Southern Baptist Convention happening in Dallas this week
The Brief
The Southern Baptist Convention is currently underway at the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center in Dallas.
About 20,000 people are expected to attend.
The four-day conference is expected to bring an economic boost to the Dallas area.
DALLAS - The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest religious conference, is happening in Dallas this week.
What we know
The convention kicked off Sunday and is expected to bring as many as 20,000 people to the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center in Downtown Dallas throughout the week.
It's the largest annual religious gathering in the United States and is back in Dallas for the first time since 2018.
The conference is expected to bring a big boost to the local economy with visitors booking hotels, shopping, eating at restaurants, and visiting museums and other attractions.
Visit Dallas expects direct spending from the event will bring in about $12.8 million, with an additional $7.5 million in indirect spending and more than $600,000 in tax revenue.
While a lot of the money will stay downtown, other popular Dallas areas are expecting to benefit as well.
What's next
The Southern Baptist Convention brings members together to vote on a path forward.
They're expected to vote this year on a stricter ban on women pastors and work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage 10 years ago, among other measures.
By the numbers
There are 12 million Southern Baptists across the country, and more than 2 million are Texans.
The Source
FOX 4's Shannon Murray gathered information for this story from an interview with Craig Davis, the president and CEO of Visit Dallas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) The use of artificial intelligence in legal documents could violate Arkansas law or court rules, according to a proposed administrative order issued by the state Supreme Court last week. Specifically, the proposed order addresses the use of confidential court data with generative artificial intelligence. AI models retain data inputted by users of AI products, such as ChatGPT, in order to continue training the large language models that exploded into public use only a few years ago, the order notes. 'Anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly [sic] discloses confidential or sealed information related to a client or case [to a generative AI model] may be violating established rules,' the proposed order reads, specifically citing Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 19, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits anyone with internal access to the state's court system, CourtConnect, from 'intentionally exposing our state courts' internal data to a GAI.' The proposed order provides an exemption to this prohibition if approval is granted by the Supreme Court's Automation Committee to engage in 'a research and analysis project related to the use of generative AI tools and general AI for the benefit of our courts.' The proposed order does not appear to address questions of broader use of AI by attorneys within the state court system. Judges in courtrooms across the country in recent months have expressed frustration with attorneys who have filed briefs and other documents bearing citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases as a result of so-called 'AI hallucinations,' leading to sanctions in some cases. As reported by the Alabama Reflector, for example, lawyers who were being paid millions by the Alabama Department of Corrections to defend it against lawsuits filed by prisoners in the state system were called out by an inmate's attorneys for making up legal citations 'out of whole cloth' in a lawsuit where their client alleged being stabbed repeatedly while in restraints. The federal judge presiding over the case said that the incident showed that sanctions levied by other courts had proven 'insufficient' to deter lawyers from filing documents with improper or made up citations created by AI. 'That causes me to consider a fuller range of sanctions,' Judge Anna M. Manasco said. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Automation created a subcommittee to 'study the use of AI in the courts.' The introduction to the proposed order notes that as the committee continues its work, it will make recommendations. The comment period for the proposed administrative order ends on Aug. 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
On a Friday night in March 2023, Sean Horan called 911 to report that Michael Mendenhall, who runs a staffing agency out of a converted townhouse on Blake Street in Denver, had threatened him with a baseball bat. Based on nothing more than Horan's one-sided account of a confrontation at Mendenhall's townhouse, police officers arrested Mendenhall for felony menacing. To support that charge, Detective Nicholas Rocco-McKeel obtained a search warrant by repeating what another officer told him Horan had said. During the ensuing search of the townhouse, police seized the baseball bat as evidence. Prosecutors dropped the case against Mendenhall less than a week later, and it is not hard to see why: Horan's account of what had happened was inconsistent and improbable. But police never returned the bat, which was a valuable collector's item because it was signed by players at the 2021 Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Denver. That purloined bat is at the center of a case that aims to overturn a controversial 1960 Supreme Court precedent allowing home searches based on hearsay. Mendenhall argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his property was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it relied on thirdhand information rather than Rocco-McKeel's personal knowledge. "The Fourth Amendment must be enforced in its entirety," says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mendenhall. Although "the Fourth Amendment bans reliance on second-hand information," she says, "the courts have read that requirement out of the Constitution. We're fighting to bring back the original understanding of this very important protection." Issuing a warrant "is no trivial thing," a brief that Mendenhall recently filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit notes. "Warrants authorize armed government agents to seize persons or comb through their most private spaces. Warrants authorize the government to employ violence to accomplish these goals. There is hardly ever a situation in which the individual is more powerless before the State than when its agents arrive armed with a warrant." Although no one was injured in Mendenhall's case, briefs supporting his appeal note that the consequences of hearsay-based warrants can be lethal, as illustrated by the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The circumstances that led to the search of Mendenhall's townhouse suggest the hazards of allowing police invasions of private property based on secondhand information. Around 10 p.m. on March 10, 2023, according to Mendenhall's brief, he was "relaxing after work at the townhouse with a friend when he heard women screaming and a man yelling just outside his front door." Concerned for the women's safety, Mendenhall grabbed his commemorative bat and "opened the door to investigate." He saw "a strange and shabbily dressed man," later identified as Horan, sitting on the stoop of the townhouse with two dogs and "yelling at a group of women." When Mendenhall asked Horan to leave, the brief says, Horan "refused and threatened to call the police." He followed through on that threat after Mendenhall went back inside. When four police officers arrived at the townhouse around 11 p.m., Horan, who lived about 50 miles away, told them he was taking a walk when he stopped to rest on Mendenhall's stoop. Although Horan was carrying a gun, he said he had felt threatened by Mendenhall and wanted to press charges. "Rather than asking follow-up or clarifying questions," Mendenhall's brief says, "the officers went to Mr. Mendenhall's townhouse and arrested him as soon as he opened the door, securing him in handcuffs and taking him to a squad car across the street." The officers called Rocco-McKeel, telling him what Horan had said. Without talking to Mendenhall, the detective regurgitated that account in an affidavit that he submitted to Denver County Court Judge Renee A. Goble, who issued a search warrant at 12:34 a.m. on March 11. Horan never testified before Goble, submitted an affidavit, or otherwise swore to the facts underlying the allegations against Mendenhall. And Rocco-McKeel, who wrote the affidavit, "neither observed any of the relevant facts nor personally spoke to Mr. Horan," the 10th Circuit brief notes. He "merely repeated what another officer said Mr. Horan had said." All of that was fine under the Denver Police Department's operations manual, which says officers may "rely upon information received through an informant, rather than upon direct observation, to show probable cause" for a search warrant. It was also fine under Jones v. United States, a 1960 case in which the Supreme Court approved the search of an apartment based on an unnamed informant's report that the tenant was involved in drug dealing. That decision, the Institute for Justice argues, is inconsistent with the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, which says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Until Jones, that requirement generally was understood to mean that warrants could be issued only based on the affiant's firsthand knowledge of the relevant facts, as opposed to the unsworn claims of another person who was never subjected to judicial scrutiny. That understanding, Mendenhall's brief argues, jibes with British and American common law, was reflected in a long series of court decisions, and "continued virtually without question for over 160 years." In Jones, however, the Supreme Court disregarded the Fourth Amendment's Oath or Affirmation Clause, focusing instead on what was required to show probable cause. That decision "addressed neither the constitutional text nor the overwhelming weight of authority," Mendenhall's brief says. "Under a proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Denver's express policy of permitting warrants to be issued without oath or affirmation supporting probable cause is unconstitutional. But for Jones, Denver would be liable to Mr. Mendenhall for its unreasonable search and seizure of his property." In February, U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer predictably concluded that Jones barred Mendenhall's civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Denver. Mendenhall's lawyers acknowledge that the 10th Circuit likewise is bound by that precedent. Mendenhall "brought this case to overturn Jones and reestablish the vital role that the Oath or Affirmation Clause was intended to play in protecting the rights enshrined in our Constitution," the Institute for Justice says. "He concedes that this Court is bound by Jones and must affirm the district court's decision granting Denver's motion to dismiss. Mr. Mendenhall files this brief, however, both to preserve this issue for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the hopes of persuading the members of this panel that they, too, should call on the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional protection that Jones improperly erased." In a brief supporting Mendenhall's appeal, five law professors argue that "the text and Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment require that a warrant be supported by admissible witness testimony." They add that "cases decided shortly after ratification confirm that hearsay is not a proper basis for issuing a warrant." Two other briefs underline the hazards of hearsay-based warrants. The National Police Accountability Project and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership note that warrants based on secondhand information, typically from confidential sources who have incentives to lie or exaggerate, "routinely result in wrong house raids," which "present significant danger to residents of the home and officers executing the warrant," often resulting in "civilians and police being seriously injured or killed." That danger is starkly illustrated by the March 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor. Louisville, Kentucky, police broke into Taylor's apartment late at night based on a search warrant obtained by Detective Joshua Jaynes, who claimed a U.S. postal inspector had informed him that her ex-boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover, had been receiving packages at her address, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money. It turned out that Jaynes never spoke directly with the postal inspector, who said there was nothing suspicious about the packages. But that revelation came too late for Taylor, who died in a hail of bullets after her new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at the invading officers, whom he mistook for violent criminals. Walker was initially charged with attempted murder of a police officer, but prosecutors dropped that case two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim. "No drugs, money, or contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's apartment during or after the raid," notes a brief that Walker submitted in support of Mendenhall's appeal. "Mr. Glover himself later confirmed that Ms. Taylor had no involvement in his drug trade, explaining that the only packages he ever had sent to her address contained clothes and shoes that we was afraid would be stolen if sent to the house where he stayed." Taylor's senseless death "reflects not only a catastrophic failure of the warrant process, but also a foreseeable consequence of Jones," Walker's brief argues. "By allowing magistrates to issue warrants based on hearsay, Jones removed the requirement that a declarant appear in court, swear to the truth of their statement, and be subjected to questioning, and replaced it with a framework that lends itself to fabrication." Thanks to Jones, "officers seeking a warrant but lacking probable cause—like Detective Jaynes—may now be motivated to enhance their own affidavits by inventing conversations with third-party declarants," the brief notes. "And, because Jones requires no oath or appearance from those declarants, the reviewing judge must rely entirely on the affiant's secondhand account of what a declarant allegedly said and why he/she should be believed. Not only does the magistrate have no opportunity to evaluate the declarant's demeanor, consistency, or basis of knowledge, but also, more fundamentally, the magistrate effectively has no way to verify whether the declarant even exists or ever even made the statements attributed to him/her. The result is a system in which wholly fabricated claims can serve as the basis for intrusions into our most private spaces." That brief was joined by Anjanette Young, another victim of a raid based on secondhand information. On a Thursday evening in February 2019, a dozen Chicago police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, burst into Young's apartment. Young, who was changing out of her work clothes, was caught "completely naked and exposed." She was handcuffed in that state, feeling utterly humiliated, for 10 minutes while the officers vainly searched her apartment for an armed felon. "It quickly became apparent that the information they had received from the informant was bad," the brief says. "They were at the wrong apartment." Young "should never have had to endure the invasive and degrading raid that was conducted on her home," the brief adds. "When presented with a warrant application that relied entirely on an unverified tip from an informant, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant had a constitutional obligation to probe the basis for the officer affiant's assertions—e.g., by asking whether the informant's claims were corroborated and what, if anything, law enforcement had done to verify them. While it is unclear whether the magistrate ever spoke with the informant, the fact that he issued the warrant at all—given the apparent lack of any attempt by officers to verify the informant's tip—is highly suggestive of a lack of any meaningful consideration." Jones encourages such lax oversight, the brief argues: "The magistrate judge is no longer able to meaningfully perform [his] constitutional role. Denied access to the declarant, the judge cannot assess his/her credibility firsthand. Instead, the affiant alone decides which facts to include and which to withhold, effectively filtering the evidence and shielding the judge from any information that might undermine the affiant's narrative….The Fourth Amendment demands more than this system of magisterial rubber-stamping that Jones has engendered." The post Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information appeared first on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
