I have read two articles lately dealing with different aspects of the same dilemma: When does protection for religious freedom cross the line into authoritarianism as an ironic safeguard for that freedom?
The first article is this one on the NCR site, "European Catholics Fear Erosion of Religious Freedoms Across the Continent". We know that religious freedom is a sometimes contentious issue for Americans. It turns out that the European countries, especially those who are members of the EU, have their religious freedom issues, too. From the NCR article:
"...Fears of an incremental assault on religious freedom have long been expressed by church leaders in Europe, where antireligious incidents are logged by the Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians, and publicized by human rights bodies such as the European Centre for Law and Justice.
"...In an annual speech to the Vatican's diplomatic corps in February, Pope Francis warned 182 ambassadors accredited to the Holy See that efforts to contain COVID-19 had "impacted various fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion."
"...Fr. Piotr Mazurkiewicz, a Polish theologian and political scientist who was secretary-general of the EU commission of bishops' conferences from 2008 to 2012, said the past year had shown "a distinction between countries with a friendly attitude to faith, and those where the political culture is hostile to religion, seeing it as more harmful than helpful to the organization of the state."
"The EU's institutions currently side very strongly with the ideology of secularization, treating this as normative," Mazurkiewicz told NCR. "Some governments are actively pushing it, convinced a secularized society will be more modern and efficient than a religious one."
In October, Denmark's Council of Churches, whose 16 member-denominations include Catholics, told Frederiksen that the law would damage the country's international image by making faith traditions "hostages to a simplistic understanding of religion and religious practice."
Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, president of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union, has similarly warned of an "undue hindrance" to religious liberty, which is also protected by the EU's 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights.
"This development is part of a broader, increasing trend of neglect for religious freedom in EU member-states," Hollerich said in a January statement.
"While we understand the goal is to prevent radicalization and counter incitement to hatred and terrorism, any negative or discriminatory impact should be avoided with regard to churches and religious communities that are averse and alien to such actions," said the cardinal.
The other article I previously mentioned is from the Atlantic Magazine, Common-Good Constitutionalism - The Atlantic, by Harvard Law professor, Adrian Vermuele.
"...Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler."
"...Finally, unlike legal liberalism, common-good constitutionalism does not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy, because it sees that law is parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits. Just authority in rulers can be exercised for the good of subjects, if necessary even against the subjects’ own perceptions of what is best for them—perceptions that may change over time anyway, as the law teaches, habituates, and re-forms them. Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being."
The thin line that both the European and American societies are walking is the one between the freedom to practice religion, and an increasingly secularistic society in which the "nones" outnumber (in some locations) the believers. I would have to say that the problem seems to be greater in Europe. The danger (especially in Europe) is that religion is under increasing hostility from the secularists who feel that it is a hindrance to the functioning of modern society. The response from religious people who feel that their values are under attack is sometimes to turn to a soft-glove (or maybe not so soft) authoritarianism such as that espoused by Professor Vermuele in the Atlantic article, in an ironic attempt to preserve their freedom by undemocratic means.
No specifics given. I would like to see some specific examples of how their religious freedom is being threatened. I do remember that both Poland and Hungary opposed the European Parliament when it proposed rules ( laws.) that protect women’s rights. See paragraph below.
ReplyDeleteI personally lean to keeping religion out of governance. I think the Christian religious conservatives in the US, including RCC, are working to claim that their religious beliefs give them the right to discriminate against gays even in non- religious settings and if they win on that, they could extend it to allow themselves to also discriminate against women and religious minorities like Muslims. Most Western Europeans are not religious and they do not want religious institutions interfering in governance.
“The study was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. The study presents a review of the most important legislation, institutional arrangements and policy programs with regard to gender equality in Poland. In particular, the following policy fields are covered: women in political decision-making, reproductive rights, trafficking in human beings and domestic violence, access to different forms of employment, as well as the policies addressing the reconciliation of work and family life. The final section describes the problem of public attitudes towards gender and gives examples of programs aimed at counteracting gender stereotypes.
PE 571.372 EN”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571372/IPOL_STU(2016)571372_EN.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571372/IPOL_STU(2016)571372_EN.pdf
As regards specifics, the full NCR article mentions the euthanasia controversy in Spain. Also unequal application of Covid crowd restrictions, applying the same rules to large buildings such as churches as they do to small shops, classifying religious services as nonessential activities. Another thing mentioned is tight control of churches in Denmark, stopping short of outright censorship of homilies, but requiring clergy to take government mandated training.
DeleteThe overall effect is to marginalize religious practice as antithetical to the modern state.
The euthanasia provision is troubling. I will have to do some research on that one for the details.
DeleteThe Danish provision is to require that public statements (including homilies/sermons) that are not given in Danish be translated and sent to the government. Apparently the measure is intended to monitor Islamist extremists radicalizing members in the Mosques. But I suppose that singling out one religious group could look discriminatory. The religious leaders of the various non-Danish speaking congregations are concerned about the costs involved with translation as well as with the fact that some homilies are given with the use of notes only and aren't written down to begin with. The objections are being noted - the proposal is not yet law.
I can't help but wonder about some of the speech coming from American pulpits. The overt political endorsements, especially in evangelical churches, is actually illegal if their non-profit status is to be continued. Some of the Catholic bishops crossed the line too, as well as many priests in parishes, based on what I have read. But we don't enforce. I wish we did. Trump said he was going to try to get rid of that law. I don't know if he did. It seems that some of these preachers go beyond politicizing their sermons - encouraging their members to arm themselves and prepare for violence. Maybe the Danish govt is not so off-base after all.
For example: https://tinyurl.com/2s3sc6hx
and - https://tinyurl.com/vjb6ju9s
The shops in France tend to be very small. The government did close down large retail over a specific square footage - this includes the major department stores. Supermarkets could stay open, with restrictions and early closings. Small shops in France tend to be quite small - smaller than in the US. Guessing in the neighborhood of 600-800 sq ft (the average in the US for a small retail site is 1000 sq ft according to google). Allowing for space for a backroom with supplies, an employee or two, a counter, display racks and cases etc, 6 sq meters/person doesn't allow for many customers. The French are trying to save their small businesses just as we are. Masks are pretty strictly enforced.
The churches are not being discriminated against - there or in the US. Large indoor arenas with lots of space, such as basketball arenas in the US, are also severely limited in the numbers of people who are allowed inside. In France, the large commercial sites (other than food and other necessities) were closed too - not just houses of worship.
Finally, it seems that some of these spokesmen think it's the government's job to make the population more religious - such as this statement from the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union
Negative perceptions of faith were being fueled by a "rise in religious illiteracy," the commission warned
If there is such a rise, then whose fault is it? It's not the government's job to raise religious literacy!
Here in Ohio, Governor DeWine was careful to exclude religious assemblies and first amendment activity from his lockdown orders. Catholic churches could have remained open but they did shut down during the first wave. Technically they do not have to observe spacing, etc. requirements but I am sure their insurers and lawyers have told them that they better conform to the regulations that apply to everyone else. While DeWine has not regulated religious marriage and funeral services, he has regulated marriage and funeral receptions, i.e. he has interpreted religious activity as narrowly applying to worship services.
DeleteWhen Trump came to Ohio for campaign events, the Governor and Lt. Governor attended but also criticized the events for their size, lack of social distancing and masks, and were both booed by the crowd.
In the case of a few defiant Evangelical churches, DeWine simply said they were not acting wisely.
I guess all this depends upon what one defines as religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU, a reputedly liberal organization, takes a rather narrow Constitutional view
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom
The Heritage Foundation, a reputedly conservative organization, takes a very broad view:
First of all, what is religious freedom?
Religious freedom is more than the “freedom to worship” at a synagogue, church, or mosque. It means people shouldn’t have to go against their core values and beliefs in order to conform to culture or government.
Religious freedom protects people’s right to live, speak, and act according to their beliefs peacefully and publicly. It protects their ability to be themselves at work, in class, and at social activities.
Ok, that sounds good, but does such “freedom” allow people to do whatever they want under the cover of religion?
Well, that answer is no. The Supreme Court has said the federal government may limit religious freedom – but only when it has a “compelling interest” to do so in order to protect the common good and limit people’s ability to harm others.
Seems to me like conservative Supreme Court Justices ought to side with the ACLU and reject the Heritage Foundation program as reading a new Right into the Constitution much like liberals want to find a right to a job, or an income, or an education.
Forgot to include the link for the Heritage Foundation citation.
Deletehttps://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/heritage-explains/religious-freedom-whats-stake-if-we-lose-it
Hmmm. According to the Heritage Foundation: "Religious freedom protects people’s right to live, speak, and act according to their beliefs peacefully and publicly. It protects their ability to be themselves at work, in class, and at social activities." Sounds to me like support for LGBT people. But I don't suppose Heritage would see it like that.
DeleteAssuming the narrow interpretation of religious freedom remained in place, I think I would prefer rights to healthcare, an education, and a guaranteed income much more than a right to live, speak and act according to whatever one's beliefs and values might be.
DeleteWithout healthcare, an education and an income, I wonder how valuable the broader notion of religious freedom would be, and I worry how other people might make myself and others miserable by use of their freedom to do whatever their beliefs and values tell them to do.
The Heritage Foundation's description of religious freedom seems pretty close to the Supreme Court's understanding, or so it seems to this non-lawyer.
DeleteWhile many social scientists including some agnostics and atheists, now agree about the importance of religion for many people, societies and cultures, I think most would agree that religion like many other good things in life can be abused, and would be concerned like I am about any notion that religion is always good that seems to underlie the Heritage ideal.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jack. I agree. The wall between church and state in the US needs to be strengthened because there has been an ongoing effort to weaken it for some time now. Many conservative Christians, especially evangelicals, are quite open about their belief that the US was founded to be a Christian country, and think now is the time to establish a ( white) Christian theocracy as the governing principle. Europe’s history of fighting for true religious freedom is certainly one of the reasons it has become so secular. They don’t want a return of overbearing religion in the non- religious realm. The Enlightenment happened for a reason.
DeleteI don't read the Heritage Foundation's description as saying that religion is always good. I see it as saying that religious belief deserves deference in society.
DeleteI don't claim to know what is happening in Europe, but in the US, I think we're pretty safe from those who would impose a theocracy. The greater danger is inadequate respect for the religious beliefs of religious minorities (of which the Catholic Church is one).
Jim,
DeleteWe are the largest and in many ways the most powerful church in the country. We have the presidency, more than our share of Congress, and the majority of the Supreme Court.
The only people who could become the majority to dominate us are the Nones. A bunch of mostly young people who while not against the transcendent mainly think the religious establishment is hypocritical (i.e. not truly very spiritual).
I don't think the Nones in Europe are the same as the Nones in the USA.
DeleteEurope comes from a history of established religion, and much of the revolt against religion was and remains a revolt against establishments. Europe also has a history of religions doing very bad things, persecuting one another and especially the Jews.
The USA has never had an established church, except for a few colonies. Our religious history is a history of immigrants, first Protestant and then Catholic, and of continual renewal of American Protestantism. So religion here has not only not been established but also tended to be at odds with the political-religious establishment.
"I don't think the Nones in Europe are the same as the Nones in the USA."
DeleteI think you are right, Jack. In some countries of Europe there is still an established church, in the sense of being tax supported, even in some which aren't very religious. A couple which come to mind are Denmark and Germany. In Denmark something like only 5% attend church on any kind of a regular basis, but the church is tax supported. In Germany it is more than that, but there is a movement lately of people "unjoining" their church so as not to have their tax dollars going to the church ( I guess that is a thing, that if you are officially not a member, the percent of your tax dollars that would have gone to a church doesn't). It doesn't appear that being an established church is a very good evangelization strategy.
Related useless bit of trivia: antidisestablishmentarianism is a position which advocates that a state church should continue to receive government patronage, rather than be disestablished. It used to be the longest English word in the dictionary before some scientific terms bumped it from first place.
DeleteI think the Germans unjoining is mostly due to the pedophilia scandals. The hypocrisy of directing peoples sex lives while covering up the worst abuse was the breaking point. And the pure dead institutionalism of it.
DeleteJim, why doesreligious belief deserve deference in our country?
DeleteThe attempts being made by conservative Christians to impose their beliefs on all through legislation and judicial decisions may not amount to a formal theocracy, but the intent is similar - to force all citizens to submit to the beliefs they are working to impose via the government.
Respect is one thing. Deference is another. Deference implies submission. Deferring to the desires of religious groups in , for example, allowing them to disregard measures meant to safeguard the health of others, is not a desirable state of affairs. Our country limits religious freedom, as it should. Christian Scientists and Jehovahs Witnesses are not deferred to when they claim the right to refuse lifesaving medical care for their children.
Religious beliefs, and how one orders one's life in obedience to those beliefs, are baked into the Constitution because American history, and the European history which gave rise to the American experiment, were marked by extreme instances of religious intolerance. Many settlers came to the US to have freedom to worship and live as they desired.
DeleteI am grateful for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the Bill of Rights, and it scares the urine out of me that so many progressives have so little respect for these protections. These folks are profoundly ahistorical and almost sociopathically unempathetic. 'I am not religious, therefore religious considerations should mean nothing to anyone else, either.' Earlier this week, Jonah Goldberg aptly termed this myopia "The fierce arrogance of now".
Deference is not the same as submission. Tolerance comes closer to the mark. But tolerance and liberty are not virtues in the world that progressives are seeking to build.
"We are the largest and in many ways the most powerful church in the country. We have the presidency, more than our share of Congress, and the majority of the Supreme Court."
DeleteI don't think any of those public officials hold their offices because the church pulled strings for them in some way. In all these cases, I assume they have landed in these positions of power and influence because Catholics are overrepresented in the legal profession (and other professions) and because many Catholics are called to serve.
If anything, the ubiquity of Catholics in high office in the US is an illustration of how mainstream and un-distinctive the church in the US has become.
And I think the days of the institutional church being powerful are past. To the extent the institution still wields any influence, it is because it is still hyper-organized. Being organized is always an advantage (something that workers used to understand more than they do nowadays, it seems).
def·er·ence
Delete/ˈdef(ə)rəns/
noun
humble submission and respect.
Respecting the right of citizens to religious freedom in their individual lives does not require submissiveness. Our government respects the right of Christian Scientists to refuse medical care for themselves, but does not defer to their belief that they have a religious freedom right to refuse their religious children needed medical care.
Why should your religious beliefs be deferred to by those who don’t share them, Jim? I presume that you respect the religious freedom of Muslims - up to a point. As long as Muslims don’t try to use our government to impose their beliefs on you.
Would you give deference and respect to sharia law?
Jim, I was not able to locate the Jonah Goldberg column you referenced above. Do you have a link? Without seeing what he was talking about, I'm just guessing that some of the progressives have the same fears that the religious people do, about their freedom not being respected. An example would be the opposition of conservative Christians to civil gay marriage.
DeleteJim: and it scares the urine out of me that so many progressives have so little respect for these protections. These folks are profoundly ahistorical and almost sociopathically unempathetic. 'I am not religious, therefore religious considerations should mean nothing to anyone else, either
DeleteJim - seriously? This is sheer hyperbole and these absurd claims of christians being victims of religious oppression is reaching Trumpian levels of big lie.
If you truly believe this to be true, could you please provide some examples. Some evidence.
This increasing tendency of christians to put themselves out there as victims is hard to believe. Nobody interferes with their freedoms UNLESS they wish to violate those of other people. For example, if their religious beliefs include that black people are the children of Cain so they will refuse service to them - based on their religious beliefs. It's wrong and it's illegal. The same goes for people offering services to the general public - they can't suddenly claim that they won't serve a gay couple or a bi-racial couple because of their religious beliefs. But some are trying and appear to be getting away with it.
I am aware of the thousands of instances of hate crimes against religious people that have occurred in recent years and which have occurred for far longer than that. But those are directed mostly towards Jews and Muslims - not christians. The christians killed in the Charleston church were killed because they were black, not because they were christian. The Jews killed in their temple in Pittsburgh were killed because they were Jews. Muslims and Jews especially are frequent victims of direct physical attacks on individuals, vandalism on their places of worship and schools, their homes, their businesses. Anti-semitic graffiti and anti-Muslim graffiti in schools is commonplace. Anti-christian graffiti or vandalism is not a common occurrence.
Every power center in the country - religious, political, corporate, government, finance etc - is dominated by leaders who are christians (nominally at least) - although some have minority religious leadership, that is relatively rare.
The federal government closes down for the two major christian holy days of the year. School systems close down there too - because of Christmas and Easter, even though in public schools it's now called "winter" break and "spring break". The entire federal govt, state govts, local govts close down for those two CHRISTIAN holidays, as do many private businesses, from huge corporations down to the local pet store.
They do NOT close down for the two major Muslim Eid holidays. They do NOT normally close for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah - although some school systems do (ours does because so many of the families are Jewish and their kids didn't go to school on those days anyway).
There are restrictions on religious freedom. See examples above of the limits on freedom for Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses. We will not permit honor killings of female family members even though some religions permit this.
Why should christians receive "deference" when their desires (to rid themselves of Covid restrictions) may put the health and lives of others at stake. What gives christians license to freely risk the lives of others?
But maybe you are thinking of other things? Maybe you think that ALL taxpayers should subsidize religious - specifically Catholic - schools?
Please elaborate!
Jack, the Nones are not only repelled by the hypocrisy they see in organized religion, they resent the attempts ( mostly by conservative Christians, including Catholics) to impose their beliefs on all and to use their tax money to promote their religious views.
ReplyDeleteHardly the way to attract young adults into your pews.
Speaking of Europe's situation, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, had this to say:
ReplyDelete"I feel very acutely the loss of faith in Europe, in our culture, our countries," he confessed.
In particular, he mentioned the "anthropological changes that are taking place" and said he believes the Old Continent is experiencing "a loss of reason".
"Today we cannot impose anything, but we must offer a coherent and believable witness of Christian life," he added.
Cardinal Parolin argued that "the situation we are living" right now is similar to "the first centuries of the Church, when the apostles and the first disciples arrived in a society that did not have Christian values".
"But thanks to the witness of the first communities," he said, "they succeeded in changing the mentality and introducing the values of the Gospel into the society of that time."
Though he was speaking of Europe, Christians in the US should take this advice to heart: "...we must offer a coherent and believable witness of Christian life,"
Note the beginning of that sentence - “ Today we cannot impose anything “.
ReplyDeleteBut some christian groups in the US, including Catholics, are trying to use the government to impose their beliefs - specifically conservative religious views - on all.
I wonder though about just offering “witness of christian life”? For many, christian beliefs are, well, not believable. Many of those are bedrock teachings in evangelical churches even though they contradict scientific knowledge. Some teachings that many find hard to believe are found in almost all christian traditions - the Virgin birth, perhaps, or a literal understanding of the Resurrection.
Should people be christian because it offers a tribe, a culture, a lifestyle that is appealing? A place where they feel a sense of belonging? Should this be the case even when not actually believing the dogmas and doctrines?
Many accept the “values of the gospel “ - Jesus’ teachings - but may not believe that Jesus was God.
I was thinking about Gospel values, you know, like love. A Christian witness would mean acting like Christ, WWJD? I think a lot of people get turned off on Christianity because they don't see its adherents acting very Christian.
DeleteKatherine, agree. Many surveys of “nones” have highlighted exactly that point. They see hypocrisy in organized religion, especially christianity, and decide they are better off without it.
ReplyDeleteSome also resent what they understand to be efforts to impose a few allegedly Christian beliefs on all - even though there are Christian denominations that don’t share the beliefs of the conservatives pushing for specific policies. They do not wish to join what they see as a branch of the Republican Party - especially now that it’s really not the Republican Party, but trumps party.
The situation in Europe is a bit different than in the US. The resistance to religion there has a much longer history than in the US, and has been often due to the history of the Catholic Church having imposed itself on most countries of Europe for hundreds of years.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good reason for religious people in the US to step back from trying to impose religious beliefs on all via the government.
I don't know that it was so much religion imposing itself in Europe, so much as there being no separation of church and state, in fact in some instances the church and the state being one and the same. Such as, the British sovereign being the head of the Church of England. Nowadays it's a formality, but not so in the more distant past. And on the Scandinavian countries and parts of Germany, the rulers imposing a state church on their subjects. It wasn't always the Catholics throwing their weight around, it was about power and who had it and who didn't.
DeleteKatherine, I’m not talking about the church today in Europe. I’m talking about the hundreds of years the Catholic Church imposed itself on Europe- from crowning kings and emperors to executing heretics. The abuses by the Catholic Church produced both the Reformation and the era called the Enlightenment. Separation of church and state was one of the ideas put forth in the Enlightenment. Separation of church and state was a reaction to official state religion - with a monarch as head of both church and state. Official state churches still exist - not just In the UK - but the official state religion in no longer imposed on the people
ReplyDelete. Some christians in the US are working to impose their beliefs on all - or at last to exempt themselves from laws that are supposed to apply to all - especially related to discrimination- using the state to do it, even though there is no official state religion in the US. The first colonies were founded by some who were fleeing state religion. Before we were a country, those colonies sometimes imposed their own religion on the colony and kicked out those who would not join up. For example, Roger Williams was a Puritan minister, But he believed in religious freedom, and separation of church and state - ideas that were anethema to the Puritans.. He founded Rhode Island after the Puritans kicked him out of Massachusetts and also founded the first Baptist Church in America. When our country was founded, the ideas of religious freedom and separation of church and state were incorporated. Some founders were conventional Christians, bit some were deists. Ben Franklin was a Quaker.
Calling for deference from the state towards religion holds potential for abuse , and contrary to the principles of separation of church and state. Respect for religion is one thing. Deference is another.
Project Blitz
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/opinion/project-blitz-christian-nationalists.html
The second, more difficult category for Project Blitz consists of bills intended to promote the teaching and celebration of Christianity in public schools and elsewhere. These bills are a means of spreading the message that Christian conservatives are the real Americans, and everybody else is here by invitation only.
The sponsors of Project Blitz have pinned their deepest hopes on the third and most contentious category of model legislation. The dream here is something that participants in the conference call referred to in awed tones as “the Mississippi missile.” The “missile” in question is Mississippi’s HB 1523, a 2016 law that allows private businesses and government employees to discriminate, against L.G.B.T. people for example, provided that they do so in accordance with “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill offers extraordinary protections, not to all religious beliefs per se, but to a very narrow set of beliefs associated mostly with conservative religion. If you hold a different set of religious beliefs, like, say, a commitment to gender and L.G.B.T. equality, there is no liberty in this bill for you.
How conservatives changed the meaning of “ religious liberty”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/02/how-conservatives-have-changed-the-meaning-of-religious-liberty/?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.3ab31e2c50cc
Agree with the article that "...religious liberty is for everyone, or it is for no one at all."
DeleteGeorgetown is having an online event on how different countries handle religious diversity
ReplyDeletehttps://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/governance-of-religious-diversity