Recently in Religious Freedom Category

Barry, you pose an interesting question.  I believe that end of life decisions should be made primarily between an individual and that individual's family and trusted advisors, including spiritual counselors.  An individual should certainly be able to consult his physician, if the individual so chooses.  I would imagine that most health care plans would cover an annual physical exam during which a person could consult with his physician. 

I do think it is inappropriate for the government to give physicians an incentive to initiate this conversation and mandate what should be covered in the counseling.  That could all too easily lead to a scenario where the federal government makes care decisions based on life expectancy.

And, now from the category... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  That's exactly what Michael Newdow, an atheist, and his fellow plaintiffs are doing - this time in a federal appeals court - this time appealing a lower court decision that dismissed their lawsuit challenging prayers offered at the presidential inauguration - including the phrase used in the oath, "So help me God."

I should begin by noting that I hate beauty pageants. Judging women, in whole or in large part, by appearances is a sexist and anachronistic affront to an entire gender.

I must admit, however, that the latest wrinkle in the Carrie Prejean, former Miss California USA, controversy has grabbed my attention. Prejean, who was a finalist in the Miss USA Pageant in April, made a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage during the question and answer segment of the contest. Religious Right groups immediately began complaining that she came in second because of the content of her answer and that she deserved to win the competition.

After the event, Ms. Prejean suffered some embarrassment in regard to a series of "modeling" photographs that appeared on the Internet, but Pageant officials supported her continued activity as Miss California USA.  Then, several weeks later, her employment was terminated, with officials claiming that she had failed to participate in several public events that she was contractually obliged to do and that, on the other hand, she had made some unauthorized media appearances.

Ms. Prejean has now sued Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, as well as publicist Roger Neal for what she claims was an illegal firing.  I have no opinion about this contract dispute.  However, she is also claiming that the company dismissed her because of an anti-religious bias.  She is asserting that the company told her not to discuss God and her religious values even before the night she gave the infamous anti-same sex marriage answer.

Not surprisingly, we have such a different view about fetuses and their alleged "rights" that we haven't resolved the issue of coverage of "reproductive health" and abortion in the healthcare bill. You would grant constitutional rights to what the Religious Right calls the "preborn."

Let me ask what your view is on the "already born."  News accounts this morning chronicle the beginnings of a second-degree homicide trial for a father who allegedly allowed his young daughter to die from juvenile diabetes.  (The mother has already been convicted.)  His defense, in part, is that he didn't know his daughter had a serious illness and that he was praying for her recovery, whatever she had.  Do you believe that his presumably authentic and deep-rooted spiritual belief in divine intervention in curing illness should be a legal defense in a criminal trial?

Barry, President Obama opened the door with a brief mention of religious freedom in his 55-minute speech to the Arab world. To his credit, he did bring up the importance of religious freedom, saying:  "Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it."  It's a good beginning, but President Obama must use this opportunity to take some real action - to engage this issue with those in the Middle East who have a notorious record for persecuting Christians and others who do not embrace Islam.  

He did include a couple of lines about 'religious diversity' - "Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt."

Barry, this is an issue where President Obama must use his presidential clout - this isn't just about religious 'tolerance' - it's about real life-and-death issues facing those who want to practice their religious faith.  We have just completed detailed reports about the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

As you know, Jay, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the many of the people you represent around the world.  There are strong human rights arguments to be made in asylum cases in Europe--and frankly strong ones to be made in the United States as well.

However, tomorrow's speech by the President in Cairo is probably not the time or place to highlight with great specificity religious persecution in the Islamic world.  I would expect him to do what he did in Turkey earlier this year: explain that the United States is committed to democracy and religious freedom and expect those principles to be exemplars to the rest of the world.  The President noted at that time: "I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is- although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.  We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."