Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:31 AM
HAB911 (8,171 posts)
President Obama Protects Non-Believers from Religious Republicans
Freedom of religion isn't just about the right to practice religion. It's about the right to have your own views about religion including being agnostic and atheistic.
By Rmuse on Mon, Dec 26th It is no stretch to claim that over the past few months there has been a dearth of good news for anyone but the uber-rich, evangelical zealots, and extreme racists. It is noteworthy that what little good news there has been was provided by, and courtesy of, America’s outgoing President Barack Obama. This past week, there were two items that were sparsely covered by the media and one, in particular, was not only incredibly good news, it was a historical action that provided constitutional protections to a segment of the population commonly and systematically demonized as “un-American.” President Obama signed into law the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act that, among many other things, “protects atheists, humanists, and other freethinkers around the world [including America] from religious persecution.” What that means for American Secular Humanists, agnostics, atheists and other nonreligious persons is that they are now explicitly named as “a class” protected by an “Act” that was quietly and unceremoniously signed into law last week. The new law was an update, and a much-needed upgrade, to the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act that states: “The freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion.” Of particular note is the Act’s explicit condemnation of any group or government entity that specifically “targets non-theists, humanists, and atheists because of their beliefs” as well as attempts to forcibly legislate or compel “non-believers or non-theists to recant their beliefs or to convert.” http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/26/pen-stroke-president-obama-protects-non-believers-religious-republicans.html
|
21 replies, 4062 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
HAB911 | Dec 2016 | OP |
hlthe2b | Dec 2016 | #1 | |
HAB911 | Dec 2016 | #2 | |
HAB911 | Dec 2016 | #3 | |
hlthe2b | Dec 2016 | #4 | |
RKP5637 | Dec 2016 | #5 | |
forgotmylogin | Dec 2016 | #8 | |
Fast Walker 52 | Dec 2016 | #6 | |
Fast Walker 52 | Dec 2016 | #7 | |
bucolic_frolic | Dec 2016 | #9 | |
Ms. Toad | Dec 2016 | #11 | |
Ms. Toad | Dec 2016 | #10 | |
HAB911 | Dec 2016 | #12 | |
Ms. Toad | Dec 2016 | #14 | |
keithbvadu2 | Dec 2016 | #13 | |
Thav | Dec 2016 | #16 | |
vkkv | Dec 2016 | #15 | |
Mc Mike | Dec 2016 | #17 | |
hrmjustin | Dec 2016 | #18 | |
Freethinker65 | Dec 2016 | #19 | |
Angry Dragon | Dec 2016 | #20 | |
awoke_in_2003 | Dec 2016 | #21 |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:41 AM
hlthe2b (95,560 posts)
1. How did that ever make it through a REPUG-controlled Congress?
Amazing, but very glad to see it did.
|
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:50 AM
HAB911 (8,171 posts)
2. I don't know, hope it isn't fake, trying to verify now........n/t
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:52 AM
HAB911 (8,171 posts)
3. It's real
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1150
Shown Here: Passed House amended (05/16/2016) Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (Sec. 2) This bill amends the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) to state in the congressional findings that the freedom of thought and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion. |
Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:53 AM
hlthe2b (95,560 posts)
4. I will grab at any good news I can right now...
thanks for verifying
|
Response to HAB911 (Reply #3)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:58 AM
RKP5637 (64,487 posts)
5. Thanks for posting!!! n/t
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:30 AM
forgotmylogin (7,191 posts)
8. My guess is
Most of the critters wisely realized it would be bad to be on record as opposing any kind of thing with "religious freedom" in the title. It's a third-rail they could be politically bludgeoned with.
Rs do this all of the time with stuff like "The Patriot Act" "You're against the Patriot Act? What, you're not a patriot? (rabblerabble)" I'm all for slapping titles like "The I Certainly Don't Believe Donald Trump Rapes Innocent Woodland Creatures In His Free Time Act" on a wildlife resolution. |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:13 AM
Fast Walker 52 (7,723 posts)
6. Amen to that!
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:17 AM
Fast Walker 52 (7,723 posts)
7. problem is that it's not clear to me that this will help non-believers in the US
although we do have the 1st amendment, of course.
|
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:38 AM
bucolic_frolic (35,376 posts)
9. Amazing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wolf_(politician)
Total NRA supporter, 0% ACLU Yet he goes for free thinking .... |
Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:00 AM
Ms. Toad (31,032 posts)
11. You might want to read the bill in its entirety & reconcile it with the laws it is amending.
The bill was strongly supported by the Family Research Council - so I'm guessing that, read in its entirety, it is not really supportive of free thinking.
(I have not reconciled the entire bill - to see what it extends & what it restricts - but I am suspicious from what I have read and based on the entity that supports it.) |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:58 AM
Ms. Toad (31,032 posts)
10. That's a sgnificant misreading of a bill.
No act of Congress, alone, can "extend constitutional protections" to anyone.
The act is international - so the individuals it protects are those outside of the United States. Because the bill was strongly supported by the Famly Research Council, calling it, "a nice Christmas gift,"I am suspicious that it is anything positive - but I haven't reconciled it with the act it is amending to absolutely confirm my suspicions. |
Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #10)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:01 AM
HAB911 (8,171 posts)
12. That is horrifying .....n/t
Response to HAB911 (Reply #12)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:07 AM
Ms. Toad (31,032 posts)
14. I also see, though,
that it is also associated by the American Humanist Organization.
The bill amends many separate laws - so reconciling it and understanding what it gives and what it takes away is not a quick task. But the strong support from the FRC makes me suspicious that there may be changes that are pretty horrendous. |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 10:06 AM
keithbvadu2 (30,168 posts)
13. Many of our Christians want our country run by Christian beliefs but...
Many of our Christians want our country run by Christian beliefs but there are many variations of Christian beliefs and they may be sorely disappointed if it is not their particular version of Christianity in charge.
Many Protestants/Catholics do not believe each other are true Christians. |
Response to keithbvadu2 (Reply #13)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:19 AM
Thav (944 posts)
16. And they'd scream persecution as well.
We have a sect of prosperity christians here in town. The pastor demands the tax returns of his parishoners to verify they're giving their 10%. This guy also has body guards, for a town of 30,000 people. I'm not sure, but I'd bet that guy gets driven around in a nice car and has a nice house as well.
I wouldn't want those "christians" in charge. |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:17 AM
vkkv (3,384 posts)
15. What a shame that it's come to this.. to have to write a law..
Religious freaks of any sort are the scourge of the planet. Organized religion has caused far too many problems throughout history. |
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:29 AM
Mc Mike (9,059 posts)
17. Thank you, Prez O. Please keep fighting for us. rec, nt.
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:40 AM
Freethinker65 (7,851 posts)
19. Thanks Obama!
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:51 PM
Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)
20. I have felt that religion was more than just a belief in a Supreme Being
It is a set of beliefs that one lives by and does not have to include a belief in a 'god'
|
Response to HAB911 (Original post)
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:30 PM
awoke_in_2003 (34,582 posts)
21. Thank you Mr. President. nt