continue reading

Let’s pray that final approval is forthcoming, as it would serve to reduce much sectarian strife.

Share this:

You’ll have to forgive me for saying this, but as I hail from the UK, sometimes I read of events in the US that exhibit such animosity towards Christians and Christianity, it stuns me.

This is a good case in point, in which every Christian voice is legally censored at a graduation ceremony, in order to protect one atheist family from suffering “irreparable harm” and “anxiety” should anyone utter a prayer at the ceremony.

A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the school district is in the process of appealing the ruling, and his office has agreed to file a brief in their support.

“Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into “speech police.”

“I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott told Fox News Radio. “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,’” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”

….continue reading

Is this not a form of dangerous madness, or am I overreacting?

Share this:

The proposed Congress Bill which would prohibit faith based adoption agencies from discriminating against prospective adopters on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation, is identical to recent developments in the UK.

In the UK, legislation was introduced that forced faith based adoption agencies to consider those in homosexual unions. This led to many adoption agencies either splitting from the Church, or simply closing down.

The battle for exemption from this legislation is still raging, with the last remaining Catholic adoption agency appealing for the fourth time.

This Congress bill also covers fostering and again in the UK we recently had a case where Christian foster parents lost a high court battle, because they confirmed that they would refuse to tell a child that a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable.

Please bear in mind that these particular foster parents only wanted to provide temporary respite care for very young children.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHC) who brought the case against these foster carers, were quoted as saying that children risked being “infected’ by Christian moral beliefs”.

And now it looks as if the US will become embroiled in this same legal quagmire:

A proposal in Congress would ban Catholic adoption agencies and undercut the needs of children by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation, two legislative experts say.

“This legislation would prohibit adoption agencies and foster care agencies, including religious adoption agencies and foster care agencies, from providing services in many cases,” warned Lori Windham, Senior Counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “They would have to choose between following their religious beliefs and shutting down.”

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, agreed.

“It would have the effect of either banning Christian adoption agencies or forbidding them from acting on their faith convictions and their moral convictions in terms of what is in the best interest of a child.”

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced the bill, titled “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” on May 3. Its 52 co-sponsors in the House include Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is expected to introduce companion legislation in the Senate.

The House bill would prohibit “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements” based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.

“The bill would affect any adoption or foster care agency that receives federal assistance or contracts with an entity that receives federal assistance.”

Stark told the Huffington Post he decided to introduce the measure because of the “homophobic opposition that has tried to decide that gay people aren’t suitable adoptive parents.”

He cited a “tremendous need” for adoptive parents in the U.S. and said there are “thousands of kids who would otherwise be stuck in foster care.”

But Sprigg said the bill would drive out “some of the most effective adoption agencies that there are.”

“Christian adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have such an outstanding record. It would be sacrificing the interest of children to drive them out of the adoption business.”

In 2009 Catholic Charities completed 3,794 adoptions and provided adoption services to 43,982 clients. It provided foster care services for 18,344 children and adolescents, the Catholic Charities USA 2009 Annual Survey reports.

“The impact of the legislation would be to mean that fewer children will actually get homes,” said Windham. She said such proposals are part of a “growing conflict” and that supporters of religious freedom should oppose Stark’s bill.

Without a religious freedom exemption, the bill would make it “very difficult if not impossible” for religiously-affiliated agencies to operate, Windham said.

Similar laws have forced some agencies to close.

…..continue reading

Share this:

The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

“This case,” the judge wrote, “will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”

Nielsen said he will decide in a lawsuit against a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, whether the parties in the litigation properly followed the teachings of the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.

The suit was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002. The dispute may decide who controls $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.

But attorney Paul Thanasides last week appealed Nielson’s decision with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, saying religion has no place in a secular court.

His client: the mosque.

…..continue reading

Share this: