Daily Archives: March 2, 2017

EW.com

The Freedom to Marry: EW review EW.com Set against the star-stacked, history-sweeping account of the gay rights movement offered by ABC's ambitious new four-part docudrama When We Rise, filmmaker Eddie Rosenstein's modest documentary may feel like a niche undertaking, but it still carves ...

See the original post here:

The Freedom to Marry: EW review - EW.com

Ona Judge, a runaway slave who evaded George Washington himself, lived most of her on New Hampshires Seacoast after gaining her freedom. Her story isn't well known, but there are many who are working to keep Judges history and the history of the black community in Portsmouth alive.

While Judge isnt a household name, in 18th-century Portsmouth, she was infamous. She was a slave of Martha Washingtons the first ladys personal handmaid. So when Judge escaped from Philadelphia one May night, it didnt take long for word to reach her masters. The presidents slave had been spotted in New Hampshire.

Ona Judge gave a couple of interviews, and left some correspondences behind, but theres a lot of conjecture in her story. Historian Erica Dunbar spent years researching the runaway for her book, Never Caught. She says that Judges decision provides insight into her conviction.

"When she made the decision to flee to New England," explains Dunbar, "she gave up the knowledge that she would ever see her family again. That was a huge thing to let go of as a 22 year-old woman. And what she traded that in for was a life of uncertainty."

Click here to listen to the broadcast version of this story.

New Hampshire was a strategic choice, but it wasnt Judges choice. Once she decided to flee, she put her life in the hands of a well-connected black community. They would have known that Boston and New York City were out of the question for a slave from the most prominent household in the country. But Portsmouth was small and easily accessible Judge could take a ship straight from Philadelphia. And the port city had abolitionist leanings and a large free black community. There, Judge could be protected.

"We can find in correspondence that she lodged and stayed with free blacks who helped her find employment, who gave her a roof over her head, and allowed her to try and put together a life for herself in Portsmouth," Dunbar says.

That life wasnt easy. Judge was a fugitive slave. Local newspapers ran daily ads for runaways and bounty hunters were always on the lookout. That, and the President himself was searching for her. She spent most of her self-emancipation looking over her shoulder. She did domestic work for white families in Portsmouth, and eked out a living. It was in stark contrast to the life she would have lived in Martha Washingtons company, according to JerriAnne Boggis, director of the Black Heritage Trail in Portsmouth.

"She would rather die a free woman than live in the lap of luxury. And thats the other thing, its the presidents house!" Boggis emphasizes, "She didnt leave Mr. Who-Knows-What in Who-Knows-Where, she left the house of the presidency. The prestige of that."

Driving around the city one cold February morning, JerriAnne imagines the Portsmouth of 200 years ago.

Pulling up to the Strawberry Banke museum, Boggis gestures to the frozen, gravelly ground. Buried a few feet below us is the original dock, where Judge would have disembarked after a five day journey from Philly. From there, she would have been secretly welcomed into Portsmouths black community.

"They had slave auctions, actually, right on docks sometimes," Boggis says, "So its part of this uncovering of the black history here."

We drive past buildings that were once the homes of free blacks, and on to the massive John Langdon House. Langdon was Governor when Judge lived in Portsmouth and hes often credited with warning her of Washingtons hot pursuit. But Boggis has another idea.

"You just cant imagine that he would run out to find Ona wherever she is to say, Hey, theyre coming from you. Its more likely," Boggisguesses, "that the servants are hearing this and saying, Well, weve got to go and warn Ona that, Hey, hes in town. Better keep a low profile.

At the end of the day, standing by the African Burial Ground Memorial, Boggis says that stories like Judges are a window into an unseen Portsmouth history.

"Mostly what I do," says Boggis, "is really connect the history to whats going on now and how this information really changes how we see New Hampshire, how we see New England, how we see America."

Valerie Cunningham - the founder of the Black Heritage Trail and author of Black Portsmouth explains that their goal is to incorporate the black perspective into the history of Portsmouth.

"Its not true to say that there is so little documentation of the black past," Cunningham explains, "Its just been overlooked because it has not been considered relevant, or important. Once you start looking, you find little clues and big clues all around - as they say, hidden in plain sight."

Being hidden in plain sight is a metaphor for Ona Judges own life maintaining her anonymity while trying to lead a normal existence. But that life is getting a different treatment in modern Portsmouth. On March 5th the Temple Israel Social Hall, the Black Heritage Trail will be hosting an Ona Judge living history event and talk with author Erica Dunbar.

Continue reading here:

The President's Slave Who Found Freedom on the N.H. Seacoast ... - New Hampshire Public Radio

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Like the people of Israel freed from the bondage of slavery, Christians are called to experience the path toward hope and new life during the Lenten season, Pope Francis said.

Through his passion, death and resurrection, Jesus "has opened up for us a way that leads to a full, eternal and blessed life," the pope said at his weekly general audience March 1, Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent for Latin-rite Catholics.

"Lent lives within this dynamic: Christ precedes us with his exodus and we cross the desert, thanks to him and behind him," he said.

On a warm and sunny morning, the pope held his audience in St. Peter's Square. Arriving in the popemobile, he immediately spotted a group of children and signaled several of them to come aboard for a ride. One by one, the three girls and one boy climbed into the popemobile and warmly embraced the pope.

In his main audience talk, the pope said that while Lent is a time of "penance and even mortification," it is also "a time of hope" for Christians awaiting Christ's resurrection to "renew our baptismal identity."

The story of the Israelites' journey toward the Promised Land and God's faithfulness during times of trial and suffering helps Christians "better understand" the Lenten experience, he said.

"This whole path is fulfilled in hope, the hope of reaching the (Promised) Land and precisely in this sense it is an 'exodus,' a way out from slavery to freedom," the pope said. "Every step, every effort, every trial, every fall and every renewal has meaning only within the saving plan of God, who wants for his people life and not death, joy and not sorrow."

To open this path toward the freedom of eternal life, he continued, Jesus gave up the trappings of his glory, choosing humility and obedience.

However, the pope said that Christ's sacrifice on the cross doesn't mean "he has done everything" and "we go to heaven in a carriage."

"It isn't like that. Our salvation is surely his gift, but because it is a love story, it requires our 'yes' and our participation, as shown to us by our mother Mary and after her, all the saints," he said.

Lent, he added, is lived through the dynamic that "Christ precedes us through his exodus," and that through his victory Christians are called to "nourish this small flame that was entrusted to us on the day of our baptism."

"It is certainly a challenging path as it should be, because love is challenging, but it is a path full of hope," Pope Francis said.

- - -

Follow Arocho on Twitter: @arochoju.

The rest is here:

Lent is time to relive exodus from slavery to freedom, pope says - Catholic News Service

NEW DELHI: Amid a raging controversy over free speech, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today said he supports freedom of expression, but within the legal framework.

"I believe in freedom of expression but it has to be within reasonable legal framework," he said.

On the sidelines of a DRDO event, Parrikar was asked to comment on the controversy surrounding Delhi University student Gurmehar Kaur who had launched a campaign against RSS-backed ABVP.

The defence minister, however, clarified that his comments were not related to any particular incident.

The 20-year-old Kaur became the centre of a controversy after she launched a social media campaign against the ABVP which has been under attack after some of its members were allegedly involved in violence at Ramjas College on February 22.

She allegedly received rape threats following the campaign and drew criticism from a Union minister and a BJP MP.

On the issue of the alleged leak of question papers of an army recruitment examination, Parrikar said the defence ministry has recommended a CBI inquiry as the case has inter-state ramifications.

On Monday, the army had ordered a high-level court of inquiry (CoI) into the alleged question paper leak.

Referring to the Kabul blasts and possible use of chemical weapons, he said that the army should be well-prepared to tackle any challenge.

"As per the reports which are coming from the southern and northern parts of Afghanistan, I have seen photographs of the local population having suffered from blisters.... (due to possible use of some chemical weapons). At this moment, I don't have a confirmation on this matter but the photos are quite distressing," he said.

The minister said India will have to be prepared for any kind of nuclear or chemical attack, adding the armed forces must remain alert and prepared for any challenge.

More than a dozen people were killed in two terror attacks in Kabul yesterday.

The near-simultaneous attacks struck the Afghan capital around noon on Wednesday. First, a suicide car bomber targeted a police station in western Kabul. The explosion was followed by a gun battle between the police and several attackers.

In the second attack, a bomber detonated explosives outside offices of the intelligence service in eastern Kabul.

Read more:

I believe in freedom of expression within legal limits: Manohar Parrikar - Economic Times

However well-intentioned, NPRs latest foray into religious freedom falls victim to several false equivalencies and ends up leaving the reader/listener vulnerable to the problematic arguments of those pushing for the right to discriminate againstLGBTQ people.

CorrespondentTom Gjeltenmakes what appears to be an honest, good-faith effort to offer a general backgrounder on the state of religious liberty, but several key omissions and questionable language undercut his effort to providebalance.

First, the good. Gjelten does include a dissenting religious voice, Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry,which challengesthepreferred conservative framing that this issue is being waged betweenreligious individuals andnon-religious individuals.Its true that its almost solelyreligiousinstitutions that have taken up the mantle of opposing LGBTQ equality or womens access to contraception, but there aremany otherswhodisagree.

AndGjelten is, of course, correct in framing both freedom of religion and the pursuit of equality as central tenets of American culture. But as we have documented here atRD, todays religious freedom fighters are waging a very different battle than did this nations Founders when theyconsidered the concept of freedom of religion important enough tobe included in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the confusion begins to mount when Gjelten begins to discuss real-world examples. He writes:

If a football coach is not allowed to lead his team in a public prayer, or a high school valedictorian is not given permission to read a Bible passage for her graduation speech, or the owner of a private chapel is told he cannot refuse to accommodate a same-sex wedding, they might claim their religious freedom has been infringed.

This lack of specificity undermines the whole project to illuminate the reader. Is the football coach at a public or private institution? Is the valedictorian? And the private chapel is a phrasethat may well warrant its ownarticle, as chapel clearly evokesa religious entity or space, though in the eyes of the lawits simply a business like any other.

But even these vague hypotheticals offer a more concrete illustration of potential harms done to those who claim religious freedom than Gjeltens piece provides about the concrete harms done to same-sex couples who are denied service because of someones sincerely held religious belief. The article makes no mention of real-life cases of religiously justified anti-LGBT discrimination,like the 2014 case in Michigan where a pediatrician refused to treat a six-day-old infantbecause the child had two moms. SinceMichigan does not include LGBT people in its nondiscrimination law, the refusal of service, which the doctor reached after much prayer, was entirely legal.

To fairly illustrate the competing claims of discrimination at the heart of this issue, its necessary to illuminate the practical impact of whats at stake for parties on each side of the issue. Its not just about wedding cakes and church services.

Illustrating that point, Gjelten thenfocuses on the 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that embraced marriage equality (using the preferred term of equality opponents, claiming the court redefined marriage), which prompted Catholic Charities to voluntarilycease providing adoption services in the state,citing a sincerely held religious belief that barred the organization from placing foster or adoptive childrenwith same-sex parents.

But here, as in the earlier examples, Gjelten omits a key detail regarding the public/private divide:the reason Catholic Charities (in Massachusetts and other states, like Illinois) was subject to the states nondiscrimination law in the first place is because the agency maintained contracts with the state to provide child welfare services. Adoption isno doubt a worthy cause for a faith community and thestate to engage in, but those two entities have vastly different constitutional responsibilities when it comes to how theytreat citizens hoping to provide loving homes to children.

Catholic Charities has what it perceives to be a divine order to serve and protect the vulnerable, including childrenwhose families of origin cannot care for them. But Catholic doctrine formally denounces same-sex parents, and despite some disagreement among Catholic Charities leadership, the agency determined that such doctrine must dictate policy.

The state, on the other hand, is constitutionally barred from denying access to services (including adoption) based on a persons faithor, in Massachusetts and Illinois, on a persons perceived or actual sexual orientation. By extension, the state cannot formally endorse a particular faith practices understanding of morality or appropriate parental qualities, unless those characteristics happen to align directly with a compelling state interest. (This is precisely the reason why, as Gjelten notes, Mississippis sweeping 2016 religious freedom law earned itself afederalinjunction.)

Buttheres a fairly simpleand reasonablesolution to this wholeconundrum, though it requires the very distinctions between the public and private spaces Gjelten fails delineate. The First Amendments prohibition on state establishment of religion can reasonably be read to mean that government agenciesand, crucially, publicly funded entitiesshould create policy based on the public interest, not on any particular religiousdoctrine.

Look, if Catholic Charities wants to deny me, a queer woman, the opportunity to adopt a child, that is their right. As a religious entity founded on and adherent to Catholic doctrine, I understand that, even if I disagree with the decision, this nations promise of free exercise of religion protects faith-based entities from engaging with those who dont share their beliefs.

Simultaneously, however, as a citizen I enjoy equal protection under the law, which includes access to state-funded agencies that provide social services, including adoption. Im OK with Catholic Charities refusing to serve me because of my identity, but I cannot justify my tax dollars funding an agency that actively discriminates against me.

Yet the reader of this NPR piece might leave with only the vague sense that the government is telling a religious institution what it can and cant believe in or act on. Without mention of the finer distinctions the reader is clearly being done a disservicewhich in this case happens to benefit religious freedom advocates. Or, for those who balk at the use of scare quotes in that phrase, lets call them discriminationists.

Here is the original post:

NPR Largely Misses Critical Distinction on Religious Freedom vs. LGBTQ Rights - Religion Dispatches