Talk:Becket Law

Untitled

The Becket Fund has been cited by opponents of the presidential candidate Mitt Romney as an anti-gay organization that promotes discrimination against gay people. ~~-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.124.46 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Becket Fund is not an ant-gay organization in any fashion. It's sole purpose is to protect the religious liberties of people of all faiths. Religious liberty is a constitutional right that is protected under the First Amendment. The Becket Fund "exists to vindicate a simple but frequently neglected principle: that because the religious impulse is natural to human beings, religious expression is natural to human culture. We advance that principle in three arenas—the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the academy—both in the United States and abroad." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcolby1023 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

problems with this article

This reads more as an organizational document put out by the Becket Fund rather than an encyclopedia article about them. One major question that is not addressed is how they relate to organizations with other views of "religious liberty", e.g., the ACLU, the ACLJ, and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article only cites one source, namely the organisation it's about - breaching WP:SELFPUB.Autarch (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides the fact that there aren't any nonbiased sources (as has been noted), except for the bit about how the founder defended Catholic University after they fired a professor for his beliefs, it comes across like an advertisement about how wonderful they are and all the good and charitable work they do defending the religious liberty of people of all different beliefs. It never questions their rather dubious claim to be non-partisan and non-sectarian. I can't help noticing that they post FOX News articles (notoriously partisan) and others with a similar, er, tone on their site, and that while they proudly proclaim that they've provided legal assistance to people and organisations of a variety of religions, they don't seem to keen on the religious freedom of nonbelievers (atheist/agnostic/secular humanist/etc.), nor could I find a single article on their site discussing a case of discrimination against nonbelievers without framing it as an attack on religion by one of their favourite bogeymen, the evil atheists.

The dispute between Henry II and Thomas Becket is also portrayed in a rather one-sided manner. I don't think it makes sense to say it was the king wanted to "interfere in the internal affairs of the Church;" if I recall my history correctly, it was just the opposite: he wanted to stop the church from interfering in civil matters. The dispute between Henry and Becket involved a privilege traditionally granted to the church which Henry II wanted to change: people in religious orders (monks, priests, etc.) were allowed to be tried by an ecclesiastical court, even when they were accused of a civil offence -- this effectively meant they got a free pass: even if they were found guilty, the punishments - even for murder and the like - were extremely light. Henry wanted to make this situation, which he viewed as unjust, more equitable, so that everyone would be punished the same for the same crime, regardless of whether they were laypeople or clergy. 74.177.152.210 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In our own article Becket_controversy#End_of_the_dispute we have it as "the royal anger at the timing of the excommunications was such that it led to Henry uttering the question often attributed to him: "Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest" etc etc. It really would appear that Becket was interfering with the state in that (ibid) "the coronation drove the pope to allow Becket to lay an interdict on England as punishment and the threat of an interdict forced Henry to negotiate with Becket in July 1170. Becket and the king came to terms on 22 July 1170, allowing the archbishop to return to England, which he did in early December. However, shortly before he landed in England, he excommunicated Roger of York, Josceline of Salisbury, and Foliot.".

I'm thinking... "Hasson named The Becket Fund after Thomas Becket (1118 AD -1170 AD), who was murdered after a long series of events between the English monarch and state, the papacy and Becket. Fromthehill (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading that I'm going with unintentionally murdered as the reader may think the monarch, state or papacy demanded this when there was no such intent. Fromthehill (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

SPAM

Nominated for speedy, this reads like an advert for a non-notable organization. Also, the creator of this article created his account SOLELY to make this one and only article. NPOV, COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.152.246 (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this is a notable entity which can be established by more than adequate third party coverage. The article is undersourced and the tone could be improved, but it can be improved (particularly, killing the "Current" section). This article is the work of multiple editors.--Novangelis (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

COI editing

The article has been extensively edited by an apparently well-meaning user ( Rgcolby1023 ) who declared a conflict of interest after the edits. As the tag says, cleanup may be neded to bring those edits in line with WP:NPOV. See this page for their disclosure. COI tag added in the meantime.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I took a shot at it and removed about a dozen self-published links, and removed an enormous amount of fluffy promotional-speak. THe article is still bloated, but getting closer to being neutral. The cases they are doing are very widely covered: there is no need for self-published refs that are in violation of WP:RS. Lots of excellent sources abound. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I did some more editing, and it appears to be pretty neutral now. However it does need some balance: I am not an expert on the subject but it seems like there must be criticism out there to balance the strong do-good tone of the article.If anything it is biased pro-BLF fund. I think it needs some equal weight before the COI tag gets lifted. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

More Edits

Thank you to New Media Theorist for helping edit this page. The page still needs more edits to make it even better and more neutral. I would love to get the issues boxes off the article as soon as possible and make the article accurate and up-to-date with our cases!— Preceding RgColby1023 comment added by 192.95.77.242 (talk • contribs)

Sure, you can request edits here, but they take time to answer. Read up on how to use the [{request edit}} template though-- I removed the above one as there was no request. I'd stay away from editing the page itself though. I have come to the conclusion that people who take a strong interest in their own web pages do so at the risk of very bad PR. There's no upside for you. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Kristina Arriaga is no longer the Executive Director. Montse Alvarado [1] has been the Executive Director since February of 2017.

We have also have undergone a logo and branding change. The new logo is here [2]

I think this is how you properly make edit requests. I am simply looking for an editor to make this article more neutral. The article has already been edited over the last couple weeks.

Sources to start with:

1. Spirit and the law 2. Rottweilers 3. law firm behind the Hobby Lobby win 4. Meet the Lawyers Fighting for Religious Freedom Today Before the Supreme Court 5. come all ye faithful: New York’s most diverse dinner 6. Regulators of a Feather

Rgcolby1023 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests should be specific, to the degree of replace "Foo" with "Bar" or Foo replaces Bar. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725041753/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-2473P.01A to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-2473P.01A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704093612/http://www.becketfund.org/the-canterbury-medal-dinner/ to http://www.becketfund.org/the-canterbury-medal-dinner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210165642/http://www.becketfund.org/ahlquist-v-city-of-cranston-rhode-island-2011-present/ to http://www.becketfund.org/ahlquist-v-city-of-cranston-rhode-island-2011-present/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional

While I've seen more promotional advocacy organization articles, this article relies on its own website to echo its mission (discouraged per WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:MISSION). The first secondary independent source I read ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/becket-fund-law-firm-gaining-a-reputation-as-powerhouse-after-hobby-lobby-win/2014/07/20/c28931a4-104c-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html ) already makes it clear this is a religious advocacy organization (and claims that it's mostly concerned about Christian conservatism). Wikipedia articles are expected to be summaries of independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate agreed. See [https://apple.news/AhGnRe7c6QuqqG_zoQrpFgg] . Doug Weller talk 18:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the article is not especially promotional, and, no, they aren't a conservative Christian lobbyist organization.

Firstly, an article not being markedly critical of an organization does not make that article "promotional". There are many Wikipedia articles that are not particularly critical of the subject of the article, and yet often the claim that such articles are promotional is not raised.

And on the matter of what kind of organization Becket Law is, the organization currently is in court defending the religious freedom of a group of Apache Native Americans in Apache Stronghold v. United States. Both last year and this year, they have been in court in a few different cases defending Orthodox Jewish groups. This year, in Toor v. Berger, they are defending a Sikh man in the military who wishes to wear the garb prescribed by his religion and don a beard for the same reason. In another of their cases, one that began in 2017, a similar situation presented itself for a Sikh man who they defended.

In 2012, they were defending the rights of a prison inmate who was Muslim to wear a beard in prison in accordance with his religious beliefs. In 2005, they defended a Hindu group in Hindu Temple Society of North America v. New York Supreme Court. Et cetera. Et cetera.

So, no, contrary to your allegations, the evidence strongly suggests that they are indeed simply a religious freedom organization that believes in "defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths," as they claim they are. 68.0.245.62 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

How to make it more NPOV

This entry fails to include any of the criticism included in the articles that it cites as main sources. I wouldn't even call them "criticism." They merely point out that Becket Law is taking one legitimate point of view, but there are other equally legitimate points of view. For example, the Washington Post piece:

But critics say that in recent years, Becket has turned its focus toward representing Christians and the religious right.

“They’ve become more ideologically conservative,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based advocacy group. “Where they have ended up today is a point far to the right of the political mainstream.”

... Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at George Washington University [said] Today the firm’s work appears more political, more conservative and more Christian.

When the Supreme Court ruled in May that city councils may start public meetings with Christian prayers, many religious-liberty groups criticized the ruling, warning it would favor Christianity over other religions. Becket heralded the decision as a “great victory.”

The representation of Christians opposed to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate is another example, critics say....

Or in the Politico article:

But when it comes to religious accommodations, Tuttle says, being choosy is a good thing. “You have to look at who’s claiming an exemption, what the circumstances are, and who might be harmed—it’s a balance,” he says. “Sometimes the exemptions are justified and sometimes they’re not. With groups like Becket, there isn’t that calculus. Their prevailing assumption is that religion deserves special treatment everywhere.”

And since WP:RS allows us to use advocacy publications as WP:RS for opinions, we can use:

https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/resource-library/becket-fund-shadow-agents-of-the-religious-right/

CONSCIENCE MAGAZINE

Becket Fund: Shadow Agents of the Religious Right

By Ilyse Hogue May 6, 2021

...“Ideologically, the fund works to continue a longstanding Roman Catholic campaign to create a separate space for religious people removed from public scrutiny and laws (though while still receiving public funds and subsidies),” the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote in a 2016 profile of the organization....

Under the Trump administration, conservative legal organizations gained new traction. Groups like the Becket Fund not only funneled conservatives hostile to fundamental rights into the administration, but also worked to secure federal judicial appointments. Lifetime seats in our nation’s courts ensure such ideologues will serve for decades, inflicting untold damage.

Nbauman (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have yet to see any actual evidence that shows Becket Law to be anything other than a legal organization that focuses on religious freedom cases and otherwise promotes its perspective on freedom of religion from its soapbox when outside of court. It doesn't seem to identify as "conservative" nor as "a conservative-Christian organization" from anything that I have seen. Of the criticisms in the articles and quotations that you mention, only a single one (the Politico article) seems potentially worthy of inclusion in a criticism section.

One group that you mentioned, Catholics For Choice, is a pro-choice advocacy group. A number of rulings that have come down relating to abortion coverage that touch on religious freedom matters have run directly counter to the wishes of some pro-choice advocacy organizations, and their preferred outcomes to such cases. I do not see how the article that you linked demonstrates that that organization's denunciation of Becket is A. particularly notable and worthy of inclusion, and B. anything more than an expression of disgruntlement from an organization that did not happen to obtain its preferred legal outcomes in certain legal cases.

Similarly, another entity that you mention, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (and, more particularly, Barry Lynn who is directly quoted), would appear to be a sort of legal opponent of Becket's. Interestingly, our own article for Americans United for Separation of Church and State states: "In its first years, a main focus of AU's activity was opposition to the political activities of the Roman Catholic Church and was thus seen by critics as a Protestant-based anti-Catholic organization."

The Southern Poverty Law Center statement that is quoted says that Becket "works to continue a longstanding Roman Catholic campaign to create a separate space for religious people removed from public scrutiny and laws". That statement, suggesting that there exists some nefarious "Roman Catholic campaign," sounds not all too different from, well, hate speech against a particular group. It wouldn't be a stretch to interpret such a statement as seeming to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is itself a hate group, and that Roman Catholics in America are out there trying to break the law, shirk responsibility, and cause all kinds of chaos and problems for society. I am not sure how that sort of statement could possibly be taken other than as evidence of anti-Catholic animus on the part of one making that suggestion. As such, that quotation at the very least seems suspect. At worst, it could be evidence of prejudice.

But I am tempted to say that the quotation from the Politico article could warrant inclusion (as long as it is represented as an opinion) within a criticism section within our article (if we were to agree to have a criticism section). It expresses the views of a law professor who is of the opinion that Becket is not careful enough in choosing which cases to take, and that perhaps only some of the cases actually warranted a judgment in favor of the religious individual or group. That sounds like relevant criticism from someone notable and knowledgeable of the matter at hand who also doesn't seem to have any clear conflict of interest, and I could certainly see that being something worthy of inclusion in a criticism section.

However, Tuttle's comments that you quoted from the Washington Post article appear, on the other hand, much more emotional than intellectual. And unless there is convincing evidence to support such claims, it just sounds like name-calling. There needs to be evidence showing that, in spite of Becket's diverse clients (which I see referenced in an above discussion), they are somehow actually just a conservative Christian organization. All I have seen thus far with regard to such a claim are a few writers and commentators making that claim without any actual evidence. 2600:8805:A801:B600:99B5:E295:8A5D:17A5 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you are using a WP:SPA. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, particularly WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As I said, WP:RS specifically allows Wikipedia articles to use editorial opinion as sources, since WP:NPOV requires that articles give all sides. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:COI. If you have any of those relationships with Becket Law, you should disclose them. --Nbauman (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you casting aspersions on my intentions, nor your insinuation that I have a conflict of interest. I have no connection with Becket Law, and never have. I would suggest that you look back over WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH. 2600:8805:A801:B600:9AD:A22D:9FAD:8D9 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s a reasonable request, Goodfaith isn’t relevant and no personal attack was made. Ironically you didn’t accept good faith. I’m with Nbauman on the sources issue. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I "didn't accept good faith"? Really? Pardon me, but I fail to see where exactly good faith was demonstrated in that user's response. Instead of responding to my comments, such as the suggestion that I made about how concerns brought up in the Politico article could be worked into a criticism section, I was instead accused of being a lawyer or client or PR agent or associate or something of that sort of Becket Law. Why is it inconceivable that an editor could disagree that there is sufficient evidence to back up an allegation that Becket Law is somehow a partisan sectarian advocacy organization, rather than a law firm that focuses on religious freedom cases? 2600:8805:A801:B600:98CE:6117:8F2F:5537 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)