Latest news with #BecketFund
CNN
27-05-2025
- General
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. 'I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time.' 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
CNN
27-05-2025
- General
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to halt land transfer that would destroy sacred site for Western Apache
The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to halt a land transfer in Arizona that Western Apache people say will destroy a scared site in order to mine for copper. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allowed the transfer by the federal government to go forward. Two conservative justices — Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,' Gorsuch wrote in dissent. 'I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time.' 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Congress approved the transfer of the federal property in the Tonto National Forest in 2014, and President Donald Trump initiated the exchange in the final days of his first term. The land includes a site known as Oak Flat, where native tribes have practiced religious ceremonies for centuries. A non-profit sued the federal government, asserting that the transfer violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and a law that requires courts to apply the highest level of scrutiny to any law that burdens religious freedom. The Western Apache, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued the questions at the heart of the case were 'vitally important for people of all faiths.' An adverse decision, they said, would provide 'a roadmap for eviscerating' federal religious protections in other contexts. 'Many sacred Apache rituals will be ended, not just temporarily but forever,' the group told the Supreme Court. The case arrived at the high court before Trump took power again in January. The Biden administration defended the decision in court papers, arguing that 'Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining.' Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the land transfer did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise since it doesn't coerce or discriminate on the basis of religion. But a federal district court in Arizona on May 9 barred the administration from moving forward with the transfer until the Supreme Court decided what to do with the appeal. US District Judge Steven Logan said the case 'presented serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court's careful scrutiny.'
Herald Malaysia
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
Cardinal Dolan receives award from Becket for religious liberty leadership
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York was named the Becket Fund's 2025 Canterbury Medalist, an award that honors his career-long commitment to religious liberty. May 26, 2025 In his speech, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said he is in 'good company' in defending religious freedom, along with the legal team at Becket and the founders of the United States. | Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket By Tyler Arnold Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York was named the Becket Fund's 2025 Canterbury Medalist, an award that honors his career-long commitment to religious liberty. 'His Eminence has been a towering figure in the fight for religious liberty, not just for Catholics, but for people of all faiths,' Becket President Mark Rienzi said in a statement. 'Cardinal Dolan's leadership in the public square has shaped the national conscience on religious freedom and strengthened the resolve of those who defend it.' Becket, a nonprofit law firm that represents clients who are defending their religious liberty in court, awarded Dolan the medal during its annual gala in New York. According to Becket, the honor recognizes individuals who demonstrate courage and commitment to defending religious liberty in the United States and globally. Dolan said in an acceptance speech, which was provided to CNA by Becket, that he is 'grateful' to receive the award. 'I hardly deserve this high award,' Dolan added. 'Yet, I readily admit that you are absolutely [spot on] to claim I am intensely devoted to the protection of our 'first and most cherished liberty,' religious freedom.' In his speech, Dolan said he is in 'good company' in defending religious freedom, along with the legal team at Becket and the founders of the United States. 'They and their parents had come here precisely because they were frustrated in countries where religion was imposed or proscribed, nations where battles were waged to coerce religious conviction, where they were hounded and harassed for their beliefs,' he said. 'Not here, they insisted!' Dolan said. 'This was not the way they, or, most importantly, God intended it. Nothing is more free than creedal assent; nothing merited more protection than religious freedom; nothing deserved more top billing in our Constitution.' Dolan said religious liberty is 'part of our very nature that cannot be erased' and necessary for the respect of 'the dignity of the human person.' 'Our passion for this primary liberty is not just because we happen to be a believer or a patriotic citizen, but because we are a person endowed with certain ingrained rights,' he said. Dolan was recently appointed to serve on President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which will create a report on threats to religious freedom and strategies to enhance legal protections to preserve those rights. It will also outline the foundations of religious liberty in the United States. Previously, Dolan has served as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and has led the USCCB's Committee for Religious Liberty. According to Becket, the cardinal has also staunchly defended religious freedom through testimony before Congress and when engaging with the media. 'Religious freedom isn't just about protecting what happens in church on Sundays — it's about defending the right of every person to live their faith openly, every day of the week,' Dolan said. 'It's a gift from God — not from government — and it must be protected for people of all faiths.' Other members of the Catholic clergy who have won this award from Becket include University of Mary President Monsignor James Shea and former Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput. Past medalists also include Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel; Orthodox rabbi of the oldest Jewish congregation in the U.S. Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik; and First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Dallin H. Oaks.--CNA
Epoch Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Education Freedom Meets Religious Freedom
Commentary Two important developments in education occurred over the last week. One was a sign of the problem we have. The other was a sign of the solution. The sign of the problem, to which hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will provide the correct answer, falls under the headline of sex education. The court has just heard Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which families from a variety of faiths—Muslims, Jews, Christians—are fighting imposition by the Board of Education in Montgomery County, Maryland, requirements that children learn material about gender ideology. Per the Becket Fund, which is representing these families, the schools have some 20 books as part of their curriculum that 'champion pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children.' We're talking about material that seeks to legitimize the notion of gender ambiguity and transgenderism. Related Stories 4/22/2025 4/22/2025 Not surprisingly, religious parents have objected and requested the opportunity to pull their children from sessions when this material is taught. As reported by the Becket Fund: 'These parents are simply asking to be notified when the books will be read to their children and to be given an opportunity to opt out.' The Montgomery County school board rejected this request, insisting that they cannot notify parents and allow the children to skip these sessions. Hence the lawsuit, in which the parents claim, according to Becket, 'the Board is violating the parents' inalienable and constitutionally protected right to control the religious upbringing of their children, especially on sensitive issues concerning family life and human sexuality.' The buzzword that defines the mindset of those insisting on forcing this material as part of the school curriculum is 'inclusion.' According to one blogger from the National Women's Law Center, this is 'a case that goes far beyond legal arguments and into the heart of what it means to build inclusive, affirming public schools, particularly for LGBTQIA+ students.' It is barely comprehensible that so many, including those with power in the Montgomery County Board of Education, have so totally lost the meaning of religious freedom. Inclusiveness in America means that all are included under our constitutional protection to practice one's religion as they see fit. It does not mean that a bureaucrat, or anyone else, decides what is right and just for everyone and coerces all to accept their world view. As George Washington wrote in his famous letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island, then a tiny minority in the country, in 1790: 'For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection shall demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.' How can something so basic to our country have become so confused and lost? One explanation is how dramatically things have changed. We have become a nation far more diverse ethnically and religiously than ever, while having to deal with monolithic public school systems and powerful teachers unions. There is only one answer. Freedom. Liberation. Returning power to parents to choose how to educate their children. And here is the good news, the sign of moving toward solution. Texas is on the verge of enacting one of the nation's most far-reaching school choice programs. It just passed in the Texas State House—a $1 billion allocation for vouchers for parental choice in grades K-12. This provides for up to $10,000 per student, $30,000 for those with disabilities, and $2,000 for home schoolers. Special consideration in allocation of vouchers will be given to children from low-income households and those with disabilities. Meanwhile, federal legislation has been introduced to provide $10 billion in tax credits for contributions to nonprofits that offer private education vouchers/scholarships. Today, religious freedom and education freedom are becoming one and the same. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Too late to opt-out: Supreme Court ultimately can't save the religious right's futile book bans
Can you treat someone with "love, kindness, and respect" while simultaneously insisting their identity is so poisonous that it cannot be acknowledged? The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday for Mahmoud v. Taylor, which has become known as the "don't say gay" case, because it's over conservative objections to children's books, taught in Maryland classrooms, that position queerness as a normal fact of life. The arguments involved a lot of legalese about "burden" versus "coercion," or what constitutes a "sincerely held" religious belief. But at the heart of the battle was a more philosophical question, one with an answer that should be self-evident: Is it possible to "respect" someone while trying to erase their existence? The case regards a Montgomery County school board's decision to include books featuring same-sex marriage, trans characters and a Pride parade as part of their curriculum. The Becket Fund, a religious right organization, is suing on behalf of parents who want to opt their kids out of lessons involving these books, claiming that mere exposure to the books violates their religious beliefs. The school district's lawyer told the court these books are no different than books portraying women working or soldiers fighting in wars, both behaviors proscribed by some religions. "These lessons are students should treat their peers with respect," he said. Exposing kids to different beliefs is not a mandate that they follow them, he argued, just an education in what the world looks like. If the Supreme Court rules for the religious right, "I don't think that explicit bans are likely, in the sense that school districts would forbid students from having certain books," explained Ian Millhiser, the legal analyst at Vox. Still, he said that such a ruling could "deter public schools from assigning any books with LGBTQ themes or from using books with queer characters in the classroom." It would functionally create a national version of Florida's "don't say gay" law that has suppressed free expression in the right's lawyer argued that censoring these books wasn't about disrespecting queer people, but protecting "children's innocence." It's a nonsense argument, however, as it assumes there's a "respectful" way to erase people. But it was also quite silly, as if hiding these books would shield children from the knowledge that LGBTQ identities exist. (An unspoken corrollary is the false view they can prevent children from growing up queer.) The case illustrates the animating futility at the heart of the MAGA movement: they will never manifest their dream of a past "great" America, when "queer" wasn't a thing. Such a period never existed, but especially not in an era when queer people are visible in pop culture, the internet, and the general community. The government can force teachers not to say "gay" in school, but kids are going to hear about it everywhere else. During arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made this point most clearly, asking the plaintiffs' lawyers how far this parental right to "opt out" should go. She asked if a gay teacher would be allowed to have a wedding photo on her desk? Or if a student group put up "love is love" posters in the hallway? Or if a trans teacher insisted that the students use their preferred name and pronouns? On this last point, the conservative lawyer insisted the teacher has no right to tell students how to address them. This answer gave the game away. It's standard practice for teachers to dictate how students address them: First name or last name? Miss or Mrs? Only trans people, in this lawyer's determination, don't deserve this basic respect from students. It's just about insulting them, not "protecting" kids from the knowledge of trans identities. But Jackson's larger point is crucial. Blocking a few books from classrooms won't hide the existence of queerness from kids. And efforts to go down that futile path only lead to ever more draconian censorship, such as telling queer teachers to hide their spouses, while allowing straight teachers freedom to talk about theirs. At which point, the fiction that "respect" and "equality" are being maintained is a joke. The Becket Fund's efforts to get around this problem rely on pure bad faith, by misrepresenting or even lying about what's in the books to make it seem like they're sexually explicit. Their communications strategy has foreground "Pride Puppy," a short storybook chronicling a family's day at a Pride parade. The Becket lawyers claim the book "invites three- and four-year-olds to look for images of things they might find at a pride parade, including an 'intersex [flag],' a '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' 'leather,' 'underwear,' and an image of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker, 'Marsha P. Johnson.'" All words meant to make homophobic adults imagine scandalous material, but the book itself is entirely innocent, which readers can verify by watching this 3-minute video of a woman reading it, complete with the illustrations. As a blog post by the illustrator points out, "The leather mentioned is a leather jacket, a fairly common article of clothing that even children sometimes wear!" The drag performers are just dressed-up adults. The "underwear" is worn outside the clothes, like a superhero costume. The drawing of Johnson doesn't mention her history. Similarly, the Becket lawyer insisted that another book tells kids their gender "changes based on the weather," but provides no evidence in the voluminous court filings. When asked by Justice Sonia Sotomayor what's wrong with pictures of same-sex couples holding hands, the Becket lawyer pivoted to saying some parents object to adult films, as if they are the same thing. The irony here is that, due to the internet, kids inevitably find adult materials on their own. Having an education in sexuality, sexual identity, and human diversity before they see that stuff — so they can distinguish fact from fantasy — is the only true way to protect children. Books like "Pride Puppy" prevent the premature sexualization of kids, by answering questions about queer identity in age-appropriate ways. If adults don't answer children's curiosity, kids go looking on their own. Left to their own devices and a search engine, children find materials they're not mature enough to handle. One thing censorship of queer books does accomplish is signaling to LGBTQ kids that there's something shameful about who they are. "LGBTQ+ youth who attend schools with an inclusive sex education curriculum report lower levels of depression and suicidality," explained the American Psychological Association in their amicus brief in support of the school district. Listening to the mean-spirited arguments from the right before the Supreme Court today, it's hard to shake the sense that this shame is the desired outcome. Kids are going to learn what "gay" is one way or another, and at very young ages — and many of them will be queer. The only question is whether the authorities in their life tell them they're bad people for it. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, the GOP's goals with the case are crystal clear. They can't win the culture war, but they're going to use these lawsuits to spit in the face of all the queer people who offend them just by existing.
