Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that left six dead. The attack formed one unlikely alliance between a victim's son and a former skinhead.

Categories: Beliefs

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey joined RNS as a national correspondent in 2013. She has previously served as managing editor of Odyssey Networks and online editor for Christianity Today.

12 Comments

  1. “The Supreme Court will soon decide if CEOs can impose their religious convictions on the people who work for them.” Really? While I am sure this is taken from the Slate article it refers to, I expected better from the Roundup. Sounds like a Bizzaro World characterization of the issue.

        • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

          Sarah Pulliam Bailey

          Article author

          EH, that could work, thanks. I’ve written about this subject to death, but I’m not making judgments either way, merely rounding up the news from the weekend.

          • I enjoy the Roundup each morning, and look forward to it hitting my inbox. I also enjoy the sometimes off the cuff commentary that comes with it, even when I do not agree with it. I do not think anyone can be fully objective, and everyone comes with their bias, prejudice, worldviews, etc. That one just irked me, though I do recognize that it was a grab from the Slate article. The “imposing their religious convictions” is close to being ridiculous compared to what the issue really involves. It is certainly not about an employer making someone go to church, pray, or recite the Nicene creed. It is about whether the government can mandate that an employer provide X that the employer sincerely believes violates it’s religious beliefs and conscience.

  2. I thought the statement was a bit biased, too, though I understand it’s a bit tricky to summarize in one sentence.

    These companies simply don’t want to pay for their employees’ birth control. They’re not outlawing birth control altogether. To say “impose their religious convictions” also ignores the status quo: These companies aren’t providing birth control to their employees now. It seems that the HHS Mandate is the entity doing the “imposing.”

    • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

      Sarah Pulliam Bailey

      Article author

      Thanks for your feedback. I’m not making a statement one way or another, but I know that the comment about the status quo isn’t the case for everyone opposing the HHS mandate. For instance:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?pagewanted=all
      and http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/242167-report-wheaton-covered-morning-after-pill-before-suing-over-hhs-mandate

  3. You mean you Christians? don’t want 2 pay 4 peoples health coverage because it comes under a plan called Obama care. Not very Christiian to not let your employees get health coverage that comes at little to no cost to you is it? But then again Christ said You already have your reward didn’t he?

  4. I enjoy the Roundup each morning, and look forward to it hitting my inbox. I also enjoy the sometimes off the cuff commentary that comes with it, even when I do not agree with it. I do not think anyone can be fully objective, and everyone comes with their bias, prejudice, worldviews, etc. That one just irked me, though I do recognize that it was a grab from the Slate article. The “imposing their religious convictions” is close to being ridiculous compared to what the issue really involves. It is certainly not about an employer making someone go to church, pray, or recite the Nicene creed. It is about whether the government can mandate that an employer provide X that the employer sincerely believes violates it’s religious beliefs and conscience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.