In this week's edition of The 3, featuring three stories of relevance impacting the Christian community, there is good news out of Texas, where a grand jury has indicted Netflix over an objectionable film that it offers. Plus, with Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings occurring this week, there are concerns over how her deep faith will be regarded. And, it's October, but already there is talk of a case involving a Christmas display.
Netflix indicted in TX for objectionable film
Ever since the trailer for the Netflix release, Cuties, was released, there has been an outcry of opposition to the film. Even though officials of the streaming service said that the movie itself would not be as objectionable, a significant level of subscribers thought otherwise, it seems
The Christian Post has announced that Netflix is now in legal trouble over the film, which, according to the article: "... features 11-year-old girls dancing provocatively and simulating sex acts, and has been compared to child porn."
A grand jury in Tyler, Texas has indicted Netflix - the indictments says that the film promoted "the lewd exhibition" involving minors with "no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Netflix, even though it was reported that it has lost 2.5 million subscribers, continues to stand behind its distribution of the film, according to the Post.
Concern over religious harassment as Barrett hearings open
Amy Coney Barrett, who serves on a Federal appeals court and is President Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, is undergoing hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. Her supporters defend her based on her "textualist" judicial philosophy, i.e., interpreting the Constitution as written, rather than possessing a "judicial activist" approach which has yielded faulty decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell. But, it appears that detractors, based on comments made this far, are opposed to her nomination because of her religious beliefs, an issue that was brought up in her appeals court hearings.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has fought back on behalf of Barrett. FoxNews.com reports that:
The Senate leader pointed to a Guardian report about how Barrett and her future husband lived in a residence owned by the co-founder of the People of Praise religious group while she was in law school, and a Washington Post article with a headline that mentioned Barrett had once been a "handmaid" for the group. The article recognizes that the title was for female leaders in the group who helped other women with various issues, but the term has been used by Barrett's critics to compare her and the group to the dystopian novel and television show "The Handmaid's Tale."
McConnell issued his comments on Twitter. He said that, "Our coastal elites are so disconnected from their own country that they treat religious Americans like strange animals in a menagerie..." He tweeted out, "The ongoing attacks by Senate Democrats and the media on Judge Barrett's faith are a disgrace," adding, "They demean the confirmation process, disrespect the Constitution, and insult millions of American believers."
It's fall, time for controversy on Christmas display
Well, it's still over two months before Christmas, but that's not too early, it seems, to be discussing a controversial court decision over a Christmas display on government property.
Liberty Counsel is involved in a case out of Jackson County, Indiana. And, it appears that the county did everything right in its display. The legal group's website says that the display included not only a Nativity scene, but also "a large lighted Santa Claus, sleigh with reindeer, and a group of Christmas carolers. The courthouse grounds are also decorated with many kinds of lights and other non-religious symbols of the holiday season." Unfortunately, the law at this time allows religious displays as long as they are surrounded by secular symbols - it's even been referred to as the "three-reindeer rule."
But, a Federal district judge ruled against the display, and Liberty Counsel noted that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the case; they did not live or do business in the county. Plus, the organization claims the judge did not use Supreme Court precedent in dealing with the claim that the display violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause; rather it used conflicting lower court decisions. The site notes, "the court barely mentions the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in American Legion, which upheld the Peace Cross in Maryland." In that case, a large veterans memorial in the shape of a cross was allowed to stand.
Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty, which had defended the presence of the cross, has expressed optimism that the ruling will change the landscape on court decisions regarding religious symbols. He is quoted as saying, in the aftermath of the Peace Cross decision, “The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over,” adding, "The attempted perversion of our Constitution is now over, and every American now has more freedom than they have had in decades, with a government no longer hostile to people or expressions of faith.”
No comments:
Post a Comment