Monthly Archives: February 2017

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

Read the original:

Freedom Of Religion According To Thomas Jefferson - Huffington Post

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.

Go here to read the rest:

Fabulous floating cities promise freedom - Treehugger

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.

Originally posted here:

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

Like some of her classmates who graduated with her from West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North in 2009, Monica Koppstein would like to move out of her parents' home and live in her own apartment.

Koppstein, 29, works as a cashier's assistant at a local business. Although she has multiple disabilities and could live on her own with some support, there are few options available to her. That's why she has remained under her parents' roof.

But that could change, now that the West Windsor Township Planning Board has approved Project Freedom Inc.'s proposed 72-unit rental apartment complex, off Old Bear Brook Road.

Work on Freedom Village at West Windsor, as the new rental apartment complex will be known, is expected to begin at the end of this year or early in 2018.

The 72 apartments will be distributed among six, two-story buildings. There are 14 one-bedroom apartments, 42 two-bedroom apartments and 16 three-bedroom apartments. All are designed to be wheelchair-accessible, with wide doorways and hallways, elevators and walk-in showers.

Freedom Village at West Windsor will be Project Freedom's eighth development, Tracee Battis told the Planning Board at its Feb. 8 meeting. She is the director of housing development for the Robbinsville-based nonprofit organization. There are four developments in Mercer County, and one each in Burlington, Ocean and Salem counties.

Project Freedom Inc.'s mission is to provide affordable housing for people with disabilities, Battis said. The earliest projects were fully occupied by the disabled, she said.

But the State of New Jersey, which offers subsidies, now requires 25 percent of the units to be set aside for the disabled, Battis said. The rest are available to low- and moderate-income households.

For Freedom Village at West Windsor, this means 18 units would be deed-restricted for the disabled. Although the State of New Jersey's goal is to mix the disabled with the non-disabled, Project Freedom Inc. has found that about 40 percent of the units typically are occupied by the disabled, Battis said.

When the meeting was opened for public comment, a couple of attendees encouraged the Planning Board to approve the application.

Nantanee Koppstein said her daughter, Monica Koppstein, would "greatly benefit from the affordable, fully accessible and quality housing" that Project Freedom Inc. offers.

It would the first such housing development in West Windsor Township, Koppstein said. "There is a critical shortage of accessible housing for residents with disabilities," she said.

"Throughout the past several years, I have watched with envy the beautiful and well-maintained housing being developed, owned and efficiently run by Project Freedom Inc. in Hopewell, Lawrence, Robbinsville Hamilton and more," she said.

"Future residents of Freedom Village, like Monica, will be tax-paying and productive members of our community," Koppstein said.

If the application is approved, it would enable people with disabilities to live independently with their peers in the community, she said.

With little comment, the Planning Board unanimously approved Project Freedom Inc.'s application.

See more here:

WEST WINDSOR: Freedom Village apartment complex approved - Packet Online

Here we go again. For the fourth time since 2014, Maryland lawmakers have tried to use legislative action to hinder the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. This year, theyve introduced a bill (SB739/HB949) that would prohibit individuals or corporations that support BDS from contracting with the state, which plainly violates the First Amendment. This bill is an obvious attempt to stymie political dissent, and it is a waste of time at the taxpayers' expense in an already pressed three-month legislative session.

Boycott is a commonly-employed, peaceful tool for change to address injustice, long recognized as protected First Amendment expression. For decades, Israel advocates exclaimed that there was no Palestinian Gandhi and if only the Palestinians would embrace non-violence, their grievances would be heard. Now that a non-violent Palestinian-led movement has emerged, calling upon the world community to boycott entities that profit from Israel's ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights, these same critics are trying to suppress it through legislation.

For the past three years, Israel lobbyists and lawmakers in state legislatures around the country have introduced bills to stifle the BDS movement's hopeful message of freedom, justice and equality. In 2014, the Maryland civil rights community pushed back when Del. Ben Kramer introduced an unconstitutional bill that would have defunded Maryland's public universities for facilitating professors' participation in academic association meetings perceived to favor BDS. After this bill fizzled, toothless compromise language condemning BDS was added to the budget bill at the last minute when no lawmaker could easily oppose it. In 2016, anti-BDS advocates trumpeted their plans for a new bill in the press, but after strong opposition, the legislative session ended without a bill having been introduced.

Sixteen states have passed these unconstitutional bills. While many of the bills that have passed are resolutions that symbolically condemn BDS, they create a favorable climate for the government to suppress political dissent. This should worry all of us.

In New York State, after two anti-BDS bills stalled out in the state legislature over constitutional concerns, Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order barring a list of companies that support BDS from doing business with the state. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to discriminate in public benefits based on a political viewpoint, but this didn't deter a politician intent on scoring political points. And none of the companies on Mr. Cuomo's list do business with New York state anyway, making clear the improper purpose of this legislation.

But in spite of this, the BDS movement for Palestinian rights is stronger and more organized than ever. Jewish Voice for Peace, the largest Jewish group supporting BDS, has been recognized as a growing force in the American Jewish community, impossible to ignore. In the past three years, their membership has tripled, and it now boasts more than 60 chapters in 30 states throughout the country, including chapters in Baltimore and D.C. According to a recent poll released by the Brookings Institution, 60 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of all Americans support sanctions or stronger action against Israel because of settlement construction. Nearly half of all Americans and 60 percent of Democrats support a form of BDS. In cities around this country, protesters now chant for Palestinian rights alongside the range of progressive issues potentially impacted by the new administration's agenda.

In Maryland, opponents of anti-BDS legislation include Muslim, Jewish and Christian advocacy organizations working together to promote a better future for all in the Middle East. Civil rights giants like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have also weighed in against the bills.

At a time when the new president has declared war on civil liberties, legislative maneuvers like this harm our democracy. We need and deserve a robust, open conversation about our foreign policy more than we ever have. And most importantly, legislation cannot stop the momentum of the movement for Palestinian freedom and equality. At this vulnerable time for our society, we must not enable legislators to suppress viewpoints they don't like. Instead, we should insist they preserve and respect the rights of all to speak.

Rachel Roberts is an attorney and activist who lives in Montgomery County. Twitter: @rachelhinda; blog: notesfromexile.com.

Editor's note: This op-ed was updated to reflect the correct number of legislative actions taken in Maryland.

Read the original here:

Md. Anti-BDS bill stifles freedom - Baltimore Sun