Monthly Archives: March 2017

UN, post-Trump, tries hand at banning speech – Washington Times

Posted: March 23, 2017 at 1:40 pm

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The United Nations, ahead of its global celebration of the International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination, sent out a press release putting forth the notion that free speech is good free speech is necessary. But free speech has its limits.

Umm, forgive us for asking the obvious, but isnt that another way of saying the government has a duty to crack down on freedom of speech?

Seems kind of counter to the whole Constitution thing.

But this is what the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, said in a statement.

Politics of division and the rhetoric of intolerance are targeting racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, and migrants and refugees, Zeid said. Words of fear and loathing can, and do, have real consequences.

Wonder what kind of words Zeid meant?

Could it be the type uttered by President Donald Trump, when he vowed on the campaign trail and again, in the White House, to curtail the number of unauthorized incursions across Americas borders not only from Mexico and Central America, but also from terror hot spot nations around the world?

Methinks maybe.

Zeids statement also included a press for governments around the world to outright ban racist hate speech, which he called the precursor to discrimination and violence.

It is not an attack on free speech or the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism, but a recognition that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, he said.

Well, actually, curtailing free speech is an attack on free speech thats exactly what it is. Thats a dictionary definition, in fact.

Lets not dismiss this as typical U.N. talk.

Why Americans should care that the United Nations is pushing this mantra is that its not so easy nowadays, if you havent noticed, to simply dismiss notions of the far left. What would have been seen as crazy talk just a few short years ago, is now accepted policy.

When Hillary Clinton called for a national health care system, she was derided as socialist. When Barack Obama pressed for the same, it passed into law.

When Sen. Bernie Sanders called for free college tuition, he was mocked and scorned. When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called for free college tuition, he was applauded and favorably polled.

See where Im going with this?

Too many in the Democratic Party right now point to Trump as a driver of hate as a fanner of protest flames. They blame him for the broken glass, busted cars and beaten police that have marked the medias stories on recent protests about the new White House.

That blame, misplaced as it is, nonetheless is just a short hop and skip from saying language ought to be controlled. Now here comes the United Nations, coincidentally, with the suggestions, recommendations and means for governments around the world to do just that. Watch for it: Democrats wont be long in lining up some legislation that underscores the importance of the First Amendment at the same time, watering and gutting its freedom of speech rights.

View original post here:
UN, post-Trump, tries hand at banning speech - Washington Times

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on UN, post-Trump, tries hand at banning speech – Washington Times

Charles Murray and the subjugation of free speech – Duke Chronicle

Posted: at 1:40 pm

Opinion | Column

let freedom ring

On March 2, Charles Murray, a controversial sociologist and author, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury College. Murray was invited to campus by the schools chapter of the American Enterprise Institute Club, an organization that promotes political conservatism. The schools collective reaction to Murrays mere presence on campus was, in a word, antagonistic. When he took the stage to begin his debate, Murray faced an audience littered with protesters who were intent on denying him the opportunity to speak.

While the protest was simply disruptive at the start, it eventually became violentMurrays co-presenter, Middlebury politics and economics professor Allison Stanger, required a trip to the hospital after being struck by a protester.

Much of the protesters anger towards Murray came from their moral opposition to some of his past writings. While Murray has written on a variety of topics, his most controversial piece was his 1994 work, The Bell Curve, where he dedicates a portion of the book to the possibility that genetic differences between races may contribute to disparities in average IQ test scores. This idea has faced significant criticism from both popular and academic sources, and many students at Middlebury, and Duke, surely find his ideas erroneous and reprehensible.

That said, the fundamental right of freedom of speech is most important in situations like Murrayswhere polarizing speakers propagate equally unpopular opinions. More broadly than ones individual opinion of Murray, the precedent of censoring unpopular opinions on college campuses is dangerous from any perspective.

Many of the speakers who routinely inspire protests on college campuses come from the right, and the history of protests surrounding controversial conservative speakers is extensive. From the violence surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos appearance at the University of California, Berkeley to the cancellation of Condoleezza Rices commencement address at Rutgers University, figures from the right (in both the traditional and alternative sense) have not been welcomed with open arms on college campuses.

Albeit with less controversy, Murray continued his speaking tour by visiting Duke on Tuesday, bringing this issue even closer to home. Without the interference of protesters, Murray had the opportunity to speak to students as he intended to at Middlebury. The fact that Duke, a campus that is overwhelmingly liberal, was able to engage with a speaker whose beliefs starkly diverge from those of most students, speaks highly to the academic environment that Duke has created for its students.

While Duke superseded Middlebury in its ability to tolerate the presence of a controversial conservative speaker, that is not to say that Duke is perfect in its promotion of freedom of speech.

In a recent piece, the Editorial Board of this publication addressed the issue of free speech and controversial guest speakers. Central to the article is the idea that a speaker must be innocuous to earn the right to freely address a university community such as Dukes. While this criterion may sound appealing in the abstract, its application to actual situations is much more difficult. Who gets to decide whether a guest speaker is innocuous, and is it even possible to make that distinction in an equitable, apolitical manner?

Freedom of speech represents a fundamental tenant of any free society or institution of higher learning. In the wake of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, the Editorial Board confirmed this importance bywarning that we must remain vigilant and aware that there are attempts at curtailing speech occurring everyday. And while the protests at Middlebury differ significantly from the Charlie Hebdo attack in that the protestors did not practice terrorism, their efforts undeniably sought to silence Murray and rob him of his right to speak freely.

It is disappointing that the Editorial Board did not condemn the violence that occurred at Middlebury and reaffirm its commitment to free speech. To the contrary, yesterdays Editorial clearly represented an attack on free speech as it exists at Duke. As one of the thought leaders of the Duke community, the Board holds the sacred responsibility to speak out when such an obvious subjugation of free speech occurs.

Unlike many stories that occur in the news, this one is not far removed from Duke. Many Duke students surely considered Middlebury in their college search process, and Charles Murray, the man whose ideas inspired such vitriolic backlash at Middlebury, walked around this campus just a few days ago.

By nature, it is uncomfortable to encounter ideas that critique and challenge ones own. The events at Middlebury represent a clear example of a dangerous trend in higher education where popular disagreement with an outspoken guest speaker leads to censorship. Protecting the freedom of expression is one of the most important obligations Duke has to its students, and the school must always remain a place where conservatives and liberals, moderates and radicals, have the opportunity to openly debate some of the greatest issues of our time.

Ian Buchanan is a Trinity freshman. His column, "let freedom ring" runs on alternate Thursdays.

The Chronicle is your source for Duke news, sports, culture and dialogue.

Subscribe to the Chronicle: Newsletter | The Dirt | Overtime

See the original post here:
Charles Murray and the subjugation of free speech - Duke Chronicle

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Charles Murray and the subjugation of free speech – Duke Chronicle

Australian MP Censored in Debate on Free Speech – Heat Street

Posted: at 1:40 pm

An Australian member of parliament was stopped from speaking in the middle of a debate over free speech.

Bill Shorten, the leader of Australias Labor Party, (pictured above) was stopped from speaking while attempting to criticize proposals by the government to change racial discrimination laws.

Shorten was silenced after 74 MPs voted to cut short his time, which he was using to deride prime minister Malcolm Turnbull for his cynical legislation.

AsHeat Street reported earlier this week, Australian politicians are attempting to amend the nations Racial Discrimination Act so that it is no longer illegal to offend somebody.

They instead want to change the text of the legislation so that only exchanges which harass or intimidate people because of their race are a matter for the courts. Those who break the law are eligible for large fines.

Turnbull and others say the current legislation has lost its credibility and must be amended to stop spurious claims and defend freedom of speech.

However, their determination to protect free speech did not extend to the speech Shorten was trying to make.

He piqued fellow legislators by proposing a motion deriding what he called a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to be able to claim to the extreme elements in his party room that his Government is taking action

Shortly after he finished describing his motion, an official called for a vote on whether Shorten should be forced to stop speaking. It passed by 74 votes to 69.

Excerpt from:
Australian MP Censored in Debate on Free Speech - Heat Street

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Australian MP Censored in Debate on Free Speech – Heat Street

Demystifying the Beliefs of Pantheism – thoughtco.com

Posted: at 1:40 pm

Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are one and the same. There is no dividing line between the two. Pantheism is a type of religious belief rather than a specific religion, similar to terms like monotheism (belief in a single God, as embraced by religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, and Zoroastrianism) and polytheism (belief in multiple gods, as embraced by Hinduism and a wide variety of pagan cultures such as the ancient Greeks and Romans).

Pantheists view God as immanent and impersonal. The belief system grew out of the Scientific Revolution, and pantheists generally are strong supporters of scientific inquiry, as well as religious toleration.

In being immanent, God is present in all things. God didn't make the earth or define gravity, but, rather, God is the earth and gravity and everything else in the universe.

Because God is uncreated and infinite, the universe is likewise uncreated and infinite. God did not choose one day to make the universe. Rather, it exists precisely because God exists, since the two are the same thing.

This does not need to contradict scientific theories such as the Big Bang. The changing of the universe is all part of the nature of God as well. It simply states there was something before the Big Bang, an idea that is certainly debated in scientific circles.

The pantheistic God is impersonal.

God is not a being one converses with, nor is God conscious in the common sense of the term.

Pantheists are generally strong supporters of scientific inquiry. Since God and the universe are one, understanding the universe is how one comes to better understand God.

Because all things are God, all things are connected and ultimately are of one substance.

While various facets of God have defining characteristics (everything from different species to individual people), they are part of a greater whole. As a comparison, one might consider the parts of the human body. Hands are different from feet which are different from lungs, but all are part of the greater whole that is the human form.

Because all things are ultimately God, all approaches to God can conceivably lead to anunderstanding of God. Each person should be allowed to pursue such knowledge as they wish. This does not mean, however, that pantheists believe every approach is correct. They generally do not believe in an afterlife, for example, nor do they find merit in strict dogma and ritual.

Pantheism should not be confused with panentheism. Panentheism views God as both immanent and transcendent. This means that while the entire universe is a part of God, God also exists beyond the universe. As such, this God can be a personal God, a conscious being that manifested the universe with whom one can have a personal relationship.

Pantheism is also not deism. Deist beliefs are sometimes described as not having a personal God, but in that case, it is not meant to say the God has no consciousness.

The deist God actively created the universe. God is impersonal in the sense that God retreated from the universe after its creation, uninterested in listening to or interacting with believers.

Pantheism is not animism. Animism is the belief - animals, trees, rivers, mountains, etc. - that all things have a spirit. However, these spirits are unique rather than being part of a greater spiritual whole. These spirits are frequently approached with reverence and offerings to ensure continued goodwill between humanity and the spirits.

Baruch Spinoza introduced pantheistic beliefs to a wide audience in the 17th century. However, other, less known thinkers had already expressed pantheistic views such as Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake in 1600 for his highly unorthodox beliefs.

Albert Einstein stated, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." He also stated that "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," underscoring that pantheism is neither anti-religious nor atheistic.

See more here:
Demystifying the Beliefs of Pantheism - thoughtco.com

Posted in Pantheism | Comments Off on Demystifying the Beliefs of Pantheism – thoughtco.com

Arlene’s Flowers case abandoned religious protections – Kitsap Sun

Posted: at 1:40 pm

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Pete Brady, Bainbridge Island

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Letters 11:44 a.m. PT March 22, 2017

In the case of Arlene's Flowers (Barronelle Stutzman), Washington Supreme Court justices Fairhurst, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Stephens, Wiggins, Gonzalez, McCloud, and Yu got it utterly and wantonly wrong.They all ought to be removed from office.In their decision they have completely abandoned virtue for vice.In order for there to be discrimination as they perfidiously aver, "sexual gratification" (of any kind) has to be a defining characteristic of the human person.It is not.It is, instead, merely behavior that which we may or may not do but it is not integral to who we are.We are meant to rise above base impulses/sensitive appetites, not be enslaved by them.

The decision encourages homosexuality and suppresses (persecutes) the Christian religion.The latter is patently clear in Justice McClouds opinion that state non-discrimination law is precedent even if it substantially burdens the constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.So much for the Constitutions inalienable and enumerated rights!So are we to now understand that if this florist is asked to provide an arrangement by a member of a Satanic or Wiccan cult for their use that she must provide it in violation of the 1st Commandment?That is just anti-Christian bigotry in judicial robes.

This decision is a continuation of the ongoing effort to make a hodgepodge of neopaganism (pantheism, new age, self-idolatry, etc) the de facto religion of the state.Thus, the 60 percent of Washingtonians who are Christian must Resist!

Pete Brady, Bainbridge Island

Read or Share this story: http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/03/22/arlenes-flowers-case-abandoned-religious-protections/99500874/

0) { %>

0) { %>

Originally posted here:
Arlene's Flowers case abandoned religious protections - Kitsap Sun

Posted in Pantheism | Comments Off on Arlene’s Flowers case abandoned religious protections – Kitsap Sun

Stevens speaks of his journey from atheism to founding church – Palm Beach Daily News

Posted: at 1:39 pm

The Rev. Dr. Dwight Stevens is sharing his journey from science to spirituality.

The former dermatologist, the founder and pastor of The Paramount Church, talked about his story of conversion from atheism at a book signing last week at the Palm Beach Book Store. Curious people always ask him about it.

Ive lost count of the times, Stevens said. So, I wrote the story.

In his book, Atheist Doctor to Palm Beach Minister, he recalls the challenges faced when establishing the church, the experiences or nudges as he calls them that turned him away from atheism and the difficulties he faced connecting to colleagues in medicine after converting.

Only people who understand are the ones who experienced Gods healing power, he said. Otherwise people dismiss it.

Stevens said his first experience with Gods healing power was during a medical mission trip to Honduras. A woman with a tennis-ball-size mass in her abdomen, later thought to be cancer, couldnt be treated medically and resorted to prayer. Stevens, along with other members of the team, said they laid their hands on the woman while praying and were able to eliminate the mass.

As a scientist, you dismiss that, the minister said. But then when you begin to experience it personally, Gods healing power, I began to realize God still does miracles.

And Stevens said hes experienced that personally. More than 10 years ago, Stevens was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. He claims Gods healing power keeps him well.

Ive never had a treatment, Stevens said. Never had a symptom.

Stevens practiced dermatology in Palm Beach for 15 years before opening the Paramount Church in 1994. His practice connected him to some of Palm Beachs most influential residents, many of whom became friends who played an important role in Stevens journey.

Of course, it was Gene Lawrence and Richard Moody who made it all happen, Stevens writes in his book. Lawrence, the late architect, helped design the church with the assistance of Moody, the general contractor. Both offered their services without charge.

Other friends helped Stevens with his two-year book project, which was new territory for him.

The challenges were never-ending, Stevens said.

Candice Cohen offered a hand. I read the manuscript, said Cohen, founder of the Palm Beach Book Store. I helped him pick the cover, too.

Among the crowd at last Tuesdays book signing were members of the Paramount Church. One of them was Kristi Witker-Coons.

Witker-Coons recalls when she first joined the church.

My husband died and I was just really lost, she said. After attending services at other churches, she felt Paramount was the right fit.

Although she had yet to read the book, Witker-Coons said she knows about Stevens personal life from attending his services. Its a fascinating story, she said.

The minister says hes happy to bring his message to Palm Beach a resort town for Americas wealthy, as he calls it.

He believes some residents have achieved great success and achievements but are left feeling unfulfilled, missing something, and that something is neither galas, private concerts, dinners nor cocktail parties.

Many people discovered that they have it all, Stevens said. But what they need also is a relationship with God.

Continued here:
Stevens speaks of his journey from atheism to founding church - Palm Beach Daily News

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Stevens speaks of his journey from atheism to founding church – Palm Beach Daily News

Standing alone: atheism club provides for students questioning their faith – The State Press

Posted: at 1:39 pm

The only officially recognized group at ASU for students who are atheist attempts to combat the stigma around not being religious

Tann Cheevasittirungruang, left, and Angel Garcia, right, sit at their table at Secular Day at the Arizona State Capitol onMarch 21, 2017.

Although atheism is agrowing identity in America that is relativelypopular on college campuses, some feelASU lacks options when it comes to student-organized atheist groups.

In the ASUOrgSync,the search query "Christian" provided 52 results at the time of publishing. The "religious" category altogether listed 73 groups. "Atheist" turned up only two separate groups. One of those groupsis theSecular Student Alliance, a national secular student organization with chapters in most major universities.

Angel Garciais a junior double majoring in history and economics. He is the president of theSecular Student Alliance at ASU (SSA).

"Secular Student Alliance is a student organization where we seek to gather together students who are either secular or interested in secular issues," Garcia said."And with the club we'll either have meetings that revolve around different topics that are related to religion, secularism, government, society (and) culture. Sometimes we'll have social nights, and other nights we'll engage in activism."

Garcia said SSA is the only active, recognizedclubon campusthat serves as a meeting placefor atheists, even though the club's main mission is to promote secularism. He said that oneneed not be anatheist in order to be in favor of secularism.

"Secular Student Alliance is the only secular (or)atheist group on campus," he said."There was another one last year, but unfortunately what happened - and this can happen to clubs is that the members: a lot of them were graduating or already done with college and they weren't doing a good job with recruiting new members. And so their club ended up dying out."

There are other factors influencing how many students choose to be active about their atheism, Garcia said.

A stigma against atheism in American society is one such potential factor.

ThePew Research Center conducted a poll that determined Americans are generally unfavorable toward atheists. Using a "thermometer" scaleto measure general attitudes toward different religious identities from 0 to 100, Pew found that atheism was one ofthe coldest. On average, atheism was rated 41 on the scale second only to Islam, which was rated 40. By comparison, Catholics were rated 62, and Jews were rated 63 (the highest).

Read more:The atheist divide

Psychology seniorTann Cheevasittirungruangis the vice president of SSA. He thinks the novelty of the idea may have something to do with students hesitating to be active.

"I still feel like it's a new idea," he said."We pretty much just graduate from high school and come to college. We pretty much just hang onto that idea. I mean, we've been taught about that idea since we were children: about religion, about what's right and wrong, about what's promised to us when we die. The idea of atheism and secularism is still pretty new to us really."

With about70 percent of Americans identifying as Christians, manystudents come tocollege from Christian households. Cheevasittirungruangthinks this might contribute to hesitancy among students who are unsure of their beliefs or are newly atheisticto investigate secular ideas.

Curtis Peterson, a sophomore studying physics and mathematics, describes himself as an agnostic atheist. He said hethinks the stigma around not being religiouscould be somewhat relieved if atheists presented themselves differently.

"I think alot of atheists put out the attitude of being someone arrogant, or a lot of them put out the idea of being more enlightened," he said. "I think atheists need to put in the effort to try to wean out that sort of stigma. I don't even want to say stigma, but I think: yes, there needs to be more advocacy, but there also needs to be a definite attitude change on the part of atheists."

Peterson also said he wished there was more outreach and advocacy from atheists, but was unsure why so manyatheists shy away from activism.

"If we want atheist ideals to propagate through, I think we need to advocate through secularism," he said.

"The problem that we face, at least in the United States, is a degradation of a secular society. We have a lot of (states)that have attempted to teach Bible-ist truth. I'd much prefer to see advocacy against things like that versus ... (explaining)why we're atheists. I think people get the idea pretty well already. What I think a lot of people don't realize is how poisonous a non-secular society is."

Reach the reporter atparkermshea97@gmail.com or follow@laconicshamanic on Twitter.

LikeThe State Press on Facebook and follow@statepress on Twitter.

See the original post:
Standing alone: atheism club provides for students questioning their faith - The State Press

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Standing alone: atheism club provides for students questioning their faith – The State Press

Atheists are often a vilified and misrepresented minority – SRU The Online Rocket

Posted: at 1:39 pm

Share on Facebook

Share via Email

When people think of minority groups, atheists rarely come to mind. For most, belonging to a minority group isnt a choice; whether that be race, sexual orientation, or gender identity, which is why atheism seems so unusual and mysterious. Although some might argue that having a predilection for reason and the truth is inherent in sensible people, atheism is largely a by-product of examining philosophies and weighing the evidence.

In a nation that purports to espouse Christian values, taking a dissenting ideological stance is seen as something subversive and vile. Numerous conducted polls show that atheists are more distrusted than Muslims and Mexicans, two of the most vilified and criticized minority groups in our country, presently.

Most issues arise from a lack of understanding; a fair amount of people are exceptionally critical of atheism because they simply know nothing about it. They have no personal connection(s). These people base their prejudices on atheist representation in the public and in the media.

Fortunately, we live in an era where differences are becoming more and more accepted, and even celebrated. Atheistic groups are sprouting like wildflowers (in schools, in communities, and online), there are even atheist churches, as weird as that sounds.

However, in a nation that glorifies pious athletes who pray on field and give thanks and credit to an omnipotent creator, the notion of having an atheist in office, let alone on a pitching mound, seems rather absurd. Republicans are viewed as less hospitable to atheists, but even the progressive democrats are hesitant to elect someone even suspected of being an atheist. Keep in mind, Bernies campaign was sabotaged by the DNC, because he might have been dangerously unorthodox.

This isnt something new or radical; our founding fathers wouldnt be described as traditionally religious (Paine was an atheist; Jefferson wrote his own, miracle-free New Testament; most of the others were deists), so having an atheist in office shouldnt that be that unconventional or absurd.

Without an atheist in office, many young atheists are without atheist role-models. As stated earlier, most athletes have some sort of religious inclination, and a lot of celebrities maintain some faith, so the only acceptable positions for atheists to hold are in the sciences or academia.

Not to mention that the way atheists are portrayed in the media is hurtful to the cause as well. Filmmaker Kevin Sorbo, in his Gods Not Dead film series, shows the atheist professor to be arrogant and closed-minded, and even spiteful and angry. In the hit show House, the titular doctor is portrayed as overly-critical, pretentious, and generally negative. While this might be who he is as a person, he is not the only atheist portrayed this way. The anthropomorphic dog, Brian, in Family Guy is a faux-intellectual and substance-abuser, perfectly in-line with his heathen lifestyle.

Its all just lazy writing that relies upon shoddy stereotypes. In fact, its a common trope used by screenwriters. Granted, there are negative and horrible atheists, but thats true for any group. But, with the proper representation, maybe atheist can enact influence in long sought-after arenas, and, above all, not be misunderstood. We dont all hate religion, and most importantly, we dont hate people; atheists recognize we are all we have.

View post:
Atheists are often a vilified and misrepresented minority - SRU The Online Rocket

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheists are often a vilified and misrepresented minority – SRU The Online Rocket

attend NATO leaders meeting in May.

Posted: at 1:34 pm

"The President looks forward to meeting with his NATO counterparts to reaffirm our strong commitment to NATO, and to discuss issues critical to the alliance, especially allied responsibility-sharing and NATO's role in the fight against terrorism," a statement from the White House reads.

It added that, in addition to the Leaders Meeting, Trump will also host Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House next month, "where they will talk about how to strengthen the alliance to cope with challenges to national and international security," the statement adds.

The April meeting with Stoltenberg has been arranged to prepare for a May 25 summit in Brussels on the "new security environment, including the Alliance's role in the fight against terrorism, and the importance of increased defense spending and fairer burden-sharing."

"Seeing the Chinese, then going to Russia and avoiding NATO in the middle -- it's weird," said one NATO diplomat. "It shows that they don't care about NATO. They are not multilateral."

"They probably didn't realize how much impact it would have if he didn't go," the diplomat said. "Now that everybody is screaming about him not going, maybe they will realize."

As one European ambassador to the US put it: "To say the least, everyone is in disbelief."

State Department acting spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Tuesday afternoon that the meeting's dates didn't fit in Tillerson's schedule and a NATO official confirmed that the group is still negotiating with the State Department to schedule the meeting. Toner said the agency is "certainly appreciative of the effort to accommodate Secretary Tillerson."

The official added that Tillerson's schedule isn't the only one they're coordinating on.

Meanwhile, Tillerson has been attempting to keep NATO commitments moving along ahead of May's meeting and keep American leadership relevant within the bloc.

On March 7, he wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asking Congress to ratify Montenegro's membership in NATO.

While the invitation to invite Montenegro to join the alliance was unanimously approved by NATO allies, in the letter, obtained by CNN a day after news broke that Tillerson was skipping the April NATO meeting, the Secretary notes that the US is one of only four member nations which has not given parliamentary approval for the country's bid.

"Allies look to the United States for leadership within the Alliance," he wrote. "Montenegro's participation in the May NATO Summit as a full member, not an observer, will send a strong signal of transatlantic unity."

While Trump last week reaffirmed the US' commitment to the bloc -- albeit with complaints about member countries' defense spending -- he has long been critical of the role NATO plays.

"These nations must pay what they owe."

The statement is a mischaracterization of the commitments that NATO members have -- under the treaty, countries in the bloc have agreed to target spending 2% of their GDP on defense, but do not accrue debts if they have not met these targets.

Tillerson, among other members of the Trump administration including Vice President Mike Pence, have been at pains to stress the official US line of cooperation with NATO and other global institutions.

However, Trump himself has repeatedly undermined the position, initially with declarations on the campaign trail and, since taking office, critical comments and tweets. Alongside his characterization of NATO as obsolete, he has been equally dismissive of the EU, another bulwark of western liberal democracy.

CNN's Nicole Gaouette, Michelle Kosinski and Elise Labott contributed to this report.

Read the original:
attend NATO leaders meeting in May.

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on attend NATO leaders meeting in May.

Germany’s defense minister: No, we don’t owe NATO money

Posted: at 1:34 pm

In a statement released on Sunday, Ursula von der Leyen said "there is no debt account in NATO. To relate the 2% defense spending that we want to reach in the next decade solely to NATO is wrong.

"The defense spending also goes to UN-peace mission, into European missions and towards our contributions to the fight against ISIS terrorism."

"Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years and it is very unfair to the United States," he said. "These nations must pay what they owe."

The statement is a mischaracterization of the commitments that NATO members have -- under the treaty, countries in the bloc have agreed to target a spend on defense of 2% of GDP, but do not accrue debts if they have not met these targets.

Only five of the bloc's 28 members -- the US, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the UK -- meet the alliance's target, which NATO also terms a "guideline" in its annual report. However, "many others" plan to reach 2% by 2024, the report states.

Trump also said that he had thanked the German leader for her commitment towards an increase in defense spending.

On Saturday Trump took to Twitter to confront what he characterized as media reports which reported that his summit with Merkel had gone badly.

He also took the opportunity to once again push home the incorrect assertion that NATO signatory countries like Germany owe "vast sums" and that the US must be "paid" for its contribution.

"Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel," he tweeted..

"Nevertheless, Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!"

Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder replied to the tweets with a series of twitter messages of his own, laying out how the treaty commitments really work.

"Sorry, Mr. President, that's not how NATO works," he tweeted. "The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending NATO."

However, as Daalder also wrote in his nine-tweet explanation, "Those who currently don't spend 2% of their GDP on defense are now increasing their defense budgets. That's a good thing."

Before Trump took office, he rattled NATO members, when he called the organization "obsolete" in a joint interview with the Times of London and the German publication Bild.

"I said a long time ago that NATO had problems," he said in the January interview.

"Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago.

"Number two the countries weren't paying what they're supposed to be paying," he said, adding that this was unfair to the United States.

CNN's Laura Goehler and CNN Money's Ivana Kottasova contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
Germany's defense minister: No, we don't owe NATO money

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Germany’s defense minister: No, we don’t owe NATO money