Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HAB911

(8,876 posts)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:31 AM Dec 2016

President 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, America’s 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 Act’s 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

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
President Obama Protects Non-Believers from Religious Republicans (Original Post) HAB911 Dec 2016 OP
How did that ever make it through a REPUG-controlled Congress? hlthe2b Dec 2016 #1
I don't know, hope it isn't fake, trying to verify now........n/t HAB911 Dec 2016 #2
It's real HAB911 Dec 2016 #3
I will grab at any good news I can right now... hlthe2b Dec 2016 #4
Thanks for posting!!! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2016 #5
My guess is forgotmylogin Dec 2016 #8
Amen to that! Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #6
problem is that it's not clear to me that this will help non-believers in the US Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #7
Amazing bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #9
You might want to read the bill in its entirety & reconcile it with the laws it is amending. Ms. Toad Dec 2016 #11
That's a sgnificant misreading of a bill. Ms. Toad Dec 2016 #10
That is horrifying .....n/t HAB911 Dec 2016 #12
I also see, though, Ms. Toad Dec 2016 #14
Many of our Christians want our country run by Christian beliefs but... keithbvadu2 Dec 2016 #13
And they'd scream persecution as well. Thav Dec 2016 #16
What a shame that it's come to this.. to have to write a law.. vkkv Dec 2016 #15
Thank you, Prez O. Please keep fighting for us. rec, nt. Mc Mike Dec 2016 #17
K&R! hrmjustin Dec 2016 #18
Thanks Obama! Freethinker65 Dec 2016 #19
I have felt that religion was more than just a belief in a Supreme Being Angry Dragon Dec 2016 #20
Thank you Mr. President. nt awoke_in_2003 Dec 2016 #21

hlthe2b

(102,200 posts)
1. How did that ever make it through a REPUG-controlled Congress?
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:41 AM
Dec 2016

Amazing, but very glad to see it did.

HAB911

(8,876 posts)
3. It's real
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:52 AM
Dec 2016
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1150

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.

forgotmylogin

(7,524 posts)
8. My guess is
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:30 AM
Dec 2016

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)
7. problem is that it's not clear to me that this will help non-believers in the US
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:17 AM
Dec 2016

although we do have the 1st amendment, of course.

Ms. Toad

(34,059 posts)
11. You might want to read the bill in its entirety & reconcile it with the laws it is amending.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:00 AM
Dec 2016

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)
10. That's a sgnificant misreading of a bill.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:58 AM
Dec 2016

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.

Ms. Toad

(34,059 posts)
14. I also see, though,
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:07 AM
Dec 2016

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)
13. Many of our Christians want our country run by Christian beliefs but...
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:06 AM
Dec 2016

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)
16. And they'd scream persecution as well.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:19 PM
Dec 2016

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)
15. What a shame that it's come to this.. to have to write a law..
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:17 PM
Dec 2016

Religious freaks of any sort are the scourge of the planet.

Organized religion has caused far too many problems throughout history.





Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
20. I have felt that religion was more than just a belief in a Supreme Being
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 04:51 PM
Dec 2016

It is a set of beliefs that one lives by and does not have to include a belief in a 'god'

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»President Obama Protects ...