Archive: March 7, 2010 - March 13, 2010
The real question here should be why the heck is our government giving money to churches (or synagogues or mosques or any other religious organization) in the first place? In my opinion, it should not be.
By Pamela K. Taylor | March 11, 2010; 4:06 PM ET | Comments (8)
Looking around the campus, it was obvious the school was no longer functioning. Instead, it had become something of a refugee camp, with upwards of perhaps five thousand people sleeping all over the grounds at night. But, unlike the rest of the city, there was a joy among these people.
By Mark Driscoll | March 11, 2010; 3:00 PM ET | Comments (0)
Truth is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church, so is the reality of a complex and religiously diverse nation.
By John Shelby Spong | March 11, 2010; 12:28 PM ET | Comments (9)
As we clean out our cabinets and buy matza, let's remember the foundations of Passover from our story and the message the text clamors home. Invite strangers to your home.
By Erica Brown | March 11, 2010; 10:52 AM ET | Comments (1)
On an official level, the Catholic Church has made a choice: it has decided that it would rather continue to discriminate against a certain segment of the population than continue to provide services.
By Donna Freitas | March 10, 2010; 2:10 PM ET | Comments (0)
Do we want to be the kind of society that tramples on one person's conscience in order to promote another person's agenda? Would it not be more civilized, more tolerant, more gracious for us as citizens to respect the consciences of our neighbors?
By Jason Poling | March 10, 2010; 2:02 PM ET | Comments (8)
How long can governments rely on religious providers to discharge what are ultimately public responsibilities? Whenever public entities rely on religious agencies to provide public services, conflict of interest is inevitable.
By Tom Flynn | March 10, 2010; 1:40 PM ET | Comments (9)
As Christians who strive to follow Jesus' example, we are called to minister to the weak and to rejoice when the longsuffering find relief -- including the stalwart LGBT couples who have waited so long to get married. We all know Jesus loved a good wedding feast.
By Janet Edwards | March 10, 2010; 11:46 AM ET | Comments (5)
It's a fair deal for everybody that allows the government to fulfill its mission with independence and integrity and permits the religious organization to advance its teaching and pursue its social vision with independence and private funding.
By Welton Gaddy | March 9, 2010; 5:47 PM ET | Comments (8)
Interesting that the Church gets criticized, when we stand out against what a particular government wants to do, for not 'moving with the times' or 'being out of step with the people' -- which implies that folk are trying to corral us into being a department either of state or of the opinion pollsters. Much more like paganism; much less like the church of Jesus Christ.
By Nicholas T. Wright | March 9, 2010; 2:42 PM ET | Comments (9)
People of faith must speak publicly and vigorously in opposition to those who want us to return to operating American torture chambers.
By James Standish | March 9, 2010; 1:36 PM ET | Comments (12)
There is a long history in the law of exempting religious organizations from burdensome regulations that otherwise govern commercial enterprises. Courts have long recognized that government must tread very lightly before imposing regulations on religious organizations.
By Michael Otterson | March 9, 2010; 12:57 PM ET | Comments (20)
To subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars is not an accommodation at all, but an advancement of religion that is clearly misguided and arguably unconstitutional.
By J. Brent Walker | March 9, 2010; 10:51 AM ET | Comments (5)
Imagine a United States under a government that decided that tax-exempt status for religious organizations went only to those that practiced specific forms of baptism, communion, and other sacraments
By Max Carter | March 9, 2010; 12:09 AM ET | Comments (1)
The decision by Catholic Charities to close its adoption and foster care services so that they do not have to service gay couples is their right as a religious organization, guided by their beliefs. But they cannot be "private" and "public" at the same time.
By Susan K. Smith | March 8, 2010; 9:00 PM ET | Comments (3)
It would be a big mistake to "exempt" religious organizations that receive government funding and allow them to discriminate against some Americans because of their religious beliefs.
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite | March 8, 2010; 8:22 PM ET | Comments (14)
It is time to put behind us forever the iniquitous situation where the religious are guaranteed a more favourable hearing in government, more influence on government policy, and exemption from the law simply because they are religious
By Paula Kirby | March 8, 2010; 4:32 PM ET | Comments (23)
I oppose the use of any taxpayer money going to religious institutions, but especially money that condones discrimination. Religious freedom allows religions to discriminate, but not on the taxpayer's dime.
By Herb Silverman | March 8, 2010; 4:28 PM ET | Comments (20)
The withdrawal of Catholic Charities from delivering services to the District of Columbia over specific policy decisions illustrates the problem with outsourcing compassion.
By Jack Moline | March 8, 2010; 1:01 PM ET | Comments (77)
I certainly do not believe any religious institution taking Government funding to provide social services to the community has a right to discriminate. The Government does not discriminate when collecting taxes.
By Arun Gandhi | March 8, 2010; 5:26 AM ET | Comments (2)