Category Archives: Freedom

OAKLEY Aday after Freedom High administrators and police determined a threat to shoot some people at school was not credible, students using their cell phones fanned the rumor by text and Snapchat on Fridayprompting a return of police for a midday rally.

People were saying there would be a shooting during the rally, Freedom Principal Kelly Manke said Friday by phone. Students started sending text messages and it got out of control.

Oakleypolice again Friday determined it was not a credible threat, and that the social media buzz was linked to Thursdays incident, she said.

Manke sent a notice Friday to parents about both incidents and reminded students to report rumors of violence to adults, rather than to each other by social media. What added to the confusion was much of the rumors on the Snapchat app disappeared once students read the messages, so administrators had trouble tracking down the discussion.

The students who initiated the text messages were interviewed and it was determined that the text chain started yesterday evening in response to the comments made in class at the end of the day on Thursday, Manke wrote in the letter. The Oakley PD has determined that the text messages are connected to yesterdays comments and that it is not a credible threat.

It was shortly before 3 p.m. Thursday when a student reported to a teacher that he overheard aclassmate threatening to shoot people on campus. The student who made the report was questioned and the school resource officer visited the home of the person who made the threat where he spoke to that student and parent, Manke said.

That Oakley police officer determined the threat was not credible, she said.

Friday morning, before students had a spring rally to celebrate athletes, honor students and the upcoming end to the school year, an administrator received a report of a text chain regarding a student bringing a gun on campus. The school resource officer was contacted again and they determined the chain of social media messages started Thursday evening after students heard rumors of the earlier incident, Manke said, and Fridays rumors werealso deemed not to be credible.

There was no lockdown. But we did have a police presence at the rally, the principal said.

The rally otherwise continued as scheduled, Manke said.

Go here to read the rest:

False rumors of high school shooter threat spread via text, Snapchat for second day - The Mercury News

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

GLENN GREENWALD: The Barrett Brown case is probably one of the most significant threats to press freedom that has happened in the United States in the last, I would say, two decades at least. And its received remarkably little attention in the mainstream press, because they only pay attention when they themselves are attacked. So, Donald Trump attacks someposts some childish insult about the media or calls them the enemy of the people, and its wall-to-wall coverage in The New York Times and CNN. And yet, here was Barrett, doing some of the most intrepid and important journalism in the United States, digging into this incredibly opaque and powerful faction, and because of his journalism into those areas, that is what directly triggered this FBI investigation and attempt to imprison him. And the reason he got so little support from media organizations defending his press freedom was because they only care about press freedom when it comes to large corporate media outlets that arent actually threatening to the government.

And this was a case where Barrett discovered extreme levels of wrongdoing and corruption, including this slide that said it wanted to destroy my reputation to prevent me from continuing to defend WikiLeaks, talking about defendingdestroying the reputation of people who are activists against the Chamber of Commerce. He was doing incredibly important work. Hes obviously a very talented journalist. The scribblings he did for us in prison on paper with pencil won the National Magazine Award for the columns that we published. And yet, now hes saying, just like Laura Poitras felt when she had to edit her film Citizenfour, that he cant safely do journalism in the United States. So we love to talk about Russia and press freedoms there, even though we have no impact on it when we do. We spend very little time talking about the real threats to press freedom in this country, because they happen to people like Barrett Brown rather than to MSNBC and The New York Times.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain why it mattered what HBGary was saying, this information coming out, for example, on you.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, these contractors, that very few people have heard about, including HBGaryI had never heard of them until this happenedor Palantir, the organization funded by the billionaire Peter Thiel, exert extreme levels of power inside of this murky world of intelligence and defense contractors. And what they were planning to do was they were putting a pitch together to Bank of America, using the firm Hunton & Williams, which is this powerhouse in D.C., to try and tell the Bank of America, which at the time thought it was going to be the target of a WikiLeaks disclosure, "Let us use our dark arts and dirty little tactics to destroy the people who will be your critics." And that was the plan they were putting together, that Anonymous discovered and Barrett reported on. And the only reason why it was discovered is because Anonymous randomly hacked into it. And what was amazing about it was, there were dozens of people talking about these plans, that were illegal, or certainly unethical, and not one person ever said, "Wait a minute. Isnt this going a little bit too far to destroy journalists for reporting on these events?" Thats how common this mentality is in that world and how much impunity there is for it. And that was what Barrett was on the verge of really uncovering at the time the FBI began trying to put him in prison.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, in an interview on Tuesday with the ACLU, you talked about, elaborated on the point you made now, about how the media itself persecutes its own sources and that journalists take the lead in advocating for policies that would restrict their own press freedom. So, could you explain why you think that is? Because, of course, its completely counterintuitive.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. You would think, in just a normal, healthy democracy, you would have the government over here being adversarial to press freedoms, and then you would have journalists vehemently defending the power of the freedom of the press. Thats how its supposed to work. And yet, in so many cases, especially when the government targets journalists who arent popular among or working within these mainstream outlets, not only do the journalists ignore it or acquiesce to these efforts to punish and criminalize and attack independent journalists, they become the leading cheerleaders. When I first started doing the Snowden reporting, it wasnt, you know, James Clapper or Keith Alexander going on TV calling for my imprisonment; it was David Gregory or Andrew Ross Sorkin or other journalists who work at The New York Times, someone with an institution with a history of defending press freedom. And so, that is a huge problem, is, because so many mainstream journalists in the United States identify not with journalism, but with serving the interest of the U.S. government and the national security state, they become the leading spokespeople, the leading advocates, for the right to criminalize journalism. The U.S. government doesnt have to defend trying to put Julian Assange in prison for publishing documents. Journalists are happy to take the lead in arguing that that should happen, even though that will directly threaten them.

AMY GOODMAN: Has that changed at all under Trump? Now that Trump has called the media the enemy of the people, the enemy of the American people, the media has found its backbone in some cases.

GLENN GREENWALD: Definitely.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that will extend to what youre describing?

GLENN GREENWALD: No, unfortunately, I dont. And if you notice, there are certain lines that the, quote-unquote, "resistance," including the media, wont cross. So, for example, when Trump bombed Syria with no congressional authorization and no plan, the media largely cheered. When he dropped the so-called Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan, the largest bomb short of a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan, the media cheered. And now that the CIA and Jeff Sessions are threatening to prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing documents, you have major media figures, simply because they hate WikiLeaks and are incredibly shortsighted, supporting Jeff Sessions, supporting Mike Pompeo, in the idea that WikiLeakss publication of documents should be criminalized, even though that can then be turned around and used against them. So, no, they place off-limits certain policies that are really dangerous, even if Trump is the one advocating them.

Read more from the original source:

Glenn Greenwald on Barrett Brown, Press Freedom & the Failings of the Corporate Media - Democracy Now!

Can a Christian adoption agency require households that adopt children to consist of both a mom and a dad? Can a foster parent prevent a pregnant foster child from getting an abortion? These questions should have a clear answer yet theyve stirred up great controversy in Texas.

Christian Homes & Family Services based in Abilene, for example, considers only prospective adoptive parents who attend church weekly and have been married for two years, The Dallas Morning News reported. Buckner International, based in Dallas, will consider single people on a case-by-case basis, but lets only couples married for four years or more become foster parents.

The foster parent can remain a foster parent without violating his or her religious convictions.

Lawmakers in Texas have taken steps to ensure the government does not punish faith-based adoption and foster care service providers for acting in accordance with sincerely held religious beliefs. Meanwhile, the LGBT community has fired back with a falsely painted narrative about the situation.

The Freedom to Serve Children Act (HB 3859) passed 93-49 in of the Texas House of Representatives this week. The legislation applies to both taxpayer-funded and privately run child welfare services. Among other provisions under consideration, the bill ensures that a child welfare service provider who has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or refer a person for abortions, contraceptives, or drugs, devices, or services that are potentially abortion-inducing wont face adverse action.

For example, if a foster parent has a religious objection to providing an abortion for a foster child, then this bill would permit the foster parent to refer the child to the state agency or to another provider to get the abortion, Justin Butterfield, senior counsel at religious-freedom law firm First Liberty Institute, told LifeZette in a phone conversation. So the foster parent can remain a foster parent without violating his or her religious convictions.

Related: Trump: People of Faith Will Not Be Bullied or Silenced Anymore

Essentially this increases the number of paths available to children to be connected with adoptive families, Butterfield said.

The religious protections also extend to providers who choose to send a child to a private or religious school.

Media outlets quickly saw the religious protections as discrimination. Consider these headlines: Teen Vogues Texas Bill Would Ban Muslim, Jewish, and LGBTQ Families From Adoption; and the APs Texas House OKs Letting Adoption Groups Deny Non-Christians.

Those headlines are clearly spun for their audiences.

The Texas law takes nothing away from anyone, Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, told LifeZette in an email. It doesnt prevent same-sex couples from adopting. It simply prevents any given agency from being penalized for not doing a same-sex adoption, if doing so would violate its beliefs.

Anderson co-authored a new book just published by Oxford University Press, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.

Related:The Real Objectives of Trumps Religious Liberty Order

There is no need to force adoption and foster care agencies to embrace LGBT orthodoxy, Anderson argued.

No adoption agency should be penalized by the state because it works to find children homes with a married mom and dad, Anderson added. Shutting down agencies or disqualifying them from government programs because they believe kids deserve both a mom and a dad does nothing to help children in need. All it does is score a point for LGBT activists [who are] using children as pawns in their culture war.

If a prospective parent is turned away from one adoption service, other agency choices are available. It does not allow the providers to do whatever they want, but rather to sayno in very specific, limited circumstances, the bills author, Rep. James Frank, a Republican, stated.

The bill requires [Child Protective Services] to maintain a diverse network of homes and provides reasonable accommodations to those who are helping solve our foster care capacity crisis, Frank said, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Still, the LGBT community has pushed back against the legislation.

Its horrific that the Texas House would allow state-funded or private adoption agencies to use religious exemptions as a weapon to ban qualified LGBTQ families from adopting a child, Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the LGBT organization called GLAAD, said in an email to Teen Vogue.

Is there really any reason to opposes such a bill? Groups such as the advocacy organization American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have heavily done so, stating the bill could harm children. "Discrimination in the name of religion has no place in our laws or in our state, and it certainly should not be used to harm children," Rebecca L. Robertson, legal and policy director for the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.

"We're further casting these children off. We're making it more difficult for them to be adopted," House Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat, stated.

First Libertyattorney Butterfield testified in relevant legislative committees on this topic. "A more accurate narrative would be the Freedom to Serve Children Act promotes inclusivity and diversity among adoption and foster care agency by ensuring that the government doesn't discriminate against any of them," Butterfield told LifeZette. "It protects religious liberty rights for people of all faiths and ensures that they don't have to choose between following their faith and serving children."

The legislation "avoids unnecessary litigation" and "ensures we maximize the number of families who can provide child welfare [and placement] services," Butterfield also noted.

Other states (Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Alabama) have passed similar legislation, Butterfield said. At the federal level, related bills called the "Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act" have been introduced in the House and Senate.

In Texas, the bill must go through the Senate before it goes to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.

See the original post:

'Freedom to Serve Children Act' in Texas Brings Out the Knives - LifeZette

Turkish Freedom Wanes Along with Erdogan's Popularity: America's Moral and Strategic Interests Violated CNSNews.com Journalists enjoyed greater freedom and Europeans believed he could bring Turkey into their continent's orbit. Alas, many observers, this writer included, overestimated Erdogan's commitment to a Western model. What looked too good to be true turned out ... Turkey warns US of blowback from decision to arm Kurdish fighters in SyriaReuters all 247 news articles »

See the article here:

Turkish Freedom Wanes Along with Erdogan's Popularity: America's Moral and Strategic Interests Violated - CNSNews.com

Press freedom advocates have condemned the arrest of a journalist in West Virginia, who was apprehended as he questioned a Trump administration official at the State Capitol in Charleston on Tuesday.

Police arrested veteran broadcast journalist Dan Heyman of Public News Service West Virginia on Tuesday and charged him with willful disruption of government processes, a misdemeanor, alleging that Heyman was aggressively breaching the secret service agents and causing a disturbance by yelling questions about the health care bill at Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price as he walked alongside senior White House aide Kellyanne Conway. If convicted, he faces up to six months in jail and a $100 fine.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a leading press freedom watchdog group, characterized the arrest as a clear affront to press freedom and called for the immediate dismissal of the charges.

"The arrest of a journalist trying to ask a question in the public interest is a clear affront to press freedom," said Alexandra Ellerbeck, senior U.S. and Americas researcher at the Committee to Protect Journalists. "West Virginia authorities should drop all charges against Dan Heyman immediately and respect journalists' right to question government officials."

After a few hours in custody, Heyman was released on bail, and he held a press conference in which he told reporters that he had only been doing his job.

"At some point they decided I was too persistent in trying to ask this question and do my job, so they arrested me," Heyman said.

Heymans lawyer. J. Timothy DiPiero, told ABC News that it was crazy to arrest a credentialed journalist but he remains hopeful that prosecutors wont go forward with the case.

They put him in an orange jumpsuit and put his mugshot online, DiPiero said. Thats really degrading and humiliating for a guy just trying to do his job. This is not a good sign for reporters.

Price addressed the incident while speaking in New Hampshire on Wednesday and commended the police for doing what they felt was appropriate, though he added that arresting Heyman was "not my decision to make."

According to Peter Sterne, a senior reporter at the Freedom of the Press Foundation who has been collecting data on press freedom incidents in the U.S. in preparation for the foundations launch of a U.S. Press Freedom Tracker this summer, 15 journalists (including Heyman) have been arrested in the U.S. since the start of the year. Sterne says 14 of them (including Heyman) are currently facing charges as a direct result of their work.

"It's very concerning that Dan was removed from the capitol and arrested, simply for attempting to do his job and ask Secretary Price a question about the controversial health care law, Sterne told ABC News. I hope that the authorities in West Virginia will acknowledge their mistake and drop the charges against him."

Heymans arrest also caught the attention of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, whose legal director, Jamie Lynn Crofts, told ABC News that the organization stands ready to throw the weight of its office behind Heyman because they view his arrest as a troubling sign of a trickle-down effect.

Were absolutely concerned that this is something thats trickling down from the highest levels of the administration, Crofts said. We have a president who every day is saying the media is fake news and is refusing to call on reporters he doesnt like. Eventually thats going to seep down to other areas, including law enforcement.

For Crofts, Heymans arrest raised concerns that such incidents, if left unaddressed, could put a chill on critical reporting designed to hold our elected officials to account.

If this kind of behavior continues, its just going to result in reporters being afraid to ask questions and people being afraid to stand up to their representatives, Crofts continued. A free press is one of the building blocks of our democracy. Without it, were not the same country. Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, have the right to stand up and ask tough questions.

Read the original here:

Press freedom advocates condemn arrest of journalist in West Virginia - ABC News

Upon the announcement of De La Soul's upcoming performance at the 10 Barrel 10th Anniversary Party, everyone I talked to had a similar reaction. "Aw man! No way! De La Soul reminds me of high school." Of course, as someone in her 30s, that's the reaction one could expect. But nonetheless, De La Soul reminds listeners of a certain time in their life. No surprise, since until last year, the hip-hop trio hadn't released an album in 12 years.

The group comes to Bend in support of its most recent album, "And the Anonymous Nobody..." For the past 10 years, they've remained independent, free of a record label interfering in their creative process. For the new record, De La Soul went directly to the source the fans for financing. "And the Anonymous Nobody..." gained funding via a Kickstarter campaign, meeting its goal in a few short hours, then surpassing it six times over. The album was the first by a major hip-hop group financed completely by crowdfunding.

While De La Soul has always sampled, experimented and blended genres, "And the Anonymous Nobody..." takes it to another level. The album features collaborations with a breadth of artists and includes songs you won't typically expect from a hip-hop trio. De La Soul brings typical hip-hop players, including the likes of Usher, 2 Chainz, Snoop Dogg and Jill Scott, to the album. But it's the less conspicuous guests that make the album truly unique.

"Snoopies" features Talking Heads singer David Byrne. Swedish dreamy electro-pop band Little Dragon makes a guest appearance on the less than typical joint, "Drawn." In that song, Little Dragon takes the lead for nearly five minutes before De La Soul even utters a word. A song like this may never have made it onto a major label record release, which is why Kickstarter provided the perfect platform for the artists to have complete creative freedom. These two songs cross genre lines and challenge the idea of modern hip-hop.

On the crowd funding side of things, some question why you would pay for your favorite hip-hop pioneers to make a new album. As independent artists, it hearkens back to the quest for freedom over the entire creative process. Giving your favorite artists free reign to create exactly what they want and not what the record label wants pushes music to the pinnacle of artistic expression.

For fans, contributing $15 to the De La Soul Kickstarter got them a digital copy of the album with bonus songs. At that price point, you're basically paying for the album, which you would have done anyway. With Kickstarter, it allows you to feel personally invested in the production of the album. For super fans, higher donations led to more imaginative rewards. From shopping for new kicks with Posdnous to appearing on a skit on the album, to Dave's own platinum record plaque, donors had the chance to realize their dreams within the De La Soul universe.

No matter where De La Soul falls in your "time-of-life" experience, their genre-pushing blend of hip-hop with jazz, funk, rock, electronicand anything else they feel in the momentwill have you on your feet. Dance freely, knowing you'll be supporting independent musicians and artists who've been allowed to exercise their creative freedom.

Saturday May 13, 8:45pm

10 Barrel 10th Anniversary Party

10 Barrel Brewing Co. Brewing Facility

62970 NE 18th St., Bend

Free

Read the original:

Creative Freedom - The Source Weekly (press release) (registration) (blog)

King Salman has ordered a review of laws that still make it hard for many women to work, travel, undergo medical procedures and go to university without the permission of a male relative or spouse, human rights organizations said this week. The review could last three months.

"The order, if adequately enforced, could end arbitrary guardian consent requirements imposed on women by government officials," Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

The Saudi government has not yet published an official decree setting out in detail which laws could be eased, and there have been conflicting reports in Saudi media.

That likely reflects the very sensitive nature of any such change. Deputy crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman is leading a bold plan to break the kingdom's reliance on oil, which requires a transformation of the economy and Saudi society.

Analysts say that the ruling royal family is likely to tread carefully to avoid a backlash from conservative religious authorities who, for decades, have exercised enormous influence in the home of Islam's holiest sites.

Despite the uncertainty, the review has been welcomed by some in the kingdom.

"It will allow for greater mobility inside and outside the country, which allows for more efficient economic activity and happiness," said John Sfakianakis, director of economic research at the Gulf Research Center in Riyadh.

Related: Saudi Arabia pushes through pain of breaking oil habit

In the year since Bin Salman unveiled Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia has made progress on stabilizing the economy. It has cut government subsidies, announced new taxes and borrowed billions to balance its books. Higher oil prices have helped.

Good for women, good for the economy

There are also signs of progress towards increasing the participation of women in the workforce -- a key Vision 2030 goal -- particularly in finance and technology. In February, three top jobs in finance, including the head of the stock exchange, were filled by women. Citigroup has just appointed a woman to head the bank's operations in the kingdom.

Still, women are far more likely to be unemployed than men, making up 63% of people out of work and looking for a job, according to Mazen Al Sudairi, head of research at Al Rajhi Capital. The official unemployment rate is 11.6%.

"[There's] no doubt that easing guardianship laws will effect positively the local economy," Al Sudairi said. "It will enhance female productivity and participation that will be seen in term of investments and job creation."

Restrictions on women are already being relaxed in Saudi Arabia's major cities. At a business conference in Riyadh earlier this month, men and women were allowed to sit together. That is still a rare sight in a country where gender segregation is imposed in many public places.

Change is already underway

The religious police, who enforce Islamic law, are still present but have a less prominent role. A year ago, they were stripped of their power to arrest and can now only report people to the state police. Women can sometimes be seen with their hair showing but are still expected to wear an abaya, a long robe-like dress, and a headscarf.

Related: Crowds flock to Saudi Arabia's first Comic Con

Laws preventing women getting a job or some healthcare services without male permission are already being less rigorously applied, according to a member of the Shura Council, which advises the King on legislation.

"These are things that women can do," said Hoda Al-Helaissi. "What has happened now is necessary before [new] laws here are passed."

Saudi Arabia is going through a transitional phase that requires a change in thinking, she added.

"This is a new modernity in Saudi Arabia and it is specific to Saudi Arabia with its identity and religion," Al-Helaissi said.

Clock ticking on driving ban?

However, the review does not appear to address one of the most contentious issues: women driving.

There's no law that specifically bars women from driving, but religious edicts are often interpreted to mean it is illegal for females to do so.

Still, some Saudi political analysts say the driving ban's days are numbered.

"I can't imagine the next year coming without Saudi lifting the ban," said Salman Al-Ansari, president of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee. "Mohammed Bin Salman understands the fact that granting women their basic rights is an essential factor for the success of his vision 2030."

CNNMoney (Dubai) First published May 10, 2017: 9:15 AM ET

Here is the original post:

Saudi Arabia is giving women more freedom as it looks beyond oil - CNNMoney

In recent years, the EU has taken several initiatives to promote freedom of religion across the world, even though the cause has been losing some of its lustre within international relations and has thrown into question the idea of basic rights as an indivisible whole, writes Professor Franois Foret.

Franois Foret is a professor of political science at Universit Libre de Bruxelles.

It reveals a search for a balance between various factors: a symbolic display of unity around fundamental principles vs a calculated defence of the sometimes divergent interests of the EU as a whole, of member states and different Community institutions; preference for law over politics to contain the conflictual dimension of religion vs pragmatism leading sometimes to bend principles to comply with conditions on the field.

The emergence of a European strategy for promoting religious freedom is not a direct result of treaties, since the EU has no competence in this matter, particularly as regards defining what (and who) is a religion.

The prism of human rights, the fundamental mission and ultimate justification for the EU, thus offers the only possible action repertoire. Its consensual dimension suits best diplomats that have the difficult task of getting twenty-eight member states to speak with one voice.

This explains why the European External Action Service (EEAS) launched in 2011 has found that freedom of religion offers a symbolic cause with which it can assert itself at little cost as a political actor in dealings with third countries as well as other EU institutions.

However, things become appreciably more complicated as soon as one moves from upholding principles to putting them into practice. Our research has analysed the case of the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, a document intended to inform the approach taken by agents and partners of European diplomacy in the field.

Published in 2013, the document was the subject of our survey of EEAS Delegations around the world in 2015-2016 and should be subjected to an official impact assessment in 2017.

The main findings of this research first of all confirm the secondary importance of religion in diplomatic practice. Whatever its salience as a problem needing to be dealt with, and its political visibility, it continues to meet indifference, mistrust or hostility among foreign affairs professionals whose ethos calls for issues to be rationalised with a view to finding compromises recognising the interests of all parties.

Even reduced to the notion of freedom of religion, in itself a legal codification limiting its potential for controversy, religion remains too uncontrollable a variable to easily find a place in the diplomats tool kit.

The EU is exposed to the flaws inherent in any policy promoting religious freedom. Three dangers are lying in wait: regionalisation, confessionalisation and religionisation.

Regionalisation: reducing religion to freedom of religion ends up with religion becoming visible only where freedom of religion is under threat, thus masking it as a political variable at work within established democracies and increasing the risk of opposing a secular, pacified Western world to a developing world dominated by religious passions and violations of fundamental rights.

Confessionalisation: attempts to measure religious freedom stress individual practices, based on a conception of religion strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian model which does not necessarily take account of the realities of other spiritual traditions with their less marked distinction between the sacred and the profane and between the individual and the collective.

Inequalities between religions may be increased to the benefit of those of them which have a hierarchy and spokespersons to make themselves heard. In certain cases, the break with equality is explicit, for example when some European political actors defend the idea that the EU should prioritize the protection of Christian minorities in danger in third countries, because of its civilizational heritage.

Religionalisation: the umbrella of religious freedom held out by the EU and other international organisations may lead some social groups or individuals to reformulate their originally secular claims in religious terms in order to benefit from the golden opportunity thus provided. Social, economic, cultural or territorial divisions may thus be invested with a spiritual dimension which makes it harder to resolve differences.

A final manifestation of European policy on religious freedom which has led to polemics was the 2016 appointment by the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Junker of a special envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief.

This singularisation of the notion has emphasised the break with the European vision of fundamental rights as an indivisible whole. The personality of the holder of this office (Slovak Jan Figel, a former Commissioner known to be a fervent Catholic) and the announcement of its creation in the presence of the Pope in the Vatican has given the post a culturalist connotation.

Finally, the fact that this Special Envoy reports not to the EEAS but to the Commissioner in charge of International Cooperation and Development has increased the perception of religious problems as particular to the most deprived parts of the world and does little to clarify the EUs bureaucratic framework.

During Jan Figels first twelve-month period in office, the post gained a certain amount of visibility and took its place without major clashes in the institutional galaxy of the Community, but its real impact remains uncertain. The reappointment of the Special Envoy for an extra year announced in April 2017 did not resolve the ambiguities in his role or overcome resistance to it.

More here:

Freedom of religion in EU diplomacy: Defending a cause or promoting divergent interests? - EURACTIV

According to White House officials the day before the release of President Trumps Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty," it was going to direct the IRS to exercise maximum discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits religious leaders from speaker about politics and candidates from the pulpit.

The actual May 4 Executive Order took no such action. Instead, it directs the Secretary of Treasury not to take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization for speech of similar character that, consistent with law, the Department of the Treasury has not ordinarily . . . treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Moreover, the IRS has long exercised discretion in this sensitive area. In a so-called Political Activity Compliance Initiative, the IRS examined possible political activity among some 100 exempt organizations in each of the 2004, 2006 and 2008 election cycles. For these election cycles, the most common violations among those organizations selected for examination were distribution of printed documents supporting candidates, statements endorsing candidates during normal services, well-known individuals endorsing a candidate at an official church function, candidates speaking at official functions and distributions of partisan voter guides.

The Free Speech Fairness Act restores #freespeech, not 'dark money.' https://t.co/a32Qpfsp10 @thehill

Although the statutory prohibition by its terms is absolute such that even a de minimis amount of political campaign intervention could result in loss of exemption, the IRS did not revoke exemption in any of these cases. Neither did it impose the available excise tax of 10 percent on campaign intervention expenditures. It instead issued written advisories because either the act of intervention was shown to be an anomaly or because the organization corrected the intervention and took steps to prevent future intervention.

During every election cycle, including the most recent, violations of the campaign intervention prohibition occur weekly. Candidates, from both the right and the left, visit houses of worship to speak about their candidacy.

Unless those houses of worship have also invited the candidates opponent to make a similar presentation a very unlikely situation the prohibition has been violated. The IRS has never taken any action in these cases. In fact, the Internal Revenue Code already includes special and particular procedural requirements before the IRS can audit a church.

"What does Trump's religious freedom order actually do? Not much..." https://t.co/vXLPcxN279 pic.twitter.com/7NFcqfeNXc

In situations that blatantly disregard the law, the Department of Treasury has taken enforcement action, and the courts have supported such efforts.

In 2000, in a case called Branch Ministries v. Rossotti the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld IRS revocation of the exemption of a church for campaign intervention. Four days before the presidential election in 1992, the church had run ran full-page advertisements in USA Today and the Washington Times urging Christians not to vote for then-Governor Bill ClintonBill ClintonConway links Anderson Cooper's eye roll to sexism Meet the incorruptible, nonpartisan FBI director the nation needs American innovation is the winner as the FCC tackles net neutrality MORE because his position on such issues as abortion and homosexuality violated Biblical precepts. The ads also solicited tax-deductible contributions.

This case demonstrated the sort of flagrant violation squarely within the zone of ordinary enforcement, and nothing in the May 4 executive order suggests that the IRS should cease enforcement of such glaring violations in the future.

As President Trumps executive order acknowledges, it does not change applicable law. It does not change the status quo. As far as the tax law is concerned, it is no more than a symbolic statement.It may, however, suggest actions to come.

Ellen P. Aprill is the John E. Anderson Chair in Tax Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, where she teaches Nonprofit Organizations and founded the Western Conference on Tax-Exempt Organizations.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Excerpt from:

Trump's religious freedom order no more than a symbolic statement - The Hill (blog)

CULPEPER The Culpeper boys lacrosse team played like an inspired bunch during the early stages of Wednesday nights senior day matchup against Freedom South-Riding.

After goals from Will Clark, Ashton Short, Thomas Armel and Dillon Grenke, Culpeper (6-6) held a 4-1 lead early into the second quarter against one of the top-ranked 4A programs in the state.

As it turned out, the Eagles (10-1) took Culpepers best punch and countered. Freedom scored seven consecutive goals over the final 7:24 of the first half to take an 8-4 lead into the locker room. When it was all said and done, the Eagles came away victorious, 16-9.

If you look at them, thats one of the top teams in the state, Culpeper head coach Scott Found said. I thought we did a pretty good job and the kids never stopped fighting.

The Blue Devils played like a team up to the task of pulling an upset in the first quarter of Wednesdays game. They held a demanding 9-1 lead on ground balls and only lost the faceoff margin, 3-2.

Culpeper sophomore Joe Davis was in net for the third consecutive game. His solid play, combined with a new defensive wrinkle, limited Freedom to just one goal in the first 12 minutes.

Culpepers defense has struggled at times throughout the year. In losses, the Blue Devils are giving up an average of about 17 goals per game. Theyve given up no more than 14 goals in wins.

Found switched Culpepers defense from a man-to-man to zone as a way to try and protect the crease, he said. That change in scheme threw Freedom in for a loop, head coach Warren Dazenbaker said. A zone defense isnt seen too often.

I think that threw our guys off a little, Dazenbaker said. Its not something you typically see. It took our guys a little longer to start finding the right cuts and firing off the right shots. A lot of credit has to go to Culpeper, too. They have a great program and we like coming here to play.

As the game went on, Freedom settled in more and more offensively. Their comfort against the zone defense increased thanks to some dominating possession time.

That, of course, can be traced back to faceoffs. Culpeper held their own in the first quarter but had no such luck in the second. Freedom held a 7-2 faceoff advantage and rattled off seven straight goals because of it.

It really just came down to possession, Dazenbaker said. Culpeper won a lot of groundballs in that first quarter. We kind of regrouped and started winning faceoffs, which was important.

Freedom took a four-goal lead into halftime and the score would never get closer. Grenke led Culpeper with four goals. Cole Boddery (two), Armel (one), Short (one) and Clark (one) added to the Culpeper scoring.

Wednesdays result locked in Culpepers seeding for the Evergreen Section tournament. Culpeper will play Eastern View on Monday.

Chris Cappella is the sports editor of the Culpeper Star-Exponent. He can be reached at ccappella@starexponent.com or (540) 825-0771 ext. 4128. Follow him on Twitter @C_Cappella and @CSEpreps.

Continued here:

Blue Devils encouraged after tough loss to Freedom South-Riding - The Daily Progress