In February we told you about Conservative Republicans for Texas, a right-wing political action committee run by Houston physician Steven Hotze. Hotze has been a prominent religious-right leader in Houston for decades; in fact, one of the most extreme and vicious. His activist resume includes especially venomous and vile anti-gay campaigns, including against the city’s current mayor. […]
TFNEF
More on the Groups Behind Today's Religious-Right Conference in Dallas
Our friends at Right Wing Watch have more about United in Purpose, one of the group’s behind a religious-right conference a at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport hotel today. We reported about the conference earlier this month. Following is a cross-post from Right Wing Watch: Today, Religious Right leaders including Rick Scarborough, David Barton, Jim Garlow and Glenn […]
Why We Need Mexican-American Studies in Texas Schools
This week TFN launched #SupportMAS, a campaign to encourage the Texas State Board to add an elective course in Mexican-American studies to the state curriculum. In announcing the campaign, we asked a friend of TFN to explain why the state needs a MAS course. His message is below. You can add your name to the […]
TFN Statement: Supreme Court's Birth Control Decision Could Redefine Religious Freedom
We just sent out the following media statement as the U.S. Supreme Court considers today two cases that could redefine religious freedom in America: Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller had this to say about today’s Supreme Court hearing in the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius cases, […]
Will Antonin Scalia Dismiss What He Used to Say about the Law and Religious Freedom?
As the U.S. Supreme Court today considers whether requiring employer-provided health insurance to include coverage for birth control violates employers’ religious freedom, Talking Points Memo looks at what right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an earlier case: In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment “does not require” […]
