Should the U.S. be preaching freedom of religion overseas?

On February 16, 2014, the editorial board of L.A Times posted, Should the U.S. be preaching freedom of religion overseas?, where they argue that U.S. should be preaching freedom of religion overseas. They start out with talking about how Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted United Nations and quoting that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." However, they argue that religion freedom is violated worldwide. 

In this post they discuss President Obama's speech at a National Prayer Breakfast, where he states that religion freedom overseas should be a concern of the U.S. The editorial board agrees with this statement and further talks about his speech: "promoting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy" and they also include that religious minorities all over the world are often being discriminated.  

The editorials also includes that some American do not feel comfortable with this idea however, their response is "But the importance that Congress and the executive branch attach to religious liberty abroad is much more than a sop to American missionaries or the religious right." They also talk about how Christian and other faiths are being persecuted in other countries. 

They suggest that before promoting the religious liberty in foreign countries we need to acknowledge 2 things. They say the very first thing is that U.S. values such as religious freedom, women equality and democratization will be "trumped by other's interests" Second reality, they talk about that even when a country is an ally for whatever reason, the U.S. should speak up when they see any religious rights being violated. They discuss Obama's speech again where he talks about Christians being imprisoned in North Korea and religious minorities being in difficult situation is countries overseas. The editorials conclude by saying that U.S. should preach this message to everyone. 

I think the audiences of this post were the people who are against preaching this message of religious freedom in other countries. I do agree to some extent, for instance the religious liberty is advantageous to everyone in other countries, not only to the followers. When religious freedom would be secured, there would be way less conflicts. Many countries definitely do lack this significant protection. I believe this change would make a positive difference if religion groups across the globe are given the freedom to believe and are treated justly. 

Anti-Obamacare

On Thursday, February 2014, the Washington Post published an articled titled FACT CHECK: Anti-Obama care chorus is off key. This article is mainly based on how Obama care is affecting the workforce in America. The author of this article includes a study, which estimates that the Obama care will cost America approximately 2.3 million full-time jobs. Moreover, people would work fewer hours or take early retirement. The author also included the GOP response, which is that the people are not being fired but rather quitting their jobs on their own. It also talks about the positive and negative aspects of Obama care. The positive side is that the government under the law is paying partially or full for the low-income family with this health insurance; which is also the reason that people are quitting or working few hours. However, on the negative side it says "the law would increase employers’ costs for their workers and reduce the number of people they hire." This would have a negative effect on wages. I found this article very interesting and would recommend because it has a lot of interesting facts and much details about how Obama care will turn out to be in future for our economy since "Everything is guesswork."