BJC Blog RSS Feeds
Home arrow News & Opinions arrow Press Room
Press Room
Greece v. Galloway resource page E-mail

BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman speaks to reporters on Nov. 6, 2013, after oral arguments in Greece v. Galloway.On Nov. 6, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case about official prayer at local government meetings.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, opposing the town's practice of opening municipal meetings with government-sponsored prayer. The brief says the practice "infringes the liberty of conscience of not just religious minorities, but also of Christians who believe that worship should be voluntary." It explains the strong historical support for freedom of conscience from the Founders and our Baptist forebears, the difference between this practice and the practice of congressional chaplains, and the limits of prayer in government contexts previously established by the Court.

"By opening a local government meeting with an exercise of religious devotion, a political assembly is transformed into a religious congregation," said Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee. "It is because of -- not in spite of -- the importance of prayer and religion that we object to this government assumption of religious functions," Hollman said.

Here are links to resources from the Baptist Joint Committee:

BJC news release

Full BJC brief (link downloads the document as a PDF)

Podcast featuring BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman and Staff Counsel Nan Futrel

A recap of oral arguments from BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman

An examination of legislative prayer practices generally from BJC Staff Counsel Nan Futrell

For media requests, contact:
Cherilyn Crowe, director of communications
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Office: 202-544-4226 ext. 305
Cell: 202-603-1663

 
Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues E-mail

Many issues are at play in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases involve claims by for-profit businesses challenging the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate — the requirement, under the Affordable Care Act, that most employer-provided health insurance plans cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception. The businesses seek relief under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which became law in 1993 and has only been reviewed twice by the Court.

The cases have inspired intense debate among scholars and advocates about a number of legal issues relating to the interpretation of RFRA and the future of religious liberty.

Click here to read the rest of this column.

 
A model of service to others E-mail

A great friend of religious liberty and Baptists everywhere passed away in March. Richard E. Ice was a longtime member of the Baptist Joint Committee Board of Directors and a leader in American Baptist life who modeled service by sharing his talents and gifts and following the passions of his life.

Click here to read the rest of the column, including Walker's words at the memorial service.

 
Concerns about discrimination doom Arizona legislation E-mail

How did Arizona legislation that looked pretty similar to many other religious freedom statutes grab the national spotlight and get characterized by some as a license to discriminate?

Several factors led to the highly publicized veto of legislation known as SB1062, many of which will continue to challenge the popularity and public understanding of religious freedom claims.

A little background is needed to put the story in proper context. The federal government and 18 states have laws known as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another dozen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. The driving principle behind these laws is that religious practice based upon sincere religious belief should be protected, even from governmental acts that are not aimed at religion but have an incidental impact.

 
A new primer on a 'touchy subject' E-mail

Okay — time for some shameless self-promotion.

My friend Johnny Pierce and the good folks at Nurturing Faith (NurturingFaith.net) in Macon, Ga., have published the 8th Annual Shurden Lectures that I delivered last year at my law school alma mater, Stetson University in DeLand, Fla.

Baptist Joint Committee supporters and the readers of this column know that the annual lectureship funded by the generous endowment established by Buddy and Kay Shurden is one of the BJC’s mainstay efforts to educate college students and others in university communities about religious liberty and the separation of church and state. With this new publication, titled What a Touchy Subject! Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation, I hope to reach students in many schools, colleges and seminaries, as well as Baptists and others in churches everywhere.

 
Chaplains educate lawmakers on religious freedom in the military E-mail

Despite suggestions from some members of Congress of religious freedom strains in the military, a recent congressional hearing failed to reveal significant problems. Instead, reports from the chiefs of chaplains and other witnesses provided an affirmation of how properly trained military chaplains reflect the best of our country’s religious freedom tradition and serve that interest in a uniquely challenging environment. The hearings also demonstrated a nagging political instinct by some to misconstrue the nature of religious freedom and exaggerate conflict.

 
RFRA's constitutionality called into question E-mail

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on March 25 in the contraception case involving Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, it will be asked to decide novel and difficult questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Readers of Report from the Capital and even casual Court observers are aware of these uncharted issues. Can commercial, for-profit corporations exercise religion? Can the shareholders’ rights of conscience be imputed to the corporation? Can their exercise of religion be “substantially burdened” by objectionable activity provided by an insurance company and chosen by female employees? Does government have a compelling interest in making sure all women have access to preventive health care services, like contraceptives, sufficient to justify that burden?

Click here to read the rest of this column.

Click here to read "BJC supports strong legal standard in contraceptive mandate cases" by BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman.

 
A Baptist commitment to freedom and evangelism E-mail

A pastor friend recently asked me to write a short piece on the importance to Baptists of church planting. I agreed to do it, but only in the context of a larger discussion about the relationship between freedom and evangelism.

Historically, this has been a both/and proposition for Baptists. We are passionately committed to soul freedom for each and religious liberty for all; we are similarly dedicated to missions which includes evangelism and, even more tangibly, church planting. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is both a covenant of freedom and a mandate for sharing.

 
BJC supports strong legal standard in contraceptive mandate cases E-mail

The Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate — the requirement, under the Affordable Care Act, that most employer-provided health insurance plans cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception — continues to stir controversy and spawn new lawsuits at a dizzying rate. It is not only the number of cases that is striking. The variety of arguments and contexts in which they are made create a very complex picture for determining whether the mandate violates religious liberty law.

While it will take a long time to decide all the related claims, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases that involve one of the most significant and high-profile issues at stake. The two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, address whether the contraceptive mandate violates the religious rights of secular corporations and their owners. The corporations employ people without regard to religion and sell non-religious goods, but their individual owners strongly object to some forms of contraception and maintain that both they and the corporations themselves have free exercise rights that will be violated by the mandate. The cases have been consolidated, and oral arguments will be held on March 25. 

Click here to read the rest of this column.

Click here to read more on the cases from BJC Executive Director Brent Walker in "RFRA's constitutionality called into question."

 
Results 1 - 13 of 179
 
Groups Turning to State Law to Make Claims Against Use of "Under God"
Federal courts have consistently ruled constitutional the use of "Under God" in public school recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2010, for example, the 9th Circuit held that the phrase is not a prayer, but instead an acknowledgement of our "founders' political philos...
 
Louisiana Legislator Pulls State Book Bill
On second thought, Louisiana State Representative Thomas Carmody has decided to end his bid to make the Holy Bible the official state book, just ahead of a scheduled vote of the House yesterday. The Times-Picayune has more: The bill had become a distraction, he said. ... Initially, ...