***For full audio of today’s press conference, click here***
In a press call today, clergy leaders in key states such as Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota and Florida announced an unprecedented voter-contact effort that will mobilize 1 million people of faith to vote for economic justice this November. The call was organized by PICO National Network, the largest faith-based community organizing group in the country.
“There is a growing sense of moral outrage among people of faith who see working families losing their homes, their jobs, their health care and their retirement savings,” said Gordon Whitman, director of policy, PICO National Network.
Whitman added that clergy see the pain of families up close, and they are compelled by those stories and their sacred teachings to offer moral leadership in this critical election season.
Under the voter-contact effort, known as the “Land of Opportunity” campaign, PICO faith leaders pledge to reach out to under-represented communities and register 75,000 new voters. By November, the coordinated mobilization will contact 1 million religious voters.
This week thousands of clergy in 10 states are holding events to unveil civic engagement plans preparing for the election. Clergy will work on a number of issues and ballot initiatives, including capping payday loans in Missouri, fighting back a dangerous budget cap that puts schools and essential community services at risk in Florida, and protecting voting rights in Minnesota. Clergy will engage their congregations and communities in events such as trainings, rallies, and voter registration drives.
“Economic fairness and opportunity for American families are the top moral priorities for religious voters in the 2012 election,” said Jennifer Butler, executive director of Faith in Public Life, a strategy center that works with faith organizations. “Religious voters care about making ends meet, ensuring that everyone has a fair shot, and making sure the poor and vulnerable aren’t left in utter destitution.”
Rev. Errol Thompson, pastor of New Fellowship Baptist Church in Orlando, FL, spoke about his commitment to fighting Amendment 3, which would create a new state revenue limit based on a flawed formula.
“Instead of strengthening families and communities, Amendment 3 deepens cuts to schools, healthcare, public safety and senior services. Making tough times even tougher in this difficult economy, it places a greater burden on families at a time when they can least afford it. As clergy concerned about our state’s families and communities, we oppose Amendment 3,” said Rev. Thompson.
The Rev. Paul Slack from New Creation Church in Minneapolis said that as a member of the clergy, he became involved with the efforts to defeat an amendment that would require state ID to vote, because he has to oppose any measure that would further disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority populations.
“The right to vote should be a basic human right. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote and work to make Minnesota a better place,” he said.
The launch events for the “Land of Opportunity” campaign are being held in Orlando, FL; Aurora, CO; St. Paul, MN; Las Cruces, NM; Sacramento, CA; Kansas City, MO; Cincinnati, OH; Reno, NV; Flint, MI and New Orleans, LA.
PICO works with 1,000 religious congregations in more than 200 cities and towns through its 60 local and state federations. PICO and its federations are non-partisan and do not endorse or support candidates for office. PICO urges people of faith to consult their faith traditions for guidance on specific policies and legislation. Learn more at www.piconetwork.org.
FOR MORE DETAILS: http://www.piconetwork.org/news-media/news/2012-news/clergy-to-engage-faith-voters-on-the-economy
###
add a comment »
Nearly 60 prominent theologians, priests, nuns and national Catholic social justice leaders released a statement today refuting Rep. Paul Ryan’s claim that his GOP budget proposal reflects Catholic teaching on care for the poor, which he made in an interview earlier this week with the Christian Broadcasting Network. The group of Catholic leaders — including a former high-ranking U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops official, a priest in Rep. Ryan’s district and the leadership team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas — called on Ryan to “reconsider his radical budget proposal and refrain from distorting Church teaching.”
“If Rep. Ryan thinks a budget that takes food and healthcare away from millions of vulnerable people upholds Catholic values, then he also probably believes Jesus was a Tea Partier who lectured the poor to stop being so lazy and work harder,” said John Gehring, Catholic Outreach Coordinator at Faith in Public Life. “This budget turns centuries of Catholic social teaching on its head. These Catholic leaders and many Catholics in the pews are tired of faith being misused to bless an immoral agenda.”
The leaders wrote: “Simply put, this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good. A budget that turns its back on the hungry, the elderly and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few can’t be justified in Christian terms.”
Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, released an analysis last month that found the Ryan budget would “likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).” Mr. Greenstein described the budget proposal as making “extraordinary cuts in programs that serve as a lifeline for our nation’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently sent a letter to Congressional leaders calling on Congress to protect food stamps, affordable housing and other programs that help the poor from harmful budget cuts. Ryan’s plan did not heed the bishops’ request.
The full statement with signatories is below.
As Catholic social justice leaders, women religious, priests, theologians and other concerned Catholics, we are deeply troubled that Rep. Paul Ryan – chairman of the House Budget Committee – is defending a budget proposal that makes dangerous cuts to food stamps and other vital protections for the most vulnerable as compatible with the teachings of his Catholic faith. Simply put, this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good. A budget that turns its back on the hungry, the elderly and the sick while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few can’t be justified in Christian terms.
In a letter to the House of Representatives last month, Catholic bishops wrote that “a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.” Bishops also called for repealing “cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” and asked Congress to consider the “human and moral dimensions” of budget choices. Rep. Ryan has ignored this vision. Instead, he proposes to dismantle Medicare as we know it, slash food assistance for struggling families and turn Medicaid into inadequate state block grants at a time when most states are struggling to pay their bills. The dramatic growth in military spending is untouched. Addressing our national debt is essential, but balancing budgets on the backs of the poor and working families is flawed public policy and morally bankrupt.
Rep. Ryan claims his budget reflects the Catholic principle of “subsidiarity.” But he profoundly distorts this teaching to fit a narrow political ideology guided by anti-government fervor and libertarian faith in radical individualism. This is anathema to the Catholic social tradition. In fact, ever since Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, Catholic social teaching has recognized a positive role for government and our collective responsibility to care for our neighbors. It was another Ryan — Msgr. John Ryan — who in 1919 worked with Catholic bishops on a visionary plan that called for minimum wages, insurance for the elderly and unemployed, labor rights and housing for workers. The “Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction” recognized that free markets and self-reliance alone were not enough. These proposals eventually helped inform historic New Deal programs that for the first time sought to buffer families from the cruel vagaries of profit-driven markets that had little concern for human dignity. Subsidiarity recognizes that those social institutions closest to the human person — families, communities, churches — can effectively respond to human needs. But subsidiarity, according to Church teaching, also insists that government has a responsibility to serve the common good when these institutions are unable to address the more systemic issues of poverty, inadequate health care, environmental degradation and other societal challenges.
We urge Rep. Ryan to reconsider his radical budget proposal and refrain from distorting Church teaching to give moral cover to a budget that fails to live up to our nation’s best values and highest ideals.
Sister Simone Campbell
Executive Director
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Francis X. Doyle
Associate General Secretary (retired)
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Stephen Schneck
Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies
Catholic University of America
Rev. Thomas Kelly
Retired Catholic Priest
Elkhorn, WI (Constituent of Rep. Ryan)
Rev. Bryan N. Massingale
Professor of Theological Ethics
Marquette University
Institute Leadership Team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Rev. John A. Coleman S.J
Saint Ignatius Parish, San Francisco
Casassa Professor Emeritus
Loyola Marymount University
Tom Allio
Diocesan Social Action Director (Retired) Catholic Diocese of Cleveland
Rev. James F. Keenan, S.J.
Founders Professor in Theology
Boston College
Rev. John F. Kavanaugh S.J.
Professor of Philosophy
Saint Louis University
Rev. David Hollenbach, S.J.
University Chair in Human Rights and International Justice
Boston College
Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Senior Fellow
Woodstock Theological Center
Georgetown University
Rev. Paul Crowley, S.J.
Santa Clara Jesuit Community Professor
Religious Studies Department
Santa Clara University
Douglas W. Kmiec
U.S. Ambassador (ret.)
Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law & Human Rights
Pepperdine University
Dr. Maryann Cusimano Love
Associate Professor, Politics Department Fellow, Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
Dr. Francis Schüssler Fiorenza
Stillman Professor of Roman Catholic Theological Studies
Harvard Divinity School
Dr. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
Krister Stendahl Professor
Harvard Divinity School
Patrick Carolan
Executive Director
Franciscan Action Center
Fred Rotondaro
Board Chair
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
David J. O’Brien
University Professor of Faith and Culture
University of Dayton
Vincent J. Miller
Gudorf Chair in Catholic Theology and Culture Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Tobias Winright
Associate Professor of Theological Ethics
Saint Louis University
William Quigley
Janet Mary Riley Professor of Law
Loyola University, New Orleans
Marie Dennis
Co-President
Pax Christi International
James Salt
Executive Director
Catholics United
Mark J. Allman, PhD
Associate Professor of Religious & Theological Studies
Merrimack College
Terrence W. Tilley, Ph.D.
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., Professor of Catholic Theology Chair, Theology Department
Fordham University
Paul Lakeland
Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies
Fairfield University
Gerald J. Beyer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Christian Social Ethics Department of Theology and Religious Studies
Saint Joseph’s University
Lisa Sowle Cahill
Monan Professor of Theology
Boston College
Nancy Dallavalle
Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Fairfield University
Nicholas P. Cafardi
Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law
Duquesne University
John Sniegocki
Associate Professor of Christian Ethics
Xavier University
William L. Portier
Mary Ann Spearin Chair of Catholic Theology
University of Dayton
John Inglis
Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy Cross-appointed to Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Meghan J. Clark, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Theology
St John’s University (NY)
Alex Mikulich, PhD
Research Fellow
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Loyola University, New Orleans
Peter Beisheim, Ph.D.
Director, Catholic Studies
Stonehill College
Sr. Mary Ann Hinsdale, IHM, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Theology, Boston College
Past-President,Catholic Theological Society of America
Una M. Cadegan
Department of History
University of Dayton
Todd Whitmore
Associate Professor, Department of Theology
University of Notre Dame
Kathleen Maas Weigert
Professor of Women and Leadership
Assistant to the Provost for Social Justice Initiatives
Loyola University, Chicago
Maria Teresa Davila, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics
Andover Newton Theological School
Dolores Christie
Emerita
Ursuline College, Cleveland, Ohio
Jean Lim
Adjunct Faculty, Theology
Xavier University
Christopher Pramuk
Associate Professor of Theology
Xavier University
Gerald W. Schlabach, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology; Director of Justice & Peace Studies
University of St. Thomas
Joseph Selling
International Visiting Scholar
Woodstock Theological Center
Georgetown University
Emily Reimer-Barry
Assistant Professor, Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of San Diego
Bradford E. Hinze
Professor of Theology
Fordham University
Maureen H. O’Connell
Associate Professor of Theology
Fordham University
Rev. Edward Vacek, S.J.
Woodstock Jesuit Residence
Nancy Pineda-Madrid, PhD
Associate Professor of Theology and U.S. Latino/a Ministry
Boston College, School of Theology and Ministry
Dr. Anthony J. Godzieba
Professor of Theology & Religious Studies
Villanova University
Arthur J. Dewey, Th.D.
Professor of Theology
Xavier University, Cincinnati
Daniel C. Maguire
Professor of Moral Theology
Marquette University
Jeannine Hill Fletcher
Associate Professor of Theology
Faculty Director, Dorothy Day Center for Service and Justice
Fordham University
Kelly Johnson
Associate Professor, Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Jana Bennett
Assistant Professor, Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Sr. Patricia Chappell
Executive Director – Pax Christi USA
*Organizations are listed for identification purposes only
add a comment »
As the Supreme Court prepares to take up legal challenges to Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB-1070), more than 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant and Jewish groups signed on to an amicus curiae brief arguing for suspension of the law.
“People of faith are compelled to oppose unjust laws that fail to uphold the dignity of every human being,” said Lisa Sharon Harper, Director of Mobilizing at Sojourners. “All people are created in the image of God, and the Arizona law is an assault on that moral reality.”
According to the brief, SB-1070 “endangers a large swath of Arizonans” by requiring law enforcement officials to demand that residents provide proof of citizenship. As the brief points out, the law deputizes local police officers as immigration agents, creating a host of legal problems and humanitarian issues.
“This immoral law is turning people of faith into criminals,” said Rev. Luis Cortés, President of Esperanza, a prominent Latino evangelical organization. “Laws that promote inhumane treatment of God’s children have no place in our country and will lead to civil disobedience. Christ demands that of his followers.”
People of faith provided a constant witness at the Arizona Statehouse as SB-1070 was debated, and after its passage they have pressed the courts to dismantle the draconian legislation. Arizona was the first state in the U.S. to pass this type of “attrition through enforcement” anti-immigrant law, and dozens of other states have since taken up similar proposals, which have passed in states such as Alabama and Georgia. Faith leaders in these states have spoken out against these laws that divide communities and separate immigrant families.
“We have seen firsthand the devastating effect of anti-immigrant legislation on all Arizonans, immigrant and non-immigrant alike,” said Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church. “I have confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will repeal SB 1070. However, even if the Supreme Court is unable to make this right and bold decision, United Methodists in Arizona and across the U.S. will stand firmly and compassionately with our immigrant brothers and sisters.”
Signers of the brief expect the Supreme Court to overturn the law, but regardless of the verdict remain focused on the higher law that commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
“As people of faith, we are called to welcome others as God has welcomed us,” said Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). “May God move the hearts of our political leaders in the direction of greater hospitality and compassion toward our sisters and brothers in immigrant communities across this nation.”
Read the whole brief here http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=641 (full site of all briefs: http://www.nilc.org/USvAZamici.html). Signers include:
African American Ministers In Action
American Jewish Committee
Church World Service
Esperanza
Franciscan Action Network
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Holy Cross Ministries
Jewish Labor Committee
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
The Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National Council of Jewish Women
National Latino Evangelical Coalition
NETWORK A Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Refugee & Immigration Ministries, Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Sojourners
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Southwest Conference of the United Church of Christ
Adorers of the Blood of Christ, U.S. Region
Adrian Dominican Sisters
Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes
Congregation of St. Joseph
Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul of New York
Convent of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia
Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Province of St. Louise
Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Province of the West
Dominican Sisters of Peace
Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine de Ricci
Dominican Sisters, Grand Rapids, MI
Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart
Religious Sisters of Charity
School Sisters of Notre Dame, Central Pacific Province
Sinsinawa Dominican Sisters
Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati
Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth
Sisters of Charity of Our Lady of Mercy
Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth
Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill, Greensburg, PA
Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, USA
Sisters of St. Francis of Dubuque, Iowa
Sisters of St. Francis of Penance and Charity
Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, NY
Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield, MA
Sisters of the Divine Compassion
Sisters of the Holy Cross
###
add a comment »
Prominent Alabama pastors, bishops and other religious leaders will gather for a prayer service and press conference on Tuesday, Feb. 28 at 1:00 p.m. at the Alabama Statehouse to pray for and urge repeal of the anti-immigrant law HB-56. The faith community in Alabama is continually speaking out and mobilizing advocacy efforts to repeal HB-56, which makes it a crime for churches, charities and even neighbors to offer help to anyone who is not a legal resident.
Participants in the prayer service and press conference will sign an oversized copy of a letter to state legislators urging them to repeal the law because it “not only unfairly targets a very vulnerable segment of our society, but also is contrary to our faith teachings to welcome the stranger in our midst and to love our neighbor regardless of race, country of origin, or immigration status.” After the event, faith leaders will meet with state legislators to convey their concerns about HB-56 and request that it be repealed.
WHAT: Prayer event and press conference with faith leaders speaking out against HB-56 and urging its repeal
WHO: Prominent Alabama faith leaders and people of faith, including
Rev. James Evans, Pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church, Auburn, AL
Bishop James Levert Davis, Servant Prelate of the 9th Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church
WHEN: Tuesday, February 28 at 1 p.m. CST
WHERE: Alabama Statehouse, 11 South Union Street, Montgomery, AL 36131
Religious leaders will pray, share stories from their churches, and stand up against legislation that criminalizes people of faith from following their churches’ teaching to act as the Good Samaritan. The law has created a climate of fear and suspicion that divides Alabama’s churches and communities and has been a disaster for Alabama’s economy and agriculture.
Faith leaders also joined a recent “One Heart, One Alabama” rally and lobby day on February 14 at the Statehouse, urging legislators to repeal HB-56 because of its devastating shortcomings and impact on Alabama’s economy, business climate and communities.
###
add a comment »
Legal expert Timothy S. Jost of Washington and Lee School of Law, a Christian who has more than 30 years healthcare law and policy experience, has released an analysis of the President’s updated contraception policy.
According to Jost, the Obama Administration’s rule is not a “war on religion” and does not “require any religious organization that objects to contraception to pay for it.”
Jost points out that requiring insurance companies to offer employees of objecting religious organizations free contraception is not “an ‘accounting gimmick’ under which employers in fact pay for coverage against their beliefs, but [is] in fact paid for by the insurers out of savings that they realize by offering contraceptive coverage.”
Jost’s full analysis may be found here: http://law.wlu.edu/faculty/facultydocuments/jost/contraception.pdf and below:
Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Updated Contraception Rule
Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
Washington and Lee University
It is most unfortunate that a regulation intended to ensure privately-insured Americans access to preventive care without the burden of cost sharing has unleashed a political maelstrom, including claims that the Obama administration is engaged in a “war on religion.” The regulation, published on February 15, 2012 implements section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act. Section 2713, enacted through the Affordable Care Act, requires group health plans and health insurers to cover various preventive services (such as vaccinations and screening and counseling services) and to do so without cost sharing. Congress adopted this provision based on evidence that access to preventive services without cost sharing (copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles) results in greater use of those services. This in turn results in better health. Access also saves money because avoidable conditions are prevented and treatable conditions are detected earlier.
Section 2713 provides specifically that insurers must cover women’s “preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration . . . “.
Among the preventive services recommended by HRSA are:
All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity. http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines
HRSA recommended that contraceptive services be covered on the basis of a consensus report by the Institute of Medicine http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Servicesfor-Women Closing-the-Gaps.aspx finding health benefits for both women and babies in planned pregnancies. All group plans and issuers that do not have grandfathered status must implement this coverage for plan or policy years beginning after August 1, 2012.
Insurance coverage of contraceptives is common in the United States. Twenty-eight states have laws requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives. Studies cited in the preamble to the regulation found that over 80 percent of insurers and large employers already cover contraceptives. Several court decisions have held that an employer’s failure to provide contraceptive coverage is illegal sex discrimination.
Nevertheless, some religious groups, notably the Catholic Church, teach that contraception is wrong. These religious groups employ thousands of Americans and provide them with employee health benefits. Thus the agencies implementing the ACA attempted to reach an accommodation between the public health objective of increasing access to preventive services and the goal of protecting religious freedom.
The first response of the administration to this issue was to exclude “religious employers” from the contraceptive coverage requirement, defining the term to mean churches and their integrated auxiliaries, conventions, and associations and religious orders that have inculcation of religious values as their purpose and primarily serve and employ persons who share their religious tenets. Churches and other organizations that fit in this category do not have to provide coverage for contraception at all.
This exception did not, however, cover religious hospitals, universities, or charities, some of which objected to contraceptive coverage. But these institutions often employ women who do not hold to the religious beliefs (or follow all of the teachings of) their employer, and excusing all of these employers from compliance would deprive these employees of access to contraceptive services.
The Administration, therefore, created a second exception through guidance. This exception establishes a safe harbor for one year (until August 1, 2013) from enforcement of the regulations to protect non-profit organizations with a religious objection to covering contraceptive services. During this moratorium, the agencies will propose a permanent rule that will require insurers to offer insurance to these religious employers without contraceptive coverage. But the insurers will have to offer free coverage of contraceptives without costsharing for any employees of these religious employers who want it. Health plans will be able to offer contraceptive coverage for free because, according to studies cited by the government, contraceptives cost substantially less than pregnancies. The free coverage is not, therefore, an “accounting gimmick” under which employers in fact pay for coverage against their beliefs, but coverage will in fact be paid for by the insurers out of savings that they realize by offering contraceptive coverage. This second exception leaves outstanding only the issue of coverage of contraceptives by self-insured religious employers, which is still under consideration.
This rule is not a “war on religion,” but is rather an attempt to accommodate a serious public health need and a sincerely held religious and moral conviction. The regulation does not require anyone to use contraception nor does it require any religious organization that objects to contraception to pay for it. It neither prohibits nor requires a religious belief or practice. Accommodation of religious belief and “neutral laws of general applicability” is not an easy task. I am a religious conscientious objector and object to the requirement that I must pay taxes to support war. Yet I do not consider the federal government to be at war with religion, even though it makes no accommodation for my religious beliefs, much less the accommodation that it affords those who object to contraception. For two centuries that United States has been conducting an experiment virtually unprecedented in human history—a government that neither establishes nor forbids any religious beliefs. Sometimes, as with respect to laws prohibiting polygamy in the nineteenth century or my objection to war taxes, it has offered no quarter to minority beliefs. In other situations, as with the implementing of the preventive services requirement, the government has gone a great distance to accommodate minority beliefs, while at the same time trying to accommodate the needs of the majority. As a member of a religious group that has always been in the minority, and is likely to stay there, I rejoice in this ongoing experiment. President Obama, himself a professed Christian, is not at war with religion, his administration is rather trying to find a peaceful solution to one of the many conflicts over religious values that characterize our diverse nation.
add a comment »
