
Pragmatic Political Priorities: Faith Within a Culture Clash
Is political neutrality sustainable? For religious bodies, it may be pragmatic, given current defeats in the culture war, but must defend against the risk of relativism.

Is political neutrality sustainable? For religious bodies, it may be pragmatic, given current defeats in the culture war, but must defend against the risk of relativism.

Do Pope Francis’ reforms imperil Catholic teaching or update its delivery? This examination suggests various interpretations, underscoring tensions between flexibility and tradition that a synod may highlight but only a pontiff can resolve.

Other observers may be perplexed at all the Catholic clamor over a convening taking place this week. Let me provide some context from a Catholic lay perspective.

As society embraced same-sex marriage, many believed it wouldn’t impact traditional views. However, this shift wasn’t neutral, leading to the sidelining of traditional beliefs.

Why is a diverse group of religious parents suing a Maryland School District? They’re teaching a new religion in the classroom.

Does 303 Creative v. Elenis permit discrimination? The Supreme Court’s ruling navigates a complex intersection of free speech and Public Accommodation Laws, ultimately shielding expressive activities while leaving open important questions of anti-discrimination law for we the people to debate.
New legislation was revealed in California regarding religious clothing, headwear and grooming in the state’s jails and prisons. Research has shown that those inmates who were allowed to freely exercise their religion and dress were less likely to be involved in violent actions. They are also less likely to return to prison.
The third annual IRF Summit starts tomorrow and Chris Seiple on RNS suggested that we consider just how the United States advances religious freedom abroad. Religious freedom globally is getting worse. Until we can get past the barriers dividing groups we won’t be able to move forward and progress. At least not to the level we should.

Some have stepped away from Christian fellowship after witnessing examples of hypocrisy within faith communities across the country during pandemic and political fights. How can followers of Jesus do better in the future?

The Supreme Court’s decision did not establish religion or violate the religious freedom rights of pro-choice Americans. Instead, it created space in the public square for the pro-life convictions of people of faith.
Two stories out over the past several days seem deserving of attention. In one, Walmart settled a religious freedom complaint that seemed likely to end up before the Supreme Court. While in the other, the Major League Baseball team, the Tampa Bay Rays, had a temporary team uniform celebrating sexuality as an identity that several players had religious objections to wearing. The similarities between the two cases are clear. In both, employees sought religious accommodations at work. And in our opinion, these represent a positive step forward for religious freedom. The Walmart case is more complicated. One employee was offered an assistant manager position, but because he was a Seventh-day Adventist, he chose not to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. This meant that Walmart would need to rearrange schedules by asking other managers to cover unpopular shifts, leave the store understaffed, or hire an additional manager. All of these potential accommodations would impose some cost on Walmart. The current law on this issue is that employers do not need to accommodate religious employees if there is more than a trivial cost attached. This is a much lower standard of accommodation than is required in other cases, and so some have suggested that the Supreme Court might intervene to make the standard for religious accommodations the same as other kinds of accommodations. While Walmart’s settling prevents that Supreme Court case, for now, it does suggest perhaps a changing tide that employers may be recognizing the prudence of a fairness for all approach. The Tampa Bay Rays situation is in much murkier legal waters. Private employers can compel speech in most cases, even if it’s not directly related to the job, but does asking for a specific religious exemption constitute more than a trivial cost? The Rays sidestepped this question entirely by putting their diversity policies where their mouth is. While some fans opposed anything other than total conformity from the players, the coach said that conversations in the clubhouse were what the Associated Press described as “constructive and emphasized the value of differing perspectives.” It is certainly always difficult to be part of the small group that opts out of the popular statement, but I think it is a sign of progress that in both the cases of Walmart (eventually through litigation) and the Rays, employers recognized the need to appreciate the religious diversity in their workplace.
While we are attuned to the uptick in targeting Catholic churches in the United States in response to frustrations about abortion, the epidemic has started to spread more widely. Bitter Winter reports, that Austria, a country that had previously largely avoided religious violence has now been the victim of targeted assaults on Catholic churches in the country. Three Austrian Churches Vandalized in Two Weeks Meanwhile, stateside, another Catholic church has been targeted, this time for a theft. A tabernacle at a Brooklyn church, valued at $2 million has been stripped from the church. Given the value of the tabernacle, the theft may not be religiously motivated. The latest story has an interesting side-note from Get Religion. Terry Mattingly covers some of the religious nuances that The New York Times got wrong in their initial report of the story, underlying the continued need for increased religious literacy among reporters.