Latest news with #EthiopianOrthodox
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
America the Beautiful: Remembering the heritage of freedom of faith, conscience and belief for all
May 10 (UPI) -- May 9th, my children and I brought our balls and bikes to the neighborhood park on the perfect spring afternoon. Cotton candy clouds dotted the clear blue sky, the sun shined warmly and a small breeze gracefully shook birch leaves. The park has an amphitheater. In the summer, it hosts open concerts in the evenings, sometimes families gather for big picnics. I've seen weddings held there, as the park is right behind the town courthouse. Today, a sea of people covered the amphitheater lawn in concentric semicircles: grandmothers, mothers, grandfathers, fathers, teenagers, little toddlers and babies. They were dressed in translucent, pure white, cotton shawls. It was as if the clouds had come down to earth. Looking closer, we saw colorful variations under their traditional white shawl. Some wore full white wrap-around dresses and white button down shirts decorated with crosses. Some women wore bright orange, green and yellow dresses under their pure white shawls. Some of the younger boys wore sweatshirts and khakis, an ensemble they completed with their white shawl wrapped around their shoulders. Together, they raised their voices in prayer and song -- openly carrying out a worship service in the local park. Later, my son played a pick up basketball game with a few of the boys. They explained that it was "Mother Mary's Birthday." May 9th, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians celebrate the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Lideta Maryam. I was moved to witness this sight. What a beautiful nation I live in. Here, in this nation families can openly and safely carry on the traditions, garments, and faith from their home country, and pass them down to their children. This nation is built on layers and layers of immigrants from around the world, people seeking to raise their families in peace, to pursue opportunity, to live with dignity with their fundamental freedoms and rights safeguarded and honored. I come from Flushing Queens. Nestled next to the Margret Carmen Green in downtown Flushing is the Bowne House. The unassuming house is the historical site where the Flushing Remonstrance was signed in 1657. The Remonstrance was a citizen declaration standing up for the freedom of worship and assembly for all, "Jews, Turks, Egyptians," "Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker." Today, the neighborhoods around Parsons Boulevard would make the signers proud. A Catholic Church, the Free Synagogue of Flushing, the Hindu Temple Society, a Russian Orthodox Church, the Sheik Center of New York and the Muslim Center are just a few of the notable houses of worship that operate side by side. This is the beauty of the nation. America the Beautiful -- from the white clad Ethiopian Orthodox Christians carrying on the traditions that they carried with them from their home country when they came here to pursue freedom and opportunity, to the Americanized versions of the faiths from the old country, the Free Synagogue and the Baptists, to those who embrace an indigenous faith, and those who choose no faith, this nation is beautiful. From sea to shining sea, this nation protects the conscience of all people, and allows them to shine and sparkle in their unique color, and seek to live and build a nation befitting the call of our conscience to the best of our ability.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could respect religious families without undermining public education
As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the national conversation is charged. Some see the case as an attack on inclusive education. Others view it as a necessary defense of religious liberty in the public school system. But the truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the middle. If the justices are careful, they can craft a decision that affirms constitutional protections without unleashing the chaos that some fear. At the heart of the case are several families in Montgomery County, Maryland, who object to new curricular materials introduced in elementary schools. These include picture books that celebrate same-sex marriage and gender identity exploration. The parents — primarily from Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox communities — asked for the right to opt their children out of these lessons. The school district denied those requests and ended its longstanding opt-out policy. The petitioners are not claiming their children should be shielded from every idea they find challenging. Rather, they argue this is not a case of passive exposure to diverse viewpoints. The books are not merely available in the classroom. Teachers are required to use them, and children as young as four are encouraged to reflect on their meaning. Some materials suggest that gender is 'assigned' at birth and may change based on feelings. Others imply that disagreeing with these ideas is hurtful or unfair. In short, the petitioners contend this is not just about hearing ideas — they say it's about compelled participation in a moral framework that contradicts their faith. For example, one family pulled their daughter, who has Down syndrome, out of school after the opt-outs were revoked, sacrificing $25,000 in special education services. Another family moved in with grandparents to afford private school. Most of the families had no real alternative. They also point to what they describe as targeted religious animus. When these families organized to express their concerns, school officials accused them of using religion as 'an excuse for hate.' A young Muslim girl who spoke at a school board meeting was described as 'parroting her parents' dogma.' The parents were labeled as aligning with 'xenophobes' and 'white supremacists.' The message, they say, was clear: some beliefs were welcome, and others were not. The school board says the curriculum promotes inclusion and respect. Officials argue that allowing religious opt-outs could stigmatize LGBTQ students and complicate classroom management. They also suggest that the logistics of widespread opt-outs would be unworkable. The lower courts sided with the school district, reasoning that mere exposure to ideas — even those that conflict with a family's beliefs— does not amount to coercion or a substantial burden under the Free Exercise Clause. But during oral argument, several justices expressed skepticism. If other parts of the curriculum allow religious accommodations — such as opting out of music or health classes — why, they asked, were objections to the gender identity materials treated differently and denied outright? The inconsistency raised questions about whether the district's policy was truly neutral and generally applicable, or whether it singled out certain religious objections for less favorable treatment. If the court concludes that strict scrutiny applies, the district will likely face an uphill battle defending its policy. Still, the court need not issue a broad ruling. It could limit its decision to the elementary school context and the specific facts at hand, emphasizing the district's uneven application of opt-out policies and the documented hostility toward certain faith-based objections. Instead of establishing a general right to opt out of any controversial material, the court could simply reaffirm a basic principle: public schools must treat religious beliefs with consistency and respect. Some worry this will open the floodgates. What happens when parents object to lessons on slavery, feminism or climate change? But those fears may be overstated. Courts still require that claimants show sincere religious beliefs and a substantial burden —not just discomfort or disagreement. And most schools that offer opt-outs already do so without any sign of educational breakdown. More importantly, this case is not about censoring LGBTQ identities or banning inclusive stories. It is about whether public schools can recognize and accommodate families who are trying, in good faith, to raise their children according to their deepest convictions. We don't need to pretend those parents are always right, or that their views will go unchallenged in a diverse society. But if the First Amendment means anything, it must protect the ability to dissent without being excluded from public life. A modest ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor would not entitle every parent to veto what happens in school. It would simply remind school districts that the Constitution requires them to treat religious beliefs with fairness and respect. In a time when our cultural debates are growing more polarized, that's a principle worth upholding.
