Supreme Court term touches on prayer, religious liberty

Last updated on: October 15, 2013 at 10:55 pm by CNA Daily News

Supreme Court term touches on prayer, religious liberty 2013-10-15T22:55:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Oct 15, 2013 / 04:55 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The 2013-2014 Supreme Court term, which began Oct. 7, will address several prominent issues in the public square, including freedom of speech for pro-life demonstrations, prayer in legislative settings, and religious freedom.

Limits on pro-life protests outside of abortion clinics are being challenged in the upcoming case “McCullen v. Coakley.” The petitioners argue that a Massachusetts law limiting sidewalk counseling for women entering abortion clinics violates the First Amendment.

They claim that limiting the enforcement of a 35-foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinics to pro-life counselors and other non-employees is an example of a selective exclusion law targeting a specific viewpoint in a public space.

The ruling will affect the interpretation of First Amendment rights for protestors, and could implicitly reveal the court's interpretation of the importance of abortion, its view of the procedure as “health care,” and the value of individuals' freedom of speech in public spaces.

If the “buffer zone” is ruled to be unconstitutional, it would likely expand pro-life counselors' ability to offer sidewalk counseling services in front of abortion clinics.

Another case of note coming to the Supreme Court will be November's “Town of Greece v. Galloway,” which will address the constitutionality of prayer in legislative settings. The case challenges the town of Greece, N.Y.'s 14-year-long practice of beginning town meetings with prayers from a variety of traditions and faiths. The town places no limits on who can say the public prayers, nor what the prayers contain.

The town argues that the practice of prayer in the government, and more specifically in legislative areas, is a practice present in all levels of government, and one that has been exercised throughout the nation's history.

However, petitioners argue that the prayer sessions, though they are not regulated or limited to certain faiths, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and coerce participation in religious prayer.

The court's decision is expected to clarify whether religious petitions in legislative settings constitute “an establishment of religion,” or if they are a licit means of religious expression in a public arena.

Other notable cases the Supreme Court will address are “Fisher v. University of Texas,” which will revisit the question of affirmative action in colleges; “McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,” regarding the constitutionality of individual political campaign contributions; “National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning,” which will address the president’s ability to appoint government officials when the Senate is not in session; and “Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp,” a patent law case.

Court observers have speculated that one or more cases dealing with the federal contraception mandate may also be heard in the near future.

The controversial mandate requires employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraceptive, sterilizing and abortion-causing products and procedures, even if doing so violates their conscience or religious beliefs.

Several cases regarding the mandate have been filed with the Supreme Court, all concerning the ability of owners of private companies to run their organizations in accordance with their deeply-held religious convictions.

In each case – “Autocam v. Sebelius,” “Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius,” and “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores,” the government has argued that the right to freely exercise religion does not apply to the owners of for-profit companies. The owners have largely argued that participating in for-profit business should not mean separating their religious beliefs from their public action.

If the cases are taken, the decision will determine whether or not companies must obey the mandate at the expense of their religious convictions, and it could set a precedent for establishing the range of freedom of religion in the public square.

Previous Post

October 15, 2013

Ordinariate Use unites Anglican tradition to Catholic Church

Next Post

October 16, 2013 Devotion of next bishops' synod to family 'providential'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who prophesied the fall of Babylon?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Isaiah Ezekiel Jeremiah