Cardinal Dolan receives award from Becket for religious liberty leadership
In his speech, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said he is in 'good company' in defending religious freedom, along with the legal team at Becket and the founders of the United States. | Credit: Photo courtesy of Becket
By Tyler Arnold
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York was named the Becket Fund's 2025 Canterbury Medalist, an award that honors his career-long commitment to religious liberty.
'His Eminence has been a towering figure in the fight for religious liberty, not just for Catholics, but for people of all faiths,' Becket President Mark Rienzi said in a statement. 'Cardinal Dolan's leadership in the public square has shaped the national conscience on religious freedom and strengthened the resolve of those who defend it.'
Becket, a nonprofit law firm that represents clients who are defending their religious liberty in court, awarded Dolan the medal during its annual gala in New York. According to Becket, the honor recognizes individuals who demonstrate courage and commitment to defending religious liberty in the United States and globally.
Dolan said in an acceptance speech, which was provided to CNA by Becket, that he is 'grateful' to receive the award.
'I hardly deserve this high award,' Dolan added. 'Yet, I readily admit that you are absolutely [spot on] to claim I am intensely devoted to the protection of our 'first and most cherished liberty,' religious freedom.'
In his speech, Dolan said he is in 'good company' in defending religious freedom, along with the legal team at Becket and the founders of the United States.
'They and their parents had come here precisely because they were frustrated in countries where religion was imposed or proscribed, nations where battles were waged to coerce religious conviction, where they were hounded and harassed for their beliefs,' he said.
'Not here, they insisted!' Dolan said. 'This was not the way they, or, most importantly, God intended it. Nothing is more free than creedal assent; nothing merited more protection than religious freedom; nothing deserved more top billing in our Constitution.'
Dolan said religious liberty is 'part of our very nature that cannot be erased' and necessary for the respect of 'the dignity of the human person.'
'Our passion for this primary liberty is not just because we happen to be a believer or a patriotic citizen, but because we are a person endowed with certain ingrained rights,' he said.
Dolan was recently appointed to serve on President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which will create a report on threats to religious freedom and strategies to enhance legal protections to preserve those rights. It will also outline the foundations of religious liberty in the United States.
Previously, Dolan has served as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and has led the USCCB's Committee for Religious Liberty. According to Becket, the cardinal has also staunchly defended religious freedom through testimony before Congress and when engaging with the media.
'Religious freedom isn't just about protecting what happens in church on Sundays — it's about defending the right of every person to live their faith openly, every day of the week,' Dolan said. 'It's a gift from God — not from government — and it must be protected for people of all faiths.'
Other members of the Catholic clergy who have won this award from Becket include University of Mary President Monsignor James Shea and former Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput.
Past medalists also include Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel; Orthodox rabbi of the oldest Jewish congregation in the U.S. Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik; and First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Dallin H. Oaks.--CNA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
15 hours ago
- New Straits Times
No 3R offences reported at opposition rally, says home minister
KULIM: The Home Ministry has yet to receive any reports of 3R (religion, race, and royalty) violations, or under any other laws, following the peaceful assembly organised by the opposition in the capital yesterday. Its minister, Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, said the rally proceeded smoothly and was well managed by police. It's a testament to the Madani government's commitment to upholding the freedom of assembly, he added. "As of this morning, I have not received any feedback from police regarding any reports or complaints about breaches of existing laws, including 3R-related issues. "But clearly, this is the clearest proof—a shining example—that the Madani government is truly upholding the freedom of assembly as guaranteed by the Constitution. "The police, in turn, maintained order with full responsibility and professionalism," he told reporters after the People's Volunteer Corps Department (Rela) anniversary celebration at Dataran Kulim in Kedah today. Saifuddin also criticised the organisers for failing to clearly remind participants not to bring underage children to the rally, as this is prohibited under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. "This Act outlines three main responsibilities. The police act as facilitators, organisers must not provoke issues related to race, religion, or the monarchy, and participants are not allowed to carry dangerous weapons or bring underage children. "Yesterday, some participants were unaware or not informed. The organisers merely called on people to gather in large numbers without saying that bringing children was prohibited. That is a legal offence," he said. Commenting further, Saifuddin challenged the opposition to not just stage weekly rallies but instead present better policies to rival those implemented by the government. He said that when it comes to the cost of living, the Madani government had already introduced clear measures, including increasing cash aid and lowering fuel prices by six sen and it is now time for the opposition to present their alternatives. "If you disagree with the government's policies, present your own welfare policies. If you think six sen is insufficient, state how much you would reduce it by, what mechanism you would use. Let the people compare. "We present policies and programmes, while they respond with insults and emotional politics. This deprives the people of a fair chance to assess. We reject this kind of dirty politics," he said. He said the upcoming 13th Malaysia Plan debate in Parliament next week would be the best platform for the opposition to demonstrate their ability as an alternative bloc. "The people want to see ideas and policy offerings, not just street shouting. The opportunity is wide open. Present your policies in Parliament and let the people judge," he said.
Daily Express
20 hours ago
- Daily Express
Dangerous word game violates MA63
Published on: Sunday, July 27, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jul 27, 2025 Text Size: Declaring the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the Authoritative is a Backdoor Amendment — and that's tantamount to unconstitutional THERE is nothing wrong with loving Bahasa Malaysia. But there is everything wrong with using language to quietly change the meaning of the Constitution. The recent proposal to declare the Bahasa Malaysia (BM) version of the Federal Constitution as the 'authoritative text' may appear harmless or symbolic. It is not. It amounts to a backdoor constitutional amendment — one that risks overriding decades of legal precedent, reshaping fundamental rights, and violating the special safeguards promised to Sabah and Sarawak in 1963. Translation Is Not Neutral — It Shapes the Law Malaysia's Constitution was drafted in English by the Reid Commission and adopted in 1957. Every clause, word, and phrase reflects legal concepts from the common law tradition. The BM version, while official, is still a translation — not a legal twin. Article 160B of the Constitution allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare the BM version of the Constitution as 'authoritative.' However, this must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions. Declaring a different-language version legally authoritative changes the words by which the Constitution is interpreted. That shift is not merely linguistic — it is legal. Here, it is important to clarify - is a declaration under Article 160B a law or an administrative act? Articles 159 and 161E apply to constitutional amendments and legal changes, not mere administrative declarations. However, if the effect of declaring the BM version as authoritative is to alter how rights are interpreted or protected, then it must be treated as a legal amendment — regardless of form. Otherwise, it would allow circumvention of constitutional safeguards through executive discretion. Regardless of whether Article 160B is exercised administratively, its legal effects must comply with the Constitution's substantive limits. The courts have long held that constitutional compliance is determined by outcome, not form. Importantly, Article 160B was introduced in 1971 through Act A514. Hansard records from that period make clear that the provision was intended to affirm the BM version as authoritative only after a careful process of harmonisation with the English version. The legislative intent was never to permit divergence in meaning, but rather to ensure that both versions align. Declaring the BM text authoritative without resolving inconsistencies would create a parallel text capable of altering constitutional meaning through linguistic drift. One Parent or Both? The Real Consequences Article 12(4) of the Constitution states that the religion of a minor shall be determined by 'his parent or guardian.' In English, 'parent' was interpreted by the Federal Court in Indira Gandhi (2018) to mean both parents must consent. The BM version says 'ibu atau bapanya' ('mother or father'), suggesting one parent may act unilaterally. If the BM version becomes authoritative, this change in wording could allow unilateral conversion of children to Islam without both parents' consent. That is a major shift — one which cannot be made without proper constitutional amendment. For Sabah and Sarawak, This Isn't Just a Legal Shift — It's a Constitutional Breach When Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), they did so with express constitutional safeguards, especially in matters of religion, language, and autonomy. These safeguards are found in the Constitution: Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent of Sabah and Sarawak for any amendment that affects the religion of the State. If the BM version alters the understanding of conversion of minors, it directly interferes with religious rights. Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent for any amendment that affects the language in use in the State. English is still used officially in Sarawak and arguably in Sabah. Declaring the BM version authoritative displaces English as the legal baseline — which triggers this clause. Article 161E(2) Requires consent for any amendment affecting the operation of the Constitution in those States. Changing the authoritative text changes how the Constitution is interpreted and enforced. This clause covers not just the content of the Constitution, but its application in practice, which reinforces that such a declaration affects operational law. These Articles show that consent is not a formality. It is a legal safeguard. To bypass it is to breach the Federal Constitution. Legal Chaos, Constitutional Drift If courts are forced to choose between the BM and English texts, precedents like Indira Gandhi could be revisited. This move invites confusion over fundamental rights, undermines legal certainty, and erodes public confidence in constitutional protections. A History We Must Not Forget Sabah and Sarawak were not absorbed into Malaysia — they co-founded it. Their agreement to join was conditional upon express guarantees, including the continued use of English and protections for religious freedom. To change the terms of that understanding through translation — not legislation — is to violate the spirit and letter of MA63. Article 160B Is Not a Blank Cheque Yes, Article 160B gives the Agong discretion to declare the BM version authoritative. But that discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits. It cannot override Articles 161E, 159, or 4(1) (the supremacy clause). You cannot change the legal operation of fundamental rights by simply changing the language used to describe them. That would amount to amending the Constitution without using the amendment process. What Must Happen Before any BM version is declared authoritative: Disclose all discrepancies between the English and BM texts for public review; Obtain consent from Sabah and Sarawak as required by Articles 161E(1), 161E(2)(c), and 161E(2)(d); Use the amendment procedure under Article 159 if substantive legal changes occur; Establish a Constitutional Harmonisation Commission to conduct a line-by-line reconciliation of both versions of the Constitution, ensuring consistency of meaning. This Commission should include judicial and constitutional experts from all regions, including Sabah and Sarawak. Until then, the English version must remain authoritative — not because it is in English, but because it is legally and constitutionally valid. Don't Change the Constitution Without Saying So If this move proceeds without proper process and consent, it sets a chilling precedent - that the Constitution can be changed by translation, not legislation. Language can unite a country — or unmake its laws. We must not allow a quiet switch of wording to transform the rights of millions, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. To do so without consent is not just unconstitutional. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Move to limit PM's tenure to two terms under study
PETALING JAYA: Putrajaya is studying a two-term limit for the post of prime minister, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said. She said a preliminary report on the proposal had been presented to the Cabinet on March 19. 'The government is always open and committed to examining any proposal involving improvements to the country's administrative and governance systems, including limiting the prime minister's tenure to two parliamentary terms, or a maximum of 10 years. 'The Cabinet has acknowledged that this proposal involves amendments to the Federal Constitution and touches upon the discretionary powers of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,' she said in a parliamentary written reply to Hassan Abdul Karim (PH-Pasir Gudang). Hassan had asked the government when it would table the amendment to the Constitution to limit the term of the prime minister. Azalina said the amendment requires a thorough and holistic consideration as it includes obtaining the views and agreement of various stakeholders such as state governments and political parties at federal and state levels. She said the matter is still under consideration by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had expressed support for a call by DAP to amend the Constitution to limit the tenure of the premier to 10 years, or two terms. However, he said it was important to secure the support of all parties. To date, only two of Malaysia's 10 prime ministers have served for more than 10 years – the first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman (1955-1969) and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who holds the record as the longest-serving prime minister, with 22 years in office during his first tenure (1981-2003). Setting a two-term limit for the prime minister has long been a pledge of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition. In December 2019, the PH government led by Mahathir tabled a Bill to amend the Constitution and introduce the reform. However, the Bill was withdrawn in August 2020 after a unanimous Cabinet decision made under the administration of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. The proposal resurfaced in September 2021, when then-prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob agreed to introduce a 10-year limit in exchange for opposition support for his government. A draft Bill was reportedly ready for tabling in February 2022, but it never materialised, as Parliament was dissolved in October that year ahead of the 15th general election.
