Human Rights

Since its creation in 1998, the USCIRF has been controversial, both at home and abroad. At home, criticism typically focuses on the charge that the US should be more willing to assist CPC nations to improve their record rather than just putting them on a “blacklist” for the world to see. Abroad, nations have frequently criticized the US for its attitude of “arrogance” in thinking that it is superior to other sovereign nations and entitled to criticize them for religious freedom abuses when the US hardly has a spotless record itself. Nevertheless, after 15 years of activity, there is little doubt that the USCIRF reports have often motivated CPC nations to improve their religious freedom records. USCIRF’s work has also exposed serious religious freedom abuses that should be brought to the world’s attention.

By Karen Scott, Esq. – Protecting conscience requires sensitivity, understanding and often courage. While many working in the area of liberty of conscience have no religious affiliation, Christians should be especially equipped to work in this field remembering that each of us is created in God’s image and that God wants each individual to follow Him as a response to His love and not because of any force, threat or unduly restrictive law.

Since abortion is so politically charged, professed people of faith sometimes think the “safest” course is to ignore the issue altogether. But the reality is, regardless of whether you believe the life of an unborn child should be protected, the Gosnell trial still matters because it involves children who were killed after they were born.

“We are deeply concerned about the situation in various parts of the world where individuals, including Ahmadiyya Muslims, Bahá’ís, Chaldean Catholics and Coptic Orthodox, Tibetan Buddhists, Jews and Muslim Rohingyas, among others, experience difficulty in their ability to worship and practice their faith in peace,” Bennett told approximately 150 guests at the annual Liberty Religious Freedom Dinner, co-sponsored by Liberty magazine, the North American Religious Liberty Association and the International Religious Liberty Association.

Carson warned of “forces in America that want to fundamentally change who we are without discussion. Said Carson, “They co-opt the media and get everybody to shut up so we don’t know what is going on [so they can] change the underpinnings of the nation. We must be smart enough not to fall for it or one day we will wake up and find that we have a different nation.”

This week, two members of the North Carolina House of Representatives submitted a resolution which would declare that “the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, the legislation declared that that the state could make its own laws about religion and the federal government would not be able to stop them. Although the resolution is not likely to be approved, it does deserve some serious examination as it reflects a common argument arising in the religious right that the Establishment Clause does not apply to the states.

As the constant state of conflict in the Middle East demonstrates, violence begets violence. In order to tackle our culture’s problems with violence we need a generational shifting of ideas.

Students at Stanford University School of Law have a unique opportunity to participate in the nation’s only law-school based clinic program that focuses on issues regarding religious freedom and accommodation.

Gregory Hamilton, president of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association and a member of the ReligiousLiberty.TV advisory panel, spent most of the month of March traveling throughout Romania, a formerly communist country where church members experienced severe religious persecution throughout much of the last century, meeting with religious and government leaders to discuss trends in religious liberty and to urge constitutional reform.

By Jason Hines – Today was a landmark day for the Supreme Court, as it heard arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. I have written about this case at every level (on the state level and at the 9th Cir.) so it only seems right that I talk about the arguments that took place earlier today. However, it doesn’t make sense to give a straight up and down summary or even a major analysis (there are plenty of people who did a good job of that, including this article by Adam Serwer), but there are some things that I want to highlight. Some will be important, some won’t, but these are the things that came to mind as I listened to the oral arguments –