Can what worked in Connecticut, turning the governor around on housing child migrants, work elsewhere?
Has President Obama managed to thread the needle on gay rights and religious freedom, as my colleague David Gibson suggests? I’m not so sure.
Revelations about Twin Cities diocese’s mismanagement of the abuse crisis is a warning that should be heeded all the way to the Vatican.
Why is the junior senator from Connecticut begging Hobby Lobby to abide by his state’s contraception mandate when the state has a right to demand it?
What happens when the irresistible force of gun rights meets the immovable object of religious liberty? Well, in the laboratory of democracy known as the State of Alabama, we may soon find out.
I can understand why the pastor of Corpus Christi Church in Manhattan has a problem with the City of New York designating his block of 121st Street “George Carlin Way.” But there are ways to get over it.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision (and its granting of injunctive relief to Wheaton College), various faith-based organizations (FBOs) are stepping up to ask to be exempted from President Obama’s impending executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. I don’t think they’ll get it.
That’s the news out of Rome after Pope Francis’ meeting with six victims of clergy sexual abuse, and it’s potentially very big news.
After last week’s discovery of the bodies of Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Fraenkel in the West bank, voices on the American Jewish right like Jonathan Tobin and Thane Rosenbaum attacked those who seemed to equate their murder with the killing of rock-throwing Palestinians by Israeli soldiers searching for the kidnapped Jewish teenagers. After the kidnapping and murder of 17-year-old Mohammed Khdair, such talk ceased.
The immediate import of the Supreme Court’s decision seems to be that the two companies in question, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, should receive the same accommodation afforded religious non-profits; namely, their female employees will have the contraceptive services objected to by the companies covered by the insurance company covering or administering their plans.