It was a busy morning at the Supreme Court. The high court handed down a decision in an important case dealing with religiously affiliated hospitals and employee pensions. We’ll have some analysis of that case later. For now, let’s take a look at a case that justices decided not to hear – Sterling v. United States.
Late Thursday, Americans United told a federal appeals court that women would be severely harmed by the Trump administration’s proposed change to the current requirement that health insurance cover contraceptives, a change that would allow employers and universities to use religion as an excuse to deny contraceptive coverage completely.
Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton is back with another mind-bogglingly silly argument that the United States is really an officially Christian nation – even though our Constitution doesn’t say that.
The Washington Post recently ran a long story about Ark Encounter, the Williamstown, Ky., creationist attraction founded by Ken Ham, who leads the fundamentalist Religious Right organization Answers in Genesis. Although some readers found the story to be oddly sympathetic to Ham, some interesting tidbits are found in it.
In early May, President Donald J. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order that was aimed at allowing bosses and universities to use religion as an excuse to deny their employees and students insurance coverage for contraception.
On Memorial Day, we remember the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation by laying down their lives to protect our freedoms.
One of those freedoms is the right to worship, or not, as you see fit. It’s ironic, therefore, that increasingly we are seeing examples of sectarian symbols, mainly crosses, being pressed into service as one-size-fits-all memorials for deceased veterans.
Today, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that prevents President Trump’s Muslim Ban 2.0 from going into effect.
The court did not mince words in its condemnation of the ban as an affront to the First Amendment. The opinion calls Muslim Ban 2.0 an order that “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”