Obama administration won't let Hobby Lobby decision apply to Religious groups, says just closely held corporations can exercise religious freedom

It seem pretty clear that the Obama administration is just being punitive and make religious organizations bear the legal costs of going to court.  From Fox News:

The Obama administration says faith-based nonprofits should comply with ObamaCare’s birth-control mandate because they have more leeway than the corporations that won a Supreme Court ruling on the issue last year. 

Government attorneys made the argument on Thursday to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after pro-life ministry Priests for Life asked the court to reconsider a ruling it made last fall that requires religious nonprofits to object in writing to regulations that require employer health care plans to insure contraceptives . . .

Largest participating religious group by county in 2010

Click on the figure to make it larger.

The original figure is available here.

US Supreme Court will decide if the Obamacare contraception mandate “the least restrictive means" of obtaining goal of making contraception available?

I think that the Obama administration will have a hard time winning the new case going to the Supreme court on contraception mandates.  Supporters of the law will focus on whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to for profit businesses.  But I would point out that the court has moved towards letting for profit businesses have free speech rights under the First Amendment (see the Citizens United case from 2010).  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't specifically exempt for profit businesses from coverage.  It talks about "persons," but why should people lose the ability to honor their religious beliefs when they operate a company?  From The Hill newspaper:

“I think there’s a strong argument that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, in this particular case, would allow Hobby Lobby to deny certain contraception coverage without having to pay the fine that would otherwise be imposed them under the Affordable Care Act,” said Kurt Lash, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois.  

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act prevents the government from “substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion” unless it “furthers a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned chain of arts and craft stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a cabinet company owned by Mennonites, argue that the law should prevent them from having to offer their employees contraception as part of their health insurance coverage. The two companies are citing the 1993 law to back their cases.   

Kennedy wrote the 1993 decision that allowed a Florida Santeria group that performed animal sacrifices to do so despite a local ban on the practice.  

Under Roberts, the court unanimously ruled in 2006 that a Brazil-based religious sect could use an illegal hallucinogenic drug in their ceremonies, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  

“We already know that there is a majority on the court that not only is willing to uphold and apply [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] but who in the past has been very skeptical of the government denying claims when they’ve been giving other groups exemptions,” Lash said. It is dangerous to predict the justices' decisions, however, and both of these cases dealt with religious institutions, not for-profit businesses. . . .

Is forcing people to work for others when they don't want to a form of slavery?

This last week the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christian photographers can't decline certain customers based on their religious beliefs.  Personally, I don't know how this gets around the "free exercise" clause in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The New Mexican Supreme Court claims that forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is just "the price of citizenship."

Why is government prevented from newspapers forcing to carry opposing views but perfectly OK for the government to force people to provide their time for causes that they think are wrong?  Jonathan Turley has a differing view available here. 

Add this to the growing list of controls that government has over people's lives.  For example, Obama is threatening jail to someone who wants to shutdown his business rather than turnover information on his clients to the government.

Government double standard on religion: Georgia High School Mural posts “God is Dead” quote

Would that school assign books that wrote about positive religious experiences?  Say the Bible for example.  Hardly.  But for some other "approved" literary works it is OK.  Isn't the Bible considered a literary work?  Would the school count the Bible as helping students understand the US or world history?  You would think that it was a very important book in understanding what motivated people such as America's founders.  But I assume that the answer is "no" to that also.  At this point it really isn't a question of whether one is religious or not, but one of consistency.  From Fox News:

A Georgia high school project that has sparked outrage among some students and parents will not be taken down, the district decided.
Alcovy High School leaders will instead meet with students to explain the context behind a poster featuring the quote, “God is Dead” from Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible.”
“It made my daughter very uncomfortable,” Crystal Mitchell, a student's parent told MyFoxAtlanta.com.
“If my child can’t pray in school and they’ve taken religion out of school, for this to be plastered on the walls of school, is a huge concern for me,” Mitchell said.
But the school contested that thousands of students read the book each year, and the project is meant as a reflection of the play, not as a religious statement. . . .

People become more religious and stay religious when they face more dangers in war

The old saying that "There are no atheists in foxholes" seems to be true.  Being in the military during war causes people to be more religious and to stay that way and the effect is occurs for who had the most difficult experiences.  From Science20:

. . . But does war really transform people, or does it simply make the fleetingly religious more so for a short time? A recent analysis of archived surveys of Army Infantry soldiers after a battle -  Samuel Stouffer's "The American Soldier" World War II  research (1) - found self-reported reliance on prayer rose from 42% to 72% as that battle got more intense.

"The question is whether that reliance on faith lasts over time," said Craig Wansink, author and Professor of Religion at Virginia Wesleyan College, who did the analysis and co-wrote the paper with his brother Brian Wansink, food marketing expert and Professor of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. The World War II generation is a good one for analysis because the interest was religiosity long-term and young people in the 1940s were more religious overall than more recent generations.

A second analysis of survey results from 1,123 World War II veterans showed that 50 or more years after combat, most soldiers still exhibited religious behavior, though it varied by their war experience. Those facing heavy combat (versus no combat) attended church 21% more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended 26% less often.  . . .

"Churches offering concealed-carry weapons training to attract members"

Here is a novel way to increase church attendance.  It seems like a way to interest men in the church.  From The Daily:

. . . In an effort to increase membership, a number of U.S. churches — including the Church of Christ congregation in this rural village 30 miles north of Columbus — are offering an unconventional public service: Concealed weapons training. 

“Church has done a good job with coffee klatsches or whatever, but we haven’t really reached out to guys,” said Jeff Copley, a preacher at the church. “And guys in Morrow Country, they shoot and they hunt.” 

Hundreds of students have enrolled in the 10-hour course, which meets the state requirements for earning a concealed weapons permit. The training includes two hours on a church member’s private shooting range. 

“I grew up going to church, but hadn’t attended in a number of years,” said David Freeman, 52, a local engineering manager who attended a firearm safety class at the church. “Always considered myself a Christian. I came for the gun classes and have been coming back for two years. . . .

A number of examples of individual churches doing this are provided in the article.

Thanks to Tony Troglio for the link.

Another way that we are becoming more like Europe: startling drop in religiosity

From the Economist magazine:

the proportion of Americans who say they are religious has fallen from 73% in 2005 to 60% in 2011. . . .

Obama's out reach to faith based supporters "ad hoc," no "clear sense of what the mission"

What strikes me when I read the Washington Post article was that Obama's religious supporters are academics.  I have meet a number of academics in religion programs and what has always stood out when I talked to them was that they were atheists.  I have no evidence that these academics are atheists, but I wouldn't be surprised that Obama had a lot of atheist academics in religion programs talking to him about what he needed to do to reach out to religious people.  I won't quote it hear, but the piece has numerous discussions about religious Democrats who were uncomfortable with Obama's support for homosexual marriage.  From the Washington Post:

. . . “I think there is a viable religious left who can be persuaded by a carefully articulated religious argument, but no one is making it,” said Valerie Cooper, a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia and Obama supporter. “I’m concerned that the administration has not followed through on the promise of 2008.” . . .
“I get frustrated when I talk to evangelical friends or students and they ask, ‘How can you be a Christian and a Democrat?’” Cooper said.
David Kim, a Connecticut College religious studies professor, helped advise the 2008 campaign when videos of incendiary sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former Chicago pastor, threatened to derail the nominee. Kim, who attended the briefing with Cooper, described the administration’s faith-based work as “ad hoc” and “with no long-term strategy.”
“I didn’t really get a clear sense of what the mission is,” Kim said. . . .
According to exit polls, the effort paid off. Obama made gains over the 2004 nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, with voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 43 percent to 35 percent. Obama also won 26 percent of the evangelical vote, compared with 21 percent for Kerry.
“It wasn’t huge, but it was statistically significant,” said John Green, director of the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute for Applied Politics . . .
But from 2008 to 2010, when control of Congress was at stake, the DNC cut its faith outreach staffing from more than six people to one part-timer, according to The Washington Post. . . .

BTW, here is an add that the Obama campaign has in the NY Times on Sunday morning. What struck me as strange about the add was that the add looks like it was done by some LGBT group, not by the Obama administration.  At least having the add in the NY Times would minimize any collateral damage among religiously orientated individuals who are relatively unlikely to be reading that newspaper.

Cardinal Wuerl explaining why they have sued the contraception mandate

Can the Federal government define what is a religious organization?  The Obama administration thinks the government can.

So much for the Obama administration claim that mandating abortion and contraception coverage would lower insurance costs

Obviously it is right that people will pay for these benefits one way or the other. From The Hill Newspaper

:

The insurance industry is concerned it will take a hit from the Obama administration’s mandate that they provide birth control in health plans for employees of religious organizations that object to the coverage.

Publicly, the health insurance industry has avoided getting involved in the fight.

But in private, the industry is dubious of the administration’s argument that the insurance industry wouldn't take a hit because birth control is cheaper than unwanted pregnancies.
The trade group America's Health Insurance Plans has limited its comments to saying it worries about the "precedent" the mandate would set. The concern is that the government could eventually require health plans to cover any number of preventive services – even prescription drugs - without copays or deductibles, under the theory that they save money in the long-term.

Privately, however, insurers say there's nothing "free" about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.

"Saying it's revenue-neutral doesn't mean it's free and that you're not paying for it," an industry source told The Hill. . . .

Obama administration regulates what service chaplains can say

The Obama administration regulates what Catholics are able to say at their religious services for military. From CNS news:

The message from the archbishop touched off a controversy both in and outside the military when the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains told the service's senior chaplains that Catholic priests serving as Army chaplains should be told not to read the archbishop's letter from the pulpit.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services has described that move as a violation of the archbishop's First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of the Catholic chaplains involved and their congregations.

The regulation the archbishop spoke about was finalized by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Jan. 20. It mandates that all health-care plans in the United States cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions. A “religious” employer exemption included in the regulation only applies to organizations that primarily focus on inculcating the tenets of the church in question, primarily employ members of the church, primarily serve members of the church, and is organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code used by actual parishes.

Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable institutions would not be exempt from the regulation, nor would Catholic individuals, business owners, or insurers. . . .

Peter Johnson, Jr. weighs in on whether White House violated Army chaplains' rights

"Supreme Court Justices Find Government Line in Church-State Case 'Amazing'"

This is a pretty stunning act by the Obama administration, something that shock both Justices on the right and left of the political spectrum. An extreme regulatory overreach by the Obama Justice Department. From ABC News:

The high court is being asked to decide whether Cheryl Perich and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may sue the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. . . .

Lawyers for the EEOC and for the teacher say Ms. Perich was fired in retaliation for filing a discrimination lawsuit against the school. They say there is no "ministerial exception" that would allow religious organizations to fire with impunity an employee whose job primarily involves teaching secular subjects to her students. . . .

Leondra Kruger, an assistant solicitor general, said the government was basing its argument on a section of the First Amendment that guarantees the freedom of individuals to associate with each other.

Some justices took issue with the position, wondering why the solicitor general's office wasn't analyzing the issue through the First Amendment's religion clauses. The two religion clauses bar the government from establishing a state-favored religion, while prohibiting laws that infringe the free exercise of religion. . . .

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan asked Ms. Kruger whether she believed that a church has a right grounded in First Amendment religious protections to hire and fire employees without government interference.

Kruger answered that the government was basing its argument on the freedom of association, rather than the parts of the First Amendment that deal with religious freedom.

"We don't see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such," Kruger replied. "We see it as a question of freedom of association."

The position surprised several justices, including Justice Kagan, the Obama administration's former solicitor general, who said she found the comment "amazing." After the hearing, one representative of a religious association called the government's position a "full frontal assault on religious liberty."

Chief Justice John Roberts first raised the issue when he asked whether the administration considered anything "special about the fact that the people involved in this case are part of a religious organization."

Ms. Kruger said, no, that there was no difference whether the group was a religious group, a labor group, or any other association of individuals.

"That's extraordinary. That is extraordinary," Justice Antonin Scalia declared. "We are talking here about the free exercise clause and about the establishment clause, and you say they have no special application?" . . .

Does Religion put a constraint on bad behavior?

I may not agree with O'Reilly on a lot of things, but I think that O'Reilly is right here. Thinking that there is something more powerful out there looking over your shoulder will keep people from doing some really bad things. It is interesting that Dawkins doesn't seem to understand this very basic point.

Obama administration "Promoting Homosexuality Overseas"?

Democrats get upset about the promotion of US views regarding abortion, though that simply means that we wouldn't fund them. In this case, the Obama administration is taking a more activist stand regarding homosexuality.

signals emanating from the State Department indicate that the U.S. government may be engaged in its own evangelistic efforts -- to help legitimize homosexual practices in those socially traditional countries. . . .
At the event, which was organized by the group "Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies," Clinton said the State Department is supporting efforts to advance homosexual rights around the world. "We celebrate the progress of advancing the rights of LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] in our country, as we continue to advance the rights of all people around the world," Clinton gushed before the receptive audience, adding that the "struggle for equality is never, ever finished."
The State Department's increasing interest in homosexual rights comes as critics -- such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom --have accused the Obama Administration of weakening their commitment to the freedom of religion in favor of a more narrowly defined "freedom of worship." The State Department's sudden focus upon homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa is puzzling, as countries with far harsher policies towards homosexuals -- such as Iran and much of the Islamic world -- get an apparent pass on the matter. . . .
the Obama administration seems to have decided that policy initiatives including outreach to Muslim governments and advancing gay rights would be compromised by vigorous advocacy for religious freedom.
"In fact, such a decision would harm the victims of religious persecution, hamstring key Obama initiatives, and undermine U.S. national interests," Farr writes. . . . .

Is the US paying to set up Mosques around the world?

They are if you believe Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek:

To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world.

We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it. . . .

Is this really true? Would the US help set up Christian churches around the world?

Piece that my son Roger helped write up at the Washington Times

My son Roger is working as an intern at the Washington Times. He helped write up this piece entitled: The war on Christmas escalates.

He also has a book review here: A (flawed) case against contractors.

Obama Denies Flyover of 'GOD & Country Rally'—1st Time In 42Yrs Because of Its 'Christian Nature'

Democratic presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton allowed this to occur.

Judge's statement on parent's extremist religious views is pretty extreme

This is a pretty amazing case:

A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.

Ever since the judge's ruling came out in July, the case has aroused the interest of home-schooling groups nationwide, whohave asked why a court has the power to decide whether someone's religious views are too extreme.

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.

On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said. . . . .

Catholic and Protestant Hospitals in Europe face lawsuits if they have Crucifixes in their buildings?

The UK Daily Mail has this story:

Organisations which hang crucifixes on walls could be sued if they upset atheists under equality laws proposed by the European Union.

Any group offering a service to the public, including hospitals, charities, businesses and prisons, would be at risk.

Legislation may also allow Christians to bring an action against a hotel if it displayed something they deemed offensive - such as a poster for the 1979 Monty Python film The Life Of Brian.

There are already laws banning harassment in the workplace, but the new Brussels regulations are designed to offer people protection from providers of goods and services. . . . .