Next week Nonesuch Records will issue Freedom Highway, the second solo album from Rhiannon Giddens. NPR Musics First Listen series has made the entire 12 song LP available to stream in advance of its official release on February 24.

Giddens co-produced Freedom Highway with Dirk Powell and recorded the follow-up to 2015s Tomorrow Is My Turn at his studio in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana that has wooden rooms that predate the Civil War. The record takes its name from the classic song by The Staples Singers, one of two covers on the LP that also includes Birmingham Sunday. Giddens, who last year was awarded the Steve Martin Prize For Excellence In Banjo & Bluegrass, wrote or co-wrote the remaining album tracks.

The bulk of Freedom Highway was recorded over an eight day period with Giddens joined by members of her touring band, local musicians, a horn section and others. Giddens shared the following regarding the title track:

Stream Freedom Highway via NPR Musics First Listen below:

Read more here:

Rhiannon Giddens Shares New Album 'Freedom Highway' - JamBase

The United States recently slipped to its lowest level yet in world rankings of economic freedom compiled by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. As The Hill notes:

In the latest report, the U.S. ranks 17th out of 180 countries with an economic freedom score of 75.1 out of 100. Last year, the U.S. ranked number 11.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand topped the list, with respective scores of 89.8, 88.6, and 83.7. Other countries that placed ahead of the U.S. included Canada, Taiwan, and Britain, among others.

The Heritage report said countries with scores between 80-100 are considered economically free, while countries scores between 70-79.9 are considered mostly free.

The Index of Economic Freedom cited the substantial expansion in the size and scope of the U.S. government, increased regulatory, and tax burdens in many sectors, and large budget deficits and a high level of public debt. It also took into account changes around the globe in 2016 affecting Americas competitors.

The Heritage Foundation is not the only think tank to conclude that economic freedom has diminished in the United States over the last decade. The Fraser Institute and Cato Institute reached the same conclusion recently in their Economic Freedom of the World rankings, noting that the United States has seen its economic freedom score plummet in recent years, compared to 2000 when it ranked second globally. Freedom has also declined in non-economic terms in the U.S. in recent years: The Cato Institutes overall Human Freedom Index also shows a decline, with the U.S. falling to a rank of 23rd in 2016, as compared to 20th in 2015.

Shrinkingeconomic freedom is bad for your health. Communist and formerly communist countries like Russia tend to have shorter average life expectancies than free market-oriented countries. Thats true even when the capitalist countries have fewer natural resources, lower per capita incomes, and fewer doctors. In 1999, just before Marxist Hugo Chavez took power in Venezuela, life expectancy was three years longer in Venezuela than in Colombia (according to the World Almanac). But afteryears of socialist rule, life expectancy in Venezuela is nowa year shorter than in Colombia, even if you believe Venezuelas rosy official statistics. Venezuelas Marxist government denies widespread reports of malnutrition, even as The New York Times and other newspapers report children and detainees dying of starvation. As CNN notes, despite food shortages, Venezuela has denied food and humanitarian aid from groups like Amnesty International and the United Nations. Amnesty officials contest that the government doesn't want to accept aid because that would make the government look inadequate.

Life expectancy in the U.S. recently fell slightly, as economic freedom declined, and Obamacare went fully into effect in 2014. Obamacare does not appear to have improved health outcomes. As ABC News noted, American life expectancy is no better than it was four years ago, reversing a decades-long trend of rising life expectancy in the U.S. The Economic Policy Journal predicted in 2012 that life expectancy will decline under Obamacare. In 2009, the dean of Harvard Medical School, Jeffrey Flier, predicted that Obamacare would cost lives by harming life-saving medical innovation. In 2013, two doctorsargued inThe Wall Street Journal that Obamacare would be bad for your health.

The rest is here:

Economic Freedom in the US Fell Last Year Due to Rising Regulatory and Tax Burdens - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

The United States has slipped to its lowest level in world rankings of economic freedom, according an annual index released Wednesday by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

In the latestreport, the U.S. ranks 17th out of 180 countries with an economic freedom score of 75.1 out of 100. Last year, the U.S. ranked number 11.

Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand topped the list, with respective scores of 89.8, 88.6 and 83.7. Other countries that placed ahead of the U.S. included Canada, Taiwan and Britain, among others.

The Heritage report said countries with scores between 80-100 are considered economically free, while countries scores between 70-79.9 are considered mostly free.

Individuals in those countries saw incomes at more than double the average levels in other countries and more than five times higher than the incomes of people living in countries with repressed economies.

The conservative political think tanks report claims the substantial expansion in the size and scope of the U.S. government, increased regulatory and tax burdens in many sectors, and the loss of trust and confidence that has accompanied a growing perception of "cronyism" has severely undermined Americas globalcompetitiveness.

Heritage said a low score could mean less take home pay for Americans, more difficulties for entrepreneurs and greater uncertainty for businesses.

Still, the 2017 index found that 103 countries the majority of which are less developed or emerging economies showed advancements in economic freedom over the past year, with 49 countries achieving their highest economic freedom scores ever, including China and Russia.

But the report said 4.5 billion people 65 percent of the worlds population are still suffering from lack of economic freedom.

More than half of these people live in just two countries, China and India, where advancement toward greater economic freedom has been both limited and uneven, the report says.

In the two most populous economies, structural reforms in a few key sectors have sometimes boosted growth, but the governments have failed to institutionalize open environments that promote broad-based and sustainable improvements in the economic well-being of the population as a whole.

Here is the original post:

US falls in economic freedom index - The Hill

Wednesday February 15 2017 Advertisement By MAUREEN KAKAH More by this Author

Doctors' union officials jailed on Monday walked to freedom on Wednesday.

This was after lawyers for the Council of Governors and the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union (KMPDU) agreed to have the medics released immediately to carry on with talks.

The released officials are KMPDU Chairman Samuel Oroko and Secretary-General Ouma Oluga. Others are Daisy Korir, Evelyne Chege, Allan Ochanji, Mwachonda Chibandzi and Titus Ondoro.

They had been locked up at Industrial Area and Lang'ata prisons in Nairobi for contempt after they called a national strike that entered its 73rd day today against labour court orders.

Negotiations aimed at ending the two-month doctors' job boycott will be jump-started on Thursday morning, the two parties agreed before the Court of Appeal.

They are expected to craft a return-to-work formula that will be presented in court on February 23, meaning doctors may have to give up the 2013 collective bargaining agreement they have been pushing their employer to effect.

The parties agreed to restart talks before a three-judge bench of Jamila Mohamed, Wanjiru Karanja and Hannah Okwengu in Nairobi on Wednesday.

The Council of Governors, through lawyer Eunice Lumallas, told the judges that they have reached the consent out of goodwill.

The bench approved and recorded the consent.

The court also allowed the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to join the case and mandated it to lead the talks together with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).

Here is a summary of the lawyers consent as presented to court:

1. Doctors' union chiefs to be released with immediate effect to continue with negotiations that will last seven days.

2. They will come to court with a comprehensive report on February 23 with a view to calling off the strike

3. LSK and KNCHR to lead the talks.

4.Matter to mentioned on February 23.

Cord leader Raila Odinga, who attended the session, said it was a shame for the government to have the union officials jailed.

He called on Kenyans to pick leaders who uphold human rights.

Doctors across the country burst into celebrations after the officials were released.

They had vowed to stay put and paralyse talks to break the stalemate until their colleagues, also known as the CBA 7, were set free.

The release of the doctors came as Health Cabinet Secretary Cleopa Mailu and his PS Nicholas Muraguri clashed before the Senate Health committee on failed mediation talks to end the strike.

PS apologises to Cabinet secretary before House team.

The Nairobi Hospital and Mater among facilities that heeded KMA call.

Read more:

Jailed doctors walk to freedom - Daily Nation

Much blood has been shed during human history in the name of religion. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) knew this all too well. Here are Jefferson's very words: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned" ("Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII," 1781-1782). It is useful to recount a few such incidents which occurred during periods prior to Jefferson, some of which he may very well have had in mind. John Hus (1369-1415) was a Czech Priest, but he had been critical of the Church, especially the perceived moral failings of some of the Church's clerics. In addition, his views on Holy Communion were different from the established doctrines of the Church. And he was candid about being displeased with the Church's use of Indulgences. For such things, John Hus was summoned to appear before the Council of Constance (in 1415). Emperor Sigismund had given Hus a guarantee of safe conduct for the Council. But at the Council, he was condemned and then summarily burned at the stake.

But there is more. At this same Council, the views of the English Churchman and Oxford teacher John Wycliffe (ca. 1320-1384) were also condemned. Wycliffe was deceased, though, having died peacefully around thirty years before the Council of Constance. But he had been buried in a Church Cemetery, so the Council decreed that Wycliffe's body should be exhumed. And in time his remains were exhumed (in 1428), and then callously thrown into the Swift River. Or again, the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) is famous for offering sanctuary to the Spanish physician and theologian Michael Servetus (1511-1553) because Servetus was fleeing from the Roman Catholic Inquisition. But after the arrival of Servetus in Geneva, John Calvin soon had him burned at the stake, because Calvin was displeased that Servetus did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, on a much larger scale, the European Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was a bloodbath anchored in religious garb, leaving in its wake some eight million dead. It is not surprising, therefore, that Thomas Jefferson wished for freedom of religion to be the law of the land in the United States.

*********************************************************************************

Thomas Jefferson was the first Secretary of State of the United States, the second Vice President of the United States, and the third President of the United States (1801-1809). Of course, he was particularly proud of the Declaration of Independence (1776). For this reason, at Jefferson's Monticello (just outside of Charlottesville, Virginia), the following words are chiseled deeply into an obelisk as the opening of his epitaph: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence." The words of the Declaration are powerful, moving. Jefferson was so very justified in the pride that he felt as its author.

But that is not the conclusion of his epitaph. Here are the words that immediately follow: Author of "the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom." This document was drafted the year after the Declaration of Independence (i.e., in 1777). It is a particularly powerful, moving document as well. Here are some of the most poignant and direct words from that foundational document: "Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." Obviously, Thomas Jefferson believed that someone's religious beliefs were a matter of conscience, and he believed that coercion should never be part of the equation.

Jefferson fleshed out his views about religious freedom in even more concrete form just four or five years later. Here are some of his most candid statements: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" ("Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII," dating to 1781-1782). I have long marveled at those two sentences. After all, with those words, Jefferson proclaims that polytheism and atheism, and everything in between, are all acceptable positions for the citizens of Virginia. For Thomas Jefferson, religion is a matter of conscience and so long as it is not "injurious to others" (a phrase he uses in the same context), religion is not something with which the government should be concerned.

The Constitution of the United States was penned some five years later, and the First Amendment to the Constitution has language that embraces Jefferson's stance on the freedom of religion. Here are those immortal words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (1787). Later, after being elected to the Presidency of the United States, during Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address (on March 4, 1801), he uttered these potent words: "It is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration." Then, within the list of essential principles are the words "freedom of religion." Similarly, in Jefferson's discussions of the University of Virginia (which he founded, which is the third notation of his epitaph), he notes that the Constitution of the United States "places all sects of religion on an equal footing" (August 4, 1818).

It will come as no surprise that Thomas Jefferson was criticized in his own day for his views of religion, including his belief in the freedom of religion. For example, at one point a certain Mrs. Samuel H. Smith wrote a letter to him about such matters. She was someone whom he knew from societal events in Washington as well as from a prior visit of hers to Monticello. From Jefferson's letter of response to her (sent from Monticello, and dated August 6, 1816), it is apparent that she had heard something about Jefferson's views of religion that disturbed her and she seems to have suggested in her letter that his later views are different from his earlier views. Jefferson's letter of reply is warm, but he seems to bristle slightly at times in his response. He tells her that there have been no changes. Then he writes: "the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wished him [i.e., Jefferson] to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations." He goes on to state that "I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him...I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another." And then he states that "I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives....For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read."

For President Thomas Jefferson, therefore, freedom of religion means freedom for all religions, not just his, not just mine, not just yours, but all religions. And Jefferson believed that polytheism, monotheism, and atheism should all be placed on equal footing in the eyes of the government. None of these is to be privileged by the government and none is to be penalized by the government. All are to be equally acceptable in the eyes of the law. Finally, and of paramount importance, Jefferson believed that the measure that is to be used for all of us is our lives, not our words. Ultimately, at the end of the day, "the Sage of Monticello" still has much to teach us.

This Blogger's Books and Other Items from...

The Gospels According to Michael Goulder: A North American Response

by Christopher A. Rollston

Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

by Christopher A. Rollston

See original here:

Freedom Of Religion According To Thomas Jefferson - Huffington Post

NEW YORK US President Donald Trumps administration has shocked the mainstream press by bullying news outlets and unabashedly trafficking in alternative facts (also known as lies). But Trumps challenge to the media status quo may not be an entirely bad thing: journalists now have an opportunity to root out the bad habits associated with cozying up to those in power.

Trumps chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, drew gasps recently when he told the New York Times that the news media represent the opposition party. Bannon may have wanted to disorient his interlocutors, but he also inadvertently reminded them of the adversarial role they are meant to play. In a healthy democracy, the press helps citizens hold the government accountable, by vigorously interrogating official policies and behavior.

Unfortunately, it has been decades since America had that kind of news media. Instead, the press has allowed multiple presidential administrations to spoon-feed it information. News organizations in the United States have prioritized access to the corridors of power above all else, even when access is conditioned on avoiding uncomfortable questions or accepting evasive answers.

When access journalism leads senior editorial decision-makers to identify with political elites, explaining the governments thinking to the public becomes their primary purpose. Combine that with cuts to news budgets, and political coverage becomes a mere endless cycle of sound bites from politicians and their surrogates not unlike a dedicated sports channel covering a football season.

Even the more meticulously factual media outlets have, in recent decades, confined their coverage to a narrow range of topics that tend to confirm the political establishments self-serving narratives. Because they had exposed themselves only to elite perspectives, members of the mainstream media were initially blindsided by the fact that many Americans who had previously voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 either stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016.

But no calamity better captures the dangers of a press corps too beholden to power than the invasion of Iraq, a cataclysmic blunder whose ghastly knock-on effects afflict the Middle East, as well as Europe, to this day. In the lead-up to the invasion, George W. Bushs administration assiduously courted journalists at mainstream liberal and conservative news outlets, who then helped it win public support by disseminating what turned out to be false claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

In the US, the only mainstream media organization that ran consistently skeptical articles about the case for war was the Knight Ridder group (which has since been acquired by McClatchy). As reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay later explained, their middle-tier news service was not granted top-level access, so they had to rely on sources from inside the intelligence community, who forthrightly pointed out the flaws in the Bush administrations claims. Journalistic truth telling thrives when there is no need to nurture access.

The Trump administration is already shutting the door on some media mainstays, with CNN the most prominent example. Trumps media handlers may be hoping that they can demand compliance as a condition for renewing access. But this should liberate shunned media outlets. Having lost direct access to senior officials, they can now focus strictly on holding the administration to account.

To take this high road, media outlets will need to rethink longstanding editorial models. Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler, for his part, recently called on his peers to cover the Trump administration no differently than they would an authoritarian government abroad. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access, Adler wrote in a letter to the Reuters staff. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.

Trump hopes to control the national conversation; and he need not worry that his mendacity will alienate his supporters, because they already believe that the liberal media detest them and the president they elected. But, while we should commend the New York Times for describing the administrations palpably false statements as lies, we should also draw attention to important unlearned lessons of the Times abysmal record in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Taking the Bush administration at its word about WMD, for which the Times later apologized, was only part of the medias failure in that debacle. News outlets not only allowed the administration to marshal questionable facts to justify the invasion; they also permitted officials to attach undue significance to those facts, with no questions asked.

It is worth remembering that Germany and France concurred with the Bush administrations factual claims about Iraqi weapons, but vigorously opposed the invasion, because they believed that the consequences would pose a larger threat than Saddam Hussein ever could. They have since been vindicated. Even if US forces had found stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, history would not judge the war any less harshly.

Bannons opposition remark should serve as a reminder of this recent history. To defend American democracy against the threat of authoritarian populism, media outlets must not stop at vigorously challenging Trumps alternative facts. They must tell a different story, based on observations, investigations, and critical assessments of claims made by both Republicans and Democrats in power.

The real story, as 2016 showed, is often playing out in places to which the media is paying no attention. Adler instructed his staff to, Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Journalists should not fear being on the wrong side of power. On the contrary, that is exactly where they belong.

Get to grips with President Trump; Project Syndicate has published more than 100 articles exploring the implications of his presidency for politics, the economy, and world peace and security. They are all here:

Read more from the original source:

Trump and the Rebirth of Press Freedom - Project Syndicate

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

JUAN GONZLEZ: We turn now to look at President Donald Trumps newly appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, who has begun to attack net neutrality rules and other consumer protections. In a series of actions earlier this month, Pai blocked nine companies from providing affordable high-speed internet to low-income families. He withdrew the FCCs support from an effort to curb the exorbitant cost of phone calls from prison. And he also said he disagrees with the 2015 decision to regulate the internet like a public utility.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, were going to Los Angeles, where well speak with Jessica Gonzlez, deputy director, senior counsel at Free Press. Gonzlez was formerly on the FCCs Open Internet Advisory Committee and Diversity Committee. Shes also the former executive vice president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Jessica Gonzlez, welcome to Democracy Now!

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance of the elevation of Ajit Pai to be the head of the FCC, and the decisions and the stands that he takes.

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Well, Ajit Pai is Trumps new FCC chairman, and it should come as a surprise to no one that he poses a significant threat, not only to net neutrality, but also to the digital divide. In his first weekshis first week in office, he talked a good game about bridging the digital divide. But actions speak louder than words. And if you look at his actions, theres a very, very troubling history of voting against reforms to both bring affordable access to poor Americans, to low-income Americans, to people of color, who disproportionately lack home internet access, but theres also a troubling history of voting against net neutrality. He voted against the Lifeline order, to modernize Lifeline and bring affordable broadband to low-income families. He voted against the E-rate order, to help bring high-speed internet to schools and libraries in poor neighborhoods. And he voted against net neutrality, to keep the internet open so that people who dont usually get a spot in mainstream media can tell their own stories, can organize for justice and can make a living. And so, were very concerned. We have a close eye on him. And we cant trust what he says. And actions speak louder than words.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, Jessica, in a 2015 interview with Reason TV, Ajit Pai suggested that any federal regulation of the internet is harmful. This is what he said.

COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI: Do you trust the federal government to make the internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is today? Can you think of any regulated utility, like the electric company or water company, that is as innovative as the internet? I mean, I think what he, what Marc Andreessen, who developed, of course, the first Netscape browserwhat he and other entrepreneurs are seeing is that this is something that has worked really well, and theres no reason for the FCC to mess it up by inserting itself into areas where it hasnt been before.

JUAN GONZLEZ: So what about this issue of his view on the internet? And remember, it took the Obama administration several years, only the last couple of years of Obamas presidency, before they finally took a clear stand that the internet was a public utility, and even under Wheeler, who no one expected, as the chair of the FCC, a former telecommunications guy, that it would pass, it would take that stand. It has now. What would it mean if Pai got the FCC to vote to rescind that?

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Well, it would be very dangerous. Look, were in an administration that is trying to shut down speech. We have a president and his surrogates telling the media to shut up. Theyre trying to silence dissent. And the internet is the one clear way where we know that people, movements can control the narrative and can organize. Four million Americans wrote to the FCC in 2015 and told them, "We want an open internet. We understand that the internet companies have monopoly-like status, that they are blockingyou know, that they have the power and the incentive to block access and to cut special deals behind our backs. And we dont want that. We want to be ableonce we pay the hefty prices we do to get on the internet, we want to be able to go where we want, see what we want, and access the content we want, without getting shoved over into a slow lane if you dont have the money." And so, its incredibly vital, now more than ever, that we protect an open internet and that this administration heed the millions and millions of regular people, thatyou know, I think we cannot trust Ajit Pai. Hes a former Verizon lobbyist. Hes, you know, walking in the footsteps of Trump. And we need to be very, very, very careful.

JUAN GONZLEZ: I wanted to ask you about the troubling role of a lot of the civil rights organizations on this issue, the NAACP and others and this minority media telecommunications organization. Could you talk about the disappointing role that some of these organizations have played in this debate?

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Sure. Well, theres a few organizations that represent people of color that have come out on the wrong side of this issue. Its troubling, but, frankly, if you look at the grassroots, the vast majority of people of color understand this. We understand that we do not like the way we have been represented in mainstream media. Were portrayed as criminals. Were portrayed as people who pose a danger to the society. We understand that the internet has played a democratizing force in making sure that our voices are heard, in making sure that weve been able to organize and in making sure that we can really, you know, tap into the networks that we need to tap into to change the narrative in this country for the better of lots of different issuesfor the water protectors, for immigrant rights activists, for Black Lives Matter. And we see the way that movements have utilized the internet to change the way society perceives us. And so, these groupstheres a few of themtheyre on the wrong side of the issue, and its very troubling. But, you know, they dont represent most people of color on this.

AMY GOODMAN: I want toI want to ask you about Ajit Pais position on the FCCs attempts to prevent prison phone monopolies from dramatically overcharging families for phone calls to prisoners.

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Sure. Well, this is yet another example of where he talks the talk, but he walks in the other direction. Hein both 2013 and 2015, the FCC looked at the issue of exorbitant prison phone rates. Some families of inmates and detainees are paying up to $17 for a 15-minute call. Its outrageous. The prisons are getting kickbacks from prison phone companies to charge these exorbitant rates. And its a real abuse of power. Ajit Pai actually acknowledged that this was unjust and that the interests of inmates families may not necessarily align with the prison phone companies. Yet he went ahead and voted against two different orders to help regulate the rates and the fees that are charged by these companies. And so, he talks the talk, but he doesnt walk the walk. In fact, he filed a 20-page dissent in 2013 that mirrored some of the company talking points. And so, we have to really hold him accountable on this. He does not have the best interests of communities of color and poor people at heart. And we need to hold his feet to the fire.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And finally, I wanted to ask you, you wereyou were a member of the FCCs Open Internet Advisory Committee and Diversity Committee. Have those been dissolved? Or whats happened? Because I understand you havent been called to any meetings in quite a while.

JESSICA GONZLEZ: Its been a couple years since Ive heard anything about those. They used to be active, few years back. Wed meet on a semiregular basis. I dont think Ive received an official word on whether or not they exist anymore, but I certainly havent been invited to any meetings in the past couple of years.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jessica Gonzlez, we want to thank you for being with us, deputy director, senior counsel at Free Press, formerly with the FCCs Open Internet Advisory Committee and Diversity Committee.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, two leading immigrants rights activists here in New York in the face of the attempted imposition of the Muslim travel ban, but also the raids that have been taking place across the country. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "El Hielo/ICE," by La Santa Cecilia, performing at our Democracy Now! studio. To see the full interview and their performance, go to democracynow.org. Yes, this is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

Follow this link:

FCC Under Trump: Net Neutrality & Internet Freedom Face New Attack - Democracy Now!

The Seasteading Institute has a grand vision of a libertarian wonderland; Kim described it as a floating city where "there will be no welfare, no minimum wage, looser building codes and little restrictions on weapons (better for defending against pirates, we assume)." In January they signed an agreement with the French Polynesian government "to cooperate on creating legal framework to allow for the development of The Floating Island Project. The legislation will give the Floating Island Project its own special governing framework creating an innovative special economic zone.

And no, we are not talking about meringue and custard. This is a city floating in its own "Special Economic SeaZone". We now know what it might look like; The Seasteading institute held a design competition that resulted in a tie for first place.

The whole idea is silly, but there are some very interesting ideas in the competition entries that are worth a look. They have big beautiful renderings, so we are using the slideshow format.

Here is the original post:

Fabulous floating cities promise freedom - Treehugger

In a surprise action on Feb. 9, Puerto Rican political prisoner Oscar Lpez Rivera returned to his homeland, Puerto Rico, after the second Obama Administration commuted his sentence in its last days in mid-January. But what so many people longed for to greet him with hugs, Puerto Rican flags and slogans of national freedom, to make him aware of their love and gratitude was impeded by the cruel, vengeful orders of the U.S. Empire.

Lpez Rivera arrived at the San Juan Airport accompanied by his daughter Clarisa Lpez, his brother Jos Lpez, his lawyer Jan Susler and elected officials: the mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yuln Cruz; the president of the City Council of New York, Melisa Viverito; and Congressperson Luis Gutierrez, Democratic Party representative for Chicago.

The people gathered to meet Oscar at the terminal where he would arrive were astonished by the speed of events and the absolute impossibility of greeting him. The officials accompanying Oscar on his trip from North Carolina, where he had been transferred from Terre Haute Prison in Indiana, walked quickly around him, trying to keep him hidden. They even put a cap on his head in an attempt to cover his face.

Despite those accompanying Oscar trying to cover the television lens, this writer was able to see through the cameras a part of his walk through the airport halls. These glimpses of Oscars face aroused immense joy as well as great indignation, feelings shared by many people judging by the many comments on social media.

Interviewed by the media about Oscars arrival, Puerto Rican hero and former political prisoner Rafael Cancel Miranda told how important it was to him to be greeted by thousands of Puerto Ricans at the airport in 1979. Thats when he arrived in PR with Lolita Lebrn, Irving Flores and Andrs Collazo after being pardoned by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. He spoke of the extraordinary joy euphoria even he felt to see thousands of people gathered, carrying Puerto Rican flags, when he reached Borinquen soil after 26 years in Yankee dungeons.

Oscar was deprived of this welcome. His lawyer Jan Susler said, He is under strict supervision. He is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. If he wants to be in Puerto Rico, he has to be confined to his home. He has to meet the conditions the most important, apart from complying with the law, is that he maintain a very low profile. (elnuevodia.com, Feb. 9)

Low profile includes house arrest at the home of his daughter Clarisa, which he can leave only for medical appointments and to go to the Bureau of Prisons. He cannot talk to people with a prison record, be in any public hearing or be interviewed by the media. In addition, he must wear an electronic shackle until May 17, when he will finally finish his sentence after being a prisoner for 36 years.

Political context

Within the parameters of the U.S. legal justice system, there is no reason why his commutation could not have included Oscars immediate release. Not only is his continued control an open cruelty, it is a highly political act, preventing Oscar from being an active and cohesive element in the struggle for Puerto Rican independence.

The struggle for Oscars freedom has been endorsed by the most diverse Puerto Rican forces, from the current pro-statehood Governor Ricardo Rosell to pro-independence and socialist tendencies, along with religious communities of all beliefs and all social movements in between. Oscar is the symbol of the united will of a people to fight for what it considers just. That was also the way it was with the victorious struggle to remove the U.S. Navy from the Puerto Rican island of Vieques.

Now is a critical time for the Boriquen archipelago, where dangerous events are taking place. The first is the imposition of an overwhelming and dictatorial Fiscal Control Board (JCF) that seeks to bleed the working class to pay Wall Streets bondholders. Among these bondholders is the vulture-funds firm of the now infamous John Paulson, one of the top advisers to President Donald Trump.

In addition, another administration has been established harmful to the Puerto Rican working class that of Gov. Rosell, who imposes reforms to please the JCF while making Puerto Rican workers lives precarious. On top of all this, there is another proposal for a futile status plebiscite to be held on June 11.

Never before has the struggle for true Puerto Rican sovereignty been so crucial. We are reaching a crossroads at this terminal phase of capitalism a phase that seeks profits at the cost of the very life of the working class by eliminating all the achievements obtained through decades of struggle.

See the original post here:

Oscar Lpez's bittersweet freedom - Workers World

Story highlights

"There's no reason we shouldn't be able to pass this ASAP -- there's also no reason we should send anything less to President Trump's desk than we did Obama's," one GOP source familiar with the vote told CNN. "No need to reinvent the wheel."

The vote by Freedom Caucus members Monday night, confirmed to CNN by an aide, to press ahead on the repeal plan crystalized the frustration building up among conservative lawmakers unhappy with the delay in repealing Obamacare.

The development also sets up a potential political clash between the conservative wing of the party and its more moderate members, who are wary of the backlash that could come from swift and wholesale repeal of the health care law.

Since President Donald Trump's inauguration, many congressional Republicans have asked party leaders to slow down the repeal efforts to ensure that a consensus is reached on an Obamacare alternative.

Republicans have previously used the budget reconciliation process to repeal major portions of Obamacare (in 2015, it was vetoed by President Barack Obama).

Conservative House Republicans have become more vocal in recent days in pressing GOP leaders to move that same 2015 repeal bill rather than taking more time to craft a new version.

Read more:

House Freedom Caucus seeks swift Obamacare repeal - CNN

WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. has made significant strides in promoting religious freedom abroad in the last two years, says the outgoing U.S. religious freedom ambassador.

One success of his tenure at the State Department was the work that were quietly doing day in and day out on behalf of prisoners of conscience, the former Ambassador at-Large for International Religious Freedom Rabbi David Saperstein insisted at a panel discussion on religious freedom, held Thursday in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Religion News Foundation.

These prisoners of conscience might be religious leaders, political dissidents or human rights activists jailed because of their public beliefs and advocacy. The State Department helps obtain security or legal support for these people, or helps them leave their country, Saperstein said.

Their lawyers and defendants have credited the United States advocacy with the release of their clients from prison, he noted.

Rabbi Saperstein, who led the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism before his time at State, was confirmed by the Senate as the State Departments Ambassador at-Large for International Religious Freedom in December of 2014, filling a 14 month-long vacancy in the position.

The ambassador is charged with promoting religious freedom as part of U.S. foreign policy, reporting on human rights abuses, and holding foreign actors accountable for how they treat religious minorities.

The office was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which also mandated the State Department publish an annual global report on religious freedom.

In March of 2016, during Rabbi Sapersteins tenure as ambassador, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the Islamic State also known as Daesh, ISIS, and ISIL was committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria.

The genocide declaration was hailed as a key act in the resettlement of the persecuted minorities in the region, one that could help them obtain needed humanitarian aid, priority resettlement status, and a safe return home if they chose to do so. It came almost two years after ISIS swept across Northern Iraq, killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of ethnic and religious minorities that inhabited the region.

Advocates had insisted for months that the U.S. declare genocide had taken place. According to reports, the agency originally planned to declare that only Yazidis in Northern Iraq were genocide victims, based off of a Holocaust Museum fact-finding mission in the region that focused only on atrocities committed on the Nineveh Plain during the summer of 2014.

However, after a request by Ambassador Saperstein, the Knights of Columbus and the advocacy group In Defense of Christians published an almost 300-page report from a fact-finding mission to Iraq, documenting atrocities committed by ISIS against Christians and other minorities, and featuring interviews with genocide survivors and legal documents,Secretary Kerry issued the genocide declaration. In an interview with CNA, Saperstein revealed that the declaration came about at Kerrys insistence.

That genocide finding took place because the Secretary wanted it, Saperstein said. He demanded far more information than had been available when he began this process, when there clearly wasnt enough information available to make a finding.

Saperstein noted that the situation in Iraq and Syria differed from previous instances where the U.S. declared genocide, like in Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia.

Here, most people fled before ISIL came in and the ones left under ISIL control were not available to people. Just now in Mosul, were just learning about the extent of the brutality of what was going on under ISILs control, he explained. So we didnt have the same information available.

Former Secretary Kerry really deserves the credit for this finding, he continued, noting that the U.S. had already been acting as if there was such a finding by intervening to send supplies to Yazidis cut off from food and water on Mt. Sinjar in August of 2014, and establishing a military coalition to counter the Islamic State.

The global state of religious freedom is still dire, he insisted, noting that three-fourths of the worlds population still lives in countries like China, India, and Pakistan where freedom of religion is significantly restricted.

In these countries religious communities, particularly religious minorities, still face significant threats from social hostilities, from other religious groups, or repressive actions of the government in controlling what they can say or how they can worship or what they can do as part of their religious communities, he said, giving examples of anti-blasphemy laws, onerous registration requirements for minority religions, and laws prohibiting conversion.

An increase in its budget and staff has boosted the offices efforts, Saperstein noted. In his two years as ambassador, he said the offices budget doubled, its programmatic money quintupled, and its staff doubled in size.

The Office on Religion and Global Affairs also has done key work in studying the role of religion in all areas of life from public policy to economics to conflict resolution, he said.

You ended up with a situation at the end of this administration where there were some 50 people working day in and day out on nothing other than religious issues in the United States government, he said. Its probably more dedicated staff just to that issue than all the governments of the world put together on international religious freedom.

Thats quite a vote of confidence as to the importance of religious issues in the United States, he added, noting that across the globemany of the cardinals and bishops that I met with were very encouraged by this.

And the State Department has crafted an international coalition to help genocide victims resettle in their homes, stay where they currently are like in Iraqi Kurdistan, or move elsewhere, he said. The UN is playing a key role in achieving that with significant American support.

The coalition is dealing with issues like security measures for genocide victims to live peacefully, economic development in the region, empowering them to have a role in rebuilding Iraq, preserving their cultures, and punishing the perpetrators of genocide.

Excerpt from:

Outgoing ambassador sees major strides in religious freedom - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Attorneys representing the administration ofPresident Donald Trump already have their hands fullespecially after the Ninth Circuit on Thursday unanimously rejectedthe Justice Departments request to reinstate the Muslim Ban. But that isnt the only legal challenge looming for DOJ attorneys tasked with defending the presidents sweeping order.

The American Civil Liberties Unionon Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit contending that the presidents executive order violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendments prohibition of a government establishment of religion.RDspoke with ACLU senior staff attorney Heather Weaver to better understandwhat makes this lawsuit different from the others already challenging the policy.

Weaver says the executive orders targeting of Muslims is so blatant that its nearly unprecedented. While the textneitherincludes Trumps pet phrase, radical Islamic terrorism, northe words Islam or Muslim, it doesnt have to. The administration constructed the terms of the executive order to disproportionately impact Muslim immigrants and refugees, Weaver explains.

The executive order is religiously gerrymandered to target Muslims, shesays. It most directly harms Muslim-Americans who were born or have family in any of the seven nations from which U.S. entry is now prohibited under the presidents order. Most of theindividual plaintiffs fall into this category, while others are naturalized American citizens or permanent residents who had permission to travel or approved family visas from one of the seven countries targeted. The actual harm facing these plaintiffs is particularly acute,the ACLUs suit contends.

In policy and practice,the executive order essentially conditions immigration decisions and benefits on an immigrants faith, Weaver explains.Its limiting [rights available to Muslim Americans and immigrants]because of their faith, and we would say that that is a burden on their faith, she says. Because essentially what it boils down to is: its pressuring them to abandon their faith so that they may obtain the benefits that theyre seeking.

Whether its refugee status, or a green card, or some sort of other adjustment to their status, the order limits the relief an individual or family can access based on their religion, Weaver says. Thats what the burden is here, and of course under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, if youre going to impose that type of burden on somebodys religious exercise, you have to have a compelling reason to do it, and it has to bethe least restrictive means. Thats a very high standard for the government to meet, as weve seen in some cases. And I think the government hasnt met that standard here, and I dont think they can meet that standard.

The ACLUs complaint methodically documents the historical context leading up to the orders implementation, including the numerous times then-candidate Trump stated his desireto ban Muslims from entering the U.S., and his recent on-camera admission that the order was intended to privilege Christians.

The federal government is essentially sending a message, not only that Islam and Muslims are disfavored, but its suggesting that theyre evil, or wish to do others harm, says Weaver.So whatever the message that the executive order conveys is, that is informed by everything that has led up to that executive order.

But thats not the only religious freedom complaint advanced in the suit, filed February 7th in U.S. District Courtof Maryland. Among the plaintiffs aretwo faith-based organizations that work to resettle and supportrefugees, allowing these plaintiffs toclaim a unique injury: that the order substantially burdens the free religious exercise of these U.S.-based nonprofits, which consider the work they do an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and Jewish international refugee resettlement organization (HIAS) both contend that the executive order prevents them from living out their faith on several frontsa pointed, if indirect, rebuke to the administrations purported advocacy of religious freedom for all.

The order betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of religious freedom as it functions in American society, Weaver says. She points to the multilayered irony that during the campaign Vice President Mike Pence condemned Trumps proposed ban on Muslims, and has his own reputation of using religious freedomas an excusefor state-sanctioned anti-LGBT discrimination.

According tothe ACLU, religious freedom does not include the ability to harm others, says Weaver.And thats an important line to draw in this sand, and I think that thats a boundary thats been missing from Vice President Pences understanding of religious liberty. Its religious freedom for me but not for thee.'

Weaver says this fundamentalmisunderstanding appears to begenuine, but that doesnt absolve the nations most powerful politicians from being held responsible for the harm done by this limited perspective.

When thats your understanding of religious freedom, you dont necessarily see it as hypocritical to be voted into office on that platform, and then one of your first acts is to target a religious minority, says Weaver. It is hypocriticalbut I dont that they think its hypocritical, to be clear.

See the rest here:

ACLU's Religious Freedom Suit Against Trump Order: Gerrymandered to Target Muslims - Religion Dispatches

Commercial broadcaster MTV's Chief Editor Merja Yl-Anttila Image: Jyrki Valkama / Yle

The representative organisation of editors-in-chief in Finland, PTY, published a statement on Tuesday in response to public discourse that started in November about the responsibilities of a chief editors and their position in terms of freedom of speech.

PTY says in the statement that chief editors employ freedom of speech in their respective media, while journalists use their employers freedom of speech in their work. They are not entitled, however, to use the media channel for personal freedom of speech, the group says.

"I think its good to shed some light on certain gaps in the current discussion. Not everyone has an idea about what kinds of tasks a chief editor is charged with and which of these is linked to laws about freedom of expression," said Merja Yl-Anttila, first deputy of PTY and chief editor for the commercial news broadcaster MTV.

PTY maintains that decisions that a chief editor makes about news items do not limit journalists freedom of speech. Journalist employees publishing whatever they like under the name of the media company they are employed for is a different matter, however.

Yl-Anttila said the PTY statement is not intended to take a stand on any individual cases, and there's no specific reason the missive is being released just now.

"It is not aimed against or in defence of anyone," she said.

Chief editors want to remind people that they are responsible for the content their media channels produce, and this task cannot be relinquished to anyone outside the editorial team.

The PTY says editors-in-chief must also ensure that their units have conditions that are conducive to work by fighting off both external and internal pressure.

"When the report concerns a big, influential topic in terms of general society, there are many interested parties that might try to influence things, from various quarters. At this point, the chief editor is the last sea wall that provides wind protection for the staff to work in peace on difficult high-stress stories," says Yl-Anttila.

PTY points out that even the chief editors' employers cannot interfere in their work in any other way than by appointing or removing them from the post.

The organisation said that a responsible editor-in-chief encourages an open atmosphere in the newsroom, one in which criticism about the journalistic decisions of the management is permitted to be aired.

"The media team should be able to talk about these things. Trust is very important," says the MTV chief editor.

PTY calls on editors everywhere to be more transparent. Audiences should be better informed about how decision-making in news making works, and under what grounds the media produces the content that it does.

Opening the processes up will also help the audience to distinguish reliable news sources from fake news and other traffickers in 'alternative facts'.

"This is the kind of thing that should make all news teams take a hard look in the mirror. It would also enhance the credibility and reliability of what we do. Consider this a kind of friendly push in that direction," says Yl-Anttila.

13.2.

13.2.

13.2.

13.2.

13.2.

See more here:

Chief editors: Media not a channel for personal freedom of speech - YLE News

Health insurance and career opportunity are impossible to separate for Erin Hoover.

Hoover is a 37-year-old Florida State University student who will graduate with a doctorate in English literature this spring. She is also eight months pregnant.

Until recently, Hoover had a clear plan. She would have her baby in March, graduate in May, and begin adjunct work to build up her resume. She felt like she was on a good path; one of her poems was recently selected for the Best American Poetry anthology of 2016.

Adjunct positions typically dont offer health insurance, but that seemed fine. Hoover expected she and her baby would continue to get coverage through the Affordable Care Act, which she has relied on since 2014.

But the presidential election changed all that. Republicans have promised to repeal the health law, but havent yet shown what their replacement plan looks like. Hoover doesnt know if the programs she relies on now will be available. And she thinks that might reshape her impending job search. She is now considering going back to a career in public relations because it would offer benefits.

She is not thrilled at the idea.

I just spent five years getting this degree, she says. I was hoping to utilize it in a new job rather than the old job that I used to work in years ago.

I spend a lot of time talking to Obamacare enrollees like Hoover: people who struck out on their own left a job, started a business, went back to school after Obamacare. They felt empowered to do this because in the reformed individual market, insurers had to offer everyone coverage and couldnt charge sick people more.

And now, many of them are already beginning to rearrange their lives around the laws uncertain future.

There were 1.4 million self-employed people who relied on the marketplaces for coverage in 2014, recent research from the Treasury Department shows. That works out to one-fifth of all marketplace enrollees being people who work for themselves.

Vox has spoken to about a dozen of them, mostly members of a Facebook group we run for Obamacare enrollees. For them, the Affordable Care Act was an opening of opportunity: the possibility to try a new career path knowing that they didnt have to worry about where theyd get coverage. The possibility of repeal, they say, feels like a narrowing of choice.

Here, they describe the choices they were able to make because of Obamacare and how they are changing their lives now that the laws future is in jeopardy.

Some of the people we spoke with said theyd like to figure out a way to continue their careers, despite the uncertainty repeal brings. Theyre hoping that a Republican replacement plan might offer certain features they like about the Affordable Care Act, such as the requirement to cover everyone regardless of preexisting conditions.

But most, like Erin Hoover, were just worried.

I may have felt comfortable going without insurance myself, but I wont let my daughter go without care, she says. I am now being forced to choose between taking care of my family and following my professional ambition.

Are you an Obamacare enrollee? Help our reporting by telling us how the Affordable Care Act has changed your life, and join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.

See the article here:

For so many Americans, Obamacare offered career freedom. A repeal could take that away. - Vox

A survey of evangelical leaders showed the most important public policy issues that evangelicals should focus on in 2017 are religious freedom and immigration/refugees.

The findings are from the year-end Evangelical Leaders Survey, a monthly poll of the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"If the first weeks under the new administration are any indication, evangelical leaders accurately identified key policy issues and pressure points for the year," said Leith Anderson, NAE president.

"We have a great opportunity to stand for religious freedom for all, and on behalf of refugees and immigrants in our communities," he said.

Specifically, the survey showed 63 percent considered religious freedom the most important public policy issue for evangelicals to address this year.

"Evangelicals have been pushed back on our heels by accusations of hatred and bigotry," said Randall Bach, president of Open Bible Churches. "We cannot submit to such intimidation but should lovingly and assertively work toward policies and implementation of policies that respect and protect, rather than deteriorate First Amendment protections."

Recently, in the last week alone, more than 100,000 people signed an American Family Association petition, calling on President Donald Trump to make religious freedom a top priority by signing an executive order to protect that liberty.

"Religious freedom continues to be of paramount importance to many Americans," said AFA President Tim Wildmon. "With evangelical Christians being so instrumental in the election of Donald Trump, many have been buoyed by the great strides he has made so far, just weeks after the inauguration."

"AFA wants to ensure that the president and his administration will keep this crucial issue front and center, especially as many Americans have paid a hefty price for fighting for their religious liberties, such as losing their businesses, savings and more," he continued.

"Now, we urge President Trump to keep his momentum and his promise to protect people of faith from religious discrimination," Wildmon said.

Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel for Becket, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom, said regardless of who's in power, that freedom is always at risk.

"The government is always tempted to trample on religious freedom, and not just at the federal level, but also at the state and local level," he told CBN News.

"And it's... critically important to remain vigilant, defending not just religious freedom for evangelicals and other Christians, but defending religious freedom for all because if one group doesn't have religious freedom, then nobody has religious freedom," he continued.

Goodrich said one very important religious freedom case before the U.S. Supreme Court that evangelicals need to follow is Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley. The church sued the state of Missouri, accusing it of discrimination related to a state grant program.

Another religious freedom case that he believes should be on the radar of evangelicals is Gaylor v. Lew.

"Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist organization, has challenged the parsonage allowance as unconstitutional," Goodrich explained. "And bottom line -- if their lawsuit succeeds, churches all across the country and ministers all across the country will face over $1 billion in new taxes every year."

Following religious freedom, 46 percent of the year-end Evangelical Leaders Survey respondents pointed to immigration/refugees as the top public policy issue.

Fast forward to now, and thousands of evangelical pastors and leaders have signed a letter asking President Trump to reconsider his controversial executive order on refugees.

Jenny Yang, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy on Refugee Resettlement for World Relief, said the increase in signers "demonstrates how many evangelical churches want to welcome refugees." World Relief works with churches to settle refugees across the country and coordinated the letter.

The executive order bans all persons from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for ninety days and suspends all refugee processing for 120 days. It bars refugees from Syria indefinitely.

"America is pretty much a nation of immigrants and their descendants," Anderson said. "More than any country in the world we should be known for our welcome and treatment of refugees and immigrants in our generation."

Not every Christian leader, though, has been a critic of the president's executive order.

Evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, told The Huffington Post that it's "not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come."

According to CNN, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas and a member of Trump's evangelical advisory board, said Christians endure more persecution than other faiths, and in line with the president's pledge, should receive preferential treatment.

Russell Moore, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, advocated for an even-handed approach in a letter he wrote to the president.

"Achieving the right balance between compassion toward refugees one of the most vulnerable groups of people among us and protection of Americans is crucial if the United States is to remain a model for freedom around the world," Moore wrote.

"It is one thing to debate whether the vetting process is adequate. It is quite another to seek to potentially turn our backs on Syrian refugees permanently," he continued.

The Evangelical Leaders Survey also showed that leaders considered poverty, abortion, racial tension, court nominations, marriage/family and health care as other important public policy issues.

Read more from the original source:

Evangelicals: Religious Freedom and Refugees Top Priorities for This Year - CBN News

Last week, in response to a piece at Salon, I wrote a short post about the reality of religious-freedom legislation in America, which, I argued, is narrowly tailored to protect the consciences of those who believe that marriage is rightly understood as being between one man and one woman. My broad point was that no example of this legislation licenses discrimination against LGBT individuals.

Rushing to the defense of the author of the Salon piece a former colleague of hers writer Sunnivie Brydum has published a response to me. In this response, Brydum makes a number of errors, the most salient of which she shares with the piece that kicked off the debate: the mischaracterization of both the content and the practical effects of religious-freedom legislation.

To serve as her most prominent example, Brydum selects the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), a much-maligned piece of legislation that, by all rights, shouldnt even be necessary. The fact that lawmakers needed to introduce such a bill hints at the problem here; without this additional protection, a subset of religious Americans can be punished by the federal government for their religious beliefs.

And thats all the bill protects against. Contrary to Brydums assertion that FADA would license a whole slate of anti-LGBT actions, the bills stated goal is simple: to protect from government retaliation Americans who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, a belief that is held by plenty of people other than conservative Christians.

Rather than licensing discriminatory behavior, the bill would, if passed, forbid the federal government from retaliating against institutions or persons who act upon a belief in heterosexual marriage. In practice, this means that, for example, a religious university could not have its tax-exempt status revoked or its accreditation denied because it advocates heterosexual marriage or believes that a persons sex is based on immutable biology. The idea that such a bill weaponizes religious freedom is absurd.

But even setting aside the specifics of FADA and sidestepping for the moment the details of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Trump administrations draft executive order on religious liberty the fundamental point is this: A proper understanding of religious freedom protects all Americans, whether Christian or otherwise, from being coerced into condoning behavior he believes is immoral, in this case same-sex marriage.

Tellingly, Brydum is forced to concede this point; as she puts it, it is true there is no federal or state law that says its OK to turn away the gays if God said you could. (She goes on to argue that LGBT people also need affirmative laws protecting them from discrimination. Thats an argument that Brydum and I could discuss in a separate conversation.) But here she attacks a strawman. I never argued that LGBT people dont need federal protections. I argued that religious-freedom legislation in the realm of marriage doesnt permit discrimination against LGBT individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, and I made that argument in my original post precisely because progressives continue to incorrectly depict religious-freedom legislation as a blanket license for religious people to deny service to LGBT people on the basis of their identity. Until both sides are willing to admit the importance of the competing rights at stake here (religious-freedom rights on one side and the dignity of LGBT people on the other) this public debate will continue to languish.

Read more:

Religious Freedom Still Isn't License to Discriminate - National Review

A spokesman for Theresa May said: It is not, never has been and never will be the policy of the government to restrict the freedom of investigative journalism or public whistleblowing. Photograph: Andrew Parsons / i-Images/Photoshot/Avalon/Avalon

Downing Street has insisted the freedom of investigative journalists and whistleblowers will not be restricted, after the Law Commission published plans suggesting that maximum jail terms for those leaking information should rise from two years to 14.

No 10 said it was incorrect to suggest that either group would face greater threat of prosecution as a result of the new proposals, which have been condemned by prominent whistleblowers and civil rights groups.

Theresa Mays official spokesman said: Ive seen the way this has been reported and it is fundamentally wrong. It is not, never has been and never will be the policy of the government to restrict the freedom of investigative journalism or public whistleblowing.

One of the points of this review is to consider whether more safeguards are required to protect public sector whistleblowers and journalists.

Asked whether journalists could face jail for reporting leaked information, he said: We will not do anything to restrict the freedom of journalists.

The governments legal advisers were accused of launching a full-frontal attack on whistleblowers on Sunday over the proposals, which recommend radically increasing prison sentences for revealing and handling state secrets.

Draft recommendations from the legal advisers say the maximum prison sentence for leakers should be raised, potentially from two to 14 years, and the definition of espionage should be expanded to include obtaining sensitive information, as well as passing it on.

Media organisations and civil rights groups have also expressed alarm at the Law Commissions assertion that they were consulted over the plans, when they say no substantial discussions took place.

The Guardian, the human rights group Liberty and campaign body Open Rights Group are among a series of organisations listed by the Law Commission as having been consulted on the draft proposals, but all three say they were not meaningfully involved in the process.

The Law Commission says on its website that in making the proposals, it met extensively with and sought the views of government departments, lawyers, human rights NGOs and the media. The law commissioner, Prof David Ormerod QC, said: Weve scrutinised the law and consulted widely with ... media and human rights organisations.

But Liberty said that while a meeting was held, it was not on the understanding that this was a consultation. A source said: Liberty do not consider themselves to have been properly consulted. And we will be responding in detail to the [public] consultation.

Cathy James, the chief executive of Public Concern at Work, was also surprised to see her the whistleblowing charity listed as being involved.

She said: I didnt actually know we were listed in the document as we have been working our way through it so it is a big surprise to me. I believe my colleague met with them initially but we were not consulted in the normal sense of the word consultation. That is not what happened.

We are very worried about the extent of the provision in the recommendations both for whistleblowers and public officials. Its a huge backward step and we are very worried.

A Law Commission spokesman told the Guardian: We are currently conducting an open public consultation on the protection of official data, including the Official Secrets Acts.

We are seeking views on how the law could meet 21st-century challenges while also ensuring people dont inadvertently commit serious offences. Our provisional proposals make a number of suggestions to improve the current laws around the protection of official data, and we welcome views.

View post:

No 10 denies plans would curb freedom of journalists and whistleblowers - The Guardian

The Humble Bundle is a reliable source of good deals on games, usually organized around some theme or another. This weeks bundle, however, is not only one of the best gaming deals of all time, but all proceeds are going to support charities that work with immigrants and refugees.

For $30 you get dozens of titles, many of which could comprise a sort of whos who of indie gaming: The Witness, Stardew Valley, Subnautica, Nuclear Throne, Invisible Inc., Super Meat Boy, Guacamelee, The Stanley Parable, The Swapper the list goes on and on. There are also a number of books and graphic novels you might have heard of, thrown in for good measure.

Its the Humble Freedom Bundle, and the company isnt shy about the motivation behind it:

We humbly remember that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and we proudly stand with developers, authors, and charities that champion liberty and justice for all.

Your money goes to the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders and the International Rescue Committee, divided however you choose. Humble pledged to match up to $300,000, and hit that goal long ago in fact, they hit $600,000 in donations just as I hit publish, with plenty more to come over the week remaining in the bundle.

If you like games, and you like freedom, this is the best deal on both youre likely to see any time soon.

Read the original here:

Game developers show political solidarity with Humble Freedom Bundle - TechCrunch

National Review writer Alexandra Desanctis on Wednesday published a piecepurporting to explain how recent conservative efforts to defend religious freedom arent really about discriminating against LGBT Americans. Since she used aSalon piece written a day earlier by a former colleague of mine, Nico Lang, to illustrate how liberals are maliciously mischaracteriz[ing] FADA and other religious-freedom protections, it seems only fair to issue a point-by-point response to the specious claims made in theNational Review.

It is deeply ironic to claim, in the pieces opening argument, that Lang is deliberately mischaracterizing these legislative and executive efforts, when Desanctis goes on to misrepresentalmost every legislative and executive action she discusses.I cant speak to any malicious intent of the author, but a cursory examination of her contemporaries reveals a lopsided tendency to use religion to justify anti-LGBT discrimination,then fall eerily silent when the religious freedom of non-Christians is threatened.

Desanctis complains that Lang betrays his biases immediately, by putting the phrase religious freedom in quotes. But Lang, a seasoned reporter Ive worked with in my former capacity as managing editor of The Advocate,is on solid journalistic ground here.The weaponizedkind of religious freedom at issue in President Trumpsdraft executive order is preciselythe modern mutation ofthis foundational principle,which undoubtedlydeserves to be placed in scare quotes, as publications ranging from New York magazine to the Wall Street Journal do.

The authors complaints about Lang willfully misrepresenting the facts are particularly laughable in the face of the outright falsehoods Desanctis offers in response. Most immediately and demonstrably, Desanctis impliesthat religious freedom bills and the executive order are concerned only withmarriage. And while the Supreme Courts 2015 ruling inObergefell v. Hodges did directly deal with marriage equality (tossing a single sentence in Justice Kennedys masterful opinion to the anti-equalityconcerns of religious objectors), nearly every legislative effort billed as a protection of religious liberty since then has reached far beyond the county clerks office.

Desanctis herself mentions the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) as one prominent example of legislation introduced to protect religious Americans who believe in heterosexual marriage. Apart from neglecting to note that FADA does not protect religious Americans who believe in marriage equality(because they do exist), Desanctis declines to mention that the bill, as introduced last year, included provisions that would allow faith-based discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers, and people of minority faiths.

Given that Texas senator and Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz has already promised to reintroduce FADA, and like-minded legislators are in turn salivating at the friendliness of the new administration to their concerns,its dishonest to suggest that any future iteration of FADA would be more limited in scope than the sweeping bill introduced last year.

Desanctis claims that religious-liberty legislation offers First Amendment protections to those Americans who hold a different view of marriage from that of the government, which is, in a limited sense, true. But these bills pointedly do notprovide First Amendment protections for those Americans whose faith-informed view of marriage differs from the government in, say, the number of spouses a person should be allowed to have, or with respect to the gender, age, or religious affiliation of the betrothed.

Similarly, Desanctis argument falls apart when she tries to follow the claim to its logical end. Certainly, she contends, it should be legal for a Christian baker to refuse to bake acake for a same-sex wedding, but that same baker should be required to bake a birthday cake for the same client.

But what if the birthday cake is for a child with same-sex parents? Under the draft executive order, a baker would be entirely within his right to refuse to bake that childs cake because the child did not emerge from the particular type of union that the baker finds morally acceptable.

Not only doreligious freedom bills in general concern themselves with more than justmarriage, buteven the leaked draft order does so as well,explicitly targetingthe validity of transgender identities by claiming that gender is an immutable characteristic defined by biology, anatomy, and a doctors declaration at birth. Bydefinition, the Americans who reject this biological essentialism are those who have experience with someone (or perhaps are themselves someone) whose gender identity differs from that which they were assigned at birth. Everyone elseindeed, the vast majority of Americansare unlikely to critically analyze this provision, since most peoples sex assigned at birth corresponds with their internal sense of gender identity. This fact, however, has no bearing on the continued existence of trans people in America.

The draft order goes even further to enshrine what is essentially conservative Christian ideology into federal policy when it declares that life begins at conception. This is, of course, a well-worn argumentused by anti-abortion advocates, butthere isnt anything even close to scientific consensus on this question. Once again, the executive order carves out protections for Americans who hold this particular religious belief about the beginning of life, but offers no accommodation for Americans whohave differing and sincerely held religious convictions about the point when life begins.

Its hard to single out one particular claim that emerges as the most absurd in the piece, but the allegation that the truth has been obfuscated by the left may well take the cake(just not to a gay wedding, of course). After directly equatingreligious Americans and religious voiceswith the voices of conservative Christian Americans, Desanctis performs an impressive bit of rhetorical acrobatics.

These supposed social-justice warriors will never admit the truth, she writes. That there isnt a single U.S. law permitting discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation.

Talk about obfuscation. It is true there is no federal or state lawthat says its OK to turn away the gays if God saidyou could, but theres also no federal lawprotecting LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in healthcare, or in public accommodations. That bears repeating, since nearly70 percent of Americans believe its already illegal to fire someone for being LGBT.

But in reality, there is no federal law thatbarsemployers, landlords, or business-owners from refusing to hire, rent to, serve, or promote someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some states and localities have passed laws and ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on those characteristics, but those have faced stark opposition and backlashmost notably in the case of North Carolinas transphobic House Bill 2, which was drafted and passed in direct response to Charlottes city council updating its nondiscrimination ordinance to include LGBT people.

To be clear: in 30 states, it is expressly legal to fire someone because they are transgender. In 28 states, an employee could marry their same-sex spouse on Sunday, then be fired on Monday for putting a wedding photo on their desk. These arent hypothetical dilemmasreal people lose their livelihood every year because a supervisor didnt approve of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

So while Desanctis points out that there is currently no law directly approving anti-LGBT discrimination, the policies shes advocating for in her piece would change all that. The draft executive order, FADA, and similar religious liberty efforts nationwide would create a blanket license to discriminate, provided one claims their sincerely held religious belief has been offended. But even here, its important to note that the word religious is intended to mean conservative Christian.

Read the original post:

Sorry, National Review: Religious Freedom Bills Do Permit Bigotry - Religion Dispatches

Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society

The Minnesota Freedom Riders on July 26, 1961, after their return to Minnesota. Pictured are (left to right) Marvin Davidov, Zev Aelony, David Morton, Eugene Uphoff (with guitar), Claire O'Connor, and Robert Baum. Photographed by the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

The Freedom Rides of 1961 began with thirteen riders traveling on two buses through the South. Their goal was to end race segregation in interstate bus travel. The Rides grew to over fifty journeys and other actions, and attracted 436 Riders; six of them were from Minnesota.

On June 11, 1961, six young Minnesotans took a Greyhound bus from Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi. All were white, but at the Jackson bus terminal they went straight to the waiting room marked colored. Police arrested them at the lunch counter inside on a charge of breach of peace. After staying in jail overnight, they were tried, convicted, fined, and sentenced to four months in jail.

They were Freedom Riders, part of the project led by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), to take nonviolent action against racial segregation in the South. The Freedom Rides had their origin in the Journey of Reconciliation led by CORE and Bayard Rustin in 1947. Rustin and company took a bus journey through the Upper South, disobeying Jim Crow laws and customs.

Then cameBrown v. Board of Education(1954), the Montgomery bus boycott (1956), the Greensboro lunch counter sit-in (1960), and many similar events. In 1961, CORE, now led by James Farmer, decided to try again.

They started with an experiment: thirteen people traveling by bus from Washington, D.C. to New Orleans, May 417. In Alabama, that journey exploded, with the bus set afire, riders beaten, and mobs abetted by the local police. The violence did not produce the desired effect; instead, the Freedom Rides multiplied.

The Minnesota Freedom Riders were part of a second, expanded stage of the effort. Four were students at the University of Minnesota: Zev Aelony (the organizer and the one most deeply read in the theory and practice of non-violence), Claire OConnor, Robert Baum, and Eugene Uphoff. Marvin Davidov, twenty-nine, was beginning a long career as an activist. The sixth Minnesotan was David Morton, whom Aelony called the universitys resident beatnik.

CORE had made Jackson, a crucial Southern state capital, a special target. Fourteen groups of Freedom Riders had preceded the Minnesotans to Jacksonnine by bus, five more by air and rail. All 104 of those Riders had been arrested. They were foot soldiers in a battle of attrition between Freedom Ride leadership and the State of Mississippi. The organizers hoped to overwhelm local law enforcement with numbers. In this case, the authorities answered not with violence but with process: trials, maximum sentences, jail terms, appeals bonds, and court dates.

After a few days in jail, the Minnesota men were transferred to the state penitentiary at Parchman, a prison famous for its harshness. They were held at first in maximum security, two to a six-by-nine cell, with no exercise, no visitors, and only Bibles to read. When it was hot, there was no ventilation; on cool nights the guards chilled them with fans. When they sang, the wardens took away their mattresses. Later, as more Riders were arrested, prison authorities moved them to dormitories.

OConnor spent about two weeks in jail. She was then transferred to Parchmans womens section, where she endured verbal abuse and a body-cavity search. She was released on July 3, the Minnesota men on July 24. All appealed their convictions and posted appeal bonds to pursue the strategy of stressing the Mississippi justice system. To stress them back, the court in Jackson required all Riders (by now 186) to return for new trialstwo a day, starting August 15. A long standoff seemed likely.

For the organizers, salvation of a sort came on September 21, 1961, when the Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order forbidding race discrimination on interstate buses and supporting facilities. This was victory; but it came from Washington, not Jackson. The Freedom Rides shifted focus to North Carolina (where Baum and Morton participated briefly) and ended in early December.

The Minnesotans got on with their lives and educations. Uphoff eventually became a physician, OConnor a community organizer, Aelony a businessman, and Baum a University of Minnesota bus driver. Davidov continued working as a political activist. Morton, according to Davidov, became Minnesotas first hippie.

For more information on this topic, check outthe original entry on MNopedia.

Original post:

Remembering Minnesota's Freedom Riders - MinnPost