Friday, January 29, 2010
Tiller's murderer found guilty on all counts
Earlier today, KCTV5 broadcast the live reading of the verdict of Scott Roeder, the man charged with killing Dr. George Tiller in Wichita. Roeder was found guilty of all charges. The verdict was unanimous.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Hearing on MO constitutional amendment on prayer
Tomorrow (Tues. Jan. 26) a Missouri Senate committee will hold a hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment regarding prayer (SJR 31).
At that hearing, the president of the St. Louis Chapter will distribute a letter written by the state legislative counsel for Americans United, detailing the problems with the legislation. Among these are that:
* The legislation does not adequately account for the fact that the free speech of government employees, while speaking in the context of their employment, are "somewhat diminished" because they are speaking on behalf of the state.
* The legislation "does not acknowledge constitutional limits on legislative prayer," such as the requirement that prayers be nonsectarian.
* The "proposed amendment may undermine efforts to achieve interfaith understanding."
At that hearing, the president of the St. Louis Chapter will distribute a letter written by the state legislative counsel for Americans United, detailing the problems with the legislation. Among these are that:
* The legislation does not adequately account for the fact that the free speech of government employees, while speaking in the context of their employment, are "somewhat diminished" because they are speaking on behalf of the state.
* The legislation "does not acknowledge constitutional limits on legislative prayer," such as the requirement that prayers be nonsectarian.
* The "proposed amendment may undermine efforts to achieve interfaith understanding."
Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law
Before we can talk intelligently about how things should be, we need to agree on how things are.
A new document called ¨Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law¨ sets down exactly what the current law is regarding religious expression in America. You can read it in pdf form here:
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Some excerpts:
"The drafters of this document often disagree about how the law should address issues regarding the intersection of religion and government. For example, some of us are actively urging the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse certain decisions in this area, while others of us are vigorously opposing such efforts.
"Nevertheless, we have come together to provide a summary of how the law currently answers some basic questions regarding religious expression and practice in public life. However much we differ about what the law should be, we agree in many cases on what the law is today...
"Many of the questions concerning religious expression in public life could be better addressed if Americans kept in mind the First Amendment’s crucial distinction between “government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” Of course, this reference to “private speech” is not limited to speech occurring “in private,” but describes religious expression attributable to nongovernmental organizations and individuals rather than to the state. This means that individuals and groups have the right to practice and promote their faith, not only within their homes and houses of worship, but also publicly in places such as parks, street corners, the airwaves, open meetings and many other places subject to the same time, place and manner limits that apply to other nongovernmental speech. This statement is a brief summary of some of the ways in which the law applies to various forms of religious speech, expression and
practice..."
(Thanks to Bill Tammeus and his blog, where we found out about this document: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515f9b69e20120a7f34e24970b )
A new document called ¨Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law¨ sets down exactly what the current law is regarding religious expression in America. You can read it in pdf form here:
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Some excerpts:
"The drafters of this document often disagree about how the law should address issues regarding the intersection of religion and government. For example, some of us are actively urging the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse certain decisions in this area, while others of us are vigorously opposing such efforts.
"Nevertheless, we have come together to provide a summary of how the law currently answers some basic questions regarding religious expression and practice in public life. However much we differ about what the law should be, we agree in many cases on what the law is today...
"Many of the questions concerning religious expression in public life could be better addressed if Americans kept in mind the First Amendment’s crucial distinction between “government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” Of course, this reference to “private speech” is not limited to speech occurring “in private,” but describes religious expression attributable to nongovernmental organizations and individuals rather than to the state. This means that individuals and groups have the right to practice and promote their faith, not only within their homes and houses of worship, but also publicly in places such as parks, street corners, the airwaves, open meetings and many other places subject to the same time, place and manner limits that apply to other nongovernmental speech. This statement is a brief summary of some of the ways in which the law applies to various forms of religious speech, expression and
practice..."
(Thanks to Bill Tammeus and his blog, where we found out about this document: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515f9b69e20120a7f34e24970b )
HB 1651 allows teachers to discuss ´weaknesses´ of evolution
2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.
This Missouri bill is not yet on the calendar and is not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
3 MO bills on malpractice, school prayer, evolution
SB616 - Enacts provisions relating to faith-based community health centers
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/sbills/sb616.htm
SJR31 - Proposes a constitutional amendment reaffirming a citizen's right to free expression of religion
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/sbills/sj031.htm
HJR 62 - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN PUBLIC PLACES - McGhee, Mike
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/bills/hjr62.htm
SB 616 does seem to be offering faith-based community health centers an exemption from malpractice not available to other community health centers. In terms of church-state separation law, I think a simple removal of the phrase "faith-based" so that it applies to all community health centers would make it legal. It is in a Senate committee right now.
SJR 31 and HJR 62 appear to be Senate and House versions of the same thing - an amendment to the Missouri constitution. Some of the things it would guarantee, we already have. I am concerned about two things, though. On the issue of prayer, of course voluntary school prayer by students is already allowed and no one can be coerced to participate - but what about the right not to be forced to listen to prayers of others (given that students are considered a "captive audience")? It's unclear whether this legislation would respect that concept or is an attempt to undermine it.
Even more troubling is this passage: "that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;"
This could easily be used by creationists to attack the teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms.
The House bill has not be sent to committee and is not yet scheduled for a hearing. The Senate version is in committee. We'll be keeping an eye on the situation
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/sbills/sb616.htm
SJR31 - Proposes a constitutional amendment reaffirming a citizen's right to free expression of religion
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/sbills/sj031.htm
HJR 62 - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN PUBLIC PLACES - McGhee, Mike
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills101/bills/hjr62.htm
SB 616 does seem to be offering faith-based community health centers an exemption from malpractice not available to other community health centers. In terms of church-state separation law, I think a simple removal of the phrase "faith-based" so that it applies to all community health centers would make it legal. It is in a Senate committee right now.
SJR 31 and HJR 62 appear to be Senate and House versions of the same thing - an amendment to the Missouri constitution. Some of the things it would guarantee, we already have. I am concerned about two things, though. On the issue of prayer, of course voluntary school prayer by students is already allowed and no one can be coerced to participate - but what about the right not to be forced to listen to prayers of others (given that students are considered a "captive audience")? It's unclear whether this legislation would respect that concept or is an attempt to undermine it.
Even more troubling is this passage: "that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;"
This could easily be used by creationists to attack the teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms.
The House bill has not be sent to committee and is not yet scheduled for a hearing. The Senate version is in committee. We'll be keeping an eye on the situation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)