Category Archives: Freedom

New York Times

Getting Freedom From Health - The New York Times New York Times What's the rush on repealing Obamacare? It's true President Trump did promise speediness during the campaign. (You're going to end up with great health ... and more »

View original post here:

Getting Freedom From Health - The New York Times - New York Times

Mashable

These turtles flapping their way to freedom are your Friday spirit animals Mashable There's nothing quite like the adorable sound of turtles flapping their way back into the sea. Following months of rehabilitation, a green sea turtle called Gretchen, and an olive ridley named Chompa, were released to back into the sea. Swim free ...

See the original post:

These turtles flapping their way to freedom are your Friday spirit animals - Mashable

FOX21News.com

Hometown Hero: Operation TBI Freedom FOX21News.com Operation TBI Freedom is this year's Community Partner Hometown Hero for their work with veterans and active duty members who have suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury or other combat related trauma. COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. Since Operation TBI ...

Read more:

Hometown Hero: Operation TBI Freedom - FOX21News.com

USA Today Network Errin Haines Whack, The Associated Press 12:14 a.m. ET March 9, 2017

Muhammad Ali Jr., claims airport security held him and questioned him about his name and religion. Time

Muhammad Ali Jr. and Laila Ali arrive at the funeral home before the motorcade for their father, Muhammad Ali, who died on June 3. June 10, 2016(Photo: Michael Clevenger/Courier-Journal)

Muhammad Ali's son and ex-wife declared a "showdown" over religious freedom against President Trump a month after they were detained by immigration officials at a Florida airport.

Muhammad Ali Jr. and his mother, Khalilah Camacho Ali, are headed to Washington Thursday to meet with lawmakers to discuss the issue and their experience. They are also calling for an end to Trump's travel ban and are launching a "Step Into the Ring" campaign, drawing on support of former boxing greats including Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes and Roberto Duran. They are framing the effort directly as a fight against the president, using the hashtag #AlivsTrump.

Trump has shown admiration for Ali in the past, calling Ali a "truly great champion" when the boxer died of Parkinson's disease in June. Trump also singled out an Ali exhibit during a recent visit to the National Museum of African-American History and Culture in Washington.

The Alis were invited by Democrats to a forum organized by members of the House subcommittee on border security. The Alis will address lawmakers and push to testify at a formal hearing.

"There shouldn't be a travel ban," said Khalilah Camacho Ali. "If I don't speak up now, they're going to keep harassing us."

The mother and son, both born in the United States, were returning from a Black History Month event in Jamaica on Feb. 7 when they were detained and questioned at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. They said they were asked if they were Muslim and explained their relationship to the former heavyweight champion repeatedly.

"I'm paranoid. I'm just waiting for somebody to mess with me. That's not a good feeling when you have to travel," Khalilah Camacho Ali said when asked how the incident has affected her.

READ MORE:

Muhammad Ali Jr.: I wasnt terrorizing anybody

Ali's son not alone in facing border scrutiny

The experience left them convinced that they were targeted because they are Muslim and have Arabic names. Khalilah Camacho Ali, who was born and raised Muslim, said she has always fought for religious rights, and pushed her former husband to use his fame to do the same.

"We, as a family, have been fighting this for a very long time," she said. "We are going to continue to fight for religious justice."

A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said Ali Jr. was held for questioning, but not because of his name or religion.

Trump signed his first travel ban a week into his presidency. The executive order sparked confusion across the country, causing chaotic scenes at airports and prompting lawsuits.

This week, he announced a revised version that bars new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and temporarily shuts down America's refugee program. It also removes Iraq from the list of banned countries and removes language prioritizing religious minorities that some viewed as a way to help Christians get into the United States while excluding Muslims.

The new order is set to take effect on March 16.

Muhammad Ali, a three-time heavyweight boxing champion, also fought for civil rights. He refused to enter the military draft during the Vietnam War as a conscientious objector after converting to Islam. The decision cost him his heavyweight title and he was convicted of draft evasion.

The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in his favor.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2mILgJ9

Follow this link:

Muhammad Ali's son, ex-wife launch religious freedom campaign against Trump - USA TODAY

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, speaks out Tuesday against the GOP leadership's plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, flanked by fellow Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (from left) and Jim Jordan of Ohio as well as Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, speaks out Tuesday against the GOP leadership's plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, flanked by fellow Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (from left) and Jim Jordan of Ohio as well as Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Updated at 5:15 p.m. ET

Some of the most conservative members of the House are at a crossroads over the plan from GOP leadership and the White House to replace the Affordable Care Act. Those lawmakers say their choice is between supporting a bill that goes against many of their principles, or falling in line behind President Trump who won overwhelming support in their district.

"Do we need to lower the bar in what we believe as conservatives simply because a Republican is in the White House?" asked House Freedom Caucus member Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

The overwhelming answer from members of the conservative caucus and other major outside conservative groups is no at least right now.

But there are reasons that President Trump, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan and others sound confident. For a president who built his career on being a master negotiator, it's now his job to sell these skeptical members on the merits of the bill and the breadth of his win in their districts shows there could be fertile ground to do so.

The president has repeatedly underscored that he believes he has a mandate to overhaul health care, given his win last November and GOP sweeps in Congress. In the areas that belong to those holding out on the replacement bill, Trump won, as he would say, "big league."

Trump carried the districts of the House Freedom Caucus members by an average margin of about 26 points. He won more than 20 of these districts by 20 points or more and carried 27 of them by double digits.

Yet the lawmakers almost all won their races comfortably, too allowing them to claim a mandate from constituents just as Trump has. Lawmakers could even argue they have more purity on the issue, given Trump's fluctuations on enumerating exactly what he wants in a health care bill and lack of specifics during the campaign.

The GOP can still pass the American Health Care Act even if it loses as many as 20 votes or more, if any Democrats change their minds.

Looking at it another way, Trump needs to woo only 10 of these conservative members over to his side but that also assumes other GOP centrists stay on board too. Ultimately, as the White House said on Wednesday, the president is prepared to do everything he needs to do to get there.

"We are out in full sell mode all around the country, talking about how we think this is the best way to solve the problem that the American people face and why we believe that the solutions that we put forward in this bill are the right ones and that will benefit them," White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Wednesday.

Members of the Freedom Caucus could still be swayed, as even the group's chairman confessed on Wednesday.

"I would be the first to admit that calls from the president will certainly influence members and to suggest otherwise would be to ignore politics," Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina told the Associated Press. "Whether you fully supported Donald Trump or not, getting a call from President Trump obviously makes a difference."

Plus, some of Trump's top lieutenants selling the bill once served in the House, where they had plenty of conservative bona fides. Pence spent 12 years there as a representative from Indiana; Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price just left his position as a Georgia representative; and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney was a South Carolina representative before Trump plucked him for the job. Mulvaney has already invited members of the Freedom Caucus to join him for a bowling night at the White House next week.

Still, there are some long-simmering tensions evident in the conservative backlash to the new bill. Most members of the Freedom Caucus came around on Trump during the campaign, even if many did not initially support him. Yet the divide over health care underscores the skepticism some conservatives still have with the White House and GOP leadership.

Conservative critics want a clean repeal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and say that this new replacement plan does not comport with their principles. Among the issues they have with the bill is the tax credits the new plan provides, which could actually result in a rebate from the IRS to cover premiums, and the delay in doing away with the original law's Medicaid expansion program.

This is the young White House's first real legislative challenge, and it's one that could still be tough for a president who entered office without any legislative or government experience.

Trump expressed optimism on Tuesday that "everybody" would eventually support the House bill he has now thrown his weight behind even as members of the House Freedom Caucus and their allies on the Senate side held a news conference to malign the bill.

Trump's popularity has fallen since he took office, but he is still viewed favorably in the most conservative areas of the country. Trump himself seemed to acknowledge that could drastically change: He reportedly told House Republicans that the 2018 midterms could become a "bloodbath" if they fumble this health care bill.

At the same time, political action groups like the Club for Growth say they would use the vote in scoring how conservative a member is; a vote for the bill could mean a lower ranking, and more vulnerability for a primary challenge.

The Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity says the members who stand up to oppose the new bill will have its full support going forward.

"From our perspective, bad policy equals bad politics as well," the advocacy group's CEO, Luke Hilgemann, told NPR. "This proposal needs to go to the ash heap of history, as does Obamacare."

Read the original:

On Obamacare Replacement Plan, Freedom Caucus Members Face ... - NPR

Booking photo for Marquis Dixon of Albany.

Booking photo for Marquis Dixon of Albany.

Marquis Dixon (photo provided by family)

Marquis Dixon (photo provided by family)

Churchill: For Marquis Dixon, freedom wasn't lasting

Albany

Nobody should have thought it would be easy. Nobody should have assumed Marquis Dixon's transition to freedom would go perfectly.

And it hasn't.

Dixon was released from prison days after a state appeals court in October reduced his infamous nine-year sentence for a sneaker robbery to a maximum of three years. The teenager came home to Albany, returning to his family's McCarty Avenue home in the South End.

Trouble found him quickly.

In early December, Dixon, 19, was cited for violating parole and sent to Albany County jail before being transferred to Hale Creek Correctional, a medium-security prison that specializes in substance-abuse treatment.

He returned to Albany and conditional freedom in February, but was again cited for violating parole just weeks later on February 27. He has since been held in Albany County jail.

On Wednesday, I talked with his mom. Aisha Dixon was fully aware her son's troubles would unleash the I-told-you-sos as in, I told you that kid was no good.

But Aisha Dixon insisted he was guilty only, for both violations, of staying out past his 7 p.m. curfew. She said the teen has chafed at his parole restrictions finding it humiliating, she said, to apply for jobs or register for college while wearing a bulky ankle bracelet.

"He's still the good kid he always was," she said.

Good or not, Dixon could be looking at more prison time before he's finally released and free of parole. He has a preliminary hearing on his latest violation Thursday and a final hearing on March 21, according to Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple.

It's likely Dixon will be required to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence, less than three months. He should be free and clear by summer, if not much sooner.

Then what?

That's the big question. We can only offer support and pray that he'll find his way.

There's no doubt Dixon's recent struggles are deflating for those of us who championed his cause because we believed his sentence was too harsh for a 16-year-old accused of a sneaker robbery. We would have liked to hear that Dixon is happily thriving.

But it often does not work out that way when prisoners return to impoverished neighborhoods. Many ex-cons struggle to find work and meaning. And Dixon carries the extra weight of community expectations and a heightened profile.

That profile cuts both ways. The attention probably helped his appeal. But it also means that we can pick up the latest issue of The Alt, a weekly newspaper, and find District Attorney David Soares continuing to bury Dixon and those who advocated for him.

"This is the guy you want?" Soares told the paper. "This is the guy you want to put on your shoulders? There are so many other worthy people."

Soares, noting that Dixon was accused of having a gun when he robbed another teen of sneakers, accused supporters of "an abandonment of facts" and distorting "the truth to fit a narrative."

But here are the facts as stated in the appeals court ruling by Presiding Court Justice Karen Peters:

"The crime, although serious, did not cause physical injury to anyone and the defendant neither brandished the object or uttered any direct threats of violence," she wrote, adding that Dixon "had no prior criminal record or history of violence."

Peters and the court's other justices reduced Dixon's sentence because he should have been given a chance at youthful offender status. The failure to do so was a "grievous error," the justices said, and they subsequently granted it.

Regardless, there's little point in again rehashing the facts and controversies of Dixon's case. It's really water under the bridge.

But whether New York should treat 16- and 17-year-old defendants as adults remains a pressing question. Only two states North Carolina is the other continue to do so, and there's a big legislative push, now backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for New York to join the civilized world and "Raise the Age."

Would Dixon's transition to freedom have been smoother if he had never been sent to an adult prison? We will never know.

But throwing teenagers in with hardened adult criminals certainly doesn't help their return to society. It all but guarantees they'll come to our streets and neighborhoods prepared only for a life of crime.

Guess what happens then?

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Link:

Churchill: For Marquis Dixon, freedom wasn't lasting - Albany Times Union

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Right2Speak says that while Wednesdays Day Without a Woman demonstration urges women to leave their jobs and stop their normal activities, its group will instead urge women to continue working, serving, giving, sharing, and loving their communities, their families, and their endeavors.

With disproportionate media attention going to the recent Womens March movement, there is a very important story that is not being told, Toni Anne Dashiell, the founder of Right2Speak, said, according to USA Today. This is the story of the women in America who have been cast to the side by the spectacle of the extreme far left. We believe all women have the right to speak, the right to participate and the right to express their values without being dismissed.

Freedom-minded women note the Day Without a Woman strike only includes liberal, women, since conservative women were barred from partnering with the original Womens anti-Trump March in January.

We dont feel like the voices on the far left represent all women, explains Ohio Right2Speak spokeswoman LeeAnn Johnson. We wont allow our voices to be drowned out. Instead, we will participate with grace and dignity. The heartland of America often gets ignored, and were standing up so that our voice is heard.

We are voices of reason and integrity, of both love and liberty, said Right2Speak member Robin Moore. I will fight not just for my voice to be heard, but for the voices of all women who are being marginalized by this far-left movement.

Right2Speak is posting its stories and photos on social media using hashtags #NotMyProtest and #WeShowUp.

Another group called The Network of Enlightened Women (NeW) is also not participating in the Day Without a Woman strike.

Karin Agness, founder and president of NeW, wrote in an op-ed for Forbes:

While organized under the banner of a broad Womens March to benefit all women, it is more accurately a progressive womens effort that excludes millions of women.

The Womens March movement is less about supporting all women and more about advocating for progressive policy positions on a wide variety of issues, from immigration to the environment. Pro-life women, for example, are not welcome. In January, the organizers of the Womens March revoked partnership with the New Wave Feminists because the group is pro-life.

Striking from the workplace and society on Wednesday wont advance women.

If participants in the Womens March are truly concerned about being behind in the workplace, they could take concrete actions that would immediately be more productive for women. Marchers could mentor junior female colleagues, giving career advice. They could ask to meet with a boss to discuss ways to take on more responsibility and in turn, earn more money. Or they could work an extra 30 minutes.

NeW will be using the hashtag #WorkingWoman on social media.

Read the original here:

#WeShowUp: Freedom-Minded Women Counter 'Far Left' Day Without a Woman Strike - Breitbart News

By David Decosimo By David Decosimo March 8 at 6:00 AM

David Decosimo teaches religion, ethics and politics at Boston University and is currently writing a book on freedom and domination in Christianity and Islam.

From his hateful tweets and provocative rhetoric to his new executive order banning Muslims and refugees all over again, President Trump is driven by the idea that Islam is a threat to what makes us American.

Trump has declared that Islam hates us. There is, he says, an unbelievable hatred. Stephen K. Bannon, one of his chief advisers, claims that we are in an outright war against Islam and doubts whether Muslims that are shariah-adherent can actually be part of a society where you have the rule of law and are a democratic republic. He believes Islam is much darker than Nazism and seems to agree with HUD Secretary Ben Carson that Islam is a religion of domination.

But Trump and his administration could learn a thing or two about American values such as freedom and equality from the religion and people they so hate.

In Islams founding story, after Muhammads death, it was unclear who would lead the nascent Muslim community. Typically, succession disputes make for great drama. This one, however, was more C-SPAN than Game of Thrones. Rather than intrigue or bloodshed, the believers pursued democracy. Only by the peoples consent, they reckoned, could a ruler justly be named and a community freely governed. They chose Abu Bakr, one of Muhammads companions. His inauguration speech, according to one of Muhammads earliest biographers Ibn Ishaq, was brief (though were not sure how big the crowd was). It went something like this: Im no better than any of you. Only obey me if I do right. Otherwise, resist me. Loyalty means speaking truth. Flattery is treason. No human, but God alone is your lord.

Abu Bakr sought to guard the people against domination by making himself accountable to them. The people obliged, securing their liberty. They could call him out at any time, and he had to listen. He even had to ask their permission for new clothes. His successor Umar carried the legacy forward. Publicly rebuked by a woman for overstepping the law, Umar responded: That woman is right, and I am wrong! It seems that all people have deeper wisdom and insight than me.

This spirit of accountability and liberty would become enshrined as a religious duty in Islam, though as with any tradition, these values are not always upheld. Nonetheless, every Muslim has the obligation to command right and forbid wrong, correcting and resisting any who betray justice, rulers included. That Abu Bakr and Umar are paradigms of good Islamic rule for well over 1 billion Sunni Muslims tells us something about this traditions love for freedom.

So does the 12th-century theologian al-Ghazali, one of Islams most beloved figures. In his most famous political work, an open letter to a young sultan, Ghazali famously defends a golden rule of liberty: The fundamental principle is treat people in a way in which, if you were subject and another were Sultan, you would deem right that you yourself be treated. Nothing a ruler would not himself endure has any place in politics. While sin against God can be forgiven, violation of this rule cannot: Anything involving injustice to mankind will not in any circumstance be overlooked at the resurrection. Ghazali tells rulers that on judgment day, not God but the people will determine their fate: The harshest torment will be for those who rule arbitrarily. He sounds striking similar to James Madison writing in Federalist 57, for whom rulers will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their exercise of power is reviewed, and they must descend to the level from which they were raised. Only in Ghazalis vision, the tyrant descends to hell.

Of course, like their Western counterparts, many Muslim regimes fail to honor this vision of liberty. But it is women and men like Malala Yousafzai, Humayun Khan and the hopeful youths who filled Tahrir Square who are faithful to the best of Islam, not the likes of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Saudi princes.

For Islam and the American founders alike, freedom is about protection from arbitrary power and rule by law, not the caprices of men. Theirs is a vision where citizens stand not in slavish deference to masters but on equal terms with all. This vision animates our whole system of governance. It was this vision Lincoln endorsed when he wrote, in words that echo Ghazali: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. And it was this vision Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk invoked when they each demanded that equality before the law be still further expanded so that it would eventually include not just straight white men but everyone.

This vision is under threat in a way it rarely has been in our history. It is not under threat by Islam, but by Donald Trump and his administration.

Trumps first Muslim ban was an act of brazen, unconstrained power and barely concealed animus. The second ban is more of the same. The blessing of the first was just how blatantly it betrayed our deepest values. The danger of the second is its attempt to conceal its dominating and bigoted aims. No serious observer thinks these bans make us any safer. Instead, they seek to circumvent rule of law, roll back libertys benefit and wage Bannons war with Islam. They give Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and other agents discretionary power to decide on a whim whether to sever families, deport refugees and detain Muslims. And they make Trump and his cronies unaccountable arbiters of who really loves the very American values the administration is busy betraying.

Trump wants to return America to its former greatness. But when it comes to freedom, Ghazaliand Abu Bakr have far more in common with Madison and Lincoln than with terrorists and tyrants who claim Islams mantle. For that matter, they have far more in common with this countrys great lovers of liberty than does the current president. So, instead of banning Muslims, Trump should listen to them: He might learn something about liberty and equality, two values he seems not to have learned to love from our own nations history or the Constitution he swore to uphold.

More:

Trump could learn a thing or two about freedom and democracy from Islam - Washington Post

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

A member of the House Freedom Caucus tells Breitbart News that is an official position of the House Freedom Caucus is against the earlier version of the billa leaked draftbut also formally for the full repeal bill and then a replacement bill from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). That position has not changed nor it is expected to at any point between now and if and when leadership attempts to ram this bill through the House, this member added. Also, for the House Freedom Caucus to take an official positionwhich again binds its members to vote a certain way in the House, meaning that as a bloc the Freedom Caucus is expected not to vote for this billit requires 80 percent of its membership to back the official position. That means, given that there are a few more than 40 members of the House Freedom Caucus, there are definitely well more than 30 members who voted internally to take that position in the Freedom Caucusand it appears as though the Freedom Caucus 40 plus members are completely united in support of this position.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

While technically the House Freedom Caucus has not yet taken an official position on this bill, the official position it has taken on healthcare in favor of real full repeal and then the Paul bill precludes members from voting for this billunless something changes down the road, which it is not expected to.

Our members are united in opposition, a House Freedom Caucus source told Breitbart News. If they brought it up for a vote today itd fail. Our group is united in the belief that this is the moment the freedom caucus exists for to block this monstrosity and protect the POTUS from walking into an electoral disaster in 2020 because of it.

Simply doing vote math, Republicans need 218 votes to pass any bill out of the House of Representatives. There are more than 40 members of the House Freedom Caucus. With only 237 Republicans comprising the majority in the House, and 193 Democrats with 5 vacancies, Republicans cannot afford to lose approximately 20 votes depending on those vacancies and absences. No Democrats are expected to vote for the bill.

If the vote fails, as it is expected to at this time, then Ryan will be in serious trouble in terms of his credibility. He has repeatedly publicly stated that he will be able to deliver 218 votes for this Obamacare 2.0 legislation, The American Health Care Act, at multiple press conferences over the past few days. Ryans bold promise to deliver the votes for this bill no matter what is a risky move, with at least more than 40 Republicans against it when he can only afford to lose less than 20, since twisting more than 20 arms is a tough thing to do on an issue this important. It remains to be seen what will happen next, but top conservatives are already calling on Ryan to withdraw Obamacare 2.0 and go in a different direction than this way before things get worse. A failure by Ryan would be especially embarrassing for Republicans, including to President Donald Trump.

Link:

Exclusive House Freedom Caucus Not Budging, Official Position Is for Full Repeal Alternative to Paul Ryan's ... - Breitbart News

Archbishop Ivan Jurkovi at the United Nations in Geneva - RV

(Vatican Radio) Archbishop Ivan Jurkovi spoke to a high-level side event on Tuesday at the UN entitled Mutual Respect and Peaceful Coexistence as a Condition of Interreligious Peace and Stability: Supporting Christians and Other Communities.

The Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations in Geneva called on participants to recognize religious freedom as a fundamental human right.

He said, Protection is one of the key elements surrounding any debate on religious freedom as a fundamental human right because it is intrinsic to the human person.

Archbishop Jurkovi said a possible way forward could be represented by the universal recognition of religious freedom as a fundamental human right for every person, in every country, and respected equally by everybody.

Please find below the full text of his address:

Opening Remarks by H.E. Archbishop Ivan Jurkovi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Genevaat the High-Level Side Event:Mutual Respect and Peaceful Coexistence as a Condition of Interreligious Peace andStability: Supporting Christians and Other Communities

7 March 2017

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Friends,

I am honored to take part in this High-Level discussion, among other distinguished panelists and, most especially with His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion, Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Despite so many efforts to promote and reinforce the fundamental human right of religious freedom, we are actually witnessing a continued deterioration, we might even say, an assault, of this inalienable right in many parts of the world. Religion has always been the subject of great consideration. This is evident in its regulation by domestic or international legal systems as well as in the mixed and even controversial interest elicited within the institutions of the international community. The choice of faith and the consequent belonging to a religion impact every level of life, the social and political spheres. They play a formidable role in addressing the challenges our societies go through on a daily basis. Today, moreover, religion has taken on a renewed importance due to the complex relationship between the personal choice of faith and its public expression. Due to such implications, the choice and practice of ones faith must be free of constraints and coercion.

While the situation of religious freedom in the world is rather shocking, especially when one acknowledges the unprecedented number of cases of violence against Christians and other religious communities, there remains a strong effort to keep the spotlight on human rights violators and the perpetrators of these abuses. These efforts represent the hope that the international community will react, that it has not lost its conscience, that it has not become too cynical or, in the words of Pope Francis, succumbed to a global indifference.

Over the last years, millions of people have been either displaced or forced to leave their ancestral lands. Those who stay in conflict zones or areas controlled by terrorist groups live under the permanent threat of human rights violations, repression and abuses. Numerous Christian churches and ancient shrines of all religions have been destroyed. The situation of Christians in the Middle East, a land on which they are living for centuries and have the right to remain, raises deep concerns. There are more and more reasons to fear seriously for the future of the Christian communities that have more than two thousand years of existence in this region, where Christianity has its full place, and began its long history. [1] Persecution against Christians today is actually worse than in the first centuries of the Church, and there are more Christian martyrs today than in that era. [2]

Protection is one of the key elements surrounding any debate on religious freedom as a fundamental human right because it is intrinsic to the human person. In fact, they also serve a strategic role in evaluating and ensuring the proper attention and guarantee granted by public authorities. This interpretation reflects the process of affirmation of human rights that has characterized the history of the last few centuries, placing the human person and his/her rights at the center of legal, political, cultural and religious actions. Indeed, religious freedom raises the question of the indivisibility of human rights, which has become a guiding principle and fundamental assumption of the international law of human rights.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right which reflects the highest dimension of human dignity, the ability to seek the truth and conform to it, recognizing a condition which is indispensable to the ability to deploy all of ones own potentiality. Religious freedom is not only that of private belief or worship. It is the liberty to live, both privately and publicly, according to the ethical principles resulting from religious principles. This is a great challenge in the globalized world, where weak convictions also lower the general ethical level and, in the name of a false concept of tolerance, those who defend their faith end up being persecuted.

Religious freedom certainly means the right to worship God, alone and in community, as our consciences dictate. But religious freedom by its nature, transcends places of worship and the private sphere of persons and families. Our various religious traditions serve society primarily by the message they proclaim. They call persons and communities to worship God, the source of all life, liberty and happiness. They remind us of the transcendent dimension of human existence and our irreducible freedom in the face of every claim to absolute power. Our rich religious traditions seek to offer meaning and direction, they have an enduring power to open new horizons, to stimulate thought, to expand the mind and heart. [3] They call to conversion, reconciliation, concern for the future of society, self-sacrifice in the service of the common good, and compassion for those in need. At the heart of their spiritual mission is the proclamation of the truth and dignity of the human person and human rights. In a world where various forms of modern tyranny seek to suppress religious freedom, or try to reduce it to a subculture without a right to a voice in the public square, or to use religion as a pretext for hatred and brutality, it is imperative that followers of the various religions join their voices in calling for peace, tolerance and respect for the dignity and rights of others.

The tendency towards globalization is good, it unites us, it can be noble. But if it pretends to make us all the same, it destroys the uniqueness of each people and each person. We live in a world subject to the globalization of the technocratic paradigm, [4] which consciously aims at a one-dimensional uniformity and seeks to eliminate all differences and traditions in a superficial quest for unity. Religions thus have the right and the duty to make clear that it is possible to build a society where a healthy pluralism which respects differences and values them as such [5] is a precious ally in the commitment to defending human dignity and a path to peace in our troubled world. [6]

Religious freedom, acknowledged in constitutions and laws and expressed in consistent conduct, promotes the development of relationships of mutual respect among the diverse confessions and their healthy collaboration with the State and political society, without confusion of roles and without antagonism. In place of the global clash of values, it thus becomes possible to start from a nucleus of universally shared values, of global cooperation in view of the common good. It is incomprehensible and alarming that still today discrimination and restrictions of human rights continue for the single fact that one belongs to and publicly professes an unwavering faith. It is unacceptable that real persecution is actually sustained for reasons of religious affiliation! This distorts reason, attacks peace and abuses human dignity.

In conclusion, If we intend to try to address incisively the many problematic issues and tragedies of our time, it is necessary to speak and act as brothers, in a way that all can easily recognize. This too is a way of confronting the globalization of indifference with the globalization of solidarity and fraternity. [7]

Looking at the whole scenario, a possible way forward could be represented by the universal recognition of religious freedom as a fundamental human right for every person, in every country, and respected equally by everybody. The failure to apply and defend this right on a universal level affects the implementation of all other human rights, as experience shows. Such a failure has precisely precipitated the overwhelming situation that we face in our world today. The challenge facing the international community, the Human Rights Council and States is a renewed commitment to what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. [8] Closing the gap between the ideal proposed by international instruments and the practice on the ground remains a daunting task, but there is no alternative other than to continue working in the direction of a more effective guarantee of religious freedom for all.

[1] Joint Statement Supporting the Human Rights of Christians and Other Communities, particularly in the Middle East 28thSession of the Human Rights Council, Geneva, 13 March 2015.

[2] Cfr., Pope Francis, Address to participants in the conference on International religious freedom and the global clash of values, June 2014.

[3] Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium,n.256.

[4] Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter, Laudato S, n.106.

[5] Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, n.255.

[6] Ibid., 257.

[7] Cfr., Pope Francis, Address to the participants in the Ecumenical Convention of Bishop-friends of the Focolare Movement, 7 November 2014.

[8] United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

Read the original here:

Holy See calls for respect of religious freedom - Vatican Radio