Stanford

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

Media eyes are trained on the U.S. Supreme Court's December 1 argument on Mississippi's abortion restrictions, preceded by a fast-tracked November 1 hearing about the stricter law in Texas. But don't neglect the Court's December 8 hearing and subsequent decision on tax funding of religious schools in the potentially weighty Carson v. Makin case (docket #20-1088).

University of Baltimore law Professor Kimberly Wehle certainly wants us to pay heed, warning October 14 via TheAtlantic.com that this is a "sleeper" appeal that "threatens the separation of church and state." In her view, the high court faces not just the perennial problem of public funding for religious campuses. She believes the justices could decide "religious freedom supersedes the public good" by aiding conservative Christian schools that, based on centuries of doctrine, discriminate against non-Christian and LGBTQ students and teachers.

Journalistic backgrounding: Thinly-populated Maine provides an unusual context for this story because the majority of its 260 school districts do not operate full K-12 systems and instead pay tuition for public or private schools that families choose for upper grades. Religiously-affiliated schools are included, but not if Maine deems them "sectarian."

Notably, the parents' plea for tuition is backed by major institutions of the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical Protestants, the Church of God in Christ (the nation's largest African-American denomination), Latter-day Saints (formerly called "Mormons") and Orthodox Judaism, alongside the 63-campus Council of Islamic Schools. A reporter's question: Has such a religious coalition ever formed in any prior Supreme Court case?

Of further interest, the case engages a major religious-liberty theorist, Michael W. McConnell, director of Stanford University's Constitutional Law Center and former federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He wrote that circuit's 2008 opinion in Colorado Christian University v Weaver (.pdf here), which tossed out a law that barred "pervasively sectarian" colleges from a state scholarship program.

In Carson, McConnell filed a personal brief September 8 that hands the Supreme Court a history lesson (.pdf here) on religious freedom as conceived when the Constitution's First Amendment was framed. He has explored this ground since a significant Harvard Law Review article in 1989.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There they go, there they go again: New York Times views #ACB through eyes of conservative women

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I recently raised a few eyebrows with a post that — #TriggerWarning — praised The New York Times for a piece about Judge Amy Coney Barrett and why her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court was so symbolic for cultural and religious conservatives. The headline on that post: “Speaking of people being praised: New York Times offered solid, old-school story about Barrett.”

Why was that Times report so important?

Well, no surprise here, but it was crucial that the team that produced the story include a religion-beat professional — as opposed to coming from the Donald Trump-era political desk. I also noted:

… Here is the key point I want to make: Unlike many Times stories in recent years, almost all of this material comes from qualified sources (left and right) whose names are attached to their opinions and the information they provided. There are attribution clauses all over the place, just like in Times of old.

Lo and behold, the Times followed up on that story with another religion-team feature that dug deeper on a perfectly valid point that was hinted at in the previous feature. Here’s the double-decker headline on that second story, which drew quite a bit of praise from conservatives on social media:

For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal

Judge Barrett is a new kind of icon for some, one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life.

This is another fine story. However, I have one criticism of it that some may find a bit ironic, or even hard to take seriously.

The story does a fine job of demonstrating that the pro-ACB women are not a simplistic choir of cloned conservatives each with precisely the same point of view in terms of politics and culture. For example, it’s clear that some of these women are not all that fond of Trump the man or even the president. What unites them are commitments to specific values and concerns about specific moral, cultural and political issues.

This is where Judge Barrett comes into the picture. They applaud her because of her personal life, faith and choices, as well as her intellectual prowess and sparkling legal career.

So what is missing? The story briefly mentions the fierce opposition to Barrett, but never digs into the views of progressives — thus allowing Barrett supporters to debate them.

Yes, this is a Times story that needed MORE on-the-record material from the cultural left.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Yes, that AP style issue again: OMg! That Christian McCaffrey guy is a real threat!

, , , , , ,

Remember that Christian McCaffrey guy, the do-everything running back for Stanford University who is named “Christian” for some pretty obvious reasons?

Right, ESPN folks?

It seems that it is pretty hard to talk about this guy’s talents without references to near miracles and other religious topics. You can see that in the headline in a recent Los Angeles Times story, the one with this headline: “USC hopes for more tackling, less praying, against Christian McCaffrey.”

While this is pretty much a run-of-the-mill advance story for an upcoming game, there is a reason for that headline. You can see that in the opening anecdote:

When USC Coach Clay Helton saw the play develop during last season’s Pac-12 title game, he started to pray.
Christian McCaffrey, Stanford’s All-American running back, had angled out for a pass and darted to the middle. USC was caught covering him with an inside linebacker.
“I’m like, ‘Please god, don’t throw it to him,’ ” Helton said. “And they did.”
McCaffrey took the third-down pass 67 yards to the seven-yard line, setting up the touchdown that erased USC’s lead and sprung Stanford to the Pac-12 title.

Yes, here we go again.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Hey, ESPN team: When you see Christian McCaffrey, do you see his name? Why not?

, , , , , , , , ,

Believe it or not, college football season is days away. As always, this opens up a whole new playing field on which religion-news ghosts can play.

In fact, the game has already started. Several GetReligion readers have written to ask for my commentary on a new ESPN: The Magazine piece that ran with this epic double-decker headline:

The Lightness of Being Christian McCaffrey
Stanford star running back Christian McCaffrey, who broke Barry Sanders’ collegiate single-season all-purpose yardage record last year, is on a quest to dispel the misconceptions and stereotypes about athletes, both black and white.

This is another one of those in-depth "We will tell you who this person really is" features. You can tell that at the very top, with this novelty, first-person, talk-to-the-reader opening:

QUICK: WHAT DO you see when you look at Christian McCaffrey? Don't think. Just answer. Say it out loud -- commit to it.
OK, next question: How confident are you in your answer -- that what you say you see, and what you see, are one and the same?
One hundred percent, no doubt. Because the answer is as straightforward as the question is stupid, right? He's an athlete, after all, a visually explicit human being. Call up a YouTube highlight. The who and the what become obvious in five seconds.
At this particular moment, I happen to be watching a Christian McCaffrey high school highlight on YouTube ... while in the presence of the living, breathing, real-time Christian McCaffrey.

Let's turn this around for the ESPN crew: OK, when you look at Christian McCaffrey, who and what do YOU see? What about his name?


Please respect our Commenting Policy