President-elect Donald Trump on Friday nominated U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be attorney general. The attorney general serves as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, responsible for upholding our nation’s laws. Many view Sen. Sessions as a troubling choice, including those of us who fight for religious freedom.
The state of Kansas has a complicated relationship with the theory of evolution.
In 1999, the state attracted international attention when the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove virtually all references to evolution from the science standards.
Yesterday, AU’s Communications Director Rob Boston wrote a blog post about the Religious Right-empowered issues the United States may face if the Trump administration implements some of its campaign’s talking points, and Legislative Director Maggie Garrett discussed the results of some ballot referenda.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Notorious R.B.G.) is nearly perfect in my feminist book of idols, but here and there, everybody will make problematic comments, including her.
In an interview with Katie Couric on Yahoo!, released Monday, Ginsburg dubbed San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's choice to kneel and sometimes sit down during the National Anthem prior to games as “dumb and disrespectful.”
Given the events of the past few days, there was relatively little hope that last night’s presidential debate would turn into a substantive discussion of policy issues. Indeed, The Washington Post noted that the night was dominated by insults, and its print edition called the event a “dark, bitter faceoff.”
A lot of people around the country have been debating whether Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during the national anthem prior to games is an appropriate form of silent protest against racial injustice.
The U.S. Supreme Court in May took a pass on dealing with the important question of access to birth control, an action that could leave tens of thousands of women in limbo.
In a brief order issued for the case of Zubik v. Burwell, the high court vacated several cases before it dealing with employee access to birth control and sent them back to lower courts for more proceedings.
This Sunday will mark the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which brought marriage equality to the states in 2015.
Writing for the 5-4 majority in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that all people have a right to the dignity that marriage bestows on couples.
The U.S. Supreme Court in March heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether religiously affiliated non-profits have the right to deny women employees access to birth control on the basis of the groups’ theological beliefs.
The March 23 argument lasted 90 minutes and was marked by spirited exchanges and sharp questioning from the justices. A clear division emerged from the court’s liberal and conservative wings, leading some analysts to speculate that the high court may split 4-4.
The government, at least in theory, is supposed to be neutral on matters of theology, neither favoring religion nor irreligion.
In a 1989 case called Texas Monthly v. Bullock, Justice William Brennan wrote, “In proscribing all laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion,’ the Constitution prohibits, at the very least, legislation that constitutes an endorsement of one or another set of religious beliefs or of religion generally.”