Sunday, December 02, 2018
Pope Francis’ efforts to clean up Vatican finances rewarded by the E.U.
Gerard O’Connell
November 30, 2018
Photo by Yeo Khee on Unsplash
In a decision that is seen as a recognition of the Vatican’s achievements at financial transparency under Pope Francis, the Board of the European Payments Council last week “approved the extension of the geographical scope of the Single Euro Payments Area to Vatican City State and the Holy See.”
The Vatican today announced the approval of its application to join S.E.P.A., which is a payment-integration initiative of the European Union for simplification of bank transfers in the euro currency that came into effect in 2014.
The Vatican statement explained that “S.E.P.A. harmonizes the way electronic euro payments are made across Europe. It allows European consumers, businesses and public administrations to make and receive credit transfers as well as direct debit under the same basic conditions and makes all cross-border payments in euro as easy as domestic payments.”
Participation in S.E.P.A. means that the Holy See and the Vatican City State will be able to move money using an IBAN code. This will first benefit the Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly referred to as the Vatican Bank, and the administration that manages Vatican real estate, but in due course, the Vatican’s other financial institutions will also benefit.
Ever since his election as pope on March 13, 2013, Francis has sought to reform the Roman Curia, starting with Vatican finances.
In a decision that is seen as a recognition of the Vatican’s achievements at financial transparency under Pope Francis, the Board of the European Payments Council last week “approved the extension of the geographical scope of the Single Euro Payments Area to Vatican City State and the Holy See.”
The Vatican today announced the approval of its application to join S.E.P.A., which is a payment-integration initiative of the European Union for simplification of bank transfers in the euro currency that came into effect in 2014.
The Vatican statement explained that “S.E.P.A. harmonizes the way electronic euro payments are made across Europe. It allows European consumers, businesses and public administrations to make and receive credit transfers as well as direct debit under the same basic conditions and makes all cross-border payments in euro as easy as domestic payments.”
Participation in S.E.P.A. means that the Holy See and the Vatican City State will be able to move money using an IBAN code. This will first benefit the Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly referred to as the Vatican Bank, and the administration that manages Vatican real estate, but in due course, the Vatican’s other financial institutions will also benefit.
Ever since his election as pope on March 13, 2013, Francis has sought to reform the Roman Curia, starting with Vatican finances.
Tweet this
The Vatican said “it is foreseen that as of 1 March 2019, the S.E.P.A. schemes are open to the financial institutions of the Vatican City State/Holy See, once they have joined.” On that date, the following 36 countries will form part of S.E.P.A.: the 28 European Union Member States plus Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Monaco, San Marino, the Principality of Andorra and the Vatican City State/Holy See.
“The successful application to S.E.P.A. is a very positive sign. It helps to facilitate payments and harmonizes such services. Furthermore, it demonstrates the Holy See’s efforts to enhance financial transparency,” according to René Bruelhart, a Swiss lawyer, whom Pope Francis appointed as the president of the board of directors of the Vatican’s Financial Information Authority, its anti-money laundering agency. He is the first layman to hold that position.
Saturday, December 01, 2018
‘This is not an infiltration by criminals,’ Democratic congresswoman says after visiting with asylum seekers
By Paige Winfield Cunningham December 1 at 9:17 PM
Rep. Pramila Jayapal met Saturday with asylum seekers in Tijuana, Mexico, who are running up against strict new Trump administration policies, saying she is determined to tell the truth about what is happening on the U.S.-Mexico border as she and fellow Democrats prepare to launch an investigation early next year.
“We just have to counter the lies of the president in telling about what’s happening here on the border,” the Washington Democrat said Saturday evening. “This is not an infiltration by criminals — this is people seeking the American Dream, and we should be processing them and we should be allowing them to come in.”
Jayapal, a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and one of the most outspoken critics of Trump’s immigration policies, visited several shelters where members of a migrant “caravan” are being housed as they wait for their claims to be processed amid large backlogs. The border crossing linking Tijuana with San Diego saw major clashes last weekend between asylum seekers trying to enter the U.S. and border guards who blocked their way.
More than a third of the members of the caravan are women and children, according to numbers provided by the city of Tijuana. Those figures stand in stark contrast to how Trump has described migrant caravans, characterizing them as mostly comprising dangerous single men.
Jayapal said most of the people she spoke with were from Honduras, which is one of several Central American countries with high levels of gang violence. She described several conversations with migrants who had left dangerous situations back home, including a pregnant woman who had left her 3-year-old child behind, a 17-year-old boy who had been shot in both knees, and a mother of three whose partner had been murdered.
“The stories I’ve heard are just so horrific, people seeing tremendous violence,” said Jayapal, whose district includes most of Seattle.
The Trump administration has come under heavy criticism, mostly from Democrats, for using aggressive methods at the border as it tries to turn migrants away. Earlier this week, Trump defended the use of tear gas by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents against migrants advancing at the San Ysidro crossing — and even threatened to shut down the border if the asylum seekers didn’t retreat.
“We’ve just said, look, if they come over here, we’re going to apprehend them and we’re going to close the border,” Trump told reporters on the way to a political rally Monday. “That’s not really been done to the extent that I’m doing because I mean it, and I’ll close it for a long time.”
Last month, the president signed a proclamation barring migrants who cross into the country illegally through the southern border from seeking asylum, although a federal judge has since blocked the rule.
Applications for asylum in the U.S. have skyrocketed in recent years, but critics say the administration could be doing more to process claims faster.
“The crisis that has been frankly created by the Trump administration has shut down the legal processes to process people,” Jayapal said.
Jayapal is on the House Judiciary Committee, where Democratic leaders are gearing up to investigate Trump’s approach to immigration once they assume the majority in the House in January. Judiciary and the House Oversight Committee are expected to examine Trump’s family separation policy and his use of troops at the border, among other policy moves.
“I firmly believe the U.S. is in violation of our human rights obligations and our domestic legal obligations,” Jayapal said. “We have to go back to being a country that has always made refuge-seeking bipartisan.”
P.S.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
Wikipedia
Born September 21, 1965 (age 53)
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Steve Williamson
Children 1
Education Georgetown University (BA)
Northwestern University (MBA)
Website House website
PC GONE MAD: Criticising migration could become CRIMINAL offence under new plan
A LEADING MEP has warned EU citizens they could be “jailed” for criticising migration policies if a new United Nations agreement is acted upon.
By Thomas Hunt
Marcel de Graaff: Criticism of migration will be criminal offence
Speaking about the global compact on migration, Marcel de Graaff said: 'One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech. Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.'
The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right. MEP Marcel de Graaff said: “I would like to say some words on the global compact on migration. On the 10th and 11th of December there will be an international congress in Marrakesh Morocco. The participating countries are set to sign this agreement and although this joint agreement is not binding it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.
“The compact for migration is legalisation of mass migration.
The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration could be signed next week (Image: GETTY • EU)
“It is declaring migration as a human right so it will, in effect, become impossible to criticise Mrs Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk of being jailed for hate speech.”
In 2015 Angela Merkel pushed for an open-door migration policy across the EU. Critics said the move was motivated by Germany’s need to boost its workforce by at least one million.
The document is an "intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, that covers all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner”.
Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland have already stated they will not sign the agreement.
The Anxiety And Turmoil Of This Modern Age
Volume XXXVII Issue XII December 2018
Last Trumpet Ministries, PO Box 806, Beaver Dam, WI 53916
Phone: 920-887-2626 Internet: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org
The Anxiety And Turmoil Of This Modern Age
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?"
Matthew 6:25-27
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?"
Matthew 6:25-27
"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
Philippians 4:6-7
In this issue of the Last Trumpet Newsletter, we will examine the anxiety and turmoil of this modern age. The world in which we live is astonishing in many ways. Technology has permanently altered our lives, and in the United States we have become accustomed to easy and quick access to the things we want and need. In the advanced fast-paced society of today, anxiety has become prevalent. According to a recent report, nearly one-third of American young people and adults suffer from an anxiety disorder. (1) Furthermore, a poll conducted in May 2018 found that 39 percent of respondents reported a higher level of anxiety over the course of the last year, while another 39 percent claimed to have anxiety levels equal to the previous year. Only 19 percent of respondents reported feeling less anxious. (2)
Why are the American people so stressed? It is easy to point a finger at the rancorous American political climate and the distressing news reports, which are crafted in a way to not only tell the audience what to think, but also to instill anxiety. Yet, recent reports have shown that there is a new culprit which is also instilling anxiousness in the United States and around the world: The widespread overuse of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. A report published in November 2018 by Marketwatch indicates that spending too much time on Facebook can cause depression. (3) The article cites a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania which found that not only did the overuse of Facebook cause depression in those whom they examined, but their symptoms of depression dropped when the study's participants began limiting their usage of Facebook. "It was striking," said Professor Melissa Hunt at the University of Pennsylvania. "What we found over the course of three weeks was that rates of depression and loneliness went down significantly for people who limited their (social media) use." (4) Remarkably, an experiment conducted by a local CBS affiliate in the state of Minnesota discovered that for some individuals, their blood pressure and heart rate immediately rose when they signed on to Facebook. "When you're talking about the people using it day in and day out, it's not appearing to be very healthy for them actually," said clinical psychologist Dr. Matthew Syzdek. (5)
With the advent of smartphones, it has become easier than ever for consumers to check their social media accounts on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this easy access has led to addiction. A report published in 2016 indicates that smartphone users touch their phones an average of 2,617 times per day. This number includes every click, tap, or swipe on the devices, and for the heaviest users the number is even greater. The top 10 percent of smartphone users were found to be touching their devices an average of 5,427 times per day. (6) The overuse of smartphones and social media have seemingly caused a detrimental effect on the human attention span. In fact, recent studies claim that the average attention span of humans has fallen over the course of the last fifteen years from a meager twelve seconds to an even paltrier eight seconds. (7) Sadly, such a short attention span cannot efficiently process complex information, which in effect, dulls the ability of the human mind to think. Those who cannot think for themselves will be told what to think by someone or something else.
Needless to say, those with short attention spans are going to have a difficult time waiting on God. Yet, we know that quiet times of prayer, reflection, and waiting are how we are strengthened by the Almighty. In Isaiah 40:28-31 we read, "Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." Waiting on God and following the prompting of His Spirit is the most effective way to overcome anxiety in this world. I urge every reader of this newsletter to repent of your sins if you have not yet done so, dedicate your life to God, and put your faith in Him. In so doing, you will find a peace that passes all understanding.
Friday, November 30, 2018
U.N. migration pact seeks to promote dialogue, Vatican official says
by
Junno Arocho Esteves
11/28/2018
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A Vatican official said an intergovernmental pact can help countries address the current migration crisis through dialogue and concrete solutions rather than confrontation and fear.
Jesuit Father Michael Czerny, undersecretary of the Migrants and Refugee Section of the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, said the Catholic Church is doing all that it can to help welcome, protect, promote and integrate migrants in countries where the U.N. Global Compact on Migration is formally adopted.
"The compact has a new style, a new spirit based on what we have brought," Father Czerny told journalists Nov. 28. "It is our desire to promote dialogue and not confrontation and isolation; to promote a culture of encounter and not let fear decide. This is the problem. If fear is in charge, that is a problem."
Father Czerny was among several experts who spoke about the global compact, which will be formally adopted at an international conference in Marrakesh, Morocco, Dec. 10-11.
Also present were Anne T. Gallagher, president of the International Catholic Migration Commission, and Stephane Jaquemet, policy director for the commission.
The Vatican contributed to the negotiations leading to the agreement and prepared a 20-point action plan that included concrete proposals to help governments improve the situation of migrants and refugees.
The eight-page plan contains proposals "grounded on the church's best practices responding to the needs of migrants and refugees at the grassroots level" and provides "practical considerations which Catholic and other advocates can use, add to and develop in their dialogue with governments toward the global compact."
Through the pastoral action plan, Father Czerny said, the church shared "the fruit of what we live, of what we do, of what we want and what we dream."
"This is already a step that isn't left within the confines of the church, but we wanted to bring this treasure and this hope within the process of consultation and negotiation," he said.
Father Czerny said the Vatican was pleased to see that the compact not only "reflects on important points in our document, but also the approach, the style and methodology" based on the church's principles and values.
"If you want this value, here are things that work," he said. "If you want to achieve this goal, here are ways which find that will actually get you to the goal."
The compact's multilateral approach, he added, is an example that countries working together to achieve a common goal "is an indispensable key to solve the problems in the world."
"We are happy for this success in a fragmented world," Father Czerny said.
- - -
Source:
A Call for Climate Justice
A Call for Climate Justice - Release 7
“The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it.”
-Genesis 2:15-
“The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because I have been anointed to give good news to the poor; He has sent me to heal the broken heart; to preach freedom to the captives, and bring sight to the blind; to release the oppressed.”
-Luke 14:18-
What Does the Lord Require of You?
The call to climate justice is deeply rooted in biblically based Christian convictions. The scriptures provide a wealth of reasons why Christ followers simply cannot ignore this crisis. The following points are drawn from the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a group of senior evangelical leaders in the United States who are convinced it is time to seriously address the problem of global warming.
This is Our Father’s World. Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).
Do Unto the Least of These. Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
Steward the Earth. When God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28). We are reminded in Luke 12:48 that, to whom much is given, much will be required.
Seek Justice. We must acknowledge that climate change is a huge and still growing factor in many issues of social injustice: Poverty, food and water security, nutrition, child health, women’s empowerment etc. Followers of Christ are called to do his justice in the world. That means facing climate change. (Zechariah 7:9-10, Romans 12:15-18, Jeremiah 22:3, Isaiah 1:17).
Important to know your religious freedom rights
By Staff Reports -
11/28/18 1:29 AM
I was saddened to hear about the Oct. 27 shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Everyone should be able to attend worship services without worrying that someone would target them solely because of their religion.
I was pleased to learn that a local interfaith group held a service on Nov. 1 for those killed in the shooting. Our community has come together this way before. For example, groups gathered in:
- August 2012 in response to a shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin
- April 2014 to express their concern for the atrocities happening in the Syrian civil war
- September 2014 after three local Christian churches were vandalized
These interfaith gatherings show how those of differing faiths can come together to support each other and protect religious freedom for all. The First Amendment allows all citizens to freely exercise their religion. This constitutional right offers protection to individuals in varying degrees.
The most protection comes in the private sphere. We are all entitled to choose how and what to believe, to teach those beliefs within our families and to worship how we desire. Additionally, everyone has the right to express their views — religious or not — in public, and no one can be discriminated against due to their religion. Churches also have the right to establish their own doctrine, leadership and membership criteria.
On Religious Freedom, Madison Was Right
November 30, 2018 11:30 AM
Detail of portrait of James Madison by John Vanderlyn, 1816 (Wikimedia)
We’re both fans of Ramesh Ponnuru. But we think he’s wrong in a recent post here on the Corner. There he argues that we are advocating an un-originalist position for the Free Exercise Clause: requiring the government accommodate religious dissenters from laws, except under certain conditions. He contends that our position is the one ushered in by the Supreme Court in 1963 in Sherbert v. Verner, which was replaced by Justice Scalia’s views for the court in 1990’s Smith. And Ramesh muses that Scalia was probably right.
But Ramesh misunderstands our position. And relies on un-originalist evidence for his. First, the reading of the Free Exercise Clause we primarily advocated was not the 1963-1990 one the Supreme Court adopted. That was our fallback position if the Court was unwilling to go with the clause’s original meaning. And we explicitly stated such.
Rather, we advocated for the original meaning. The scholarship of Michael McConnell has shown, persuasively in our view, that the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause often required religious accommodations (though we recognize Philip Hamburger takes a different view of the history).
It is beyond this short post to lay out all of this evidence, so we highlight just a few pieces of evidence of the original meaning. When debating the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, one Congressman argued that the exercise was foolish because of course these rights were protected and Congress might as well be adding an amendment that one has a right to not remove their hat. In response, another Congressman reminded all that William Penn had been prosecuted in England for his refusal, based on religious belief, to remove his hat in court. And that reminder quieted the opposition.
Yet under Justice Scalia’s views in Smith, Penn could have been prosecuted. The law requiring the removal of hats was neutral and generally applicable. Penn’s religious freedom should have fallen if Scalia was correct, yet the Congress that passed the First Amendment didn’t think so.
But there is more. All but two state constitutions at the Founding viewed the right in the way we argue, and these provisions are arguably the basis for the free exercise clause. The practice of religious exemptions was common in the colonies and early states. And the author of the free exercise clause, Madison, viewed it as providing religious exemptions. There is additional evidence, but we are not writing a law review article here.
Strangely, the 1963-1990 Supreme Court, hardly originalist in its methodology, actually got closer to the clause’s original meaning than did Justice Scalia. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Detail of portrait of James Madison by John Vanderlyn, 1816 (Wikimedia)
We’re both fans of Ramesh Ponnuru. But we think he’s wrong in a recent post here on the Corner. There he argues that we are advocating an un-originalist position for the Free Exercise Clause: requiring the government accommodate religious dissenters from laws, except under certain conditions. He contends that our position is the one ushered in by the Supreme Court in 1963 in Sherbert v. Verner, which was replaced by Justice Scalia’s views for the court in 1990’s Smith. And Ramesh muses that Scalia was probably right.
But Ramesh misunderstands our position. And relies on un-originalist evidence for his. First, the reading of the Free Exercise Clause we primarily advocated was not the 1963-1990 one the Supreme Court adopted. That was our fallback position if the Court was unwilling to go with the clause’s original meaning. And we explicitly stated such.
Rather, we advocated for the original meaning. The scholarship of Michael McConnell has shown, persuasively in our view, that the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause often required religious accommodations (though we recognize Philip Hamburger takes a different view of the history).
It is beyond this short post to lay out all of this evidence, so we highlight just a few pieces of evidence of the original meaning. When debating the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, one Congressman argued that the exercise was foolish because of course these rights were protected and Congress might as well be adding an amendment that one has a right to not remove their hat. In response, another Congressman reminded all that William Penn had been prosecuted in England for his refusal, based on religious belief, to remove his hat in court. And that reminder quieted the opposition.
Yet under Justice Scalia’s views in Smith, Penn could have been prosecuted. The law requiring the removal of hats was neutral and generally applicable. Penn’s religious freedom should have fallen if Scalia was correct, yet the Congress that passed the First Amendment didn’t think so.
But there is more. All but two state constitutions at the Founding viewed the right in the way we argue, and these provisions are arguably the basis for the free exercise clause. The practice of religious exemptions was common in the colonies and early states. And the author of the free exercise clause, Madison, viewed it as providing religious exemptions. There is additional evidence, but we are not writing a law review article here.
Strangely, the 1963-1990 Supreme Court, hardly originalist in its methodology, actually got closer to the clause’s original meaning than did Justice Scalia. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Evangelical, Muslim, Jewish. It's time we all renew our commitment to religious freedom.
In Chicago on June 30, 2014.
SCOTT OLSON
OLIVER THOMAS AND CHARLES C. HAYNES | OPINION CONTRIBUTORS | 8:00 am EST November 29, 2018
In the turbulent 1960s, John Courtney Murray famously reminded Americans that the Constitution begins with "we the, people," not "we, the tribe."
Murray, a Jesuit priest, wasn’t papering over differences that are often deep and abiding. Each of us has our tribe — Catholic, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant or one of a hundred others in the pluralistic society we all call home. Differences matter.
Instead, Murray was calling on Americans to recognize what we share across our religious and philosophical divides, especially the core principles of religious liberty in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In just 16 words, our framers created an arrangement in religious freedom that has made today’s pluralism possible. More than any other provision of the Constitution, the religious liberty clauses are the “unum” in "e pluribus unum" — out of many, one.
It's time to renew our support of First Amendment
In this divided, dangerous moment in our history, it is time to renew our support for the framework of liberty provided by the First Amendment. That’s why on Thursday, American leaders from many different faiths and beliefs will sign the American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience, a reaffirmation of religious liberty in our time.
SCOTT OLSON
OLIVER THOMAS AND CHARLES C. HAYNES | OPINION CONTRIBUTORS | 8:00 am EST November 29, 2018
In the turbulent 1960s, John Courtney Murray famously reminded Americans that the Constitution begins with "we the, people," not "we, the tribe."
Murray, a Jesuit priest, wasn’t papering over differences that are often deep and abiding. Each of us has our tribe — Catholic, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant or one of a hundred others in the pluralistic society we all call home. Differences matter.
Instead, Murray was calling on Americans to recognize what we share across our religious and philosophical divides, especially the core principles of religious liberty in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In just 16 words, our framers created an arrangement in religious freedom that has made today’s pluralism possible. More than any other provision of the Constitution, the religious liberty clauses are the “unum” in "e pluribus unum" — out of many, one.
It's time to renew our support of First Amendment
In this divided, dangerous moment in our history, it is time to renew our support for the framework of liberty provided by the First Amendment. That’s why on Thursday, American leaders from many different faiths and beliefs will sign the American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience, a reaffirmation of religious liberty in our time.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Unprecedented numbers of migrants and refugees means new religious freedom challenges, say scholars
Adventist-led organization seeks to bring academic focus to emerging concerns.
[Photo courtesy of the International Religious Liberty Association] View Larger
As the number of migrants and refugees worldwide continues to surge, a panel of scholars convened last month by the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA) says more must be done to deal with related religious freedom challenges.
The IRLA’s 19thMeeting of Experts, held in Cordoba, Spain, brought together renowned scholars from a variety of academic disciplines to explore this issue. But the topics discussed were anything but academic for the many millions of men, women and children who are currently on the move, fleeing poverty, violence, or religious persecution, according to IRLA Secretary General Dr. Ganoune Diop.
“Managing migration, with all its associated difficulties—physical, legal, and social—is recognized as one of the most urgent and perplexing challenges of our time,” Diop said. “But the picture is incomplete unless we also understand just how frequently religious practice and identity intersect with these issues.”
He points out that in many world regions, from Myanmar to Nigeria to Syria and Iraq, religiously motivated hostility or violence help drive migration. But also challenging, according to Diop, are the clashes of religious and social identities that often occur later, as migrants and refugees are absorbed into new cultures.
“This process of integration raises very practical—and confronting—questions in many Western countries, such as whether to grant permits for building temples or mosques, how to relate socially and legally to those who wear religious garb, like the hijab, or even whether to allow traditional slaughtering of animals,” said Diop. “The presence and practices of religious minorities are sometimes seen as dividing wedges in society, threatening national unity and traditions.”
Scholars at the IRLA Meeting of Experts presented papers on these and other topics, including why faith-based organizations should be involved in migrant and refugee issues and how they can better collaborate. Other presenters looked at issues specific to particular world regions, such as Europe, Latin America, and North America.
The Meeting of Experts is an annual event of the IRLA, an organization chartered by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1893 and that today works around the world to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people, regardless of their religious traditions. This year’s meeting was also co-sponsored by Spain’s Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The papers presented at the Cordoba meeting will be published in next year’s Fides et Libertas, the academic journal of the IRLA.
At this year’s meeting, the IRLA paid tribute to long-time IRLA supporter and contributor Professor Alberto de la Hera. Professor de la Hera is Emeritus Professor of Canon Law and Legal History at Complutense University in Madrid and is the former Director General of Religious Affairs for Spain’s Ministry of Justice. Ambassador John Nay, president of IRLA, presented Professor de la Hera with a plaque that acknowledged his many years of scholarly work in the field of religious freedom, and his important contributions to IRLA events and activities.
Among the more than 20 scholars who presented papers at the meeting were: Silvio Ferrari, University of Milan; Cole Durham, Brigham Young University; Raimundo Barreto, Princeton University; David Little, Harvard University; Rosa Maria Martínez de Codes, Complutense University; Blandine Chellini-Pont, Aix-Marseille Université; and, Nicholas P. Miller, Andrews University.
The Meeting of Experts is held at a different location each year. Recent venues have included Harvard University and Princeton University in the United States, and next year’s Meeting of Experts will take place in Morocco.
Source: "Adventist News Network"
Jesuit university blocks Ben Shapiro event, saying it prompts ‘hateful speech’ from protesters
By Avery Anapol - 11/29/18 07:20 PM EST 34
A Jesuit university has blocked a proposed event featuring conservative writer Ben Shapiro, citing the possibility of “hateful speech” by protesters.
Officials at Gonzaga University in Washington state rejected a request from the school’s College Republicans chapter seeking to bring Shapiro to campus, according to conservative college news site Campus Reform.
Judi Biggs Garbuio, Gonzaga’s vice president of student development, reportedly said in the denial that Shapiro’s speeches “routinely draw protests that include extremely divisive and hateful speech and behavior, which is offensive to many people, regardless of their age, politics or beliefs.”
Biggs Garbuio also cited the school’s Christian mission, as well as safety and security concerns about the event.
“Gonzaga University is committed to the human dignity of every individual,” Biggs Garbuio wrote. “This is the core of our mission based on the teachings of Christ Jesus, and the foundations of the Society of Jesus. We stand in solidarity with vulnerable members of our community who may be targeted for discrimination, ridicule, or harassment by others.”
Shapiro, the editor of conservative website the Daily Wire, has been blocked from speaking by a number of universities, including DePaul and California State University, though Shapiro showed up at the latter anyway.
Olivia Johnston, president of Gonzago College Republicans, told Campus Reform that the school’s response to the event shows that they “have made it clear diversity of thought [is] not welcome.”
“I refuse to accept a University that only supports strictly liberal thinking,” she added. “The hypocrisy must end.”
The Hill has reached out to Shapiro for comment.
MORE CLERGY ABUSE FILES FOUND DURING SEARCH OF ARCHDIOCESE 'SECRET ARCHIVES' (in Texas)
Investigators were serving a search warrant Wednesday morning at the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston as part of a case against a former Conroe priest accused of molestation.
Author: Jeremy Rogalski
Published: 11/29/18
Multiple files alleging details of child abuse by priests were located by investigators at the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston on Wednesday, sources tell KHOU 11 Investigates.
The files were found as part of a search of the Chancery. Investigators were serving a search warrant as part of a case against a former Conroe priest arrested for molestation earlier this year.
The unprecedented action in Texas was taken by the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, along with the Texas Rangers and Conroe Police Department. More than 50 investigators arrived Wednesday morning carrying boxes inside the Chancery, located at 1700 San Jacinto Street in downtown Houston.
The DA’s office said investigators were looking for documents in connection to the criminal case of Father Manuel LaRosa-Lopez, the priest charged in September on four counts of indecency with a child. In the search warrant filed Wednesday, the DA’s office sought to examine confidential documents held in the Archdiocese’s Chancery and secret archives.
Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon said in a news conference Wednesday if the search turned up documents about potential criminal activity involving other priests, the Texas Rangers would investigate that information.
Photos: Authorities search Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
Authorities with the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, Conroe Police Department and Texas Rangers executed a search warrent at the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston searching for records related to clergy sex abuse crisis on Nov. 28, 2018.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
A Modest Proposal for a Day of Rest
January 29, 2018
In our industrialized, digitized, pressurized world, it may be hard to imagine there was once a time without the sound of text messages, the sight of skyscrapers and the smell of car exhaust.
A time when the human impact on the earth was reverential and humanity viewed their mission as a steward of the planet and caretaker of everything therein.
You would probably need to go back to Biblical times when Adam and Eve walked alone in the Garden of Eden when God concluded the six days of creation with a cessation of all further work.
This day of rest called the Sabbath, or in Hebrew Shabbat, became enshrined in Mosaic law with the Ten Commandments. To this day, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a version of a day of rest with adherents citing benefits far beyond the religious or spiritual.
There are many examples of senior corporate executives and celebrities who have found within the day of rest, an opportunity for rejuvenation that strengthens their efforts during the rest of the week. Former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who also served as Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama and former Senator Joseph Lieberman all managed to observe the Sabbath while juggling high-profile roles at the highest level of government service. “[R]egardless of one’s religion, or frankly whether one considers oneself religious, there’s a powerful message and purpose to the Sabbath,” says Lieberman, “[t]he gift of rest is desperately needed in our world today, where people work so hard almost every day, and yearn for meaning and find it hard to locate in our popular culture.” Today, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner make Shabbat observance a priority, balancing their civic duties with their religious obligations.
Randi Zuckerberg, former Director of Market Development and spokesperson for Facebook, and a sister of the company’s co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “I’m completely unable to be creative when I’m glued to my phone, Instagram, LinkedIn messages. When you’re constantly connected to other people, you can’t unplug. On weekends, we do a ‘digital Shabbat,’ where we turn everything off.”
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Mom Says 6-Year-Old Son Is Transgender. Dad Disagrees. Now He Might Lose His Son.
OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images
ByAmanda Prestigiacomo
@amandapresto
November 27, 2018
A Texas father is fighting for his son in court after pushing back on his ex-wife's claim that their six-year-old is a transgender girl.
According to court documents, the young boy only dresses as a girl when he's with his mother, who has enrolled him in first-grade as a female named "Luna." The father, however, contends that his son consistently chooses to wear boy's clothes, "violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home," and identifies as a boy when he is with him.
The Federalist reports that the mother has accused the father of child abuse in their divorce proceedings "for not affirming James as transgender" and is looking to strip the dad of his parental rights. "She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight," the report adds.
The father has been legally barred from speaking to his child about sexuality and gender from a scientific or religious perspective and from dressing his son in boys' clothes; instead, he has to offer both girls' and boys' outfits. The boy consistently refuses to wear dresses, according to the father.
The boy was diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a gender transition therapist the mother, a pediatrician, chose for her son to see. According to the therapist's notes, the boy chose to identify as a girl when he was in sessions alone with his mother; alternatively, he chose to identify as a boy when he was in sessions alone with his father. The Federalist reports:
[A] dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,” and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.
Hate speech, fake news, privacy violations — time to rein in social media
GETTY IMAGES
BY SANDEEP GOPALAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
Has social media metastasized from a social network into a social menace? And if so, is the harsh medicine of regulation the answer? The available evidence appears to point in the direction of acknowledging the dangers posed by platforms such as Facebook and holding them to account through legal measures.
Consider just a few of Facebook's transgressions:
Has social media metastasized from a social network into a social menace? And if so, is the harsh medicine of regulation the answer? The available evidence appears to point in the direction of acknowledging the dangers posed by platforms such as Facebook and holding them to account through legal measures.
Consider just a few of Facebook's transgressions:
- Committing privacy violations and compromising the personal information of millions of users (the Cambridge Analytica scandal alone affected 87 million users);
- Enabling Russian operatives to wage misinformation campaigns aimed at influencing the results of the 2016 presidential election;
- Enabling the viral spread of hateful messages directed at particular ethnic, racial or religious groups;
- Reportedly orchestrating campaigns to discredit critics such as billionaire George Soros;
- Enabling mob violence in India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and other countries through its WhatsApp; and
- Facilitating the spread of fake news in countries such as Brazil, the Philippines and Malaysia.
And when faced with scandals, according to reports, Facebook's approach has been to delay, deflect, deceive, or smear others. It has engaged in "greenwashing" tactics - claiming to conduct independent investigations and then releasing anodyne reports that redirect the blame for consequences.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)