GetReligion
Monday, April 14, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court

, , , , , ,

How NOT to cover the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case at SCOTUS

, , , , , ,

Hey @GetReligion, read the fear-filled, one-sided piece in @Forbes re: what will happen if @HobbyLobbyStore prevails: http://t.co/O47OaXrg6m @MattBranaugh Are you suggesting there is more than one side to this story?

@GetReligion Surprising, I know. According to this piece, everyone already agrees the government is right and Hobby Lobby is wrong.

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling in the Hobby Lobby case expected as soon as today, Forbes offers a perfect example of how not to cover the decision.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Should the high court have backed town council prayers?

, , , ,
Should the high court have backed town council prayers?

[Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's new Greece v. Galloway ruling that allows prayers before town council meetings]: Is the door being nudged open for an ugly discourse on separation of church and state? Brad fears this pro-prayer decision might stir up ugliness, but The Guy thinks there’s be more of it if the Court had instead barred invocations like those in Greece, New York. Americans generally like prayers to solemnize civic occasions from inauguration of the president on down, and politicians naturally go along. Briefs in Greece’s favor were signed by 85 members of the U.S. House and 34 U.S. Senators. Most were Republicans, but the Obama Administration likewise filed in support. Though civic prayers are popular or considered useful to the republic, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily good for the Christian faith. Hold that thought.

Politicians aside, many news reports missed that all 9 Supreme Court justices were favorable toward council prayers. The four liberal dissenters, sounding much like the five majority conservatives, stated that local council meetings need not “be religion- or prayer-free” and that’s because “legislative prayer has a distinctive constitutional warrant by virtue of tradition.” Mainly, the liberals protested because Greece loaded up its lineup of prayer-givers with earnest Christians and made little effort to include religious minorities.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Though that commands only Congress, the “incorporation” doctrine (which Justice Thomas rejects) extends this to actions by state and local governments.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Gasp! The New York Times covers the heart of Justice Kennedy's argument!

, , , , ,

Let’s hear it for The New York Times, a newspaper that can always be trusted to get key information on both sides of hot religious and cultural debates into print. Actually, in contrast with the CNN Belief Blog editorial that our own Jim Davis parsed this morning, the basic Times news report on the Supreme Court’s Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, Et Al decision (.pdf) does a pretty good job of allowing readers to hear voices on both sides of this important debate.

The bottom line: This story managed to mention one of the most crucial questions facing the justices, which is, “Is nonsectarian prayer possible?” And after that question comes another church-state puzzle: Who is in charge of determining whether any given believer’s sort-of-free speech is nonsectarian enough to pass muster with state officials?

As always, the crucial swing vote in this 5-4 decision belonged to America’s uncrowned king, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a pro-business moral-libertarian country-club Republican who is to some degree an American Catholic.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Gasp! NYTimes covers the heart of Kennedy's argument!

, , , , ,

Let’s hear it for The New York Times, a newspaper that can always be trusted to get key information on both sides of hot religious and cultural debates into print. Actually, in contrast with the CNN Belief Blog editorial that our own Jim Davis parsed this morning, the basic Times news report on the Supreme Court’s Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, Et Al decision (.pdf) does a pretty good job of allowing readers to hear voices on both sides of this important debate.

The bottom line: This story managed to mention one of the most crucial questions facing the justices, which is, “Is nonsectarian prayer possible?” And after that question comes another church-state puzzle: Who is in charge of determining whether any given believer’s sort-of-free speech is nonsectarian enough to pass muster with state officials?

As always, the crucial swing vote in this 5-4 decision belonged to America’s uncrowned king, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a pro-business moral-libertarian country-club Republican who is to some degree an American Catholic.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Pod people: Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite angle

, , ,
Pod people: Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite angle

On this week’s episode of the GetReligion podcast “Crossroads,” host Todd Wilken and I discuss media coverage of the Hobby Lobby case. Or — as our editor Terry Mattingly asked recently — is it really the Hobby Lobby case?

Now, I realize Hobby Lobby is a nationally known brand and that this punchy name fits better in a headline than that of Conestoga Wood, the cabinetmaking company owned by a Mennonite family in Pennsylvania that is also part of the case. Is it possible that “Mennonites fight for free exercise of religion” isn’t as culture-wars friendly a story line as “giant, rich conservative evangelical company fights, etc., etc.”?

Todd wondered if anyone had explored the Mennonite angle. My basic response: I don’t know. (Yes, such enlightening insight makes for great listening. But I digress.)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

A First Amendment case that isn't a First Amendment case?

, , , ,

It’s time, once again, to venture into the dangerous world of religious and political labels. The current news hook for this meditation is, of course, the so-called Hobby Lobby case linked to the religious-liberty implications of the Affordable Care Act. Speaking of labels: Why is this the Hobby Lobby case, in headline after headline? Why “Hobby Lobby” alone? Why isn’t this, in part, the Mennonite case?

Now, I realize Hobby Lobby is a nationally known brand and that this punchy name fits better in a headline than that of Conestoga Wood, the cabinetmaking company owned by a Mennonite family in Pennsylvania that is also part of the case. Is it possible that “Mennonites fight for free exercise of religion” isn’t as culture-wars friendly a story line as “giant, rich conservative evangelical company fights, etc., etc.”?

But back to my main point. In recent years I have been asking the following question about the labels used in coverage of the rising tide of stories linked to fights about basic First Amendment rights. I recently stated the essential labeling question this way:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

On Hobby Lobby, how does the Supreme Court measure up?

, , , , , ,

No, wait. The Washington Post seems here to be using the term more responsibly, examining the relationship between beliefs and verdicts. And it doesn’t even use the term as a launchpad for a liberal screed. The article tied to the Hobby Lobby case is not flawless, but it does try to advance knowledge for people who aren’t court watchers. How well, though, is a good question.

After a painful cliché — “The justices got religion” — the article calms down:

Or at least they seem more open about their faith, appearing before devout audiences and talking more about how religion shaped their lives or guides them now.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Ready, set, go! Hobby Lobby at the Supremes

, , , ,

Hobby Lobby gets its hearing before the Supreme Court this morning. WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama’s healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court’s history.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s health care law gets a return engagement at the Supreme Court (this week) in a case full of hot-button issues: religious freedom, corporate rights, federal regulation, abortion and contraception.

Put another way, it’s a case about God, money, power, sex — and Obamacare.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Ready, set, go! Hobby Lobby at the Supremes

, , , ,

Hobby Lobby gets its hearing before the Supreme Court this morning. WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama’s healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court’s history.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s health care law gets a return engagement at the Supreme Court (this week) in a case full of hot-button issues: religious freedom, corporate rights, federal regulation, abortion and contraception.

Put another way, it’s a case about God, money, power, sex — and Obamacare.


Please respect our Commenting Policy