<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Religious Freedom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/religious_freedom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:51:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Forget the theocracy, North Carolina</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/forget_the_theocracy_north_carolina/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/forget_the_theocracy_north_carolina/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kathleen Sebelius]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13260248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["White American Jesus" just isn't as influential as he used to be, no matter what craziness Southern states cook up]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On your knees, North Carolina! On Monday, state lawmakers moved to declare <a href="http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H494v0.html ">an official state religion</a>. The bill seeks to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/north_carolina_gopers_want_an_official_state_religion/">block any of those pesky federal restrictions</a> laid out in the First Amendment.</p><p>As <a href="http://www.wral.com/proposal-would-allow-state-religion-in-north-carolina/12296876/">WRAL first reported</a>, the bill is a response to a move by the ACLU last month against the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. The ACLU says the board "has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers," a stunning, defiant number. The new bill proposes that "Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion" and that "The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion." Shorter: nyah nyah nyah -- you can't make us stop talking to Jesus at government functions.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/forget_the_theocracy_north_carolina/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/forget_the_theocracy_north_carolina/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>257</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kentucky legislature overrides veto of &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; bill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/kentucky_legislature_overrides_veto_of_religious_freedom_bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/kentucky_legislature_overrides_veto_of_religious_freedom_bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Beshear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13253400</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The law could give cover to discrimination against gays and lesbians based on "sincerely held religious beliefs"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Kentucky legislature has overridden a veto by Gov. Steve Beshear of a law that expands legal protections to those who claim  "sincerely held religious beliefs."</p><p>The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/kentucky-religious-freedom-bill_n_2960353.html?utm_hp_ref=politics">Associated Press</a> reports:</p><blockquote><p>The law will give stronger legal standing to people in court who claim the government burdened their ability to practice their religion. The legislation protects "sincerely held religious beliefs" from infringement unless there is "a compelling governmental interest." The courts will still consider and rule on each matter.</p> <p>Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear vetoed the bill Friday over concerns that someone's claim of religious freedom could undermine civil rights protections for gays and lesbians and lead to costly lawsuits for taxpayers.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/kentucky_legislature_overrides_veto_of_religious_freedom_bill/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/kentucky_legislature_overrides_veto_of_religious_freedom_bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kentucky governor vetoes &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; bill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/kentucky_governor_vetoes_religious_freedom_bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/kentucky_governor_vetoes_religious_freedom_bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Beshear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13250481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Though Steve Beshear, a Democrat, blocked the bill, the legislature could still override his veto]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gov. Steve Beshear, D-Ky., vetoed a bill that would carve out broader protections for "religious freedom," which in practice could give cover to those who discriminate against gays and lesbians. The bill, which overwhelmingly <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/kentucky_bill_would_protect_discrimination_as_religious_freedom/">passed</a> out of the state House and state Senate, will return to the legislature next week for a vote to potentially override the veto.</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130322/NEWS0101/303220092/Gov-Steve-Beshear-vetoes-religious-freedom-bill-says-threatens-public-safety-civil-rights?nclick_check=1">Louisville Courier-Journal</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The bill passed the House 82-7 and the Senate 29-6. Only a majority vote in both chambers is required to have the bill become law over Beshear’s veto.</p> <p>In a news release, Beshear said he had “significant concerns” that the bill would “cause serious unintentional consequences that could threaten public safety, health care and individuals’ civil rights.”</p></blockquote><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/kentucky_governor_vetoes_religious_freedom_bill/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/kentucky_governor_vetoes_religious_freedom_bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kentucky bill could protect discrimination as &#8220;religious freedom&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/kentucky_bill_would_protect_discrimination_as_religious_freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/kentucky_bill_would_protect_discrimination_as_religious_freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Beshear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13225285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The bill advanced despite concerns that it would make it easier to discriminate against gays and lesbians]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The governor of Kentucky is considering a bill that would expand protections for religious freedom, but that in practice could give cover for discrimination against gays and lesbians.</p><p>The bill, which would give protections to people who refuse to follow state laws based on "sincerely held" religious beliefs, was sent to Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear after the state Senate approved it last Thursday. "Once we get it, we will review it and make some determination," Beshear said.</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/11/185409/rights-groups-urge-kentucky-gov.html">Lexington Herald-Leader</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Opponents contend that the bill could be used to circumvent fairness ordinances approved by Lexington and three other Kentucky cities that ban discrimination against gay, lesbian and other populations not covered by federal civil rights laws.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/kentucky_bill_would_protect_discrimination_as_religious_freedom/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/kentucky_bill_would_protect_discrimination_as_religious_freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama offers faith groups new birth control rule</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/obama_offers_faith_groups_new_birth_control_rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/obama_offers_faith_groups_new_birth_control_rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birth Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13188454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new regulation attempts to create a barrier between religious groups and contraception coverage]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Friday proposed a work-around for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance that covers birth control.</p><p>The government's new regulation attempts to create a barrier between religious groups and contraception coverage, through insurers or a third party, that would still give women free access to contraception. It wasn't immediately clear whether religious leaders would accept the new approach, or whether it would stem the tide of lawsuits by Roman Catholic charities and other faith-affiliated nonprofits nationwide challenging the requirement to provide such coverage.</p><p>The Catholic Health Association, a trade group for hospitals, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops separately had no immediate reaction, saying they were studying the regulations. Policy analyst Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union said the rule appeared to meet the ACLU's goal of providing "seamless coverage" of birth control for the affected women.</p><p>Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the compromise would provide "women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/obama_offers_faith_groups_new_birth_control_rule/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/obama_offers_faith_groups_new_birth_control_rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four huge corporate power grabs possibly worse than Citizens United</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doe v. Tanenbaum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon Papers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13119117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These court cases offer a chilling reminder how close America has come to becoming an outright plutocracy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a> Court-awarded corporate power is growing beyond the world of campaigns and elections, often at the expense of individual rights and Americans' ability to bring businesses to court.</p><p>A handful of recent decisions highlight this less-watched area of corporate clout. In two rulings this year, federal courts have concluded that secular for-profit businesses have First Amendment religious rights. In another ruling, a business that challenged its inclusion in a federal consumer product complaint database won and then successfully sealed federal court records, with the judge saying that protecting the firm’s economic reputation was a higher constitutional priority than keeping court records public.</p><p>In other instances, federal courts have upheld arbitration agreements that customers must sign for a range of services that include daily necessities, blocking people from going to court when disputes arise. And in the patent law arena, a range of individuals -- from farmers who want to protect their seed stock to health advocates concerned about privatized cancer research -- have been losing to corporations that have patented seeds and even human genes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pastors to defy IRS on political endorsements</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/pastors_to_defy_irs_on_political_endorsements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/pastors_to_defy_irs_on_political_endorsements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alliance Defense Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pulpit Freedom Sunday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13031318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," religious leaders will challenge IRS rules about tax-exempt groups ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This Sunday, around 1,400 pastors plan to make political endorsements in defiance of IRS laws about tax-exempt institutions, in an effort called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pastors-to-challenge-irs-over-political-endorsements-and-theyre-likely-to-get-away-with-it/2012/10/04/b6fc0350-0e57-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html">Religion News Service</a>:</p><blockquote><p>"The IRS says tax-exempt organizations, or what they refer to as a 501(c)(3), are prohibited from participating in partisan campaigning for or against political candidates. Yet, despite what’s in the rules, the agency continues to struggle to do anything about those who defy the law."</p></blockquote><p>The problems enforcing the law began in 2009, after a District Court ruling that halted investigations. The IRS had reshuffled the organization, so it was unclear who within the agency had the authority to investigate religious organizations for potential violations. The IRS was supposed to update the church auditing rules so it could restart investigations, but changes to the rules have been in limbo.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/pastors_to_defy_irs_on_political_endorsements/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/05/pastors_to_defy_irs_on_political_endorsements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
