Podcasts about bladensburg peace cross

Come one, come all, and witness the most dangerous church on earth. That's right, it's the Moonies! Join Malty, Jena, Jim, and Autumn as they discuss the heavily armed church of the Reverend King Moon. Next up, we take a more somber look at the newly discovered unmarked graves at former religious residential schools for Indigenous children in Canada. Thirdly, we look at the religious tests being given to candidates for public office in Tennessee, including looking at an opinion piece by Andrew Seidel. Lastly, our panel gives us their best takes on Lemon Laws and church-state separation. Segment 1 [2:45]: "The Reverend King Moon "LINKSGun Church That Worships With AR-15s Bought a 40-Acre Compound in Texas for Its ‘Patriots' http://tiny.cc/GunChurchCompound Segment 2 [27:20] : "Canadian Residential Schools"LINKSCanada discovers 751 unmarked graves at former residential school http://tiny.cc/SKUnmarkedGraves The American church needs to reckon with its legacy in Indigenous boarding schools http://tiny.cc/AmericanBoardingSchoolsSecretary Haaland Announces Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative http://tiny.cc/SecHaalandInitiativeSegment 3 [47:25] : "Religious tests for public office in TN"LINKSTennessee should end religious tests for public office impartially | Opinion Andrew L. Seidel (Tennessean) June 8th 2021http://tiny.cc/TNReligiousTests Why it matters that 7 states still have bans on atheists holding office http://tiny.cc/StateOfficeAtheistBanSegment 4 [1:02:00]: LOOKING BACK - "The Lemon Test"LINKSThe “Lemon Test” (1971) and Church-State Separation (Freethought Almanac) http://tiny.cc/LemonTest The American Legion v. American Humanist Associationhttp://tiny.cc/LegionVHumanists Satanist Plant to Symbolically Take Over the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Maryland http://tiny.cc/SatanistPeaceCross Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross Ceremonyhttps://thesatanictemple.com/pages/bladensburg

Welcome back to another amazing episode of the Utah Outcasts and this one is a bit longer than we normally put out at a little over 2 hours, but what a show we have for you this week. Unfortunately for us, Felicia is out due to allergies once again, but in her stead we had Luke and Charles join the show. Luke has been on a LONG time ago before, and Charles is the owner of The Nerd Store and Dr. Volt's Comic Connection in SLC. I like to think that they both had a great time but enough about us, let's get right into the episode! TOPICS THIS WEEK Satanists Plan to Symbolically Take Over the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Maryland Another Mass Gravesite Found at Another Catholic-Run Canadian Residential School Televangelist Jim Bakker Owes Customers $156,000 for Selling a Fake COVID Cure Pat Robertson Says Critical Race Theory ‘Is a Monstrous Evil' Eric Metaxas Says Biden's Presidency Is ‘A Waking Nightmare' That Will Bring About Revival SECRET SHOW TEASER Not included on this episode but is currently live on Patreon exclusively for the next six months, we wanted to close out Pride 2021 with a video from the evil scarecrow Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council (cough *Christian Supremacists*) tells his listeners how to survive the rainbow onslaught that is coming for every man woman and child. Warning the F-slur is used by X to illustrate a point, god I hate this man. Thank you for listening and we'll catch you next week! Email: Mailbag@UtahOutcasts.com Voicemail/Text: (347) 669-3377 Instagram Facebook FB Community Twitter YouTube Merch @ TeeSpring iTunes

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement? This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre DameModerator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University BloomingtonIntroduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers ChapterIntroduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Religious Liberty Practice Group held a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panelists discussed "The Future of the Establishment Clause in the Roberts Court".This panel will address the meaning of the American Legion v. American Humanist Association decision regarding the Bladensburg Peace Cross and where the Court is headed next. Has Lemon been completely or at least partially overruled? And if so, what do we anticipate the guiding principle will be going forward in Establishment Clause cases? This question has particular salience in light of the Court’s upcoming case regarding funding for religious schools in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Finally, to what extent do we think the Court will, or should, interpret the Establishment Clause to place strict limits on government’s ability to protect religious exercise that causes harm to third parties, including dignitary harms? Such a question may be relevant to pending cert petitions, including in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case dealing with a faith-based adoption agency’s inability to certify same-sex couples for foster care.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityMr. Luke Goodrich, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket and Adjunct Professor, S. J. Quinney College of Law, University of UtahProf. Micah J. Schwartzman, Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law; Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Karsh Center for Law and Democracy, University of Virginia School of LawProf. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawModerator: Hon. Carlos Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Religious Liberty Practice Group held a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panelists discussed "The Future of the Establishment Clause in the Roberts Court".This panel will address the meaning of the American Legion v. American Humanist Association decision regarding the Bladensburg Peace Cross and where the Court is headed next. Has Lemon been completely or at least partially overruled? And if so, what do we anticipate the guiding principle will be going forward in Establishment Clause cases? This question has particular salience in light of the Court’s upcoming case regarding funding for religious schools in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Finally, to what extent do we think the Court will, or should, interpret the Establishment Clause to place strict limits on government’s ability to protect religious exercise that causes harm to third parties, including dignitary harms? Such a question may be relevant to pending cert petitions, including in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case dealing with a faith-based adoption agency’s inability to certify same-sex couples for foster care.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityMr. Luke Goodrich, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket and Adjunct Professor, S. J. Quinney College of Law, University of UtahProf. Micah J. Schwartzman, Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law; Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Karsh Center for Law and Democracy, University of Virginia School of LawProf. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawModerator: Hon. Carlos Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

The Justices wanted to remain neutral and tearing down the monument would be hostile towards religion. They emphasized that respecting monuments and symbols of religion is the best way to remain neutral towards religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. This is the third in a series of episodes exploring the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case, The American Legion v. AHA.  In this episode, we turn to the issue of hostility toward religion. It’s clear that the Justices wished to respect the presence of the memorial and what it has come to mean for the people of Bladensburg, Maryland.  Though opponents of the memorial clamored for neutrality, removing the Peace Cross would not be a neutral act by the government. As the majority explained, “requiring their removal would not be viewed by many as a neutral act” and “would be seen by many as profoundly disrespectful.”  Worse, the court’s majority observed, “a campaign to obliterate items with religious associations may evidence hostility to religion even if those religious associations are no longer in the forefront.” In our next episode, we will look at that last part and the evolution of this particular religious symbol into what it means today, but don’t miss this critical point: the Justices of the Supreme Court are communicating to the nation that genuine neutrality toward religion means respecting religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices, not destroying, altering, or hiding them. As Justice Alito explained in his majority opinion, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.” Stay tuned for more. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices rule that the Bladensburg Peace Cross in Prince George County, Maryland should remain standing. The majority opinion acknowledges that the memorial’s age makes it a part of the community. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It may have been a long time coming, but the freedom First Liberty Institute secured in The American Legion v. AHA is significant.  You will recall that at issue in the case was the Peace Cross, a World War I monument Gold Star Mothers erected to remember 49 sons of Prince George’s County, Maryland who died in the Great War. That idea came in 1919 and The American Legion dedicated it in 1925. Everything was fine until 2013 when someone decided they were offended at the presence of a cross on public property, ignoring the surrounding memorials to other wars in what is known as Memorial Park.  In June of 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision.  Seven of the nine Justices wrote an opinion, making the decision somewhat difficult to decipher.  But the clear majority of seven Justices ruled that the memorial should stay right where it is. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, explained the fact that the memorial bears religious symbolism does not mean the memorial must be destroyed or moved to private property.  That is all the more true when memorials age and become a central part of the community itself. “The passage of time,” Justice Alito wrote, “gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.” In our next episode, we will explore what this “strong presumption of constitutionality” means today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What's at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner's World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen ...

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen ...

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What’s at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner’s World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court

Please support the show at https://www.patreon.com/friendlyatheistpodcast Jessica and I sat down to talk about several stories from the past week involving religion and politics. — The Supreme Court issued a bad, but not the worst, but still weird ruling on the Bladensburg Peace Cross. (1:12) — If you’re going to demand the cancellation of a TV show, make sure you’re going after the right company. (28:40) — A Satanist delivered her second invocation in Alaska. (32:59) — Christian Nationalist and alleged child molester Roy Moore is running for Senate from Alabama again. (38:48) — An Alabama church just got permission to create its own police force. (46:15) — A Texas town declared itself a sanctuary city for fetuses. (50:35) — A church is refusing to pay the legal fees after calling for the Chino Valley school board in California to foolishly fight for Christian prayers at meetings. (53:50) — A Catholic medical journal pulled a paper on conversion therapy after we pointed out its flaws. (59:27) — The GOP Senate is confirming anti-LGBTQ judges at an alarming rate. (1:08:06) — Donald Trump called for a ban on flag burning. Because he hasn’t read the Constitution. (1:20:04) — Donald Trump is on the verge of inadvertently creating a “Bible Tax.” (1:24:07)

In this week’s episode, fellow Heritage scholar Cully Stimson joins Elizabeth Slattery to highlight recent opinions. From the Bladensburg Peace Cross to nondelegation to redistricting, things are finally getting interesting. Elizabeth also chats with SCOTUS short lister Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman. Stay tuned for Supreme Trivia!Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Show your love for SCOTUS 101 and buy a limited edition mug while they last: shop.heritage.org/products/scotus-101-mug. Tune in for a promo code! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Andrew Wommack and Richard Harris are joined by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice as they discuss: Jay’s testimony and recently becoming President Trump’s lawyer. The America Center for Law and Justice and what it does. The Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would protect babies that are outside the womb from being allowed to just die. New York trying to close down crisis pregnancy centers while pushing for unrestricted abortions. The Bladensburg “Peace Cross” memorial (the 100-year-old memorial to those who gave their lives in WWI). The things Trump has accomplished and his declaring a national emergency to get the border wall. Justice Kavanaugh and how he’s doing in his role. And much more! Learn more truth at truthandliberty.net

First Liberty Institute's Ken Klukowski joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about the justices benchslapping the Ninth Circuit (twice!) and the oral argument for the Bladensburg Peace Cross case. Stay tuned for Supreme Trivia - Establishment Clause Edition!Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. And don't forget to leave a 5-star rating! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A World War I memorial in Maryland that's in the shape of a cross is at the center of a case at the Supreme Court. This morning, I spoke to Josh Blackman, Law Professor with South Texas College of Law who specializes in constitutional law on the significance of this case.

This episode explores the Supreme Court case The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which concerns a lawsuit over the possible demolition of a 40 foot tall cross that is part of a World War I memorial on public property in Maryland. Lawyers representing both sides —  Ken Klukowski and Monica Miller — explain the history of the cross at issue, debate whether or not it unconstitutionally promotes Christianity, and forecast the case’s potential impact on how the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is interpreted. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

This episode explores the Supreme Court case The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which concerns a lawsuit over the possible demolition of a 40 foot tall cross that is part of a World War I memorial on public property in Maryland. Lawyers representing both sides —  Ken Klukowski and Monica Miller — explain the history of the cross at issue, debate whether or not it unconstitutionally promotes Christianity, and forecast the case’s potential impact on how the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is interpreted. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

This week we start out with a few announcements. After that we start the night by revisiting a story from last week and find that Viking script may not have been found on ribbons from a burial site - This is a great lesson in skepticism and confirmation bias. Next I give my opinion on the case against the Bladensburg Peace Cross. Then we have a couple of stories related to evolution, talk about a breakthrough in finding some of the missing matter in the universe, take a second to talk about the fact that scientists can now prove that alligators occasionally eat sharks, discuss dogs facial expressions in response to human notice, and lament the latest attack on basic science by Rand Paul. Listen to the live broadcast, every Friday at 6pm – only on Valley Free Radio, WXOJ-LP 103.3fm or streaming on valleyfreeradio.orgLook for Evidence Based Errata on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, or stream on Evidencebasederrata.comThis podcast part of the Planetside Productions Network. Visit Planetside.pro to find other Planetside Podcasts!Support Evidence Based Radio by donating to the tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/evidencebasederrataSend us your feedback online: https://pinecast.com/feedback/evidencebasederrata/1985b79f-3fe7-462f-b479-494b6b6e05ae