The Dispatch

Whose republic? Which “liberalism”?

June 19, 2019 George Weigel 0

Extra credit question: Name the author of this admonition about the insecure cultural foundations and potentially perilous future of the American republic — “Seeds of dissolution were already present in the ancient heritage as it reached […]

No Picture
News Briefs

Mexican bishops: The violence must end

June 18, 2019 CNA Daily News 0

Mexico City, Mexico, Jun 19, 2019 / 12:06 am (CNA).- Catholic leaders in Mexico have spoken out against continuing violence in the country and called on governmental authorities to focus on ending the bloodshed and establishing stability and peace.

“In recent times, we have experienced situations of great violence, which have been a true Calvary for citizens and many families in various parts of the country, to which we see no end,” said Auxiliary Bishop Alfonso Miranda Guardiola of Monterrey, secretary general of the Mexican Bishops’ Conference in a June 13 statement.

On behalf of the Mexican bishops, he lamented the atmosphere of violence and fear, saying, “we are once again calling on the competent authorities to address this wave of insecurity which has been growing in our country.”

“To our faithful and society in general, we ask you to not be indifferent in face of the pain of others, and let us continue to build peace,” he added. “As a Church we pray and work incessantly for the reconstruction of the social fabric.”

In the past week, two university students have been killed in Mexico City, adding to the growing violence of recent months.

Official figures indicate that the first three months of 2019 were the most violent on record in Mexico. Of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 15 are located in Mexico, according to the Citizen Council on Public Safety and Criminal Justice.

The Catholic Multimedia Center, an organization that has been internationally recognized for its investigations into the violence against and murders of priests, lamented the continued bloodshed in the country.

“The cold statistics that swell the numbers of the fallen make us brutally face the reality that indicates to us that here it no longer matters who dies. That here it no longer matters why they die. That here it matters even less who the murderers are,” the center said in a recent post online.

The group criticized the Mexican authorities for their “ineptitude,” saying, “Thousands continue to die under the incompetent watch of those who swore to eradicate this pandemonium of grief and despair.”

If government officials are unable to restore peace in Mexico, they should resign, the Catholic Multimedia Center said.

“They should resign because they have allowed impunity to continue to feed hundreds of criminals who kill for a few coins, knowing that little will be done to capture them.”

The group pledged to “be the voice of the thousands who have fallen victim to this inhumane and irrational violence, to no longer ask but to demand the authorities stop the violence and the pain; that impunity and corruption be stopped, in short, that they get to work and if they can’t, they should resign.”

Bishop Miranda voiced prayers for all those affected by the ongoing violence.

“May Our Lady of Guadalupe, our mother, shelter us under her mantle, protect us from the darkness, guide our steps on the path of peace and help us to recognize each other as brothers,” he said.
 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

US Supreme Court will soon decide ‘Peace Cross’ First Amendment case

June 18, 2019 CNA Daily News 0

Washington D.C., Jun 18, 2019 / 04:10 pm (CNA).- Before the month is out, the US Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in an establishment clause case with the potential to create a new standard for dealing with problems related to religious liberty, religious symbols, and the relationship between religion and public life.

The case, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, hinges on the legality of the Bladensburg Peace Cross–a 40-foot stone cross that was erected in 1925 in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

The cross honors those from the area who were killed in World War I. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has performed regular maintenance around the monument since 1961, as it is located on a median in the middle of a public road. This, the American Humanist Association has argued, is entangling government unnecessarily with religion.

Joe Davis, legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNA that things appeared to be positive during oral arguments, and that “at least five” of the justices indicated that they felt as though the cross monument was legal. Oral arguments do not, however, always reflect what the justices decide months later.

If the Supreme Court does indeed rule in favor of keeping the peace cross, it is increasingly likely that they would have to use a new sort of legal test to justify how the cross is constitutional. Since 1971, the Supreme Court has used the “Lemon test” to decide these cases, something Davis described as “wildly inconsistent.” The application of the Lemon test has led to some religious symbols being found constitutional, and others not.

“(The Lemon test) has been heavily criticized over the decades,” explained Davis.

It is a threefold standard, which examines if the action in question has a secular purpose, a primarily religious or secular effect, and if the action “entangles the government with religion” excessively.

The “test” was established in the Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the reimbursement of private school teacher’s salaries from public funds.

In The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, those arguing in favor of the Peace Cross proposed alternative tests for the court to consider instead of Lemon.

“The parties defending the cross argued that (the Lemon test) should be replaced by a coercion test, when you ask if the government action is coercing some religious exercise,” said Davis. “And if it’s not, it’s not an establishment clause violation.”

The governmental party defending the Peace Cross put forward an “independent, secular meaning test,” said Davis, which would be similar to parts of the Lemon test.

The Becket lawyers argued what Davis termed a “historical approach,” which would put the action in the context of what the founders of the United States intended when they created the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

“The idea would be, you take the government action and you say ‘Does this look like what establishment of religion looks like at the founding? Is this the kind of thing that the founders were concerned about when they ratified the establishment clause?’” said Davis.

This historical approach would work, said Davis, “because you can just compare whatever the current case is about to the historical data, and see whether it matches up.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in February. The court’s term ends at the end of the month, meaning that the decision will be released shortly.

[…]