What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.
The non-profit advocacy group Secularity USA brought world-famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to Des Moines on Saturday. I couldn’t make it to the event; if you were there, please share your impressions. The mission of Secularity USA is to raise public awareness “of the dangers of religious bias in government and promoting the traditional separation of church and state.” While Dawkins is a well-known atheist, Secularity USA seeks to unite “religious and nonreligious supporters of church-state separation.”
Governor Terry Branstad signed a proclamation this week inviting “all Iowans who choose to join in thoughtful prayer and humble repentance according to II Chronicles 7:14 in favor of our state and nation to come together on July 14, 2014.” I wouldn’t go so far as one blogger, who declared that Branstad “signed away separation of church and state,” but it does seem inappropriate for the governor to lend his support to such a specific religious movement. The “Prayer 7-14-14” group, which is calling for the national day of prayer, sounds pretty far out there. Endorsing this project is different from routine appearances by governors at prayer breakfasts, or the prayers that typically open daily sessions in the Iowa House and Senate.
I wonder whether the governor’s staff sensed that he crossed a line, because I didn’t see any announcement of this event on the governor’s official news feed. Normally that feed highlights several proclamation signings each week. It mentioned more than half a dozen other documents Branstad signed this past week–including, ironically, a proclamation for Muslim Recognition Day. Perhaps Branstad viewed inviting Iowans to pray on July 14 as nothing more than empty pandering to the FAMiLY Leader contingent, which is promoting the national prayer day. The governor hasn’t elevated social conservative goals in most of his public speeches or in his legislative agenda.
Former Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan headlined an Iowa GOP fundraiser in Cedar Rapids last night. O.Kay Henderson posted the audio at Radio Iowa. As usual for Ryan, he said little about social conservative priorities, focusing instead on federal budget and tax issues, Obamacare, and the need for Republican unity. But he did nod to his religious heritage by urging his audience to give up “infighting,” “tunnel vision,” and “acrimony” for Lent.
Last month I never managed to post a thread on one of this year’s biggest news stories related to church-state separation: the U.S. Supreme Court considering what has become known as the Hobby Lobby case. After the jump I’ve posted six links on the oral arguments in that case, which will determine whether two corporations are entitled to a religious exemption from the 2010 health care reform law’s contraception mandate.
Click here (pdf) to read the full transcript of the March 25 oral arguments in Sebelius et al v. Hobby Lobby.
Lyle Denniston recapped the arguments for the SCOTUS blog. Like many observers, he saw Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. The other eight justices made their stances clear during the oral arguments and seem poised to split 4-4 along their usual lines. Denniston noted,
The hearing could not have been a pleasant experience for two experienced advocates – Washington attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, and current Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., making a return engagement from their encounter two years ago when the Affordable Care Act first came up for review in the Court – when each won something.
Dahlia Lithwick wrote a good summary of the legal arguments and case history. She expects the high court to strike down the contraception mandate.
After discussing what he viewed as the key moments of the oral arguments, Armando concluded that the case “demonstrates yet again that the Supreme Court is nothing more than politics clothed in black robes. This is an easy case. Hobby Lobby’s argument is absurd. The ramifications of accepting it could be monumental.”
Here are two commentaries that are more sympathetic to the Hobby Lobby perspective: by National Catholic Reporter senior analyst Thomas Reese and by law professor Michael McConnell.