Podcasts about lukumi babalu aye

Silver Daniels was raised Wiccan by his mom. But as a young adult, he eventually found his way to Lucumí. We met Silver in Season 2, Episode 2: The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, and learned about Wicca in both Season 1, Episode 1: Magical Remixing and Season 2, Episode 1: The Starry Minos.  Listen to these episodes first to catch all the nuance, and enjoy Silver's fun storytelling!

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 03:16)A Second Assassination Attempt Against Former President Trump – No Society Can Survive a Descent Into Political ViolenceChurch of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye v. Hialeah by United States CourtsPart II (03:16 - 18:20)The Complexities of Immigration and Internet Narratives: The Massive Issues Behind Strange Claims About Haitian Immigrants in Springfield, OhioPope Says Both Trump and Harris Are ‘Against Life'Pope Says Both Trump and Harris Are ‘Against Life' by The New York Times (Emma Bubola and Elisabetta Povoledo)Part III (18:20 - 20:54)No, Trump and Harris are Not ‘Against Life' in the Same Way: Pope Francis Confuses Political and Theological Issues Once AgainPart IV (20:54 - 28:03)Immigration in the United States Deserves an Honest Conversation: Love of Neighbor Does Not Mean Confusing Our Immigration Policy with Open BordersSign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

In 1987, the City of Hialeah, Florida passed local ordinances that prohibited animal sacrifice for religious purposes. The laws targeted one group in particular – the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. The City was taken to court, and the case eventually made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices ruled against the city and called the ordinances "religious gerrymandering.” Almost 40 years later, African Diaspora Religions like Lucumí still face legal discrimination over core practices. These challenges reveal a long history of bias against African Diaspora practices, beliefs, and worldviews. Featuring Dr. Danielle Boaz, Frank Burgos, Silver Daniels, and Mindy Marqués.

The Supreme Court declines to hear thousands of cases a year, but one recent denial included a troubling statement from Justice Samuel Alito. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at a case out of Missouri about potential jurors being struck from the jury pool because of their anti-LGBTQ beliefs, and they break down Justice Alito's 5-page statement that seems to be asking for another case with the same issue at stake. What could this mean for the future, and why is Justice Alito still hung up on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision from 2015?    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): What happened in this case? Holly mentioned this resource from The Washington Post that shows an update on cases as the term progresses: The Supreme Court Trump-Colorado ruling, and big 2024 decisions to come Amanda and Holly discussed Donald Trump's plan to create a task force fighting anti-Christian bias in episode 13 of this current season ‘God Made Trump,' Biden campaigns at a church, and more news from the campaign trail Amanda read from this article in The New York Times by Abbie VanSickle describing the factual background of the lawsuit: Justice Alito Renews Criticism of Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage   Segment 2 (starting at 14:33): Why did Justice Alito write this statement? You can read Justice Alito's statement on the denial of cert on page 25 of this PDF document of the order list from the Supreme Court on Feb. 20, 2024. Amanda mentioned three cases invoked by Justice Alito: Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993) Carson v. Makin (2022) Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

IntroductionIf you ask the average American on the street what religious freedom is, you will get all sorts of different ideas. Some places, you will hear: “keep your religion to yourself. Haven't you heard of the separation of Church and State?” Others might answer: “People are free to believe whatever they want. Who am I to judge if they're right or not?” Still others might claim that religious freedom means the ability to pray privately however you want.None of these are what religious freedom actually is specifically. But it should also be noted that the American constitutional notion of religious freedom is not precisely what the Catholic Church holds religious freedom to be. And, so, the object of today's exploration is to look at what religious freedom is in the United States of America. Then, more importantly, to view what religious freedom is, in principle, as defined by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council. Separation of Church and StateThe First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the first of the ten amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights, adopted on December 15, 1791, reads thusly:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”For our purposes we will focus on the first phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.I do not have the time or space here to provide an exhaustive account of American jurisprudence on the matter of religious liberty. But, I do want to draw out a few key moments in American History where this question came up and which will give us a clearer view of what religious freedom is.Thomas Jefferson's Danbury LetterIn a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson wrote:“GentlemenThe affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem (Danbury Letter).”He wrote this letter in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists in order to explain his views on federalism and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. The main meaning of his “wall of separation between Church & State” is an assurance that the government would not interfere with the church of the Danbury Baptists or give special treatment to any particular religion or sect. Justice Hugo Black, an appointee of Franklin Roosevelt to the Supreme Court, would even refer later to the Danbury explanation as an “almost authoritative declaration” of the Founders' intent for the Establishment Clause (cf. Bill of Rights Institute).Two days after sending this letter, though, Jefferson attended a religious service in the House of Representatives location in the Capitol. As Daniel Roeber notes: “Jefferson and others recognized the benefits of developing a national identity that transcended interdenominational division (Roeber).” Yet, since 1795, public worship was administered at the partially completed Capitol Building each Sunday at noon (cf. ibid).Religious liberty was the motivation of the Plymouth Pilgrims and many Catholics who settled in Maryland. However, the colonial period was far from united on religious matters. Protestant sects disagreed amongst themselves. Catholics were seen as untrustworthy papists of low social stature. Jewish people were tolerated, at best. The nascent country needed an identity which transcended these divisions. The importance of developing a national identity was something that would take over a hundred years more as most identified most readily with their own state. Lemon V. Kurtzman and the Three Pronged Test (1971)Let us now skip forward quite a bit to 1971. In that year, a case was brought to the Supreme Court in which the Court considered whether a law in Pennsylvania violated the Establishment Clause. The law reimbursed religious schools with state funds for textbooks and salaries for teachers for non-public, non-secular schools. The Court responded 8-0 with a three-pronged test for determining whether a given statute is constitutional. The government may assist religion only if:* The primary purpose of the assistance is secular* The assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and * There is no excessive entanglement between church and stateIn this specific case, the Pennsylvania law was struck down because of excessive entanglement between church and state. It is worth noticing here what is implicit: there is nothing wrong, in the American understanding, with some implicit entanglement between Church and State. The issue, ultimately, is when the line is crossed towards “excessive.”Marsh v. Chambers (1983)The Nebraska legislature opened each of its sessions with a publicly funded chaplain offering a prayer. The Supreme Court, in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) determined that this was NOT a violation of the Establishment Clause. Though this instance does not pass the “Lemon” three-pronged test, the Justices argued that there is a long historical custom going back to the Continental Congress and the very Congress that resulted in the Bill of Rights. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country (Citation: 463 US 783).”As we saw with the Capitol Building services, there is not a strict and non-transversable wall of separation of Church and State. Other Supreme Court CasesI now want to walk through several other Supreme Court cases that touched on religious liberty. Again, this list is not exhaustive, but it can help us round out our picture.Reynolds v. United States (1879)In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy. They claimed that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but that government can nonetheless punish acts which it judges to be criminal, regardless of religious belief.Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)As of 1961, the State of Maryland had a requirement that a candidate for public office needed to declare that they believed in God in order to be eligible for the position. Unanimously, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court agreed that this gives preference to believers who were willing to publicly profess; therefore, Maryland was aiding theistic religions and beliefs overr atheistic ones.Engel v. Vitale (1962)In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the Court ruled 6-1 that a New York prayer to begin the school day was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause despite being a nondenominational prayer. Abington v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett (1963)The following year in 1963, the Court heard the case of Abington v. Schempp and the related case of Murray v. Curlett. In both cases, public schools were involving students in daily Bible readings and in the latter case of the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Both of these cases were seen as violating both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)In 1972, Amish parents sued the State of Wisconsin for requiring that their children attend school until the age of 16. The unanimous decision held that the Amish teens were exempt from the state law of requiring 14 to 16 year olds to attend school because the Amish religion required a living apart from worldly influences. In other words, though it was in the state's interest that the children receive two years more schooling, this did not outweigh the free exercise of the religion of the Amish.McDaniel v. Paty (1978)A Tennessee law barring clergymen from serving in public office was challenged in 1978 in McDaniel v. Paty. The Court unanimously ruled that this law was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment) because it made holding public office contingent on surrendering religious beliefs. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)In 1993, the Court heard Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. There were ordinances passed by the city of Hialeah, Florida that banned animal sacrifice. These laws were not written in a neutral and generally applicable way. They specifically targeted Santeria, a Afro-Caribbean religion based on Yoruba and some Catholic elements. Because animal sacrifice is an important part of Santeria, the Court ruled that the ordinances were designed as a form of religious persecution in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.  Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)The Sante Fe Independent School District of Texas in 2000 had a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld an appellate court's ruling that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The school district tried to argue that because it was student led and initiated, it was private speech, and, thus, protected under the First Amendment. However, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that it was not private speech because it was done over the P.A. system, by a student body representative, under school faculty supervision, and under school policy. Also, it did not pass the “Lemon” test because it did not have a secular purpose and was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school prayer.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)California's Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow in 2004 investigated the policy requiring each elementary school class to say the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Michael Newdow, a father of one of the students, challenged this because of the words therein contained of “under God.” Because Newdow did not have custody of the child, he did not have standing to bring the case to court. However, in concurring opinions, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas, said that the words “under God” do NOT violate the Establishment Clause.As the Bill of Rights Institute reports:“Further, they noted, ‘the phrase ‘under God' in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our Nation's history abound.' They concluded that ‘the recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase ‘under God' cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it' (Bill of Rights Institute).”Van Orden v. Perry (2005)In a similar case in Van Orden V. Perry in 2005, in a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause. There were 38 other monuments on the grounds and highlighted different parts of Texan history. Justice William Rehnquist argued that the monument had a religious message, however, it was presented in a context showing that:“[a] secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law.” Therefore, the religious message is part of a broader context of cultural heritage and patrimony of the people of Texas. Teaching Evolution in SchoolsThere are two Supreme Court cases worth looking at briefly which discuss the teaching of evolution in schools. Generally, there is a perceived discrepancy of considerable magnitude between the theory of evolution and the evidence for creation from the Book of Genesis. I am not getting into that minefield right now, but these cases show how religious liberty and the government of the United States interact.Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)In Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968, Arkansas passed a law saying that public school teachers were banned from teaching evolution because it was in contradiction with the Bible account of creation.Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion:“In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens (Epperson v. Arkansas).”He continued to argue that the law of Arkansas is clearly not a religiously neutral act. Instead it was the targeting of a particular theory on Biblical grounds, literally read. Therefore, it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)Nineteen years later in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the Court examined a Louisiana law forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless it was accompanied by an equal treatment of creationism. In a 7-2 decision, the Court declared that this law violated the Establishment Clause because it failed all three parts of the “Lemon” test. It lacked secular purpose, endorsed the view that a supernatural being created mankind, and it entangled the interests of Church and State by seeking “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose (Citation: 482 US 578).”The American View of Religious LibertyIn sum, the evolution of religious liberty in the United States has its basis on the cultural milieu of the time. In the colonial period and in the early days of the country, there were few true atheists. Deism was exceptionally popular, but even Deists acknowledge a belief in the Creator. So, a nondenominational prayer to the Creator at the state of a session of Congress was a forgone conclusion. Since that time, the United States of America has become far more cultural, religiously, and politically diverse. As a result of this undeniable diversity, it cannot be said that the United States is currently a Judeo-Christian nation, even if the case can strongly be made that it began that way. Private speech and religious practice is unambiguously protected. However, as we have seen, the nature of the public exercise of religion is questioned when public funds are in the mix. Each of the examples mentioned above, and where problems usually arise, is in publicly-funded schools, government property or buildings, and in relation to public office. However, the Supreme Court has upheld that religious beliefs which are not criminal are protected in the public sphere. A religious person need not check their religion at the door when engaging in public matters (and how could they, really). The First Amendment of the Constitution protects all Americans against the establishment of any one religion to the competition or detriment of any others. Any law which would exclude a person from public life on the basis of religion is unconstitutional. And the free exercise of religion is safeguarded and held in a careful balance with the interests of all other religions, beliefs, and ideas. This reality is a blessing and a curse for Catholics. On the one hand, we have freedom to boldly speak the truth without fear of legal reprisal, within due limits. Yet, on the other hand, there is a bland tolerance of false religions and ideas antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.The Church's View of Religious FreedomAll of that being said, what is the Catholic view of religious freedom? Is it precisely the American view or are there significant differences? When I speak to American Catholics about this question, there is no real sense of a firm understanding of the Church on the matter. And, frankly, when people read the official Church teaching, they do not understand the nuances offered there. I am going to do my best to help shed some light on the subject! Dignitatis HumanaeOn December 7, 1965, Pope St. Paul VI promulgated a Declaration on Religious Freedom which is one of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council. Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is only fifteen paragraph sections long and is highly worth reading in its entirety. What I will offer here is a brief summary and the main conclusions. In the interest of keeping this to the point, I am going to be looking at three questions:* What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?* Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?* How has God revealed religious liberty?What is religious freedom in the eyes of the Catholic Church?God has made Himself known to man, shown us how we are to serve Him, and how we are saved in Christ and come to eternal blessedness. The Church unequivocally affirms in Dignitatis Humanae that:“We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you' (Matt. 28: 19-20) (DH, 1).”Many of those who are suspicious of the Second Vatican Council read this not as the full throated profession of Christ and His Church that it is. Instead, they read the word “subsist” in an uncharitable and ignorant way. We could say that the one true religion IS the Catholic and Apostolic Church, but subsists is actually a richer word. Subsists means to begin in a certain way and remain in that way. In other words, there is no true religion apart from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, as our Lord began it and has constantly sustained it to this day. The Church which, of course, is His own Mystical Body.The Council Fathers continue:“On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it (DH, 1).”Elsewhere in Vatican II in the documents Lumen Gentium and Ad Gentes we hear: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved… The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily' manner and not ‘in his heart' (LG, 14).”For those who claim that Vatican II is weak on doctrine and the truth and is overly ambiguous or some other such nonsense, it is abundantly clear that they never read the documents or they have read them in an uncharitable and ignorant way.At any rate, all of this being said, what is religious freedom? The Council Fathers write:“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ (DH, 1).”So, the moral duty of man towards the Catholic Church remains untouched by religious freedom. What is vital to understand the Church's view is that phrase: “immunity from coercion in civil society.” That is the key. A more substantial definition is then given, with very official verbiage:“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits (DH, 2).”The Church has always held to this doctrine. We know, for example, that the Church has always condemned forced conversions as illegitimate and compelled baptisms as invalid. As St. John Paul II often said: the Faith is always proposed, not imposed.'Why is religious freedom based on human dignity?This right to religious freedom is rooted in human dignity. The Church even calls for this right to be enshrined in constitutional law throughout the world. Our human dignity points to the fact that God endowed man with reason and free will and therefore personal responsibility. We are impelled by human nature and bound by moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. Once we know the truth, we are bound to adhere to it and order our lives towards it. The Church declares that religious freedom is thus necessary because:“... men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom (DH, 2).”There is no love without freedom, there is no seeking of the truth without freedom. So, religious freedom does not belong to feelings and subjective disposition. No. It belongs to the very nature of the human person. Faith comes from what is heard. And as truth is discovered, “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it,” to use another phrase from Dignitatis Humanae (DH, 2). Personal though this assent is, religious freedom also extends to religious communities. They should not be hindered:“either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties (DH, 4).”Nor should they be hindered from public teaching and witness of faith, whether spoken or written. As the preeminent religious community, all of these freedoms belong to the family as well.How has God revealed religious liberty?In Divine Revelation, the doctrine of religious freedom finds its roots. The Council Fathers write:“Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions (DH, 9).”First and foremost, man's response to God in faith must be free for it to be legitimate. No one can be forced to become Catholic. The act of faith is a free act. Forcing someone to love is not love at all. As Dignitatis Humanae states:“It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life (DH, 10).”God is very clear, however, in what He has revealed that we are to boldly proclaim the truth. Therefore, are we to be “tolerant” and “accepting” of other religions and simply have a bland indifference? Absolutely not! The Council Fathers write:“The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith (DH, 14).”Freedom from CoercionFreedom from coercion in religious matters is the crux of the Church's view of religious liberty. Really, it pertains directly to the establishing of an environment in which a person may freely seek and adhere to the one, true religion. Though there are elements of truth outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone outside the visible bounds of the Church is saved, it is only by the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and the instrumentality of the Catholic Church, the sacrament of salvation.We must not be indifferent. We must boldly preach the truth at all times. And we must not be afraid to stand up for these beliefs, even when it is inconvenient. In some contexts doing so can lead to our bodily martyrdom. In the United States of America, the constitutional order is more or less compatible with the free practice of the Catholic religion. However, we must be cognizant that there is a distinct difference between religious freedom in the American idea and the Catholic teaching.The American notion protects us, to an extent, but it is more geared to creating a national identity that transcends religion. This should make any faithful Catholic nervous because it is working. How many American Catholics do you know who are more concerned about being American Catholics than being Catholics who happen to be American? Religious freedom is freedom from coercion. Ultimately, it is freedom FOR the truth, FOR the Catholic Faith. We cannot forget this, lest we descend into a banal coexistence or tolerance without the drive to share the fullness of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot be indifferent and we cannot be content to allow anyone to stay in error. We must respect their right to religious freedom by not coercing them and respecting their journey, in good conscience. But the task and privilege of evangelization remains in full force. Get full access to Good Distinctions at www.gooddistinctions.com/subscribe

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

In today's bonus episode of This Day in Miami History, Matthew Bunch speaks to Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and the lawyer who successfully argued on behalf of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye at the Supreme Court.Remember to follow This Day in Miami History Podcast on your preferred podcast provider, as well as Twitter and Facebook!And visit the This Day in Miami History shop on Spreadshirt for your "Elect Ralph Renick Governor" bumper sticker, t-shirt, and more, as well as TDMH-branded material!Animal sacrifice and Religious Freedom : Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah by David M. O'Brien at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/animalsacrificer0000obriChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah at Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948The Supreme Court's Assault on Free Exercise, and the Amicus Brief That Was Never Filed by Douglas Laycock (JSTOR login required): https://www.jstor.org/stable/1051259 Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/this-day-in-miami-history-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The Morning Crew discusses the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. 

The Morning Crew discusses the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah.

The Morning Crew discusses the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. City of Hialeah. 

The Morning Crew discusses the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. v. City of Hialeah. 

The Morning Crew discusses the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. 

In today's episode of This Day in Miami History, we look at the opening of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye in Hialeah. The church, which practices ritualistic animal sacrifice, would fight the city all the way to the Supreme Court and create lasting influence on America's view of religious freedom.Remember to follow This Day in Miami History Podcast on your preferred podcast provider, as well as Twitter and Facebook!And visit the This Day in Miami History shop on Spreadshirt for your "Elect Ralph Renick Governor" bumper sticker, t-shirt, and more, as well as TDMH-branded material!Animal sacrifice and Religious Freedom : Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah by David M. O'Brien at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/animalsacrificer0000obriChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah at Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/this-day-in-miami-history-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

     - https://www.patreon.com/herejeselpodcast Todos oímos hablar de Santería. Pero eso no quiere decir que sepamos que es. A pedido del Público, los Herejes sacrificamos 3 gallos, y nos pusimos en contacto con nuestro Orishá, para que nos explicase el origen de esta Religión, de sus antepasados en la Cultura Yorubá Africana, y de como los Millones de Esclavos que llegaron de Nigeria a América, convirtieron a sus dioses, en los Santos Católicos. En el camino, intentamos separar a la Santería del Palo (Mayombe y Otros), y terminamos encontrando como, entre ellas dos, también existe un sincretismo interesante. Un episodio para conocer Imperios Caídos, y Oráculos de Caracol. No se lo pierdan, o serán maldecidos. - Ale Durán- https://twitter.com/FunkBob -- https://www.instagram.com/corsario.hereje/- Ale Vázquez-  https://instagram.com/vasco.hereje/ - Bobby López- https://twitter.com/BobbyEsqvlz - https://www.instagram.com/bobbyesqvlz/Fuentes:"Orishas y Dioses de la Santeria Cubana y la religión Yoruba"  https://norfipc.com/cuba/orishas-dioses-santeria-cubana-religion-yoruba.phpSANTERIA VS PALO DE MONTE https://www.facebook.com/ZarabandaBambisiMalongo/posts/2071532493076738/Reino de Dahomey https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reino_de_DahomeyMercedes Cros Sandoval. Historia Cultural de Cuba, ep 42 https://youtu.be/rYPPIALpkPoSantería Yoruba y sangre de animales para ganar elección https://www.milenio.com/politica/elecciones-2021/tlaxcala-elecciones-2021-vivo-votaciones-candidatos-noticiasEntrevista a  José Gil Olmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgz3tTM7AwASantería, arma contra las leyes restrictivas para viajar a Cuba 2005 https://www.nacion.com/archivo/santeria-arma-contra-las-leyes-restrictivas-para-viajar-a-cuba/JLSNJLMG4JHTLJ76CAWTTJXGQU/story/Cuban Santeria priests reveal their New Year predictions https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/03/cuban-santeria-priests-reveal-their-new-year-predictions¿BRUJAS? Karla Panini, Galilea Montijo y Belinda, las FAMOSAS que "enamoraron" con SANTERÍA https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/1/28/brujas-karla-panini-galilea-montijo-belinda-las-famosas-que-enamoraron-con-santeria-250359.htmlFamilia denuncia horrendo crimen en Santiago de Cuba  https://www.radiotelevisionmarti.com/a/denuncian-crimen-santiago-cuba/137822.htmlChurch of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

Big updates in the Derek Chauvin case! First, the judge found four aggravating factors. This is what Andrew predicted, but not exactly the same four! Also, one of the other officers in the case has filed a motion alleging witness coercion. We break down what this means, and how worried we should be. In our first segment, we answer an excellent patron question about an old OA episode: What ever happened to the Arlene's Flowers case? We discussed it back on OA180, and Andrew Seidel made a prediction that held up very well. Finally, apportionmentcalculator.com has been fixed, and a listener gives us great info about Census Blocks! Links: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Docket for 17-108, Arlene's Flowers Remand, Thao motion, Federal indictments for all 4 cops, 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, Former Md. medical examiner's testimony for Chauvin defense leads to call for review of past cases, MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Aggravating factors filing Appearances None. Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

This episode, Mike and Geoff discuss the ridiculous film trope of the “undefeated lawyer,” some of the downsides of big-firm life, and the First Amendment case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, as well as its successor case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and a related case that will be […]

Protecting the rights of minority American religions like Sikhism, Native American religions and Islam help protect mainstream or majority religions. Learn more about the cases that help further all religions at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Sometimes our listeners ask why we spend so much time discussing cases involving minority American religions, like Sikhs, Native Americans, or Muslims. The short is answer is that our mission at First Liberty is very simple: we protect religious liberty for all Americans.  But, it’s also historical.  If you look at the body of caselaw governing religious liberty, some of the most consequential cases have arisen from minority faiths. Wisconsin v. Yoder, for instance, debated whether the State of Wisconsin could compel Amish families to send their children to public school against their religious practices. In the 1980’s, the Supreme Court decided Goldman v. Weinberger examining whether an Air Force regulation violated the First Amendment by prohibiting an airman from wearing his yarmulke. More recently, in Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court examined whether a corrections system could present a compelling justification for allowing quarter-inch beards, but prohibiting half-inch beards. And, then there’s the case with the funny name: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah. That case examined whether a city ordinance discriminated against the religion of Santeria by prohibiting ritual animal slaughter. The bottom line is this: whether it is a mainstream denomination or a minority religion, religious liberty for one is religious liberty for all.  And, the loss of religious liberty for one religion is a loss in liberty for everyone. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Somewhere in Maritza Gulin's basement, there's a typewritten notebook that belonged to her father, Reynaldo. The notebook contains essential advice and warnings to Reynaldo, his wife Flora, and their five children.Content Note: Suicide, mental illness, animal sacrifice, language.In his younger life, Reynaldo's atheism was strong and biting. But chronic migraines would often flatten him for days at a time. A stranger approached Reynaldo one day on the subway to tell him that he'd always suffer until he got right with God. Reynaldo subsequently became an adherent to two related Afro-Cuban* religions: Palo Mayombe and Santeria. Palo focusses on veneration of spirits of the dead and of the earth. Santeria focusses on a pantheon of demigods called “Orishas”, who are usually represented by equivalent Catholic saints. The notebook in Maritza's basement is notable for its specificity. When she recently rediscovered it, she found warnings for her father against eating beans, sleeping with all the lights off, a requirement for white pajamas, a prohibition on horseback riding. Reynaldo followed these rules. He believed in fate, and was pretty accurate at predicting the time of his ultimate death from old age. Michelle Santana is a childhood friend of Maritza's. She's a psychic medium who's not been formally initiated into Santeria, but she often consults the Orishas and the dead while working with her clients. She's done a number of readings with Maritza. Michelle, too, believes in fate, saying that, cruel as it seems, some people are just destined live bad lives, die young, and nothing can be done to change that. Maritza's youngest sister, Vanessa, was born when Maritza was already an adult, so Maritza helped take care of her youngest sister. Vanessa experienced severe depression, especially after the birth of her first child. She committed suicide. After her Vanessa's death, Maritza and her mother Flora lost their faith. They asked: if the future's written, why weren't they warned? Why weren't they told either in the notebook or during their regular psychic readings. Flora says she's mad at God. Maritza says she no longer believes in destiny.Despite this, Maritza still treads lightly around some of her father's belongings. Some of this is due to respect for her father's desires, and some of it is based on an abundance of caution. She recently deconsecrated a black metal cauldron that her father used in ceremonies. Michelle told her to bury it in her backyard or throw it in a river. Maritza did the former. Inside, she found a toy revolver, a pair of ram's horns, railroad spikes, and other small items. Santeria's practice of live animal sacrifice wound up in the US Supreme Court in the early 90's as Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, in which a city in Florida passed an ordinance banning the practice of killing animals “in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption”. The court ruled unanimously that this ordinance was unconstitutional, citing its attempt to restrict religious practice. Producer: Jeff EmtmanEditor: Jeff EmtmanMusic: Circling Lights, The Black Spot, Serocell*Today, Santeria and Palo are practiced across much of the Caribbean, especially Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Other areas of Caribbean diaspora like Florida, New York and New Jersey also have significant populations of believers. However, solid numbers of followers are hard to estimate due to the religion's decentralization, which also contributes to the varying beliefs across adherents of different origins. If you practice or used to practice Santeria/Palo/Ifa, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Tweet at us @HBMpodcast.If you are feeling suicidal, the Suicide Prevention Lifeline can help in the USA (phone: 1-800-273-8255). Outside the USA, consult Suicide.org's list of hotlines. If you're experiencing postpartum depression, Postpartum Support International has links to local organizations that can help you.

Somewhere in Maritza Gulin’s basement, there’s a typewritten notebook that belonged to her father, Reynaldo. The notebook contains essential advice and warnings to Reynaldo, his wife Flora, and their five children.Content Note: Suicide, mental illness, animal sacrifice, language.In his younger life, Reynaldo’s atheism was strong and biting. But chronic migraines would often flatten him for days at a time. A stranger approached Reynaldo one day on the subway to tell him that he’d always suffer until he got right with God. Reynaldo subsequently became an adherent to two related Afro-Cuban* religions: Palo Mayombe and Santeria. Palo focusses on veneration of spirits of the dead and of the earth. Santeria focusses on a pantheon of demigods called “Orishas”, who are usually represented by equivalent Catholic saints. The notebook in Maritza’s basement is notable for its specificity. When she recently rediscovered it, she found warnings for her father against eating beans, sleeping with all the lights off, a requirement for white pajamas, a prohibition on horseback riding. Reynaldo followed these rules. He believed in fate, and was pretty accurate at predicting the time of his ultimate death from old age. Michelle Santana is a childhood friend of Maritza’s. She’s a psychic medium who’s not been formally initiated into Santeria, but she often consults the Orishas and the dead while working with her clients.  She’s done a number of readings with Maritza. Michelle, too, believes in fate, saying that, cruel as it seems, some people are just destined live bad lives, die young, and nothing can be done to change that. Maritza’s youngest sister, Vanessa, was born when Maritza was already an adult, so Maritza helped take care of her youngest sister. Vanessa experienced severe depression, especially after the birth of her first child. She committed suicide. After her Vanessa’s death, Maritza and her mother Flora lost their faith. They asked: if the future’s written, why weren’t they warned? Why weren’t they told either in the notebook or during their regular psychic readings. Flora says she’s mad at God. Maritza says she no longer believes in destiny.Despite this, Maritza still treads lightly around some of her father’s belongings. Some of this is due to respect for her father’s desires, and some of it is based on an abundance of caution. She recently deconsecrated a black metal cauldron that her father used in ceremonies. Michelle told her to bury it in her backyard or throw it in a river. Maritza did the former. Inside, she found a toy revolver, a pair of ram’s horns, railroad spikes, and other small items. Santeria’s practice of live animal sacrifice wound up in the US Supreme Court in the early 90’s as Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, in which a city in Florida passed an ordinance banning the practice of killing animals “in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption”. The court ruled unanimously that this ordinance was unconstitutional, citing its attempt to restrict religious practice. Producer: Jeff EmtmanEditor: Jeff EmtmanMusic: Circling Lights, The Black Spot, Serocell*Today, Santeria and Palo are practiced across much of the Caribbean, especially Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Other areas of Caribbean diaspora like Florida, New York and New Jersey also have significant populations of believers. However, solid numbers of followers are hard to estimate due to the religion’s decentralization, which also contributes to the varying beliefs across adherents of different origins. If you practice or used to practice Santeria/Palo/Ifa, we’d love to hear your thoughts. Tweet at us @HBMpodcast.If you are feeling suicidal, the Suicide Prevention Lifeline can help in the USA (phone: 1-800-273-8255). Outside the USA, consult Suicide.org’s list of hotlines. If you’re experiencing postpartum depression, Postpartum Support International has links to local organizations that can help you.

We like the “I can't keep up” story when we're feeling inadequate about our marketing. We see change everywhere we look and we feel a sense of overwhelm. But that's just the story we tell ourselves when we're stressed about revenues. The fact is that very little has changed. Grounding ourselves in that reality makes it easier to “keep up.” I got interested in lawyer marketing in the early 70s. I was eleven years old. My father practiced law in North Miami Beach. He was a networker: that's how he built his practice. Here's how he did it: He had breakfast with a group of local business people every weekday at Corky's. His group of buddies gathered at the same big table each morning when they could make it. Of course, if my dad had to be in court in downtown Miami he'd eat downtown. He had some lawyers he'd sit with in a grungy cafe tucked in a downtown corner. He served as President of the North Dade Bar Association for a term. The process of moving up through the ranks involved getting to know everyone in the group. That, of course, generated some referrals over the years. He joined a networking group. I remember they required him to do business with two members a month. We used the dry cleaner from the group so that satisfied one requirement. We were always hunting for someone else from the group. Thankfully, the owner of a great Italian grocery store was a member. They had cannoli for take-away. Score! He spent a term as a municipal night court judge. That role was passed around to local lawyers and viewed as a public service. But it was also a chance to meet many more lawyers and community members. I went along a number of times to watch as my dad ruled on minor criminal matters. He ran for County Court Judge once. He didn't win, but he spent six months visiting picnics, parties, and campaign events, meeting more people. He had billboards and brochures and his name became ever more known. He volunteered with the local chapter of the ACLU and got involved in high profile cases. He eventually took on the city of Hialeah (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah), tried his case, and watched as it went on to the US Supreme Court. That got him more media attention than he had time to manage. He made friends. He got invited to things: we spent days on boats with his friends who had boats, we went to sporting events with his friends who had tickets, we went to dinner with his friends who had food. He had friends everywhere we went. Wandering around town never went quickly because we had to stop to chat so often. He wrote the occasional article. One of his best friends was the editor of the local twice-weekly newspaper--The North Dade Journal. My dad penned an occasional piece. From time to time he wrote a letter to the Miami Herald editor. He had articles placed in the local bar association newsletter as well. Writing wasn't something he set out to do, but it happened when issues arose. He did more--much more, getting involved in lots of local causes, cases, and organizations. He took seats on boards, attended events, met more people, made more friends, and kept a steady stream of clients calling. Time passed. I was watching my dad market his practice more than forty-six years ago. One would think that lots has changed with respect to lawyer marketing over that period of time. But one would be wrong. Nearly nothing has changed over the years. Everything is pretty much the same. One thing has changed--that's it. Something changed in 1977 Well, one thing did change, in 1977. That's the year of the US Supreme Court decision in Bates v. Arizona. That case upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. That's the case that opened the floodgates for daytime TV ads for personal injury lawyers. That's the year that The Price is Right got overrun by lawyers hawking their services. My dad wasn't a big advertiser. He placed an ad when he relocated his office. It was a boxy, boring print ad that didn't garner much attention. He was keeping busy with his networking and a little writing. Advertising wasn't his game. So, yes, there was a big change in 1977. Something changed, and it was a big change. But it wasn't exactly yesterday. We've been seeing lawyer ads for more than forty years. There are very few lawyers practicing today who have been around since before lawyer ads. Our universe has been filled with lawyer advertising for most of our careers. I didn't get my law license for a full decade after Bates. The more things change the more they... Lawyer marketing was, and still is, about trust. Our marketing works best when lawyers connect with other people and a relationship begins. That happens when we (1) reveal our true selves in an authentic manner--usually by being willing to share our story--and (2) demonstrate empathy by being able to retell the story of our clients. People who believe us, believe in us. They're willing to turn their sensitive matters over to us. They want the help we offer and they become comfortable letting us get involved. Forty plus years after Bates, there are still just three ways to grow a practice. They are: 1. Networking Networkers get the biggest cases involving the most complex problems and accompanied by the highest fees. Why? Because big problems require big trust. Folks encountering a huge obstacle seek out referrals and recommendations from those they already trust. There are so many ways to build your network. You can use my targeted approach--it's efficient and effective. You can join a networking group. You can get involved in the bar association. You can start your own breakfast club, have parties, join a civic group, volunteer in a political campaign or cause, and on and on. The opportunities for meeting people are endless. Networking today is the same as it was in the 70s except that now you can text instead of call. You can friend someone on Facebook instead of having to pop over to their home. You can use Evite for your party instead of mailing an invitation with a stamp. Networking is just one person talking to another person. We give a little of ourselves and they reciprocate. We peel back our layers and they peel back theirs. We reciprocate in openness as the relationship grows. The next thing you know, there's trust. Then there are referrals. Networking hasn't changed. It happens--one person interacting with one other person--one step at a time. 2. Writing Trust is built via pathways other than networking as well. Trust grows when we experience the expertise of another person addressing a topic of concern to us. When they explain our problem in a manner which resonates for us we perk up and listen. When they offer solutions, we're inclined to believe them because they seem to fully understand our problem. Not everyone has someone they trust inside their network. That's especially true when we're new to an area, or have an embarrassing problem, or are simply addressing an unusual situation for the first time. When these circumstances arise we turn elsewhere to find help. That's why writing is important to growing a law practice. Our writing used to appear only as text on a page. Back in the day, we'd write an article and see it printed in a publication. Now we've got many more opportunities for distribution of our content. Our writing morphs into YouTube videos, civic group speeches, webinars, seminars, social media posts, blog posts, and more. Writing used to be a little dull and one-dimensional. Nowadays, the text you write this morning can be transformed into a dynamic presentation with fascinating imagery, and published on a platform with an audience of millions, by early afternoon. But writing is still writing. We still have to sit down and crank it out. It's one word followed by another word, and another, and another. 3. Advertising Even after the Bates decision there wasn't all that much lawyer advertising. It took a while for it to take off in a major way. Of course today, you can't avoid lawyer advertising. It pops up on TV, radio, and everywhere you turn on the internet. It's omnipresent. Years ago a law firm was daring and edgy if it posted ads on bus benches. Today, we're daring if we put that same ad on Instagram. Sure, it looks a little different, but it's very much the same concept. Advertising gave us a way to shout our message out loud (along with our competitors), but it didn't require us to make our message relevant, like it had to be when we were limited to in-person interactions. Most lawyer ads are variations on the same message--pick us--which has been around since the outset. The ads are usually an attempt to make the audience aware of the existence of the law firm. They mostly fail to build much trust, so they mostly attract the less complex, less lucrative cases. But many lawyers undeniably make a living as a result of advertising. Legal services advertising is at its most powerful when it tells two stories. First, it has to tell the story of the prospective client so they get the feeling that the lawyer really understands the struggle. Then, it has to tell the honest, open, authentic story of the lawyer so the prospective client feels a connection, and trust starts to form. Early on it was boring newspaper ads, bus benches, letters. Today it might involve Facebook retargeting with sophisticated pixels and cookies, or a clever chatbot that uses artificial intelligence to segment prospects. Regardless, it's all advertising, and it works when it tells the right story to the right people. But what about...? I spend endless hours talking to lawyers about marketing tactics, and it's all some variation on networking, writing, and advertising. Sometimes it's challenging to classify a tactic into one group or the other, but does that matter? Websites for some firms are more like advertising. For other firms, they're more like writing. Facebook is, for some firms, more like networking. For other firms, it's more like advertising. Speaking to groups is more like networking for some lawyers and more like writing for others. So what? Marketing your law firm hasn't changed much. There's no need for overwhelm. There's not much need to “keep up.” While the marketing might look a little different on Snapchat than it did on a bus bench, the ideas and principles are all the same. A healthy law firm finds a balance of the three approaches to growing the business. Each firm--each lawyer--will find the mix works best for them if they emphasize one approach and use the others where necessary and appropriate. Go with your strengths. Be great at one--networking, writing, or advertising--and use the other tactics when appropriate. Do the work. We love the promise of a magic bullet I can totally relate to the “I can't keep up” feeling. I feel it too sometimes. We're barraged with the newest new thing. It sometimes feels like we're standing next to a highway as the fast cars zoom by, leaving us behind. The headlines are relentless. The advertising never stops, and the salespeople call constantly. The breathless lawyers we meet at various events are excited about whatever new thing they're trying now. We're constantly hearing about developments, but are they really new marketing approaches, or are they just simple variations on the underlying approach? I like Honey Nut Cheerios as much as the next guy, but aren't they really just Cheerios with some sugar added? How much of the latest marketing approach is really just the old marketing approach with some sugar added? In 1977 a prospective client had to dial your number. In 1997 they could send a message from the contact form on your website. In 2017 they could talk to the person staffing your chat feature, which popped up on their screen to get their attention. Sugar, more sugar, and even more sugar. The vendors add more sugar because it works. We buy what they're selling. We're competitive, sometimes desperate, and not always willing to apply our critical thinking skills to these problems. We buy what they sell. We love a little sugar on top. It all works if you do it Pick something and do it. Don't get distracted by the newest new thing. Don't worry about keeping up. Worry about doing what you promised yourself you'd do. Wake up in the morning and connect with someone about getting to know one another better. Call, email, message, or send smoke signals; it doesn't matter how you get the relationship started--make the connection happen. Wake up in the morning and write something. Post it on your blog or website, record it as a podcast, turn it into a video on YouTube, send it as a stream of tweets, give it as a speech. It doesn't matter how you publish your content--make the publishing happen. Wake up in the morning and run some ads. Put them on Google AdWords or Facebook, or the radio, TV, a theatre playbill, or the back of your kid's soccer jersey. Tell the prospective client's story and tell your story as well. Build trust. It doesn't matter where you publish your ads--just make the advertising happen. You can pick one approach or you can use all three. What matters is getting it done. Get “keeping up” off your agenda. Put the networking, writing, and/or advertising on the agenda. All marketing works if you do it, but no marketing works if you're stuck in place trying to “keep up.” At some point you have to sit down and do the work. You do the thinking and come up with an idea. Then you do the research, then you take action. Today, it mostly starts in front of a keyboard. Back in the day it often started in front of a phone and a legal pad. Yep, it's different (in trivial ways), but it's nearly all the same. Keep doing what works--it hasn't changed Now is the time to change the story you're telling yourself. Action is the answer. Making something happen is the solution to the panic you're feeling when the revenues aren't flowing. The winning lawyers are doing one, two, or all three of the above. There's no magic, nothing new: it's the same old, same old. The winning lawyers are winning in the same way whether they graduated from law school in 1977, 1987, 1997, 2007, or 2017. They're networking, writing, and advertising just like they always have. The losing lawyers are losing for the same reason they've always lost. They're not doing it. They're paralyzed by indecision, they're not taking action, they're telling themselves the same old stories: they're struggling to “keep up.” Take some action. Today's tools make it easier than ever. My dad would have dictated his article on tape, handed the tape to his secretary to have it typed, then he would have edited it on paper. With the gadgets we have now, he could have done the same work in a fraction of the time. My dad would have had to phone another lawyer to arrange lunch. They would have passed messages back and forth through the receptionist. It might have taken a week to get a lunch date set. Today you can message directly and have the meeting arranged in seconds. My dad would have had to hire an ad agency to get ads made. Then he would have had to negotiate with the newspaper or radio stations to get them placed. Today you can design and place an ad campaign online in an hour. Things have changed but they truly are the same. If my dad (who died many years ago) came back for a visit, and went back to the practice of law, he'd have some catching up to do. Things have evolved since he passed away. He'd have to figure out computers, mobile phones, practice management systems, and he'd have to make do without his rolodex, law books, and dictaphone. But my dad would do just fine with his 1970s approach to marketing. He'd have a thriving practice. He'd do well enough to own a nice home and a vacation home, send his two boys to college, support his family, and garner the respect of his peers and community. He'd be able to keep up. You can keep up too. The fundamentals remain unchanged. They're not likely to change anytime soon. Do something. Pick your approach and go. That's the key to keeping up. Just get going.

Today's Bonus Episode asks if there's a way to make sense of the Supreme Court's Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week's rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene's Flowers case back to the state of Washington. We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York's Order approving the Taint Team's review of documents seized from Michael Cohen's offices by the Department of Justice.  How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged?  The answer may surprise you! After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Next, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Court struck down a California law regulating so-called "crisis pregnancy centers." After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out the Southern District of New York's Order regarding Cohen's meager haul of privileged documents. Andrew Seidel set forth his "Lukumi bar" thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series:  Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

KDCL Media & The H2O Network welcomes Oba Oriate Ernesto Pichardo, Co-Founder of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and will be speaking on the spiriual licenses as it applies to practioners of the Lucum tradition.  Oba Pichardo is a priest of Shango of 40 plus years, and is recognized throughout religious, academic, political, and social communities nationwide for his outstanding contributions to African Diaspora studies. http://www.church-of-the-lukumi.org/ On Facebook https://www.facebook.com/ChurchOfTheLukumiBabaluAye/info    

KDCL Media in conjunction with The H20 Network and the CLBA presents Iya Carmen P. Rodriguez who as a child in the late 1930’s, trained at the traditional Spiritualist Temple operated by her father in Cuba, and continues spiritualist work to this day. She is a Lukumi priestess of 42 years to the Orisha Yemaya, and a founding member of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye.  The show is in Spanish and English with Oba Oriate Ernesto Pichardo, Lukumi Elder and president of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, as Iya Carmen's interpreter. KDCL Media on FB The H20 Network on FB CLBA on FB  

KDCL Media in conjunction with The H20 Network and the CLBA presents Class 2 with Iya Carmen P. Rodriguez who as a child in the late 1930’s, trained at the traditional Spiritualist Temple operated by her father in Cuba, and continues her spiritualist work to this day. She is a Lukumi priestess of 42 years to the Orisha Yemaya, and a founding member of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye.  As this show is in both Spanish and English, Iya Carmen will be joined by Oba Oriate Ernesto Pichardo, Lukumi Elder and president of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, who will act as translator. KDCL Media on FB The H20 Network on FB CLBA on FB If you missed Class 1, you can find it here: Old Guard Spiritualism with Iya Carmen P. Rodriquez

As a child in the late 1930’s, Carmen P. Rodriguez trained at the traditional Spiritualist Temple operated by her father in Cuba, and continues her spiritualist work to this day. She is a Lukumi priestess of 42 years to the Orisha Yemaya, and a founding member of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye.  Joining Carmen on the show and providing translation will be Oba Oriate Ernesto Pichardo, Lukumi Elder and president of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. KDCL Media on FB The H20 Network on FB CLBA on FB