WASHINGTON (RNS) Turkey stands as a new and controversial addition to an annual list of the worst offenders of religious freedom released today by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Four of nine commissioners objected to adding Turkey to the list of “Countries of Particular Concern” — a who’s who of dictatorships and closed societies — and a fifth commissioner is second-guessing his vote to include the NATO ally.

But some Greek Orthodox Americans are pleased with the decision, citing longtime abuses against Orthodox Christians in the historic heartland of Eastern Orthodoxy.

“Turkey hasn’t been tolerant,” said the Rev. Alexander Karloutsos, assistant to Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

Istanbul — formerly known as Constantinople — is the headquarters of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the world’s 250 million Eastern Orthodox Christians.

“Our seminary remains closed. We can’t educate our clergy. We don’t have a legal personality in Turkey and neither does the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, the Armenian Church, the Jewish community.”

Turkey’s ambassador in Washington decried the decision.

“Any unbiased eye will immediately realize that that’s not where Turkey belongs in the USCIRF annual report,” said Ambassador Namik Tan.

“The categorization of Turkey as a CPC list country not only damages the credibility and relevance of the USCIRF, but also raises serious questions about the political motivation that drives this exercise.”

Congress established the independent watchdog panel in 1998 to monitor religious freedom globally. It recommends countries to the State Department for inclusion on its own annual list of worst offenders, which is typically smaller.

This year, the commission’s list includes 16 countries, two of which are new: Turkey and Tajikistan.

The others are Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.

The commission’s new report cites Turkey’s “systematic limitations on the freedom of religion or belief,” particularly in relation to the country’s non-Muslim religious minorities, and their rights to train clergy, offer religious education and maintain places of worship.

But the report also notes some areas in which Turkey has improved, including better protections for the property of non-Muslims — improvements the State Department has also noted in recent months.

A new survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute reveals that nearly 40 percent of Americans believe their religious freedom is under attack.

Of the 39 percent who think their religious freedoms are under attack, 23 percent said they felt that way because they thought religion was being removed from the public square; 20 percent felt that the government was overreaching its bounds when it comes to religious life.

Political affiliation and age seemed to play a role in a person’s beliefs as 72 percent of those who described themselves as Tea Party members, 60 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of senior citizens believed that their religious liberty was being threatened.

In contrast, 69 percent of those who self-identified as Democrats, 58 percent of Independents and 73 percent of Millennials did not believe that their religious freedom was under attack.

When Americans who believed that their religious liberty was being threatened were asked to explain in their own words how their religious liberty was threatened, only six percent mentioned the recent debate around the national healthcare contraception coverage mandate.

White evangelical Protestants (61 percent) heavily believed their religious liberties are threatened in America, while majorities of Catholics, minority Protestant groups, white mainline Protestants and the unaffiliated did not believe so.

Other findings from the survey include:

Roughly six-in-10 Americans say that publicly held corporations (62 percent) and religiously affiliated hospitals (57 percent) should be required to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

Fifty-four percent of the surveyed Americans believe that religiously affiliated colleges (54 percent), privately owned small businesses (53 percent) and religiously affiliated social service agencies (52 percent) should be required to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

About four-in-10 (42 percent) Americans say churches and other places of worship should be required to provide this coverage to their employees.

More than six-in-10 (63 percent) Americans say that religiously affiliated agencies that receive federal funding should not be able to refuse to place children with qualified gay and lesbian couples. About one-third of Americans say agencies that receive taxpayer money should be able to refuse.

A slim majority (52 percent) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry and 44 percent oppose. The survey also found religious liberty concerns were active among a subset of those who oppose same-sex marriage.

When Americans who initially oppose same-sex marriage are asked whether they would support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry if the law guaranteed that no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples, support for allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry increases 6 points, from 52 percent to 58 percent.

The results of the survey were based on bilingual telephone interviews conducted from March 7-11.

The interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,007 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States.

The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

More and more people who self-identify as conservative Christians are moving away from traditional political conservatism into a whole new political realm: Libertarianism.

And why not?

For conservative Christians who are sick and tired of big government and are worried about the erosion of their “freedoms,” Libertarianism seems to offer the answer, but does it really?

1. Libertarianism’s view of freedom and its source

According to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Libertarianism advocates a sort of personal autonomy in which people are free from external control, interference and regulation.

It sounds good on paper, but the problem with this type of freedom is that it doesn’t exist.

Christianity affirms that God exists and He is everywhere.

His existence means that there is no possible situation in which we are free from his “external control.”

David describes God’s omnipresence in Psalm 139. “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” And through the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, God says of Himself, “Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the LORD.”

Everything that exists, even freedom, is dependent on God. Though He knows the outcome of future events, He is the one who gives us the ability to choose (free will).

Another problem with the Libertarian idea of autonomy is sin.

From the beginning to the end, the Bible advances the idea of sin or our failure to live up to God’s high standards of existence.

According to Jesus in John 8:34, all people are slaves to sin. Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.”

The Apostle Paul echoed Jesus’ sentiments in Romans 6:16,

“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?”

When we sin, we acknowledge our allegiance to Satan, the God of this world, and affirm our support for his rebellion against God’s created order.

Everyone on earth is under Satan’s tyrannical grip. The only people who are free are those who are in Christ–those who trust and accept the fact that God became a man and went on a rescue mission to set humanity free.

2. Libertarianism’s idea about the pursuit of happiness

Libertarianism says that as long as we don’t hurt anyone else, we should use our reason or common sense to pursue that which makes us happy.

Because we are fallen creatures who are slaves to sin, our reason is off.

Though people think there is some repository from which everyone in a society derives values that he lives by, the reality is that there isn’t.

According to Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi, “Common sense is a creation of every culture.”

“The Bible shaped culture through the pulpit; culture shaped common sense, so common sense [in the West] was the shadow of the Bible. As the Bible is destroyed…removed, the shadow is disappearing. Common sense is disappearing, so Bernie Madoff is coveting his neighbor’s property. He’s cultivating trust for years in order to cheat, loot, steal and thieve. This is common sense; it’s business.”

Because there is no common sense, everybody lives by his own moral code and has his own standard of right and wrong.

In addition to using our “moral compass” to do the wrong thing, we are preoccupied with pleasure, instead of seeking after the Being (God) who is the source of happiness.

We do things to gratify our sinful nature—our flesh. That’s why the things that make us happy are often fleeting, so all of humanity is engaged in a race to find that next thing that promises excitement.

One problem with the “as long as I don’t hurt anybody else” idea is that it tries to confine the idea of “hurting,” to a physical action when a person can do lots of things to himself that can cause other people emotional pain.

Reality television is full of examples of people—hoarders, drug addicts, food addicts, etc.–who seem to only be hurting themselves, until the camera cuts away to the devastated family member or friend.

Another problem with the idea of doing things that may be self-destructive goes back to the erroneous Libertarian idea of personal autonomy. Each person on earth is God’s image bearer.  Because we look like Him, we have intrinsic worth.  Self-harm is an affront to God because it’s an attempt to destroy His image.

3. Libertarianism and anarchy in the U.S.A.

It’s no secret that Libertarianism advocates anarchy. In fact the philosophy is organized around those who believe in the total abolishment of government—anarchists– and those who believe in limited government interactions, Minarchists.

For the Christian, the Libertarian notion of anarchy is problematic because the rejection of government is the rejection the one who established it—God.

Good governments and bad ones operate under the sovereign authority of God for His purposes.

In Romans 13, Paul reminds us of this fact and tells us why government exists. Governments and the people that run them are “God’s ministers for righteousness.”

This means that God uses government to keep citizens in a society in line by having laws or rules that every citizen must follow for the common good.

As for being a Minarchist, living in a society without a government would be chaotic, but living in a society with lessened government interaction, wouldn’t be much better.

In a Minarchist Libertarian system, government spending that goes to public services would be one of the first things on the chopping block.

This means that there would be no government subsidies and even the things we all enjoy and can benefit from (things like roads, public education and libraries) would be privatized. 

In a Libertarian society, people would have to rely on their neighbors or an unregulated private organization if they needed emergency services or help to get on their feet after losing a job.

Given the hardness of people’s hearts, it’s kind of hard to believe that they will actually help each other out, since people in our society seem to be concerned with themselves and their immediate families, not necessarily mankind as a whole.

Libertarianism is a relativistic philosophy that seems to gleam from afar, but when you get up close, its flaws show.

For the Christian, Libertarianism is a sort of cognitive dissonance and is particularly problematic because many of the things it affirms such as unbridled freedom are antithetical to Christianity. The philosophy also doesn’t recognize who give us freedom or the source of real happiness.

By Father Nathan Miller

“The world has turned its back on Christianity with its dogmas and commandments, on the grounds that it is a religion of guilt…

…Yet there has never been a time when people were so weighed down with guilt as they are today. Girls feel guilty for not being as beautiful as the latest fashion model. Men feel guilty for not being as successful as the inventor of Microsoft.” Jacques Philippe

And often those feelings of guilt come from real failure … or from SIN.

Canada’s highest court has ruled that children in Quebec schools cannot opt out of a course on ethics and world religions.

The Supreme Court on Feb. 17 unanimously rejected an appeal from Catholic parents who sought to keep their children out of the course because they felt that exposing them to a variety of religions would confuse them.

The nine high court judges disagreed, saying that exposing children to beliefs and values that differ from their own is a fact of life in Canada’s  multicultural society.

“The early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society,” the court ruled.

Simply teaching children other religions “does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe on the (parents’) freedom of religion,” the court found.
Two of the nine Supreme Court justices noted that while the teaching methods and content of the course are “sketchy,” the parents had not made their case.

The mandatory course on ethics and religious culture is seen as part of Quebec’s ongoing march toward secularism. It covers many world religions but from a cultural perspective.

When it was established in 2008, some Catholic parents objected, claiming their children would be confused by contact with beliefs that were mostly incompatible with what they learned at home and at church.

Parents also argued that the classes infringed on their freedom of conscience and religion under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court decision upheld two lower court rulings that dismissed the parents’ claim.

A federal court on Wednesday struck down a Washington state rule that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even if it violates their religious beliefs.

Religious liberty advocates cheered the decision. They have decried the 2007 state regulation as a violation of pharmacists’ First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of religion.

“Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Becket Fund was co-counsel for two pharmacists who believe that life begins at the fertilization of a human egg, and can be destroyed by the pills.

Many advocates for women’s health had applauded the state’s Board of Pharmacy rule of as a way to guarantee greater access to the drugs within the short time frame — between three and five days after intercourse — when they are effective. When taken soon after unprotected sexual intercourse, the drugs (known as Plan B and ella) are between 75 to 90 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

The decision comes in the midst of a firestorm over the Obama administration’s Jan. 20 decision to require nearly all employers to cover free birth control through their insurance plans. That decision has outraged religious conservatives who consider it a directive to ignore their religious convictions.

A counseling student who declined to advise a gay client might have been expelled from her university because of her faith, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday (Jan. 27).

Citing her evangelical Christian religion, Julea Ward disagreed with professors at Eastern Michigan University who told her she was required to support the sexual orientation of her clients. When the graduate student was assigned a client who sought counseling on a same-sex relationship, she asked to have the client referred to another counselor.

Ward was then expelled from the school.

A lower court sided with the university, but Ward appealed, saying the school had violated her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

On Friday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Ward could have a valid claim, and sent the case back to a district court for another hearing.

“A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith, not due to a policy against referrals,” the appeals court ruled.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has helped defend Ward, hailed the ruling as a victory for religious freedom.

“No individual should be forced out of their profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Eric Rassbach, the Becket Fund’s national litigation director.

The Ypsilanti, Mich.-based university issued a statement noting that the court has not ruled in favor of Ward, but rather called for more legal consideration.

“This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination,” the university said. “It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling.”

“Radical secularism” is gaining ground in American society and poses a “grave threat” to the Catholic Church’s freedom of expression in the public square, Pope Benedict XVI told a group of U.S. bishops on Thursday (Jan. 19).

The delegation of bishops from the mid-Atlantic region, led by Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl, is in Rome for a series of regular “ad limina” visit that occur once every five years.

Benedict said bishops must help Catholic politicians understand that it is “their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith,” especially regarding the respect for human life.

Catholics must be on guard to confront a “reductive secularism,” Benedict said, which tries to “delegitimize the church’s participation in public debate.”

The pontiff warned that America’s “cherished” tradition of “religious freedom” is under threat as the nation’s moral consensus has been “eroded” by “powerful new cultural currents” that not only run counter to “Judeo-Christian tradition, but (are) increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.”

Benedict’s message echoed a recent campaign by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has warned of a “national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions” over same-sex marriage, contraception mandates and other issues.

Benedict warned that the separation of church and state must not be invoked to force the church to “be silent on certain issues,” or to sideline believers in “determining the values which will shape the future of the nation”.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops’ conference, was not in Rome but thanked the pope in a statement for speaking “eloquently and powerfully on the threats to the church’s moral witness in public life.”