President Trump on Freedom

As President Trump commemorated the 2017 National Day of Prayer by signing Executive Orders protecting religious liberty, he noted where this fundamental first freedom is derived.

Visioning Confident Pluralism at Religious Freedom Center Forum

[L] Charles Haynes [C] John Inazu [R] Yuval Levin at Religious Freedom Center 10/28/2016 [Photo BDMatt]

The Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum gathered six scholars from eclectic perspectives and ideologies to consider “Our Fractured Republic, Religious and Political Divides and the Role of Pluralism”.  The keynote speaker for the forum was Dr. John Inazu, a professor of law and religion at Washington University in St Louis.

In a diverse nation,  we must accept chaos, control or co-existence. Dr. Inazu postulated to achieve confident pluralism in America, we must protect the rights of assembly and association, facilitating civil dissent in public forums and not allow government orthodoxy to discriminate in funding. There seemed to be across the board agreement by the forum to these noble ends of confident pluralism.

The challenge seems to be inspiring a tolerance for differences in co-existence while respecting others and allowing for a space for difference.  Tolerance along with humility and patience helps build a common ground without finding a common good.  But this idyllic existence is mooted by the litigious manner in which contentious public policy is implemented.

Conservative commentator Yuval Levin lauded localism, which allows contending parties to put a face on their opposition and possibly find compromises. Yet most First Amendment controversies are pushed by outside forces and look to establish bright line rules which curtail the fundamental freedom of believers.

The panel seemed to agree that the Indiana Wedding Cake controversy could have been easily averted if LQBTQQ?? couple would have looked for a baker who did not object to participating in their nuptu\ial ceremony.  However, this naively assumes that the homosexual activists were just looking for a baker instead of a target to test RFRA through litigation and to possibly hurt politicians who supported the Religious Freedom Act (such as Indiana Governor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence). To be fair, it was observed that the Indiana RFRA kerfluffle was used as a wedge issue by both sides.

Another instance in which common sense could quash controversy concerns physicians who morally object to filling certain prescriptions.  Clearly, what was meant is abortofacients, but the mere mention of contraception or abortion would wreck a spirit of compromise.  With the caveat that another in-house pharmacist could fill the script without controversy or inconveniencing the customer, this would be a terrific compromise.

Alas, that is not generally the way things go in America nowadays.  State licensing boards have demanded that doctors must be able to fill all prescriptions. Moreover, the HHS Mandate read into Obamacare almost deliberately picked a fight with the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to violate their consciences to have contraception coverage.  Thus, progressives have shown they value capitulation rather than compromise for religious liberty.

Dr. Charles Haynes, the founding director of the Religious Freedom Center, drew upon his decades of experience with First Amendment issues in public schools, contended that we are capable of finding pluralism but what we lack is trust. Perhaps, but this sense of optimism should be tempered by the autocratic manner in which the Department of Education is forcing implementation of transgender bathrooms in public schools, despite debate and locally achieved compromises. The same ukases can be applied to hot button religious liberty issues in which Washington threatens funding unless it it done the Feds way.

 The assembled panel universally took umbrage to efforts to forestall an implementation of Sharia Law as being anti-Muslim Islamophobia.  The manner in which there has been propaganda and suspicion cast against American Muslims was likened to the virulent anti-Catholicism of the 1850s No-Nothing Party.  In fact, the parallel was extended as Catholics in the past were considered to support a foreign prince (i.e. The Pope) thus their loyalty to America was considered suspect. There was general assent to the idea that in 50 years, Muslims may just be considered another religious faction with conservative cultural predilections.

Of course, this sunny take ignores that Islam is a holistic system which merges worship with the body politic, particularly in places which it gains a significant minority  or de facto majority status. In such circumstances, it becomes quite challenging to live a confident pluralism. This rosey take also is blithely unconcerned with the significant funding of mosques from Salafist sources.  Furthermore, it dismisses polling of American Muslims which shows majorities agreeing with jihadist activities. But for this crowd, mentioning these inconvenient truths may make one a pariah in polite “educated” circles.

The ray of hope for confident pluralism was extolled in Utah.  In 2015, Mormon church leaders worked with LGBTQQ? activists to pass a bill which banned homosexual discrimination in housing and employment, which protecting religious organization and their institutions and also included a “carve out” for people with conscience objections. It was hoped that the “Utah Compromise” could be a template for the rest of the nation.

It should be noted, however, that Utah has some special circumstances which may make it more of an outlier rather than a vanguard of confident pluralism.  Utah is a small, relatively homogeneous state that is dominated by the Latter Day Saints Church.  Mormons may be acutely aware of minority rights considering their tenuous status in much of the 1800s.  While the spirit may be willing to act as a model, it may be impossible to replicate this cooperation elsewhere, especially when gadflies can wreck havoc on institutions and long accepted social norms, and when progressive power can dictate from bureaucracies, executive action and the courts.

While it was pleasant not to have an event in which public figures exchange insults like in Election 2016 debates, the general consensus of this Religious Freedom Center panel sometimes lacked a rigor on mediating profound differences.  It seemed reminiscent of a United Council of Churches pronouncement which acceded to the same general vision, albeit via different paths.  Considering that many of the hot button issues affecting religious liberty today are LGBTQQ?, gender equality, immigration and abortion, it is a pity that a Catholic scholar who represented the Magisterium (Catholic Church teachings) was not there to mix it up. There may have been some illuminating agreement as well as an opportunity to invoke compromise.

Senator James Lankford on Religious Liberty

Congressman Refused to Attend Pope Francis Speech Before Congress Due to Climate Change Politics

This week, the hot ticket in the District of Calamity was getting tickets to see the Pope.  Only 25,000 people were allowed entrance for the Mass at the Basilica in Catholic University.  The White House allowed 15,000 people to see the Pope on the South Lawn of the White House (along with a couple of uncomfortable invitees for the Vatican). On Capitol Hill, 50,000 tickets were issued to see the Pope's address to the Joint Session of Congress, albeit many watching on the lawn.

But Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ 1st) rejected his two allotted tickets because of his belief that Pope Francis is too political. The Papal Encyclical Laudato Si was trumpeted by the secular press as being a bull about climate change (instead of being properly read as a all encompassing missive about the ecology of humanity).  So Congressman Gosar made his protest and is presumably sitting at home for the speech.

While it is true that Pope Francis did speak in glowing terms about enacting climate change legislation, the pontiff did not let the power that be in the White House off easy.  Pope Francis' remarks at the White House started with a subtle slam for President Barack Obama about respecting the fine American tradition religious liberty.  Later in the day, Pope Francis made an unscheduled stop to visit the Little Sisters of the Poor, the religious order being forced to cover contraception against their consciences under Obamacare.

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis is all about dialog and encounter.  It's a pity that Gosar as a practicing Catholic chose not to participate in that by politely hearing out a visiting Head of State and Holy Father to 1.2 billion Catholics. As a faith leader, Pope Francis is not bound to American ideological boxes of conservative or liberal and ought to instruct his faithful in ways that may make people feel uncomfortable.  If Rep. Gosar has proper catechesis, he ought to know that not everything the Pope utters is infallible.  In fact, Paragraph 189 of Laudato Si urges robust but honest and transparent debate over the matter.  It is a pity that politics nowadays is sometimes degenerated to trolling for attention instead of seeking solutions through honest debate and deliberations. 

Sinicization Means Persecution of Chinese Christians

In May 2015, Chinese President  Xi Jinping announced a policy of Sinicization during a  central United Front Work Department meeting.  Xi Jiping had been seen as a leader who was open minded about religion so long as the faithful are "harmonious".  However, Xi displays a certain tolerance towards homegrown faiths like Confuciusism, Buddhism and Daoism as distinguished from a chary attitude toward foreign influences like Christianity and Islam. 

Following that lead, provincial Chinese officials forced churches in Songmun, Xinhe, Muyu and Dasi  as well as the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church in Xioshan to take down crosses from their churches lest the buildings be demolished. In Hangzhou, only the Catholic Cathedral and two Protestant churches will be spared that fateful choice.  A Protestant catechist estimates that at least 1,100 Christian churches have been denuded of their crosses, although the figure might be much higher.

Alas, this is not the first time in recent memory that the Chinese government have persecuted Christian churches. In 2014, there was a rash of cross removals and threats of demolishing Christian churches.

What made international headlines was how the Christian faithful  encircled the Sanjiang Church near Wenzhou as human shields. China trying to save the Jerusalem of the East. Initially, officials backed away from their plan and negotiated a compromise withe the Sanjiang pinyin (Chinese Christ followers).  Unfortunately, the bright prominent crosses on Sanjiang Church in a central business district proved too much for Communist Party sensibilities and the church was demolished.

Ted Cruz on Religious Liberty

Sketchy Takes on Forgiving Enemies

Barry Lynn on Religious Liberty

Archpriest Victor Patapov on Same Sex Marriage

H/T: WND

Barack Obama Questions Christian Love at White House Easter Breakfast

As Christians continued to celebrate the miracle of the Resurrection at a Tuesday Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House, President Barack Obama could not resist poking at the Nazarene's faithful. While Mr. Obama's remarks does echo some of the Paschal message, he flippantly questioned some perceived deficiencies in Christian Love (presumably an oblique reference to Indiana's RFRA law controversy).

It seems rather rude for the President to turn a prayer breakfast of the most important holiday into a partisan punch line.  Unfortunately, this is not uncharacteristic of the Obama Administration. Last year, President Obama "spontaneously" called on the controversial gay Episcopal Bishop Vichy "Gene" Robinson for a closing prayer.

What was striking about President Obama's 2015 Easter Prayer Breakfast remarks is that he failed to acknowledge the massacre and martyrdom of 148 Christians at Garissa University College in eastern Kenya on Maudy Thursday by Islamist terrorists.  Of  course, when Mr. Obama did address the latest Kenyan atrocity, the President failed to mention the faith of both the "folks" who were slaughtered as well as the creed which inspired the dastardly deed.  In addition, when President Obama spoke about the bloody beheadings of 21 people in Libya by ISIS he referred to them as "Egyptian citizens" rather than as Coptic Christians which prompted their martyrdom.

Icon of the "New Martyrs" by Tony Rezk.  Coptic Pope Tawadros II declared Feb. 15th their feast day  

Of course, clearly identifying victims of the contemporary jihad by radical would wreck the impression that Christianity is about the Crusades and the Inquisition as President Obama alluded in his 2015 National Prayer Breakfast remarks.

Rick Santorum on Religious Liberty

h/t:  A.F. Branco

       The College Fix 

      

Franklin Graham on Religious Freedom

Naghmeh Abedini on Religious Freedom

 

 Naghmeh Abedini spoke at CPAC to testify about the importance of Religious Liberty.  Abedini is the wife of Saheed Abedini, the Christian pastor who has been imprisoned since the summer of 2012 by the Islamic Republic of Iran for his religious beliefs and apostasy from Shia Islam.

 

 Mrs. Abedini's speech comes as the Obama Administration has been contorting itself to achieve any nuclear deal with the government in Tehran, thus forsaking any leverage to achieve a good will gesture of freeing this pastor who is an American citizen. Mrs. Abedini's testimony of why she is proud to be an American stands against many of the moves of the Obama Administration to minimize our First Amendment Freedom of Religion (e.g. Obamacare's Contraception Mandate, imposing Same-Sex marriage, considering traditional believers as prospective terror groups etc.).

Her testimony is an inspiration to Be Heard.

On the Lack of Religious Liberty in the Middle East

Sister Hatune Dogan is a Universal Syrian Orthodox nun who does field work through "A Helping Hand to the Poor" dedicated to aid persecuted Christians, especially in Syria and Iraq.  

Sister Dogan has been outspoken not only in calling out Muslims for their religious intolerance but also for Western complicity in not helping persecuted Christians.  Sister Dogan's perspective from living in Syria noted that 95% of what was reported in the West about the Free Syrian Army (from which ISIS sprang) was wrong.  

At the Defense of Christians Inaugural Summit in September, Sister Hatune decried the mainstream media's blindness to the slaughter, raping, ransoming, crucifying and killing of Christians in the Middle East. 

Among the "thousands of stories" of Christian persecution, Sister Hatune recounted:

“I met an Iraqi girl, five-and-a-half-years maybe, and they kidnapped her. I met her at seven-and-a-half-years. Until today, she [will not] say, no one knows, what happened to her, because she was misused. They [were] paid $30,000 dollars to release her. They released her, but under that condition. I am sorry for her. That was the youngest girl that I met. She was misused.”

Paying a ransom is no guarantee of being freed from a hell on Earth. A 21 year old Jordanian woman was abducted and repeatedly raped her.  When these savages were not satisfied the ransom money, they cut her face in different ways.  Sister Hatune saw with her own eyes 280 girls who were kidnapped and misused by Muslim men and then had their breasts and "other sensitive areas" cut. Sadly, these stories of horrific brutality were ignored in the American Mainstream Media  to instead focus on the Ray Rice NFL reinstatement saga. 

Moreover, Sister Hatune inveighed against the open immigration policies in Sweden favored Muslims rather than the persecuted Christians from the Middle East. 

As we reflect upon the year that has past and make new year's resolutions, we ought to contemplate the lack of religious liberty and our collective lack of reaction to such deplorable deprivations in the Middle East and to a lesser extent at home in the West. 

h/t: Media Research Center 

Bobby Jindal on Religious Liberty

On ISIS Marking Christians for Extermination and Expropriation in Iraq

As jihadist Sunni Islamist terrorists from ISIS/ISIL strive to create a sharia inspired Caliphate as they take over territory in Iraq and Syria, they are slaughtering innocent Christians.  

However, even sharia law allows for dhimmitude, second class citizen status for "people of the book" (i.e. Jews and Christians) so long as they pay the jizya tax.  But that is not good enough for ISIS jihadists.  They have taken to mark the buildings of Christian institutions with spray-painted red marks indicating holdouts to exterminate and expropriate.

Spraypainted ISIS Extermination Graffiti on Christian buildings in Mosel, Iraq

"Nun" 14th letter in Arabic alphabet

 The symbol is "Nun", the 14th letter in the Arabic alphabet.  It is the first letter in the name "Nazara" (or Nazarenes) the way in which Muslims have referred to Christians since the 7th Century. This is intended as a badge of shame for what is perceived as a contemptible and disobedient sect. 

While those who follow world events may be aware of the genocidal fervor of ISIS terrorism, it is for this systematic genocide to get lost in the tumult of today's world news.  Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Younan's interview with Vatican Radio was a shocking reminder of the consequences of America's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and not tamping down Islamist forces in Mesopotamia.  There are no Christians left in Mosul.  Many Christian refugees have fled to Kuridstan, but now their Prime Minister claims that it can receive no more refugees.  The last ten families fleeing from the Mosul area were robbed of everything they own and left at the frontier of the city.  Now they may not have anyplace to which to go.

Sophisticates in the West mock the notion that Christians are being persecuted around the world.  The "Nun" marks in Mosul show that Christian brothers and sisters are being marked for their faith and may face martyrdom. 

It would not be a panacea but if Western powers really stood for religious liberty, actions could be taken to mitigate the ISIS mire.  But with  Secretary of State John Kerry's  recent equivocation about religious pluralism rather than noting the source threatening religious liberty in Ethiopia as well as the Obama Administration's open hostility to people practicing their faith in the public square, this issue is likely to be way behind priorities such as political fundraisers and swanky vacations. 

h/t: Rorate Caeli

Invoking JFK on Religious Liberty

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby (2014) which allowed closely held corporations to follow deeply held religious tenets and not pay for abortifacients which kill human life, the United States Senate considered S. 2578, the so called "Protect Womens' Health From Corporate Interference Bill".

One of the more poignant speeches during the Senate floor debate was by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Cruz observed that the practical effect of S. 2578 would gut the Free Exercise of Religion clause from the First Amendment of the Constitution and impose federal will upon all 50 states through the supremacy clause. 

To bolster his argument, Senator Cruz concluded his speech by boldly invoking John F. Kennedy's quote on religious liberty to condemn so called "faith fines". 

Seasoned political junkies realize that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought S. 2578 to a vote as a cheap political stunt which had no actual chance of passage but would gin up a liberal base through identity politics and scare tactic campaigns during a tough election cycle.  While the bill won the votes of all Democrat Senators and a few RINO Republicans (Murkowski, Kirk, and Collins), it failed the cloture vote 56-43, with the Senate Majority Leader switching sides for the ability to vote on it again later.

While this vote on S. 2578 was doomed for legislative failure is instructive.  Senate Democrats seem to care more about partisan politics and elections than respecting Federalism, the First Amendment and Religious Liberty. Cruz quoting JFK spotlights the progress (and arguably the devolution) of the modern Democrat party.  And the episode shows how Christianity is endangered even in America,

Pope Francis on Religious Freedom

Barack Obama on Religious Liberty

To commemorate the 62nd annual National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday in May, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation.  The text of Mr. Obama's 2014 proclamation touted religious liberty and those being persecuted for their convictions.

Those are noble sentiments, if only they were observed.  Dennis Miller has quipped that citizens who disagree with Mr. Obama are often treated worse then his enemies.  The Obama Administration has been adamant about enforcing the Contraception Mandate upon religiously oriented organizations (but not churches themselves) which find abortifacients abhorrent.  

The U.S. Supreme Court  may decide on the constitutionality of this Contraception Mandate when it rules on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby in June.   Nonetheless, Dr. James Dobson of Family Talk (and previously the founder of Focus on the Family), used his remarks at the 2014 National Day of Prayer to underline how deeply he finds Obama's abortion mandate offense and that he will fight for his religious freedom.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops will be sponsoring their third Fortnight for Freedom from June 21st to July 4th.  This year, the Fortnight for Freedom  will focus on the freedom to serve the poor and vulnerable in accord with human dignity and the Church's teaching.  But living one's faith outside of the doors of the Church requires religious liberty.  

If we relied upon words alone, one might conclude that the Obama White House has experienced a metanoia and respects religious liberty.  But in the real world, actions speak louder than words. 

Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberty