Navigating Legal Frontiers

Navigating Legal Frontiers and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a legal heavyweight with a track record of victories, prompts scrutiny for its impact on rights and diversity in America.

“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”

LORD BYRON, an English poet and peer

“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction – to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON, an American Founding Father, military officer, politician, and statesman who served as the first president of the United States

“I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form.  It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right.  The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”

BILLY GRAHAM, an American evangelist, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and a civil rights advocate

“We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.”

RONALD REAGAN, an American politician and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States

“I have a deep-seated bias against hate and intolerance. I have a bias against racial and religious bigotry. I have a bias that leads me to believe in the essential goodness of my fellow man, which leads me to believe that no problem of human relations is ever insoluble.”

RALPH BUNCHE, an American political scientist, diplomat, and US civil rights activist, and, who received the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize for his late 1940s mediation in Israel. He is the first black Nobel laureate

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Introduction

Navigating Legal Frontiers

In navigating legal frontiers, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty needs a closer look. As a legal heavyweight with a track record of victories prompts scrutiny for its impact on rights and diversity in America.

In this post, I briefly explore the activity of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and its single-minded mission to destroy religious freedom, both the practice of religion and the establishment of a Christian point of view as a singular benchmark for creating social legislation and court support for its view and understanding of religion itself. The Becket Fund targets civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, the American healthcare system, and pandemic relief, turning K-12 education into a wasteland of banned books, and whitewashed curriculum, Immigrant rights (or lack thereof), the ongoing destruction of labor unions and the rights of hard-working Americans, and, foiling the transparency of political donors so that dark money in politics cannot be discovered and regulated.

The thrust of this piece is simple. Keep your bigotry to yourself and hands off my Constitutionally guaranteed rights. to the free practice of religion, or the right not to practice Bronze Age mythology at all.

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Reproductive Rights as a Target

In the realm of reproductive rights, Becket, celebrated for its triumph in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, extends its influence in pivotal cases like Dobbs v. Jackson, posing a formidable challenge to abortion access.

LGBTQ+ Rights as a Negative Focus

The LGBTQ community faces the brunt of Becket’s legal maneuvers. It supports discrimination cases such as Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado and secures victories like Fulton v. Philadelphia, shaping the legal landscape. What is most shameful, is the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s discriminatory decision.

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Public Health and Covid Misinformation

In the public health arena, Becket vigorously challenges COVID-19 measures. Striving to curtail public health powers, and making an impact by influencing New York’s restrictions destructively.

Education focused on Funding Religious Schools and a Whitewashed Curriculum

Education becomes a battleground as Becket advocates for diverting public funds to religious schools. In doing so altering the educational landscape in cases like Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Immigrant Rights as a Blockade to Diversity

Immigrant rights intersect with Becket’s influence. It supports initiatives like the ‘citizenship question’ and opposes legal challenges to the controversial ‘Muslim Travel Ban. They seem to overlook that you are not a member of an indigenous people, you are descended from immigrants. To ignore this basic truth is to descend into bigotry based on false assumptions. Oops, isn’t bigotry always based on false conspiracies?

Making Campaign Finance without Donor Transparency

Campaign finance transparency faces questions as Becket supports efforts overturning California’s donor disclosure requirement, raising concerns about dark money.

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Labor Rights and the Destruction of Unions

Labor rights encounter challenges with Becket’s support for Janus v. AFSCME, dealing a significant blow to public sector unions, and sparking debates about the future of organized labor.

Leadership of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Leaders like William Mumma, the Board Chair, draw criticism for prioritizing conservative Christian concerns. Thus potentially risking the diversity inherent in American values.

Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society

The influential network of Leonard Leo, including the Federalist Society, positions Becket as a pivotal player in shaping the judiciary, impacting crucial nominations and confirmations.

Legal Controversy and the Watering Down of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights

As Becket navigates these legal battles, concerns persist about its role in shaping policies that may pose a threat to the fundamental values guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, sparking debates about the delicate balance between religious freedom and broader societal inclusivity.

Amidst this legal controversy, Becket’s adversaries argue that its pursuits may undermine the very principles that form the foundation of a diverse and inclusive society. The tension between religious liberties, as championed by Becket, and the broader concept of individual rights and equality, becomes a focal point in discussions about the evolving nature of civil liberties.

Becket Fund Critics

Critics point to specific cases, such as Becket’s support for discriminatory practices and challenges to public health measures, as potential threats to the core values enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The delicate equilibrium between religious freedom and the principles of equal protection and non-discrimination becomes a central theme in evaluating Becket’s impact on American life.

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Concluding Words

As the legal battles continue, the nation watches closely, contemplating the enduring question of how to navigate a path that respects individual beliefs while safeguarding the rights and diversity that define the American experience. The Becket Fund’s role in shaping this narrative underscores the ongoing dialogue about the boundaries of religious freedom and its implications for the broader fabric of society.

By Politics-as-Usual

Roger is a retired Professor of language and literacy. Over the past 15 years since his retirement, Roger has kept busy with reading, writing, and creating landscape photographs. In this time of National crisis, as Fascist ideas and policies are being introduced to the American people and ignored by the Mainstream Press, he decided to stand up and be counted as a Progressive American with some ideas that should be shared with as many people who care to read and/or participate in discusssions of these issues. He doesn't ask anyone to agree with his point of view, but if entering the conversation he demands civility. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations, no threats, no disrespect will be tolerated. Roger monitors all comments and email communication. That is the only rule for entering the conversation. One may persuade, argue for a different point of view, or toss out something that has not been discussed so long as the tone remains part of a civil discussion. Only then can we find common ground and meaningful democratic change.

Leave a Reply