Satanic Temple Files Federal Lawsuit over Missouri's Abortion Restrictions
The Satanic Temple filed a federal lawsuit on June 23, 2015 to protest Missouri’s abortion restrictions, specifically the informed consent booklet and the 72-hour waiting period before the procedure is performed.In May 2015, “Mary Doe,” a member of the Satanic Temple, filed a lawsuit against the Governor and Attorney General of Missouri after attempting to forgo the informed consent and waiting period requirements at a St. Louis Planned Parenthood. Doe argued that the requirements violated her religious beliefs, stating that “As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple… I, and I alone, decide whether my inviolable body remains pregnant.” Doe and the Temple believe that the abortion restrictions violated the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health research and policy organization, three states (Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah) require 72-hour waiting periods, while 23 other states require waiting periods from 18 to 48 hours. 10 states require that written materials be given to the woman seeking the abortion with five states requiring information stating that personhood begins at conception.
Some religions are opposed to abortion, such as the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which explains on its website: “Our church’s explanation of the Small Catechism puts the matter well when it says, ‘The living but unborn are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Since abortion takes a human life, it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of another human, the mother.’”
An article about the lawsuit in the National Catholic Register argued against Mary Doe’s right to get an abortion: “At the moment of conception, the unborn child has a unique DNA. That’s science. Anything else is just propaganda… It seems to me we all knew which side of the abortion debate Satan was rooting for. I just didn’t think it would take him this long to find a lawyer.”
Source: procon.org
Vatican to Sign Treaty with Palestinian State over Israeli Objections
The Vatican has reaffirmed its recognition of the “State of Palestine” in a treaty to be signed in the near future. Announced on May 13, 2015, the move has generated consternation amongst Israel’s leadership, though the Holy See has officially recognized a Palestinian state since at least Jan. 2013.When negotiations over the treaty began between the two parties, early drafts referred to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rather than the State of Palestine. After 2012, however, when the United Nations (UN) General Assembly granted Palestine the status of an observer non-member state (the Vatican holds the same observer non-member status), the Vatican began official diplomatic relations with the Palestinian state, and the Vatican’s official yearbook, titled theAnnuario Pontificio, acknowledged the “State of Palestine.” The Vatican began full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1994.
Monsignor Antoine Camilleri, the Vatican’s Deputy Foreign Minister, told the Vatican’s official newspaper that he hoped the treaty will help to further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “It would be positive if the accord could in some way help with the establishment and recognition of an independent, sovereign and democratic State of Palestine which lives in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours.”
Xavier Abu Eid, a PLO spokesperson, said that the move was “nothing new… in terms of the recognition of Palestine, which was given to us a few years ago by the Holy See. What is new is we are going to sign an agreement with the Vatican.” However, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Vatican’s action sets a significant precedent: “This is a very important recognition as the Vatican has a very important political status that stems from its spiritual status. We expect more EU countries to follow.” President Abbas is scheduled to visit the Vatican for the canonization of two Palestinian-born nuns on May 17, 2015.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry stated that it was “disappointed” in the Vatican’s acknowledgement of the Palestinian state: “This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations.” While the US has not responded directly to the Vatican’s move, State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke reasserted the US position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, being that the formation of a Palestinian state must arise from negotiations with Israel rather than being imposed from outside.
Source: procon.org
Landmark Gay Marriage Case Heard at US Supreme Court
The Supreme Court had not entered the debate over legal gay marriageuntil there was a conflict amongst federal courts. After numerous judicial wins for the gay marriage movement over the past two years, in Nov. 2014 the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gay marriage bans in four states, thus prompting the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Obergefell v. Hodges, a consolidation of six separate cases from Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky, concerns two related issues: whether or not the US Constitution guarantees the right to wed for couples of the same gender, and whether or not states are bound by the Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June. If the Court rules that same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the 22 states that have had gay marriage bans struck down by federal courts could seek to have the bans reinstated. Currently,same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states and 13 states have gay marriage bans in place.
Source: procon.org
Tax Law to Benefit Churches Signed by Arizona Governor
Arizona Governor Doug Ducey ® signed a bill on Mar. 23, 2015 that will give property owners a tax break when they lease property to religious groups, including churches. The new law is intended to benefit churches by allowing property owners to pass on their tax savings to religious groups in the form of cheaper leases. A similar measure was vetoed in 2014 by then-Governor Jan Brewer ®.Under the law, properties owned by educational, religious, or charitable organizations are exempt from incurring property taxes if they are leased to religious groups and primarily used for religious worship. Other property owners who lease property to churches receive a reduction in their “property tax assessment ratio” on that property from 18.5% to 1%, thus lowering their tax burden.
State Senator Debbie Lesko ®, who sponsored the 2014 bill when she was a House member, said that because churches owning property already receive a tax exemption, it’s only fair that churches leasing property get the same benefit: “It will help smaller churches that can’t afford to purchase their property to get similar tax treatment.” The Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative lobbying group, also supported the bill and welcomed the new law, stating that “Churches from throughout the state will benefit from this important legislation.”
An analysis performed by Arizona Legislature budget staff estimated that the tax cut could create a shortfall costing the state government up to $2.1 million per year in additional education funding, as dictated by the state’s “Basic Aid Formula.”
Source: procon.org
Netanyahu Says Two-State Solution Today Gives 'Attack Grounds' for 'Radical Islam'
During an interview with Israeli news website NRG on Mar. 16, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that, “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel.” When asked by the interviewer if that meant that his government would not support the establishment of a Palestinian state, he simply said, “Correct.”
Netanyahu’s comments were interpreted both in Israel and abroad as an abandonment of prior commitments to eventually establish a sovereign Palestinian state, which has been the ultimate goal of the US-led peace processsince the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel andPalestinian leadership.
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, said at a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee: “If these things are true, it means that the Israeli government has no serious intentions to reach a peace agreement that will create two states based on the 1967 borders… We therefore will not retreat from our position to apply international law, and so it is our right to go anywhere in the world to realize our rights according to international law.”
Netanyahu’s statement distancing himself from a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was seen by many as an effort to boost turnout among the Likud Party’s conservative base, much of which is either wary of or opposed to the idea of an independent Palestine.
Clergy Tax Break Struck Down by Federal Court
A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional the “parsonage exemption,” which gives religious ministers a tax break on most of the money they spend on housing.
Judge Barbara Crabb, deciding the case in the US District Court for the Western District Of Wisconsin on Nov. 22, 2013, stated that the tax exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment because “it provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else…”
The parsonage exemption currently benefits about 44,000 ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders in the United States. The exemption does not apply to leaders of secular nonprofit charities.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed the suit on the basis that the First Amendment’s Establishment clause guarantees a separation of church and state. They argued that by granting a tax exemption to “ministers of the gospel,” but not to, for example, members of the FFRF, the government is supporting religion. Andrew L. Seidel, Constitutional Consultant with the FFRF, writing about the case for Forbes.com in Mar. 2012, stated that “The parsonage exemption entangles the government with religious questions. The IRS is tasked with investigating the role of the person claiming the exemption and determining whether or not their duties are religious enough… It is hard to imagine a more blatant violation of constitutional principles than the parsonage exemption.”
Does the Phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance Violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?
Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps the government out of church finances and thus upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more…
Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 for a magazine contest, and it read: “I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase “under God” into the Pledge.
Proponents of including "under God” in the Pledge argue that the United States is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support the phrase, the language reflects America’s civic culture and is not a religious statement, and federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to God.
Opponents contend that church and state should be kept strictly separate as the Founding Fathers intended. They argue that the Constitution protects minority rights against majority will, and that the words “under God” in the Pledge are a religious phrase and thus violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Gay Marriage Sanctioned by Christian Church in the Middle Ages, Claimed Late Historian
Same-sex marriages were sanctioned and performed by the Christian Church as early as the Eighth Century, according to an e-book to be published on Aug. 28, 2013, originally written by the late Catholic historian John Boswell, PhD in 1994.In Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the former A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University offers more than 60 Medieval Christian texts from various sources, including the Vatican, as evidence that Church-sanctioned ceremonies and rituals very similar to heterosexual marriages occurred during the Middle Ages.
Boswell argues that the later condemnation of homosexuality by Christian leaders stems from efforts in the late Middle Ages to portray marriage as being designed for procreation. Christian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas famously condemned homosexuality in the late 1200s, claiming it was against the laws of nature because homosexual unions could not produce children.
"Ex-Gay" Ministry Ceases Operations, Apologizes to Gay Community
“The president of a leading Christian ministry dedicated to helping gays repress their sexual urges through prayer has apologized to the gay community and says the group is shutting down.
Alan Chambers, in a statement posted Thursday on Exodus International’s website 
(319 KB), said the group wants to apologize to the gay community ‘for years of undue suffering and judgment at the hands of the organization and the church as a whole.’…
Exodus International, which is based in Orlando, Fla., was founded 37 years ago and claimed 260 member ministries around the U.S. and internationally. For decades, it offered to help conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted homosexual inclinations through counseling and prayer, infuriating gay rights activists in the process…
Churches and Taxes - ProCon.org
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps the government out of church finances and thus upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more…
Should the words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 for a magazine contest, and it read: “I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase “under God” into the Pledge.
Proponents of including "under God” in the Pledge argue that the United States is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support
Do religious displays on public property violate the Constitution?
Read pro and con arguments from the ACLU (pro), Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (con), retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (pro), and the Republican National Committee (con).
