scotus

Arguments in the Supreme Court’s first public prayer case in 30 years are more complicated than they at first appear to be.

In these days of political polarization much of the public discussion, particularly when it comes to religion, has shifted from what is said to how it is said. Forget about equality, the narrative goes, are you demanding it in a kind and civil tone? Maybe civility, unity and tolerance ain’t all they’re cracked up to be…

Will the challenge to build “an homage to the historic/literary Satan” at Oklahoma’s capital actually change anything?

Christians (understood to mean here heterosexual activist traditionalists) have become identified with actively pursuing the denial of rights and benefits to others that they themselves enjoy. In other words, the “Gospel” has been identified with the cause of self-benefiting social discrimination against a minority group, a losing hand if ever there was one.

Why the frail response by LGBT organizations to the Voting Rights Act repeal this week?

Right-wing twittersphere is aflutter with talk of “polygamy,” “pedophilia,” etc.

Ralph Reed is doing a kind of constitutional drag performance for the press, dressing his religious values in secular sequins and pearls, but we all know what’s beneath the costume, right?

And whether health care, pensions, etc. can be denied.

Two of the three judges who upheld the ruling were GOP appointees.

The balance between the right to free exercise of religion and the right of employees to equal protection under the law is not easy to strike, and the Hosanna-Tabor decision doesn’t appear to strike it at all.