Just another site

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Conscience of a Citizen

leave a comment »

Written by humanfealty/human Faith

November 13, 2017 at 3:47 pm

Posted in Uncategorized


leave a comment »

Written by humanfealty/human Faith

October 10, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Able or Disabled?

with one comment

Federal agencies need to adopt new plans to hire more disabled individuals and provide more assistance to them at their offices with a new rule from the agency tasked with preventing workplace discrimination.
On April 1, 2017 a new law aimed at advancing the rights of people with disabilities took effect, explicitly banning discrimination against them and requiring government bodies and private-sector businesses to pay greater attention to their needs.
While the law to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities will make life easier to some extent for the nation’s 7.8 million people with impairments, experts point to its shortcomings and limitations.The law is part of the government’s move to align domestic laws with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, signed in 2007 and ratified in 2014 and to which Japan is a signatory. The law cleared in June 2013, but took effect only in April 2016 in order to provide time for the public and private sectors to prepare . The problem is every U.S. Department, from Transportation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is committed to being a model employer of a diverse workforce that includes people with disabilities especially those with targeted disabilities (blindness, deafness, partial and full paralysis, missing extremities, dwarfism, epilepsy, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric disabilities) but when a job is applied for and the applicant states in the application that the he or she is disabled, discrimination begins. Every State in the union welcomes and encourages applications from people with physical and mental disabilities, from city by city and town by town and claim that they will reasonably accommodate the needs of those people. On the website they are all firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit but unfortunately disability is never meet the merit they are looking for and this is ableism against applicants.
Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with medical and mental conditions . It is occurring in almost every Federal and State departments even at the municipal level, and the government is failing to pay attention to the issues when an employer or other entity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because he or she has a disability. It is an amazing experience when a disabled person applies for work with EEOC and he/ she is turned down just because of lack of qualification . It’s hard to be disabled in America because there are numerous Acts against discrimination but no action, especially from government agencies who supposedly protect and provide justice.

Franklin D. Roosevelt is honored to reflect the contributions of the 32nd president of the United States. Roosevelt’s disability exemplifies that physical disabilities hold no barriers to achievement. To F.D.R., disability was not ‘a sickness’ – one of the reasons he is an icon for people with disabilities. He educated Americans to understand that disability is not illness and that we can master the limitations caused by disability,” Vanden Heuvel added.
United Kingdom Labour Party success sees increase in number of disabled MPs in 2017 is a good sign from UK . America must stand out to do more not just in Acts of websites what they say in reality to change lives and hire disabled people from all levels of Jobs.

Written by humanfealty/human Faith

September 4, 2017 at 3:14 am

Posted in Uncategorized

The First Amendment should Change

leave a comment »

Our the past several decades I have noticed how these founding insights and principles of religious and political freedom have fared in the hands of the United States Supreme Court, compare to international human rights. Last 20 years Supreme Court has taken a number of twists and turn in many First Amendment political and religious cases to pleases powers. It troubling for me to see gradually weakening of the First Amendment clauses in my Case Mehdi V. America Docket 11-768 and many more which leaves the legislature and the States with much more discretionary power our minor political and religious freedom then the federal courts. Such a shifting practice ask what should be common national right of political and religious liberty. In my view the federal courts should provide common and firm political and religious liberty protections for all as well as for the minor political parties no matter where they happen to reside along with belief, pigment and culture. American is my home and I believe we need for a strong common national law on political and religious liberty in the face of grim local bigotry State by State and Town by Town especially in Bristol Connecticut where am from. Every time I remember my experience of political and religious activities in State of Connecticut it takes my memories on the horrific abuses inflicted on Jews and others during World War II. America should have a vision of a strong federal constitutional law of political and religious liberty. It is essential for American freedom only Federal courts are in position to enforce this request from a minor political party and Minorities religious liberties.
The people party of Connecticut
Written by Ajmal Mehdi

Religious Freedom ?

leave a comment »

Religious Freedom

Many countries across the globe have official state religions and clauses pertaining to religious freedom and the protection of religious minorities. However when interreligious conflicts arise, these constitutional guarantees are brought into question. In this Article I will compare the degrees of religious liberty present in countries with official and unofficial state religions, India and Pakistan, to the United States. The post partition identity Pakistan attempted to create is apparent within the Objectives Resolution of 1949. Although it proclaimed tolerance for all religions, Pakistan was created specifically for Muslims.

The idea of religious liberty was the building block for a nation that eventually fashioned an identity on the basis of Islam. This concept, which can be given the label of ‘political Islam’, is apparent in the constitutions that followed the objectives resolution, which declared Pakistan to be an Islamic republic which has tiny minorities of Hindus: 1,414,527, Christians: 1,270,051, Ahmedis: 125,681, Baha’is: 33,734, Sikhs: 6,146, Parsis: 4,020, Buddhists: 1,492, others: 66,898, Human Faith members only 7

The final constitution of 1973 finally opened the door to discrimination against religious minorities. The inclusion of the phrase ‘subject to law’ in this constitution held that minorities can only freely profess their faith as long as this does not cause lawlessness among the majority population. This phrase further developed the notion that religious freedom is not in fact fully present within Pakistan. The rights and practices of the majority Sunni Muslim population hold the most merit, not being subject to law. The subsequent 1974 constitution went on to define what being a member of the Muslim majority entails. Under this definition a small, minority sect of Muslims (the Ahmadiyya) were labeled as heretics and consequently under Ordinance XX public practice of their faith became a crime. Not only does this go against the Pakistani Constitution, which protects the right of individuals to profess, practice and propagate religion and the right of religious groups to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions, but as well as international human rights law standards of freedom of religion. In a case for Ahmadiyya rights taken to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the majority opinion held that Ahmadis are not Muslims because their beliefs and theological doctrines are largely at dissent with the beliefs of the majority of Muslims.

Their decision and approach is so irreparably defective that it contradicts the whole concept of religious freedom. There is a clear conflict present between the constitutional liberty Pakistan professes and its history of anti-Ahmadiyya antagonism. International mandates establish that Ahmadi Muslims have the right to profess and practice how they wish irrespective of whether another sect of Islam agrees with their theology. Moreover, the Pakistan Constitution can be interpreted to adapt to this international mandate.

The most common tool of persecution utilized against religious minorities is the charge of blasphemy. These laws ignore the question of intent and can carry a death sentence for the blasphemer. Added to penal code during Zia al-Haq’s military regime, they clash against the importance of religious liberty emphasized by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. As the product of a military dictator who adopted theocratic rhetoric for undoubtedly self-serving purpose, these laws further restrict religious freedom than what it should be under the constitutional and international guidelines. The implementation of such laws has created an environment that allows them to be utilized to settle personal disputes. They also show how unintended yet socially pertinent, and meaningful speech can easily be victimized. For example, in the case of Salamat Masih the High Court alluded to the fact that a personal vendetta could have motivated the charges against the 14-year-old Christian boy. The mere accusation of blasphemy against Masih was enough to promote tension and violence between the minority Christian population and the majority Muslim population. The High Court judge who acquitted Masih was shot dead for overturning the death sentence. These blasphemy laws are used politically and applied disproportionately to non-Muslims, specifically Christians and the Ahmadiyya. Introducing a legal definition of what it means to be a Muslim and then introducing laws that criminalize any insult to Islam has only served to strengthen extremism and foster violence. Constitutionally it can be claimed that religious liberty exists within Pakistan, but in reality this is not the case. Pakistan clearly has a state religion and fails to protect the freedom of religious minorities.

Although India does not have an official state religion such as Pakistan, which declares the religion of the majority to be the official, it can be argued that unofficially it is Hinduism. For example, in 1995 the Supreme Court endorsed the idea that Hinduism is not just one of the religions on the subcontinent but rather possesses a privileged, dominant position in the Indian way of life and consequently opened the door for Hindu national politics (Mahmud, 771). This notion is furthered when Hindu nationals such as Narendra Modi are democratically elected as the leader of the country. Using the platform of Hindutva, which promotes the idea that other regions are inauthentic to the real India, the Hindu way of life, is endorsed. Whether Hinduism is the official state religion or not can be argued however the idea that India is a secular nation is known. Its constitution stands as the bedrock of secularism while the accomadationist approach and the lack of wall between church and state allow secularism to succeed. This secularism comes under threat however due to the anti-conversion laws present.

These laws, that aim to protect people from being forced to change their beliefs, can be seen as a clear obstruction to religious freedom. The Gujarat Freedom of Religion bill, for example, says a person who wants to convert to another religion must first get permission from the district magistrate to do so. Not only does this place illogical limitation on an individual’s right to convert to another religion, but it also hinders their right to propagate their own religion. The magistrates could also, if under pressure from hardline Hindu groups prohibit any or all conversions from Hinduism. These laws also imply that inherently there is a state religion. For instance, as a result of the enactment of these laws, the state is required to track conversions, primarily conversions from Hinduism to minority religion (Jenkins 118). If Hinduism did not hold a privileged position then conversions from all faiths to another would be tracked. This however is not the case because they are laden in favor of the Hindu majority. It also worth noting that similar to Pakistan, these laws contradict rights that are protected by the constitution which states that “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion” (Mahmood 758).

Although I have not done research on this topic, I can’t help but wonder if the regions that implement anti-conversion laws are the same regions where Hindutva is in power. If this is the case, it can be argued that these laws only serve a political purpose as opposed to religious or legal. They restrict religious freedom in a country whose constitution is the bedrock for secularism. India clearly has an unofficial state religion, which will eventually become official with Hindu national politics, and fails to protect the religious liberty of its citizens. For the third time, America’s religious-freedom envoys, who travel to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China, was A denied entry to India. A delegation from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was supposed to leave for India on March 4th but no visas were forthcoming. “I was disappointed because when I visited India it was a democracy.

The United States is a prime example of why a state cannot have an official or unofficial religion if it wants to protect religious freedom. From the start, America was not a country of a singular faith but rather one of many varying set of beliefs. The opening 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights sum up the relationship the founding fathers intended to be present between religion and politics. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause, the establishment clause is why there is no official state religion while the second, free exercise clause, allows one to profess their faith. Taken together, these two clauses protect religious liberty by protecting religions and religious beliefs from governmental interference. They guarantee that religious belief or non-belief should remain voluntary, free from government coercion. Under this banner, making exceptions to the law for people of faith has become a norm within the American definition of religious tolerance. While it can be argued that America is a Christian nation, this argument possesses no merit. The Constitution itself contains no mention of Christianity and refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment. It even outwardly bans “religious tests” for public office, thus assuring non-Christians the right to hold office. In its entirety, the constitution is a secular document. This argument fails again because Supreme Court decisions have held over and over for religious freedom.

In 1972 in Wisconsin v. Yoder it set precedent for the state to have a compelling interest before it could constitutionally oblige a religious community to obey a state law that conflicted its beliefs. While this decision can be seen to reflect a concern about the state’s power to influence its citizens, it can also simply be the Court looking to protect a religious community. Not only did this decision create a balancing test that weighed a state’s interest against an individual’s/communities right to freely exercise their religion, but it also set the bar for following decisions that upheld religious liberty. The court builds the wall up even higher when there is a risk of the establishment clause being violated. The only way religious liberty of all faiths can be protected if one religion is not blatantly established, advanced, or favored. To keep this from happening the court ruled to remove religion from the public sphere. For example, in Lee v. Weisman the majority opinion held that use of peer pressure to coerce students into participating in a graduation prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This decision stressed the importance of individual freedom of conscience. Religious liberty is protected to the extent that it can’t even be influenced publicly.

It is evident based on the constitution and various landmark Supreme Court decisions that the United States successfully protects religious freedoms/liberties only because it does not have an official state religion but Human Faith.

USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission, the first of its kind in the world, dedicated to defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad. USCIRF reviews the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and the Congressional leadership of both political parties.

Written by Ajmal Mehdi

Written by humanfealty/human Faith

June 24, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: