Watching China's persecution should cause us to protect religious freedom in the U.S.A.

George Weigel's incisive commentary in the Washington Post, on the secret pact between the Vatican and China makes the case for unwavering resolve in protecting religious freedom against the powers opposing it--in this case, the Communist Party of China. In the U.S., the opposing power frequently is a formidable coalition of abortion rights groups, corporation heads, LGBT activists, entertainment moguls and academics.

First Amendment to the Constitution also protects the free exercise of no religious beliefs

Quoted in a news report, Atheists bash DeVos' campus free-speech rules, the president of American Atheists displays a perilous ignorance of how the First Amendment protects their own beliefs, foolishly lambasting a new Department of Education campus free speech and religious exercise rule.

The rule simply requires public colleges and universities to provide religious student groups the same rights, benefits, and privileges that other student groups enjoy. Under the new rule that enforces the First Amendment, if several different student groups apply for access to meet in campus buildings—such as students with American Atheists, Black Lives Matter and Christian Medical Association--the public university cannot decide that only Black Lives Matter may enjoy the privilege because campus administrators disagree with atheists and Christians.

In guaranteeing the First Amendment free exercise of religious beliefs, the rule also guarantees the free exercise of no religious beliefs. Absent the First Amendment, the government decides which beliefs are allowed and which merit interrogation, imprisonment and violence.

Thankfully, we don't live in Communist China but in the free United States—free as long as we all protect each other's First Amendment freedoms.

Americans prefer a rational, respectful discussion of the issues

 

A USA Today commentary entitled, "Transgender scare tactics are back on the Republican agenda" unfortunately employs scare tactics and loaded language ("harmful, cruel, and just factually inaccurate") to mischaracterize in one broad stroke what are often sincerely held differences of persuasion on transgender issues.

For example, in a recent national survey, faith-oriented medical professionals note the importance of fact-based biology in treating patients while also affirming that they "care for all patients in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, or family makeup, with sensitivity and compassion."

These physicians simultaneously view transgendered individuals as possessing inestimable worth, while differing with their particular perspective regarding gender. Should we deny these physicians their right to follow their medical training and judgment regarding sexuality? Is it worth trampling their freedom of speech or faith to enforce a preferred pronoun?

Debates over controversial issues like transgenderism need not devolve into scare tactics by either side. Most Americans prefer a rational, respectful discussion of the issues and the freedom to pursue their own convictions.

New Dept. Ed rule: “Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education”

“Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.”  - Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Following up on the President's executive order safeguarding students’ First Amendment rights on college campuses and universities, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has announced a final rule to protect students of faith on public and private campuses nationwide.

As the White House explains, the rule contains four provisions to protect religious liberty and free speech:

1. Allows the U.S. Department of Education to withhold federal funding from public colleges and universities if a state or federal court finds they violated the First Amendment.  Allows the U.S. Department of Education to withhold federal funding from private colleges and universities if a state or federal court finds they violated their own stated institutional policies on freedom of speech, including academic freedom.
2. Requires public colleges and universities to provide religious student groups the same rights, benefits, and privileges that other student groups enjoy.  
3. Provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for religious schools to demonstrate that they are exempt from Title IX to the extent Title IX conflicts with the tenets of their faith. 
4. Clarifies religious schools cannot be denied federal funding due to their religious character with respect to grant programs under the Higher Education Act, such as the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program (DHSIP), the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program (SHBCU), the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program (SHBGI), and the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP).  

For more information:

Fact Sheet

Press release

Why should the nonreligious care about religious freedom?

 

The Vatican's Faustian secret compact with China and the scandalous silence of Pope Francis regarding the plight of several Catholics who by contrast courageously stand against the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party raises a fair question: If religious organizations kowtow to tyrants at the peril of religious freedom, why should the nonreligious even care?

We should all care about religious freedom because at its heart is our freedom to believe and behave according to our deepest held beliefs. Every one of us depends upon that freedom to live our lives according to our conscientious principles.

America's First Amendment by no accident pairs religious freedom with freedoms of speech, the press, assembly and petitioning the government. That's because once a government intrudes on any one of these freedoms, none of the other freedoms remains safe. Witness China.

The Chinese Communist Party's jackbooted stomping on freedoms of speech, assembly, the press and religion should give us pause before sanctioning any weakening of these freedoms in our own country—even when such suppression might advance our own convictions regarding abortion, marriage, gender issues or any other matter of belief and conscience.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."