“The repression began in 2018 when Ortega’s regime went after the Catholic Church for mediating between the state and anti-government protesters. Since then, targeted retaliation has grown into a full-scale assault on religious freedom.
“The government initially targeted the Catholic Church because it provided sanctuary to demonstrators, and clergy voiced opposition to the government’s human rights abuses,” reports the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. “More recently, the government’s actions have led to full-scale shuttering of the Church’s activities, mass imprisonments, and the targeting of multiple other religious groups.”
Ortega and his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo, have accused church leaders of being “agents of evil” engaged in “spiritual terrorism.” They claim the clergy is inciting civil unrest and planning to overthrow the regime.
The consequences for religious groups—Catholics and others—have been devastating. Since 2018, over 1,100 religious entities have been forcibly closed, more than 70 individuals detained for their religious affiliations, and 84 priests forced into exile.
Surveillance and harassment of church leaders have become ubiquitous, with the Ministry of Interior imposing strict controls on religious activities and regulating visits from foreign clergy, according to the ICC. Easter processions, Christmas celebrations, and even cemetery prayers have all been outlawed.”
…
“Eighty percent of Nicaraguans identify as Christian, with half being Catholic and 30 percent evangelical. In a country deeply rooted in faith, Ortega’s attack on religion is a calculated effort to suffocate dissent and dismantle spaces of hope and community, tightening his grip on a nation with fewer places left to turn.”
https://reason.com/2025/01/11/nicaraguas-regime-wages-war-on-religious-freedom/
“There’s a slight of hand when people declare the United States is a Christian nation. The nation was clearly founded on enlightenment principles that included freedom of religion and separation of church and state. These principles were put into the Constitution, and we know their meaning because we have the writings of the founders. At the same time, the country was a mostly Christian populace whose culture evolved from a Europe that had been Christian for many hundreds of years. Of course much of the ethos of such a society is going to be infused with Christian ideas, which themselves had been infused with Jewish, Roman, and Greek ideas. The country was and is majority Christian; in this sense it was a Christian nation. The country is and has always been heavily influenced by Christian culture, so also in that sense it is a Christian nation. But, at the nation’s founding, the founders explicitly created a government that was not supposed to implement Christianity upon its people, so in that sense it is not a Christian nation. As the country’s religious diversity grows, it becomes less of a Christian nation unless it can maintain some underlying Christian culture that goes beyond religious belief.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0x2iDjfW3g
“it is a unanimous opinion, joined in full by the Court’s Democratic appointees, that does little more than repudiate a single line in a 1977 Supreme Court decision that virtually everyone thinks was a mistake.”
…
“the decision in Groff v. DeJoy announces a new rule that will govern employees who seek an accommodation for their religious beliefs from their employer. Because requests for such accommodations are fairly common, that means that Groff will likely lead to a rush of lawsuits, at least in the short term, as courts try to figure out how to apply Groff’s new rule to individual cases.
Groff’s new rule states that religious accommodation requests should be granted unless they impose a “hardship” on the employer that “would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business.” This highly flexible new rule might potentially be used by far-right judges to give religious conservatives an unfair upper hand in disputes with their employer’s human resources department. Such is the price of vague legal rules.
That said, the actual holding of Groff — that most requests for religious accommodations should be granted, and that an employer cannot dodge this obligation because it might impose minimal costs on the employer — is largely benign. Indeed, it is likely to benefit many employees who make reasonable requests for accommodations that might have been denied under an earlier, less employee-friendly rule.
It will be up to the Supreme Court, in other words, to ensure that Groff does not allow rogue judges to disrupt the workplace. But the actual legal rule announced by Groff is a sensible one that should be applied fairly by most judges.”
“The members of the church, also known as the Mayflower Church, were granted refugee status by the U.N. agency after their arrival in Thailand last year. They say they faced unbearable harassment in China and are seeking asylum in the United States.”
…
“Human Rights Watch issued a statement on Saturday urging the Thai government not to deport the group due to “the grave dangers facing Christians back in China.”
In its annual report last year, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom said the Chinese Communist Party requires religious groups to support its rule and political objectives, including by altering their religious teachings to conform with the party’s ideology and policy. “Both registered and unregistered religious groups and individuals who run afoul of the CCP face harassment, detention, arrest, imprisonment, and other abuses,” the commission said.”