The Supreme Court is telling California that it can't enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have limited home-based religious worship including Bible studies and prayer meetings.
As the nation's houses of worship weigh how and when to resume in-person gatherings while coronavirus stay-at-home orders ease in some areas, a new poll points to a partisan divide over whether restricting those services violates religious freedom.
Lawmakers, religious leaders and health experts across the U.S. are wrestling with the question: Does religious freedom mean the freedom to risk infecting your fellow believers — not to mention neighbors — with a deadly virus?
Churches and other religious institutions that have chafed at public health experts' calls to fight the virus by avoiding gatherings are under heightened scrutiny as those experts' pleas become edicts from government officials, including Trump.
Roundtable: What the conservatives want to recover has almost nothing to do with the Constitution's religious rights. Those are privileges granted by a society that deferred to them as the only spiritual game in town.
The Abrahamic Faiths Initiative group united 25 religious leaders representing millions of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faithful to discuss practical ways of promoting peace and fraternity at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome Jan. 14-16.
In a bid to solidify his evangelical base, President Donald Trump took steps Jan. 16 to give religious organizations easier access to federal programs and he reaffirmed students' rights to pray in public schools.
Commentary: Catholics could be leaders in reclaiming a more authentic commitment to religious freedom that doesn't pit religion against LGBTQ dignity, or view rights and responsibilities as opposing forces.
Distinctly Catholic: Steven Waldman's new book Sacred Liberty examines the rekindling of anti-Catholic persecution in the early 19th century. What he does not do is distinguish between a denial of religious freedom and religious bigotry.
