Ep. 02: Supreme Court case on gov’t funding of religion: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

BJC Podcast

Innhold levert av BJC Podcast. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av BJC Podcast eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.

4+ y ago 45:59

MP3•Episoder hjem

Why is religion treated differently by our Constitution? In a blockbuster year at the Supreme Court, BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler and General Counsel Holly Hollman examine one case that could have major implications for religious liberty law. They dig deeper into Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (starting at 1:50), talk about what people mean when they say “Blaine amendments,” explain the footnote of a previous decision that came up during oral arguments (18:20), and share their predictions for the decision. They also point out the links between this case and other events, including a troubling proposal released by President Trump during his State of the Union address (29:31). In the final segment, Amanda and Holly review how Supreme Court news continues to dominate religious liberty conversations and note how religion is being treated in news about the coronavirus (39:57). See the show notes for more details.

The post Ep. 02: Supreme Court case on gov’t funding of religion: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue appeared first on BJC.

76 episoder

#Government #Religion #Baptistjointcommittee #Faithfreedom #Religiousfreedom #Religiousliberty #Supremecourt #BJC