|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home  News & Opinions In The News Newspapers
The choir at First Baptist Church Pontotoc bounded from one anthem into another as members of the armed forces entered the sanctuary displaying their flags.
The U.S. Stars and Bars billowed across a giant video screen while men from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines lined up across the front of the church, pointing the flag masts out over the beaming congregation.
Around Independence Day worshippers expect some recognition of American pride, and this weekend many area churches are infusing their services with patriotic themes.
However, appearing too nationalistic can alienate others who see God-and-country celebrations as political endorsements.
Read the rest of the article here.
|
|
COLUMBIA - The nomination of U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has raised questions about her legal background and how she might rule on issues concerning religion.
If appointed, Sotomayor would become the first Hispanic and the third female in U.S. history to serve on the high court. As a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, Sotomayor's nomination has caused much dialogue concerning her political alignment and many see her as having moderate views.
In a news release, Richard Reuben, a professor at the MU School of Law and a U.S. Supreme Court specialist, commented on the significance of her background.
"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal centrist who may be influential in helping Justice (Anthony) Kennedy, a conservative centrist and often the swing vote on the court's closest issues, see things from a different perspective," he said. "Kennedy cares deeply about the impact of the court's work on people's lives, and seeing this perspective may move Justice Kennedy in particular cases, not necessarily away from the conservative majority, but toward more moderate opinions."
However, some have worried about Sotomayor's Catholic background and how it might shape her policies, especially involving abortion issues. If Sotomayor becomes the next Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic of nine justices.
Read the rest of the article here.
|
|
The Oklahoman
Not even a popular governor dared stand in the way of the Ten Commandments.
Gov. Brad Henry, with some polls showing him having a popularity rating of nearly 70 percent, signed without comment Monday a measure to place a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds.
Had Henry vetoed House Bill 1330, it was likely the GOP-run Legislature would have overridden it, something that has occurred only once in the 61/2 years Henry has been governor. The measure easily passed both chambers: 83-2 in the House and 38-8 in the Senate.
Read the rest of the article here. It includes a quote from the Baptist Joint Committee on the subject.
|
|
Oklahoma's Baptist governor faces a monumental
decision whether to sign or veto a Ten Commandments bill that some
Baptist leaders say violates religious liberty.
Gov. Brad Henry (D) has five days to decide on the measure authorizing
erection of a monument to the Decalogue on the grounds of the state
Capitol.
The Oklahoma Senate voted 38-8 May 11 to approve House Bill 1330. The
move came just days after the state House of Representatives approved
the proposal with only two votes in opposition.
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty released a statement May 12 urging Henry to veto the bill.
The monument would "send a message of exclusion to those who do not
share the Judeo-Christian tradition and a message of favoritism to
those who do," the statement asserted.
"We should be more concerned with following the Ten Commandments rather
than merely posting them on government property," Holly Hollman, the
Washington-based group's general counsel, said in the statement.
"Religion flourishes best when the separation of church and state is
protected."
Supporters of the bill -- including its chief sponsor in the state
Senate, Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-Owasso) -- said the monument wouldn't
threaten church-state separation because the Ten Commandments are an
integral part of the nation's and state's legal history.
The Decalogue "is an absolute document interwoven through our society
and our basis of law," Brogdon, said, according to the Daily Oklahoman.
"Disregard for that document is to have a disregard for the rule of
law. Without it, we would be a nation of anarchy. It has put us on a
very solid foundation."
Brogdon, who has announced his plans to run for governor next year,
also said that the display would pass constitutional muster, because
his bill models it after a similar monument on the Texas Capitol
grounds. The federal Supreme Court OK'd the Texas display in its 2005
Van Orden v. Perry decision.
|
|
|
OKLAHOMA CITY - Civil libertarians and some religious groups say a bill
to erect a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state
Capitol is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and are urging
Gov. Brad Henry to veto the measure.
Similar displays elsewhere, including a Ten Commandments monument at
the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler, have drawn numerous legal
challenges, including some that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rep. Mike Ritze, the House author of the bill, stressed the historical
significance of the Ten Commandments, which he said are an important
foundation of the laws and legal system of the country, and said the
display is not a religious one. He said hundreds of similar displays
appear in public spaces across the country, including images of Moses
and the Ten Commandments at the U.S. Supreme Court building in
Washington.
Read the rest of the article here.
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
| |
|
|
|
|
In orders today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway. The decision means the high court will have its say on the hot-button church-state issue of legislative prayer for the first time in 30 years. The 2nd Circuit ruled in Town of Greece that the prayer practic... |
|
Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been law for several years. The state's RFRA echoes the federal bill of the same name, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise. Some lawmakers in Arizona ... |
|
