When freedom of religion is not

Indian Christians protesting the Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Bill also known as the Anti-Conversion Bill makes provisions for the prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by force, allurement, or by any fraudulent means with punishments ranging between a minimum of three years and a maximum of 10 years along with monetary penalties. Abhishek Chinnappa/Getty Images

A devastating wave is crashing over South Asia, wreaking havoc on those who choose to follow a faith other than the majority. It is a wave of anti-Christian sentiment. So-called “Freedom of Religion” and “Anti-Blasphemy” laws fuel it, generating a powerful undercurrent of distrust and disdain toward Christians.

They suppress one of the most basic human rights: the right to worship without government interference. India and Pakistan stand out as countries where this hostility results in unsubstantiated accusations, unjust arrests, and violence.

Sovereign states almost universally agree on protecting an individual’s right to choose their faith.

Sovereign states almost universally agree on protecting an individual’s right to choose their faith and peacefully practice and share it as they see fit. In fact, 175 of the 193 United Nations members are parties to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This instrument, designed by the UN to protect citizens from the treacherous waves of religious persecution, includes India and Pakistan among its bound members. Still, religious freedom violations persist in South Asia.

Six pastors and one Christian have recently been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

Thirteen of India’s 28 states have “Freedom of Religion” laws. Under Madhya Pradesh’s state “Freedom of Religion” law, six pastors and one Christian have recently been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The pastors attended a child’s birthday party hosted by a Christian family. An uninvited neighbor showed up intoxicated and began to cause a commotion, inciting over 100 people to rage against the Christian family.

A guest called police to restore order. The neighbor consequently filed charges against the pastors. The charges led to convictions, despite testimony from the party host disputing any wrongdoing.

In Pakistan, anti-Christian sentiment has recently resulted in a large mob trapping between 10 and 15 Christian families in their homes.

In Pakistan, anti-Christian sentiment has recently resulted in a large mob trapping between 10 and 15 Christian families in their homes after an anonymous package containing a burned Quran was mailed to a shopkeeper, alleging that a Christian had desecrated the Quran. The accused and his family had to be evacuated with the aid of an armored police escort.

We applaud the government for stepping in to help. Still, one has to wonder whether it would have been necessary if the government had reformed the laws that fuel anti-Christian sentiment and, in doing so, rescued the country as a whole.

As Christians, we stand against conversion by coercion, fraud or force.

Following Jesus is a choice that each person must make on their own. As Christians, we stand against conversion by coercion, fraud or force. We believe that governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from all manner of exploitation, even religious exploitation. Laws protecting people from coercion, force and fraud are one thing. Laws that prohibit people from hearing about or choosing another religion are a completely different matter.

One enforces human rights; the other violates them. Ironically, the so-called “Freedom of Religion” laws place people in bondage by restricting their free speech and their ability to proclaim and live out their faith freely.

Washington dad sues school district for denying religious opt-out for young son during Pride Month lesson

By
mconnellynyp
Published Sep. 9, 2026, 2:43 p.m. ET

A Washington father is suing his son’s public school district after he said his 10-year-old was taught about gender surgery during a Pride Month lesson despite the Christian parent previously asking the school to excuse his child from LGBTQ-related instruction.

On Tuesday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the father, Konstantin Averkiev, filed a federal lawsuit against Lake Washington School District, alleging officials violated Averkiev’s First and 14th Amendment rights by refusing to provide notice and allow his son to opt out of LGBTQ-related lessons and other school requirements that conflict with his religious beliefs.

The dispute began after Averkiev said he met with his son’s fourth-grade teacher at Henry David Thoreau Elementary School in September 2025 and requested advance notice and an opt-out from lessons involving LGBTQ topics, gender identity or gender transition.

Montgomery County parent Wael Elkoshairi speaks in front of supporters of parents advocating for religious rights outside of the US Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2025.Getty Images

A Washington father is suing his son’s public school district.Stuart Monk – stock.adobe.com

Pride flags fly in front of the American Flag as a group gathers for a rally at the Stonewall National Monument in Manhattan on Feb. 12, 2026.Robert Miller for NY Post

According to the complaint, the teacher agreed, but Averkiev subsequently found out his son had been taught a June Pride Month lesson that allegedly included a classroom discussion of gender-change surgery.

The teacher then said he remembered Averkiev’s request and told him he “should have sent the lessons ahead of time,” according to messages cited in the lawsuit. However, Averkiev said that the district later rejected nearly all of his broader opt-out requests as his son prepared to enter fifth grade.

The Pride Month presentation, taught to fourth and fifth-grade students, described same-sex attraction, transgender identity and the Stonewall uprising, a series of protests from people who identified as LGBTQ+ against a police raid on June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village, according to materials cited in the complaint.

Bipartisan Right to Worship act seeks safeguards for religious services

 

The Wall That Made America Great and The Prophecy That Ends It

September 3, 2026 Gary Blanchard



Were Daniel and his three friends disobeying God when they refused to bow to the golden image, and when Daniel refused to stop praying to anyone but the king for thirty days?

Years earlier, the prophet Jeremiah had spoken to the children of Israel. He told them the Babylonians were coming and that, rather than resisting, they should “put their necks under his yoke.” In other words, they were to submit to Babylonian rule. This was not merely Jeremiah’s opinion. As a true prophet, he delivered a directive that came from God Himself:

“If, however, any nation or kingdom will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon or bow its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation with the sword, famine and plague, declares the Lord, until I destroy it by his hand. … But if any nation will bow its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will let that nation remain in its own land to till it and to live there, declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:8, 11, NIV)

Jeremiah repeated the same message to King Zedekiah: “Bow your neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people, and you will live” (Jeremiah 27:12).

So why, then, did Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) refuse the king’s command in Daniel 3, and why did Daniel himself refuse the king’s decree in Daniel 6? On the surface they appear insubordinate to the very authority God had told His people to accept. They would not bow to the golden image when commanded, and Daniel would not stop praying to God when ordered to petition only the king for thirty days.

Their response in the furnace episode is clear:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18, NIV)

Daniel, knowing the decree had been signed, continued his lifelong practice of praying three times a day with his windows open toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6:10).

Something Strange Is Going On With Flock Safety Cameras

Something Strange Is Going On With Flock Safety Cameras

reallygraceful

Aug 30, 2026

Something strange is going on with Flock Safety cameras.

Flock’s automated license-plate readers have rapidly popped up across American roads, neighborhoods and parking lots…even playgrounds...creating a searchable database of where vehicles have been. As reports emerge of warrantless searches, police misuse and data sharing among thousands of organizations, public outrage has made Flock the national face of mass surveillance.

But what happens if every Flock camera disappears tomorrow? POOF gone?

In this video, we investigate Flock Safety’s expansion, the Fourth Amendment loophole behind license-plate tracking, police surveillance drones, gunshot-detection microphones, real-time crime centers and the competing companies waiting to replace Flock.

Because Flock may be the visible black box beside the road—but the surveillance network surrounding it is becoming harder to see.

Americans’ role in the surveillance state

Paul Engel

Sun Aug 9 The Constitution Study

The United States is quickly becoming a surveillance state. While this rightly concerns many people, I don’t think they realize how much of a role they play in this trek toward a dystopian future.

People are concerned about Flock and other license plate readers, never considering that it’s our desire for government to keep us safe that is driving the need for surveillance. To make matters worse, many are hoping the federal legislation will help protect their privacy. I guess many Americans are willing to trade a federal government with limited and enumerated powers for protection against the nightmare they created.

Meanwhile, cities and states across the nation are passing gun-owner control laws, forgetting that it is often lawful gun-owners who are saving the day while others wait for the police to show up. Maybe, if more people defended themselves and their family, police wouldn’t need all this surveillance tech.

The Constitution Study with Paul Engel on America Out Loud Talk Radio can be heard weekdays at 4:00 p.m. ET. Listen on iHeartRadio, our world-class media player, or our free Apple, Android, or Alexa apps. Listen to other episodes of The Constitution Study, which are available on podcasts.

Transcript Summary of this podcast episode ⤵

Full Transcript (Auto-Transcribed)

Americans are being told that more surveillance is the price of safety. License plate readers, body cameras, digital IDs, car kill switches, and age verification rules are all sold as common-sense protections. The pitch sounds comforting. Trust the system, and it will keep you safe.

But safety without liberty is not security. It is submission.

The Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not promise freedom from being recorded in public. The real danger comes later, when data is stored, shared, searched, and used without meaningful limits. That is where the line is crossed. A camera on a street corner is one thing. A searchable database of everywhere you have been, every plate you passed, every movement logged and cataloged, is something else entirely.

The same problem appears in other forms. Government wants to decide when your car may start, what your child may see online, and which shoppers qualify for subsidized food. Each plan is wrapped in concern for public welfare. Each one shifts power away from families, property owners, and citizens, and toward distant officials who know little about your life.

That is the trade many Americans keep making. We ask government to protect us, then act surprised when it starts controlling us. We want crime prevented, children shielded, and order restored. Those are worthy goals. Yet every new layer of control teaches the public to depend less on themselves and more on force from above.

A free people do not survive by outsourcing responsibility. They survive by taking it back.

If liberty means anything, it means ordinary citizens must defend their rights, train their children, watch out for one another, and demand real limits on government power. Otherwise, the surveillance state will keep growing, not because it was imposed on us all at once, but because too many of us welcomed it one convenience at a time.

Source

Washington Nationals Director Admits Religious Discrimination Against Pitcher Williams

FULL SPEECH: Dr. Ben Carson on What He Has Seen as a Surgeon - 05/17/26

 

UNHRC holds emergency debate on Iran

 

Vatican diplomat calls on UN to return to roots on human rights...

Vatican diplomat calls on UN to return to roots on human rights, avoid ideological colonization

October 15, 2025

» Continue to this story on Holy See Mission

CWN Editor's Note: Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, apostolic nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, called on the UN to seek “true reform” through return to its “foundational principles,” particularly a focus on respect for human rights.

“The roots of human rights are to be found in the God-given dignity that belongs to each human being,” Archbishop Caccia said in a statement for a recent UN meeting. “The State has the duty to promote and protect human rights, which are necessary conditions for human flourishing.”

The Holy See “notes that the interpretation of human rights has often been expanded beyond the scope of both law and consensus, with unintended ramifications,” the prelate added. “Consequently, the assertion of new concepts as rights can become an instrument of ideological colonization.”

Archbishop Caccia also said that the “Holy See insists on the central role of religious freedom, not because it ignores other freedoms, but because it is the litmus test for the respect of all other human rights and fundamental freedoms.”The above note supplements, highlights, or corrects details in the original source (link above). About CWN news coverage.

Source

Florida to end all vaccine mandates, surgeon general says

Gov. Ron DeSantis appoints Dr. Joseph Ladapo as the next surgeon general of Florida on Sept. 21, 2021. On Wednesday, Ladapo announced that the state intends to eliminate all vaccine mandates. (Governor’s Office photo/TNS)

By Steven Walker | swalker@orlandosentinel.com | Orlando Sentinel
UPDATED: September 3, 2025 at 2:04 PM EDT


Florida will work to end all vaccine mandates, state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced Wednesday at a press conference with Gov. Ron DeSantis.

“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Ladapo said.

The announcement at a private Christian school in Hillsborough County was met with loud applause from the crowd.

Ladapo did not provide specifics but said Florida would be the first state in the nation to wipe out vaccine mandates.

Florida law requires students to be vaccinated against a variety of diseases — including chickenpox, measles, polio and tetanus — before enrolling in school. But compliance has dropped sharply in recent years with more parents using an easy-to-get religious exemption to avoid getting their children vaccinated. That drop has alarmed public health officials, who say vaccines have wiped out dangerous childhood diseases and saved lives.

Government Forces Citizens To Care & House Migrants. Enslaving Illegal M...

'If That's Not An Attack On Religious Liberty...': Miller-Meeks Claims Threats To 'God-Given Rights'

The No Religious Test Clause (ARTICLE VI of the U.S. Constitution)

COMMON INTERPRETATION

The No Religious Test Clause

by Alan E. Brownstein

Professor of Law & the Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality at the University of California - Davis School of Law

by Jud Campbell

Associate Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law


After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test Clause, banned a longstanding form of religious discrimination practiced both in England and in the United States. In doing so, it provided a limited but enduring textual constitutional commitment to religious liberty and equality that has influenced the way Americans have understood the relationship between government and religion over the last two centuries.

In England, religious tests were used to “establish” the Church of England as an official national church. The Test Acts, in force from the 1660s until the 1820s, required all government officials to take an oath disclaiming the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and affirming the Church of England’s teachings about receiving the sacrament. These laws effectively excluded Catholics and members of dissenting Protestant sects from exercising political power. Religious tests were needed, William Blackstone explained, to protect the established church and the government “against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, infidels, turks, jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries.”

At the time the United States Constitution was adopted, religious qualifications for holding office also were pervasive throughout the states. Delaware’s constitution, for example, required government officials to “profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” North Carolina barred anyone “who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion” from serving in the government. Unlike the rule in England, however, American religious tests did not limit office-holding to members of a particular established church. Every state allowed Protestants of all varieties to serve in government. Still, religious tests were designed to exclude certain people—often Catholics or non-Christians—from holding office based on their faith.

Today, nondiscrimination is an essential part of religious freedom, and it therefore may seem odd that the state laws and constitutions simultaneously imposed religious tests while also professing to protect religious liberty. Indeed, some critics, such as Thomas Jefferson, condemned religious tests as repugnant to freedom of conscience. But many Americans in the late 1700s and early 1800s apparently did not view religious tests and religious freedom as inherently contradictory. Some argued that religious tests did not violate freedom of religious conscience because no one had an obligation or entitlement to hold public office. Office-holding, in other words, was a privilege, not a right. Americans thus allowed minority religions to practice their faith while insisting that government power must be reserved for and could only be trusted to Protestants.

Notwithstanding this almost unanimous state consensus, the Framers of the federal Constitution prohibited religious tests for federal office-holding. It is not clear why they did so. There is little record of debate about this provision or discussion as to its merits at the constitutional convention. We do know that the ban on religious tests was controversial during the ratification debates, sometimes evoking passionate criticism of its inclusion in the Constitution. It was elementary to some opponents of the ban that “a person could not be a good man without being a good Christian.” Even as prominent a proponent of ratification as John Jay had demonstrated strong support for the use of religious tests within his own state.

Supporters of the Constitution defended the prohibition against test oaths as advancing religious freedom and protecting less politically powerful faiths against discrimination. They also argued that laws requiring religious tests were futile. Men without principles would easily evade the laws’ purpose through sham compliance while honest men who followed the dictates of their conscience would be barred from office. The difficult question was how these arguments could be reconciled with the widespread acceptance of religious tests throughout the states.

There is very little case law interpreting the No Religious Test Clause. The foundational ideas of religious liberty and equality, which are intrinsic to the rejection of religious tests, have been developed far more fully in cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has never held that the Clause applies to state as well as federal office-holding. In other words, unlike most parts of the Bill of Rights, the ban on religious tests has not been formally applied against the states (or “incorporated”) under the Fourteenth Amendment. But in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court unanimously held that religious tests for state office-holding violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment. “[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion,’” the Court declared. “[N]either can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

In a related case, McDaniel v. Paty (1978), the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to strike down state laws prohibiting clergy from holding office. Such a disqualification from holding office, the Court explained, unacceptably abridged religious liberty. Here again, the fact that these religion-related exclusions were adopted by many states both before and after the Constitution’s ratification did not persuade the Justices that such burdens on religious liberty were permissible.

As is true of virtually all constitutional provisions, the No Religious Test Clause in Article VI only restricts governmental action. Private citizens do not violate the Constitution if they vote against a political candidate because of his or her religion. A harder question, which has provoked considerable contemporary debate, is whether the Clause extends beyond a ban against oaths and prohibits government officials from taking the religious views of an individual into account in selecting or confirming that individual for a federal position—such as an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Source

Migration, addressing its root causes while protecting migrants

RSS-Feed
LATEST PRESS RELEASES
Content:
Webnews, 09/10/2018


During the international conference on “Religious freedom and development cooperation to reduce the causes for migration” on 17 September 2018, COMECE stressed the primary right of every human person to live in dignity in his home country without being forced to move.



Participants debated the ways to address the root causes of migration through the European development cooperation, which, emphasised COMECE, “should neither be based on ideological approaches, nor instrumentalising peoples and countries but benefitting persons in all their aspects, including spiritual and moral welfare”.

COMECE also highlighted the importance of a greater access to education to enhance the human integral development of persons, families and peoples in their home countries.

Article 13.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own. As stated by Pope Francis in his last message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, when people migrate, they should be welcomed, protected, promoted and integrated in a responsible manner, according to the hosting society’s capacity.

This message was conveyed by COMECE during the Seminar “Three years after the migration and security agendas - Where does the public sector stand?”, together with the principle that security should aim at protecting persons, families and communities including migrants and refugees.

COMECE also reaffirmed that the asylum legislation grants international protection in case of religious persecution as discussed in a recent joint COMECE-CEC meeting on religious conversion in asylum procedures. Migration current developments will be at the agenda of the next COMECE Working Group on Migration and Asylum next 22 November 2018.

Media

Photo Gallery

Photo: Reuters/Marko Djurica

Source

Canada’s top court rules against Christian law school: LGBT ‘rights’ trump religious freedom

Songquan Deng / Shutterstock.com

Fri Jun 15, 2018 - 10:30 am EST

Lianne Laurence


OTTAWA, June 15, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that LGBT sexual equality "rights" trump religious rights in an unprecedented blow against religious freedom in Canada.

In a pair of 7-2 rulings (here and here), the court ruled that it was "proportionate and reasonable" for the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario to refuse accreditation to future Trinity Western University students because the proposed Christian law school’s "community covenant" would discriminate against LGBTQ people.

"In our respectful view, the [law societies] decision not to accredit Trinity Western University's proposed law school represents a proportionate balance between the limitation on the Charter right at issue and the statutory objectives the [law societies] sought to pursue," the ruling stated.

The ruling means that future grads from Trinity Western University's law school — if the school, in fact, opens — will not be able to practice law in Ontario and B.C.

TWU, a private Christian college associated with the Evangelical Free Church, requires students to sign a commitment to refrain from any sexual activity “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Twin Cities School Bus Driver Removed after Leading Prayer

Photo: KSTP
Generic school bus


April 20, 2018 12:29 PM

A Twin Cities-area school bus driver says his rights to free speech and to practice his religion were violated when he was taken off his route for leading students in prayer.

The Star Tribune reports that Quality Care Transportation removed George Nathaniel from his route last week. He drove children to Nasha Shkola, a charter school focused on Russian language and culture.

Quality Care owner Muk Musa says school officials received complaints that Nathaniel was forcing minors to pray.

RELATED: Man Charged in Connection to Bus Driver Arrest

Nathaniel says he wants to turn people to Christianity, but he never forced students to pray.

Musa says Nathaniel isn't fired, but hasn't received a new route either.

Nathaniel was fired from driving Burnsville children four years ago for the same reason. He's also a pastor of a Minneapolis congregation.

Source

Big guns from both sides defend pastor in bogus jury-tampering case

WND EXCLUSIVE

Michigan's claims against man who distributed brochures called threat to 1st Amendment Published: 1 day ago

•  
• 
  
• Bob Unruh
• 
  
• Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

The libertarian Cato Institute advocates for liberty, free markets and limited government.


The American Civil Liberties Union is mostly on the opposite side in political disputes.


However, the two organizations are joining forces in a case that could set a precedent regarding free speech in Michigan.


It’s about the state’s prosecution of former pastor Keith Wood for handing out brochures about jury rights on a public sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County courthouse in November 2015 in Big Rapids, Michigan.


Officials charged him with a misdemeanor and a felony. While the felony count was dismissed, he was convicted on the misdemeanor for exercising his First Amendment rights, and his case is before the state Court of Appeals.


“It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the decision below, upholding the conviction of Keith Eric Wood, strikes at the core of the First Amendment,” Cato wrote.


“Mr. Wood was arrested and convicted for engaging in classic political advocacy (peacefully distributing pamphlets) in the quintessential public forum (the sidewalk in front of a courthouse) on a matter of public concern more ancient than Magna Carta, and at the heart of Anglo-Saxon law (the rights, duties, and independence of citizen jurors). One can well imagine why an English monarch might wish to suppress efforts to inform potential jurors of their power to resist tyranny by refusing to convict fellow citizens who had incurred the sovereign’s enmity; what is – or should be – more surprising is American courts American sovereigns to suppress such speech on American soil.”


Cato pointed out it was solely because the subject of the pamphlets was jury work that he was convicted.

White house to shield health workers who refuse services on moral grounds

January 18, 2018

(HealthDay)—Health workers who refuse to perform abortions or sex-change operations on religious or moral grounds will now get more protection from the Trump administration.




Any medical professional who feels his or her rights have been violated can file a complaint with the new conscience and religious freedom division of the office for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The move, which comes one day before the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., was a priority for anti-abortion groups, according to the Times.

Roger Severino, director of the new civil rights office, told the newspaper that he and his staff would investigate each and every complaint.

The federal government has typically ignored such complaints or treated them with "outright hostility" for years, Severino added.

While supporters of the new office welcomed it as a way to protect the religious rights of medical professionals, critics said the Trump administration is giving health workers a license to discriminate.

Some fear there will be doctors who deny fertility treatments to lesbian couples and pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for certain types of contraceptives, the Times reported.

"Donald Trump's administration is handing out permission slips for hospitals and providers to deny individuals, including women and LGBT patients, access to a full range of health services including lifesaving emergency care," Dawn Huckelbridge, director of the Women's Rights Initiative at American Bridge, told the newspaper.

HHS Acting Secretary Eric Hargan said during a media briefing that the new initiative simply follows an executive order issued last year by President Trump, who said that people of faith would no longer be bullied or silenced.

Conservative groups applauded the move.

"For more than 40 years, federal law has protected the conscience rights of all Americans in the context of health care," the Heritage Foundation said in a statement. "These protections have allowed for a diversity of values in health care and ensured that individuals can work and live according to their moral and religious beliefs.

"This new HHS division will help ensure that health care professionals enjoy the same rights they have had for decades—to not face coercion or discriminatory actions if they decide not to participate in certain procedures because of moral or religious objections."

Source

Full Transcript of President Obama's Speech at Dallas Police Memorial

By Noah Fitzgerel
More from Noah

Jul 12, 2016, 5:05 PM ET

Star





Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty ImagesWATCH Obama Says US 'Not as Divided as We Seem' at Dallas Memorial



President Obama delivered a speech today in Dallas mourning the death of the five police officers killed in action while protecting peaceful protests in the city.

The remarks came days after the shooting in Dallas, where police said a gunman was targeting whites, and the deaths of two black men during police-involved shootings -- events that have left the nation on edge.

Here's a transcript of President Obama's remarks from the White House:

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. President and Mrs. Bush; my friend, the Vice President, and Dr. Biden; Mayor Rawlings; Chief Spiller; clergy; members of Congress; Chief Brown -- I’m so glad I met Michelle first, because she loves Stevie Wonder -- (laughter and applause) -- but most of all, to the families and friends and colleagues and fellow officers:

Scripture tells us that in our sufferings there is glory, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. Sometimes the truths of these words are hard to see. Right now, those words test us. Because the people of Dallas, people across the country, are suffering.

We’re here to honor the memory, and mourn the loss, of five fellow Americans -- to grieve with their loved ones, to support this community, to pray for the wounded, and to try and find some meaning amidst our sorrow.

For the men and women who protect and serve the people of Dallas, last Thursday began like any other day. Like most Americans each day, you get up, probably have too quick a breakfast, kiss your family goodbye, and you head to work. But your work, and the work of police officers across the country, is like no other. For the moment you put on that uniform, you have answered a call that at any moment, even in the briefest interaction, may put your life in harm’s way.