The Supreme Court on Monday (Jan. 12) considered a tiny church’s curbside sign in a case that could raise the bar on government regulation of speech, and make it easier for houses of worship to advertise their services. The Alliance Defending Freedom, the advocacy group that represents Pastor Clyde Reed and his Good News Community Church, bills the case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, as a religious rights case. But their attorney mostly argued it on free speech grounds.
True shepherd-leaders champion humility for a position of church leadership.
The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) which took effect on March 21, 2009, is intended to protect the privacy of Americans.
An amended “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” was enacted (section 249 of the Federal Code) in October 2009. The act expanded the scope of what crimes are punishable as “hate crimes.” Included as a punishable offense in the new law is the willful causing or attempting “to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived — sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of any person.”
Churches are as engaged in the issue of immigration in this country as are other groups, many doing quiet, steady work and providing dialog and attempting resolution that goes well beyond the public clamor that adds little to a real solution.
Churches tend to recognize different expressions of faith in their religious worship services. Some traditions call for quiet reflection and meditative prayer, while others encourage demonstrative shouting, dancing, singing and other physical forms of worship.
Under what circumstances should you attempt to stop a pastor, who is a former employee of your church, from preaching or operating his own church? Should you even try to stop another pastor from spreading the Gospel? That question is a growing concern that many church leaders are wrestling with these days.