# data[].attributes.body
These are my questions from the case I chose.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how Donald trump is newly president, how this will most likely effect Muslim's, the attack on Paris by ISIS is what triggered this with trump. he like other close-minded people believe that all Muslims are part or ISIS this is hugely not the case at all. it also talks bout how it effects freedom of religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The unexpected US election result last week was undoubtedly a vote for change. It will take some time to see exactly what sort of change Donald Trump will bring, whether he will deliver on all of his platform, what his priorities will be, and how he will respond to various domestic and international crises as they arise. However, there are some things that have already changed simply by virtue of his election, and the campaign it followed.

One potential serious international impact is the effect this could have on American efforts to promote religious freedom and tolerance around the world. The election of a man who called for a ban on Muslims coming into his country, in response to ISIS's actions in France, emboldens those voices - not least in the Middle East and North Africa - who accuse the American Government of Islamophobia, or worse.

The policy Trump espoused is precisely the kind of policy that America - both its Government and its human rights organisations and NGOs - opposes around the world. It is enough of a challenge to go to a Muslim country and argue for religious freedom for religious minorities when there is a distrust of your country owing to wars provoked by international terrorism. It is almost impossible to argue against policies that specifically target a certain religion(s) when your own President promotes the exact same type of policy, and was elected off the back of it.

When the US Ambassador, or US-based human rights groups, next goes to lobby the Burmese Government to prevent discrimination by local government against Muslims of Bangladeshi origin in the west of the country, can they really expect to be taken as seriously as before? Or, when representatives seek to work with Saudi leaders to move away from laws that criminalise those who convert from Islam to other religions, how will those leaders now respond to people from a country that has elected a man who demonised Muslims? Even if the Trump administration goes on to prioritise religious freedom around the world as much as previous administrations, the various comments from his campaign may undermine those efforts, to a greater or lesser extent.

If that does happen, it will become imperative that the UK increases its own efforts. The UK Government, through its diplomacy and aid work, already substantially and effectively promotes freedom of religion and thought around the world. More, though, must be done, especially in the areas of aid work, civil society, and local government or community-level discrimination.

According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, 'there has been a dramatic increase in religious persecution worldwide in the past six years. 5.3 billion people (76 per cent of the world's population) live in countries with a high or very high level of restrictions on religion'. A significant part of that is due to crackdowns in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in North Africa and the Middle East. Research done on worldwide religious freedom in 2007-2012 by the Pew Research Centre found that 29 per cent of countries currently have a high level of government restrictions on religious minorities, and that Christians face harassment for their faith in 110 countries worldwide, with Muslims facing that in 109.

This is a growing problem that not only expresses itself in more explicit ways - 25 per cent of countries witnessed mob violence related to religion between 2007 and 2012 - but also in more subtle, but equally pernicious, forms of discrimination. Often this can be systematic and institutional, whether in education, the justice system, local planning, or welfare. Sometimes it is caused by government, such as with northern Nigerian churches that have been denied planning permission to rebuild their church buildings, after they were destroyed by militias. Sometimes it is caused by a failure to address persecution and discrimination within the population, as was seen when some religious minorities who had fled Syria felt unable to go into UN camps, for fear of being attacked for their faith by other refugees.

Under William Hague, addressing religious discrimination became an important priority for the Foreign Office. This must continue so that we can ensure that religious freedom continues to be promoted around the world by the UK and her allies. But, in addition, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on this by DFID. Increasingly, the Government's aid budget is going towards more sustainable structural and systematic reform. For example, this includes not just sending vaccinations, but also helping to build healthcare infrastructure. This is welcome, but, as part of this, DFID must recognise that issues of structural and systematic inequality are often bound up with prejudice and discrimination - and that religious discrimination is very often a key part of this.

Last year, the UN General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. Many of the goals are contingent on promoting religious freedom - such as Goal 4 on quality education, and Goal 10 on reducing inequality. Perhaps the most direct, however, is Goal 16: 'Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all level'. This can only be achieved if religious freedom is front and centre of international efforts to achieve the goals. If DFID is serious about the Sustainable Development Goals, then it must make religious freedom an explicit priority - now more than ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johnny Monro: A governmental focus on international freedom of religion is more important than ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unexpected US election result last week was undoubtedly a vote for change. It will take some time to see exactly what sort of change Donald Trump will bring, whether he will deliver on all of his platform, what his priorities will be, and how he will respond to various domestic and international crises as they arise.

# data[].attributes.body
(warning: the content in this video maybe be somewhat graphic, the views expressed in the video do not in any way reflect my personal views)
I am posting this video because i wanted to show the extreme opinions some individuals have. this video is biased towards one religion more than others i feel like and it shows a graphic side to it. not all Muslims are terrorists and not everyone from Islam is a terrorist. each individual is there own person. yes, maybe ISIS is made up of more of one religion than others, however that doesn't speak for everyone and i do feel as though this video is a very close minded view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First Amendment Freedom of Religion Freedom of Religion in America A Fun Video of Freedom of Religion Religion in Public Education Spread the Freedom of Religions Freedom to Petition Freedom of Religion Court Cases Bill of Rights Freedom of Religion Freedom of Religion Videos Bing Organized Religion the End of The Freedom Organizations

# data[].attributes.body
To me this picture shows that even though we're supposed to have freedom of religion, that's not always the case. A lot of times we don't have the right to express our views, maybe not express necessarily but more the fact of being shut down I guess. So to me this picture felt relevant.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the charter of rights,  and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. some construction workers didn't want to wear hard hats at work, they claimed that their religion prohibited them from wearing hardhats, read further to see the outcome...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Men without hardhats: freedom of religion loses out to workplace safety | Lexology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of religion and the duty to accommodate in the workplace is a highly important issue in Quebec, given the discrimination provisions of the...

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about a woman’s right to wear her niqab, while she took the oath of Canadian citizenship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the most memorable figures in the 2015 federal election campaign was Zunera Ishaq, the observant Muslim woman who fought for and won the right to wear a face-covering when she took the oath of Canadian citizenship.

She had been banned from doing so by the Harper government, so she sued. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, saying the policy required Ms. Ishaq to renounce a basic tenet of her religion, as she interpreted it. The Conservatives, hoping to make a wedge issue out of it, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Tories had many Canadians on their side. One poll showed 82 per cent of Canadians thought people taking the citizenship oath should publicly show their faces. (Note, a niqab-wearer becoming a citizen still has to show her face and prove her identity, privately - something that was never in question.) Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, said it was "offensive" for new Canadians to wear a niqab while taking the oath.

Ms. Ishaq won a victory for religious freedom, and many consider her a hero. At the same time, a majority of Canadians likely don't agree with the outcome. Many find the idea of hiding a woman's face to be problematic and offensive, even discriminatory.

The story is illustrative of how religious freedom works in Canada. People have the right to their beliefs, and to practise their faith, within reason. Ms. Ishaq and other Muslim Canadian women who wear a niqab or burqa know they must reveal their faces at times, such as when they get a driver's licence, or to prove their identity to an authority before taking an oath. The system accommodates them by not obliging them to do so in front of other people, as much as possible.

This balancing act, in which the rights of one group must be weighed against another and accommodations must be made, is why the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled this week that Trinity Western University, a religious institution, should be allowed to operate a law school.

The court ruled that the private B.C. university could do so even though it requires students to sign a "community covenant" in which they vow to abstain from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

The judges acknowledged that this definition of marriage could have a detrimental impact on the rights of LGBTQ people, but that it had to be balanced against the school's right to ask students to live according to sincerely held beliefs.

There was a broader issue, too. "A society that does not admit of and accommodate differences cannot be a free and democratic society - one in which its citizens are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view without fear of reprisal," the judges wrote. "This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in fact intolerant and illiberal."

That well-intentioned majority the judges refer to includes the Law Society of British Columbia, which refused to accredit Trinity Western on the grounds that it discriminates against LGBTQ people.

Which it surely does. The school says LGBTQ people are welcome - but married gay people have to pledge to abstain from sex, whereas straight couples do not. That is disingenuous.

But the thing to remember is that the school and its students have rights, too - religious ones. The proper balancing act is to allow it to continue to oblige its students to sign a covenant that is based on the belief that its interpretation of the Bible is "without error" - something it has been doing for years, and which was tested in another case that went to the Supreme Court in 2001.

In that case, Trinity Western wanted to become a full-fledged teacher training college. The court ruled that the British Columbia College of Teachers had to accredit it as such in spite of its views on human sexuality. The judges rightly shot down the fear that teachers trained there might go on to spread their beliefs in the public system.

And that is the crux of the issue. On any given day, we deal with people of all stripes who may hold beliefs - religious, social, sexual, whatever - that don't match ours. We ourselves might have opinions that others would find objectionable, and yet we still interact with each other, and obey the same laws. In a liberal society, we must be able to express, hold and express those beliefs, and to associate with like-minded people and others, without interference - up to a point.

"The proper place to draw the line," the Supreme Court said in 2001, "is generally between belief and action. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them."

Zunera Ishaq is entitled to wear a niqab, and encourage others to do so, as long as she is willing to reveal her face under reasonable circumstances - and recognize that other Canadians have just as much right to choose not to wear a niqab. The future law students of Trinity Western University are similarly entitled to hold unpopular beliefs about marriage and sexuality, and to associate with others who think the same.

But the minute they step off that campus to practise law, they enter another world. If one day a Trinity Western law school grad is up for a seat on one of Canada's courts, they may be questioned about their alma mater and the potentially discriminatory beliefs their education implies. They will have to demonstrate that they can believe devoutly in the strictures of their religion, as they are entitled to under the law and the Charter of Rights, while simultaneously recognizing that other parts of the law and the Charter - to which they owe their duty as lawyers - are in disagreement with their beliefs.

We hope they'll be able to see that rights are a two-way street. After all, future Trinity Western graduates will be practising law because of Canada's respect for their - our - most fundamental freedoms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At Trinity Western, a delicate balance between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most memorable figures in the 2015 federal election campaign was Zunera Ishaq, the observant Muslim woman who fought for and won the right to wear a face-covering when she took the oath of Canadian citizenship. She had been banned from doing so by the Harper government, so she sued.

# data[].attributes.body
This picture pertains to the freedom of religion because, it embodies different forms of belief. You have a crescent with the star which is a symbol of faith for Islam, a Ying Yang which is traditional for Chinese culture, also there is a star of David which is a symbol of Judaism, as well as a few other symbols.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is about the pros and cons of religion in public schools, they talk about how the school in question was pushing Christian beliefs and how that’s wrong because not everyone believes in Christianity. They should be equally teaching each religion.
(please scroll down for video when the link opens)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether prayer should be included in traditional schools or not has been a subject of on-going, heated debates not only in the US, but also in other countries. While some people argue in favor of the practice, others strongly believe that there should not be any religious dimension to education. For one, proponents think that it can help maintain discipline and allow children to follow their religion in school, while others think it is unnecessary. So, should prayer be included in a regular school day, or should it be banned in educational institutions? Let us take a look at it pros and cons.

List of Pros of Prayer in Public Schools

1. It allows freedom of religion.
Banning the practice of praying in school would mean that children are being deprived of their freedom of religion. It would be regarded as a non-religious practice, and prayers are believed to give students the right to observe their religion.

2. It teaches moral values to children.
Proponents argue that allowing children to pray at school is beneficial in a way that it fosters the importance of moral values in children. There are certain qualities that prayer can instill in schoolchildren, such as discipline and humility.

3. It offers benefits to society.
It is said that prayer in public schools can provide societal benefits. According to those who support the policy, the increasing rate of abuse and violence in schools can be curbed with such a practice, as it would help the children to remain away from bad practices.

4. It helps cultivate children's minds.
By allowing prayer in schools, these institutions are not only training its students academically, but are also cultivating their minds.

List of Cons of Prayer in Public Schools

1. It can give rise to religious discrimination.
Considering that public schools are educational institutions, opponents argue why religion should be included in them. They believe that prayers can give rise to feelings of religious inequality and discrimination in children's minds, and would expose students to religious differences.

2. It uses up time that should be spent on education.
Critics say that the time that should be used for something educational is somehow being used up in prayers. Also, they argue that children are free to observe their religion at home, and it is not really necessary to introduce religion in schools through prayers.

3. It could violate the freedom of religion.
In a school that is funded by the government, the religion followed by the government could be forced on the children. In this situation, prayers in schools could be a violation of the freedom of religion. Opponents suggest that allowing students to pray during their free time is enough to let them practice their religion.

If you are to focus on the moral aspect of prayer in public schools, rather than its religious aspect, it would seem to be very beneficial. However, if you are to take its religious point of view, it would not seem appropriate to have this practice as part of daily schooling. Based on the pros and cons listed above, do you think it is good for society as a whole, or not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prayer in Public Schools Pros and Cons List

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether prayer should be included in traditional schools or not has been a subject of on-going, heated debates not only in the US, but also in other countries. While some people argue in favor of the practice, others strongly believe that there should not be any religious dimension to education.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this picture is self explanatory, I liked it because it just says freedom of religion. its not subliminal, it doesn't have any hidden message it just says what it means. freedom of religion should be the same just out their saying what it means not being subliminal or hidden.

# data[].attributes.body
I  liked this
video because it was a bit of a different view from the previous one. The fox
news reporter is basically saying we shouldn’t teach other religions because
Allah and Buddha don’t really effect American development, while the other guy
is trying to explain how every religion is similar and do contribute to
American people and their culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools frightened to teach about religious figures