Religion
Related: About this forumPresident Obama Protects Non-Believers from Religious Republicans
Freedom of religion isn't just about the right to practice religion. It's about the right to have your own views about religion including being agnostic and atheistic.
By Rmuse on Mon, Dec 26th
It is no stretch to claim that over the past few months there has been a dearth of good news for anyone but the uber-rich, evangelical zealots, and extreme racists. It is noteworthy that what little good news there has been was provided by, and courtesy of, Americas outgoing President Barack Obama. This past week, there were two items that were sparsely covered by the media and one, in particular, was not only incredibly good news, it was a historical action that provided constitutional protections to a segment of the population commonly and systematically demonized as un-American.
President Obama signed into law the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act that, among many other things, protects atheists, humanists, and other freethinkers around the world [including America] from religious persecution. What that means for American Secular Humanists, agnostics, atheists and other nonreligious persons is that they are now explicitly named as a class protected by an Act that was quietly and unceremoniously signed into law last week. The new law was an update, and a much-needed upgrade, to the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act that states:
The freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion.
Of particular note is the Acts explicit condemnation of any group or government entity that specifically targets non-theists, humanists, and atheists because of their beliefs as well as attempts to forcibly legislate or compel non-believers or non-theists to recant their beliefs or to convert.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/26/pen-stroke-president-obama-protects-non-believers-religious-republicans.html
hlthe2b
(102,200 posts)Amazing, but very glad to see it did.
HAB911
(8,876 posts)Shown Here:
Passed House amended (05/16/2016)
Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) to state in the congressional findings that the freedom of thought and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion.
hlthe2b
(102,200 posts)thanks for verifying
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,524 posts)Most of the critters wisely realized it would be bad to be on record as opposing any kind of thing with "religious freedom" in the title. It's a third-rail they could be politically bludgeoned with.
Rs do this all of the time with stuff like "The Patriot Act" "You're against the Patriot Act? What, you're not a patriot? (rabblerabble)"
I'm all for slapping titles like "The I Certainly Don't Believe Donald Trump Rapes Innocent Woodland Creatures In His Free Time Act" on a wildlife resolution.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)although we do have the 1st amendment, of course.
bucolic_frolic
(43,123 posts)Total NRA supporter, 0% ACLU
Yet he goes for free thinking ....
Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)The bill was strongly supported by the Family Research Council - so I'm guessing that, read in its entirety, it is not really supportive of free thinking.
(I have not reconciled the entire bill - to see what it extends & what it restricts - but I am suspicious from what I have read and based on the entity that supports it.)
Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)No act of Congress, alone, can "extend constitutional protections" to anyone.
The act is international - so the individuals it protects are those outside of the United States.
Because the bill was strongly supported by the Famly Research Council, calling it, "a nice Christmas gift,"I am suspicious that it is anything positive - but I haven't reconciled it with the act it is amending to absolutely confirm my suspicions.
HAB911
(8,876 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)that it is also associated by the American Humanist Organization.
The bill amends many separate laws - so reconciling it and understanding what it gives and what it takes away is not a quick task. But the strong support from the FRC makes me suspicious that there may be changes that are pretty horrendous.
keithbvadu2
(36,743 posts)Many of our Christians want our country run by Christian beliefs but there are many variations of Christian beliefs and they may be sorely disappointed if it is not their particular version of Christianity in charge.
Many Protestants/Catholics do not believe each other are true Christians.
Thav
(946 posts)We have a sect of prosperity christians here in town. The pastor demands the tax returns of his parishoners to verify they're giving their 10%. This guy also has body guards, for a town of 30,000 people. I'm not sure, but I'd bet that guy gets driven around in a nice car and has a nice house as well.
I wouldn't want those "christians" in charge.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Religious freaks of any sort are the scourge of the planet.
Organized religion has caused far too many problems throughout history.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Freethinker65
(10,009 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)It is a set of beliefs that one lives by and does not have to include a belief in a 'god'