Envoy Says Trump Willing to ‘Stand Up and Push’ for Global Religious Freedom
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump is committed to pushing for greater tolerance of different faiths by governments around the world and dismantling an “iron curtain of religious persecution,” his envoy for religious freedom said in an interview with The Daily Signal.
“Most people in the world move by what their faith tells them,” Sam Brownback, the former Kansas governor who is Trump’s international ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, said in the interview.
“Much of the world — we’re looking at numbers now — nearly 80 percent live in a religiously restrictive atmosphere, so they don’t have freedom of religion,” he said.
But in the United States, Brownback said, “religious freedom is a foundational right, it’s a God-given right,” and “governments don’t have the right to interfere with it.”
“So we’re going to push on it,” he said. “And the reason it’s so important is it impacts so many people, and so few countries are willing to really stand up and push for it.”
Trump nominated the Kansas Republican for the job in July 2017, while he was in his second term as governor after a stint in the Senate from 1996 to 2011. He resigned as governor and assumed the ambassadorship Feb. 1.
Brownback grew up a Methodist, converted to Catholicism in 2002, and as of last year attended a nondenominational evangelical church in Topeka, Kansas, according to an article by the Religion News Service.
Brownback, 62, called the current state of international religious freedom “not good” for citizens of countries such as Iran who live in “restrictive atmospheres.”
“Unfortunately, I think the religious restrictions have been growing over the last 20 years,” he told The Daily Signal in the Nov. 30 interview. “There are places where it’s quite good. But the trend line has been against religious freedom.”
“Yet,” Brownback added, “I think [the administration can make progress] with the United States really leaning in on this, pushing on this, and then showing to countries, ‘If you want to grow, one of the key things you can do is provide religious freedom.’”
Iran’s Islamist regime is a sobering example of what people face in countries that actively restrict religious liberty, he said.
“In Iran, you get caught, you’re going to jail, or you can get a hand cut off, or you’ll be killed for practicing a faith that’s different than the dominant Shia religion there.”
Brownback said Trump has made international religious freedom a focus of his administration. He said the inaugural Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, a conference hosted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, showcased the president’s commitment.
A total of 84 countries participated in the meeting, held July 24-26 in Washington, and the gathering included 1,000 representatives of civil society and religious groups, he said.
“I think what we found, because we did this on such short notice, is that we’ve hit a vein. This is something that touches a lot of people, and it touches them very deeply,” Brownback said, emphasizing that governments around the world not only have fallen short in providing their citizens with religious freedom, but also have taken steps to prevent it.
“Governments have been messing in this space in an increasing role for the last three decades,” he said. “It needs to stop.”
Brownback said organizers plan to hold a second international gathering next year and to set up regional meetings on specific topics in other countries.
“There are a number of countries who are stepping up to do this,” he said. “And my hope is, really, we can bring this iron curtain of religious persecution down. The same way as the Iron Curtain of communism came down, so you can get that burst of freedom as the world wakes up.”
Brownback said the release in October of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor held for two years in Turkey on terror and treason charges, showcases Trump’s commitment to religious freedom.
“He’s an amazing man, Andrew Brunson, and President Trump’s an amazing president,” Brownback said. “He, the president, Trump, got that done.”
Trump’s work for Brunson’s release was remarkable, he said, including tariffs on aluminum and steel from Turkey that “tanked” that country’s currency.
“It was gratifying to see an administration go to bat for somebody that was innocent, in spite of all the other equities and all the other relationship issues we have with Turkey,” Brownback said. “They said, ‘This guy is an American citizen being wrongly treated, and we’re going to go to bat for him,’ and they did. I was delighted to see him get on out.”
Brownback said his role as international ambassador-at-large for religious freedom has given him the opportunity to hear many stories of people like Brunson who are faithful even in adversity.
“You can elevate the topics, and that’s been very gratifying, but the most gratifying thing is when you talk with people that you help get out of jail,” he said, adding:
“The beauty of their soul that’s gone through such persecution just really grows my faith, because I look at that and I’m just so impressed with the peace and the joy that they have. You can’t counterfeit it. You can’t act this way. It has to be a real thing that flows out of you. And I get to meet people and work with people like that every day.”
Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program.
A version of this article previously appeared on The Daily Signal website under the headline, “Envoy Says Trump Willing to ‘Stand Up and Push’ for Global Religious Freedom.”
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Tags
Who is online
177 visitors
A giy that cheated on all three of his wives? Yea he is a great representative for Christians...
/s
Guy....damn cell phone.
LMAO!
Damned auto correct... Turning good spellers into bad spellers since 1992.
What the title of the article SHOULD be...
Ask John Allen Chau what happens when you try to force religion on people who don't want it....oh wait, you can't, he's dead.
Why people simply cannot understand that forcing religion on someone else is a BAD idea never ceases to amaze me.
1. Trump doesn’t represent Christianity and I’m unaware of any Christians or Christian organizations who say so.
2. Trump has so far been the greatest modern American President defender of our rights as Christians and Jews and to promote the important historical role of Christianity for our nation
John Jay, Constitutional Framer and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court , letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
President Harry Truman Speech on Our Laws
Address Before the Attorney General's Conference on Law Enforcement Problems.
February 15, 1950
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
Try reading the article.
Larry, he has paid off women he slept with behind his wife's back, cheated on ALL of his wives and admits he walked in and out of teenage girls dressing rooms. Not to mention he condones sexual assault. And you are saying, "Trump has so far been the greatest modern American President defender of our rights as Christians and Jews"?
Are you fucking kidding me?
The rest of your post.....we are talking about trump, you are in the wrong millennium.
I read the article and nowhere does it say Trump is representing Christianity. NO president represents Christianity
everything you stated was PRIOR to his presidency so it is meaningless in the context of my statement. His actions as president in policies, legislation, EOs, meetings with Christians and Jews, and official statements have been the strongest of any modern American president.
I stated that our historical values are framed by Christianity and the quotes affirm that position
Because it's not true - as much as fundies want to pretend it is. Ever heard of the Magna Carta? Paul was against equal rights... and where does Exodus mention bail and our three branches of government? The immoral bible is not the basis for the Bill of Rights, with its condoning of rape and slavery, murder of your neighbors, stoning of your disobedient children, and such. Rather, many of our laws codify actual justice and equal rights.
A few choice quotes,
Clinton = 9 accusers
Trump = 13 accusers.
Newp, pretty sure I was talking about the current president.
One question-- where can I get some of that stuff that you are smoking?
Hate crimes against blacks and Jews drove big spike during Trump’s first year in office
Reports of hate crimes jumped by nearly 17 percent during President Trump’s first year in office, the FBI revealed Tuesday.
The new data, gleaned from local police reports submitted to the Uniform Crime Reporting federal database, showed that 7,175 hate crimes were reported to the federal agency in 2017 and 6,121 such crimes reported in 2016.
The majority of reported hate crimes in 2017 included bias against someone’s race, ethnicity or ancestry, according to the FBI data, which also counts acts of discrimination based on protected statuses like gender, disability, sexual orientation and religion. Victims were most often black or Jewish, and anti-Semitic crimes rose 37 percent in 2017, data shows. The FBI did not immediately return a VICE News request for comment as to why such crimes have risen.
I believe it's:
Clinton = 4 accusers (there were other claims of affairs but only four women accused him of sexual misconduct)
Trump = 19 accusers
"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women"
Here's a list of all 19 of Trumps accusers with their names and accusations made:
I was just trying to make a point...
what religion would that be? Greed?
can anyone here tell me with a straight face that they honestly believe that trmp is a devout, honest, Christian? That he really does believe that Jesus died for his sins?
Wait.....does trmp have any sins? He claims he never prayed to God for forgiveness because there's nothing to forgive
evangelical xtian support and association with trump will lead to a death spiral in the court of public opinion
Tho one can be forced to be a Christian. It is contrary to all that Jesus and the Apostles taught. One can only become a Christian by having a since hearts desire for a personal relationship with Jesus.
Keep your Bronze-age mythology out of the government and out of the secular rights of everyone else. You might seek to be intellectually handicapped by religious beliefs but that idea is far from universal for everyone else.
How can you possibly have a relationship with something that you cannot prove ever existed? Your idea is the endorsement of a self-delusion.
[DELETED]
Your post is a sign of a transparent ad hom attack and an erroneous sweeping generalization. How many does that make now?
Sin is a Christian concept so do all non-Christians have a reprobate mind? Why should any person believe in a god when there is no evidence to even suggest that a god exists? Do you also believe in unicorns and leprechauns, despite the fact that they also don't exist?
Does the use of logic make a person untrustworthy?
From my point of view, why would I want to hire someone who believes in what they cannot prove? Prayer doesn't solve problems. I've never seen an equation with a god factor. What button is that on my calculator? How it is written in mathematical notation?
It's so funny how some people equate intelligence with being a reprobate - while worshipping the biggest reprobate of them all, and one of the most unstable - Depraved Donnie.
Fundies are far more likely to be reprobates - after all, anyone who isn't moral enough to behave decently simply because it's the right thing to do, but who needs threats and promises from an evil boogeyman, obviously has no innate decency. This is why so many fundies can't accept that atheists are decent people - they project their own lack of morality onto us. It's rather pathetic.
Hi katrix. Long time no see
Hi Gordy!
You have been sorely missed kat.
An atheist is a person who is not convinced there is a god. The lack of evidence is the primary reason.
You are tacitly arguing that belief without evidence - belief that something is true simply because another human being claims it so - is the act of a disciplined and trustworthy mind.
Your arguments are amusing ... that is the most positive comment I can make.
I've missed you guys! Commuting again .. taking care of Mom ... and having lots of fun with friends. I have to get to bed by 10 now, so no more hanging out online at night after I get home from whatever I'm up to.
At least you're here. We'll take whatever kat we can get.
Are you suggesting that non-belief should not be tolerated as part of religious freedom?
First of all I’m not a fundamentalist which is a small segment within the Evangelical movement
secondly you and others here lack a fundamental understanding of the Biblical meaning of reprobate. It signifies a person who is found rejected by God by reason of their rejection of Him
“Reprobation” is the term used to describe those who by default are left in their fallen human nature to sin and to be eternally damned. It can be the only possible consequence if, as Scripture declares, God has foreknown and chosen others to eternal life through His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:24-25). In Acts 13:48, we read, “And all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” From this, we see that the decree of reprobation is a result of unbelief or, rather, the decree of reprobation results in unbelief.
adokimos (Greek text)
(b) of persons, Rom 1:28, of a "reprobate mind," a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by Him, the effect of refusing "to have God in their knowledge;" in 1Cr 9:27 (for which see CAST, REJECTED); 2Cr 13:5, 6, 7, where the RV rightly translates the adjective "reprobate" (AV, "reprobates"), here the reference is to the great test as to whether Christ is in a person; in 2Ti 3:8 of those "reprobate concerning the faith," i.e., men whose moral sense is perverted and whose minds are beclouded with their own speculations; in Tts 1:16, of the defiled, who are "unto every good work reprobate," i.e., if they are put to the test in regard to any good work (in contrast to their profession), they can only be rejected. In the Sept., Pro 25:4; Isa 1:22.
Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell over a relationship with God. That makes them tragically sad
Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect.
If someone is not convinced that there is a God or is not convinced that the God character described by ancient men with pens and agendas is the 'real' supreme entity then parroting a threat drawn by interpreting those ancient words means absolutely nothing.
In other words, if one were actually convinced that a God (or a particular God) existed then one would very likely NOT choose eternal damnation. See?
Your ad hom attack (again) aside, what makes you assume someone does not understand the bible? It's quite arrogant to not only make such an assumption, but to also infer your "understanding" is superior.
When you prove there's a god, then maybe the premise of a god won't be rejected. Some of us do not simply accept baseless and empty claims without question, and certainly not without evidence.
What's sad is that you think some attempt at an appeal to emotion or similar such platitude actually means anything, especially to someone who thinks and analyzes things logically and critically.
I made no threat and your accusation given your rejection of the existence of God is a logical fallacy.
saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language.
if you are honest in this dialogue you would acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the Biblical record declaring Jesus to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore this most recent comment seems very disingenuous
I can only go by your response which indicated that lack of ubderstand. Or perhaps I misunderstood your attempt to seem ignorant of the term
Telling someone who is not convinced a God exists that they have chosen eternal damnation is in fact a threat of eternal damnation. But, as I noted (TiG @3.3.18: "means absolutely nothing"), the threat is meaningless unless someone actually believed in the God in question. Meaningless or not, it is still a threat.
Apparently you did not understand my prior comment. It is predicated on the fact that I am not convinced that a God exists who would damn people for all of eternity simply for not 'choosing' to believe. Here, read this:
Read the part in blue.
That's only your interpretation. I understand quite well. The difference is, I don't simply accept something without evidence or because it might be emotionally satisfying. I analyze things logically and rationally.
No, you just misunderstood. Either that, or you arrogantly assumed I would not understand.
Telling someone they're going to hell because they are not convinced or reject your claims of your god/beliefs, especially when you can't even substantiate them in the least, is a threat. At the very least, a thinly veiled one.
That's because there is no validity of such things outside the bible, which is a logical fallacy itself. Declarations alone are meaningless. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that your beliefs (and that's all they are) might be wrong.
TG, I made no threat and your accusation given your rejection of the existence of God is a logical fallacy.
saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language.
if you are honest in this dialogue you would acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the Biblical record declaring Jesus to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore this most recent comment seems very disingenuous
Saying you're "sad" because you believe someone has chosen to be tortured and tormented by your God by not following your interpretations of a 2000 year old compilation of letters put together by a Roman Emperor 300 years after the events, is an implied threat.
If I told you that I was sad you'd chosen to oppose the FSM because you're not doing what I told you the FSM wants of you, and if you don't do what I tell you the FSM demands, you're going to spend eternity being anally raped by a giant noodle, that would seem to be a bit of a threat. No matter how sincere I was at being sad by the thought of you being bent over and just deeply reamed, over and over, by an impossibly thick noodle, it would still seem to be a threat on the face of it.
If you are honest in this dialogue you would have to acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the noodle record declaring the FSM to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore, your most recent comment seems disingenuous.
Wrong. The Bible is true because God came to earth in the flesh as the man Jesus. He declared these judgments so it is for everyone to make the choice of believing or not believing Him
and your characterization of how the Bible was established is completely erroneous. I have to leave for a meeting but will return later.
Well, I know a few who might feel excited about it like Denny Hastert, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig...
And yes, it was intended to point out the ridiculousness of the hellfire threat, but if there was someone who truly believed you're going to be raped by the FSM if they don't convert you then they are using that as a threat, just as LFoD was using his supposed "sadness" at others torture at the hands of his supposed loving God to extort compliance.
In effect, your claim is that the Bible is true because the Bible proclaims itself to be true.
"The First Council of Nicaea ( / n aɪ ˈ s iː ə / ; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa] ) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325."
"Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones." The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate."
"With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom".
Neither have I, but does that mean the intent of those proposing torture or torment isn't a threat? Just because you don't believe in Allah, does that make a terrorists threats of damnation any less a threat?
If anything it's downright rude and insulting
I'm not. I'm not afraid of you, LFoD or any Gods you may believe in. May any of your empty Gods strike me down this instant if they're real.
The original comment was:
"Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect. " TiG
then:
"saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language." LFoD
I simply pointed out that it is a threat regardless of whether it's an expression of sadness or whether or not the recipient of the threat believes in the possibility of actual torture at the hands of an unproven invisible wizard.
"Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell over a relationship with God" LFoD
"Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect." TiG
So TiG was saying, in general many Christians use, as LFoD just did, the threat of Hell (which we all know what that implies) as a tool or threat to get someone else to change their position.
Saying "Well we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to those who stick their noses in other peoples business, now would we?" is definitely a threat even though it never directly said "I'm gonna punch you if you don't get your nose out of my business.". It is an implied threat, and LFoD did imply that TiG would be tormented for eternity if he didn't stop "choosing hell" by having his own beliefs.
Yahweh sure is touchy about having a relationship with Him. Rather than condemn us to an eternity of damnation why not provide a little evidence? Expecting modern human beings to all accept as true -without any evidence- the writings of ancient men or else be eternally damned seems a little over the top to me.
I did not state that LFOD personally threatened me. I stated (correctly) that what he wrote was a threat.
I am well aware that LFOD does not think he can condemn me to eternal damnation.
On second thought, not so sure. 😉
Yup, same here. And if you read my comment you would see that I made that crystal clear.
That's nice. Prove it!
A threat can be raised without the person being threatened.
Even if the person is not threatened (as in this case) the threat itself still exists.
Come on Texan, this is not complicated. What is the point of this silliness?
But if you read my comments you would see that this debate over the concept of a threat is pointless.
See? You say you read my comments yet the basic idea does not register.
Not a threat?
An"empty threat" is still a threat.
Your understanding of atheism is profoundly flawed.
As is his understanding of science.
Who's worried? I just challenged any of your empty powerless weak Gods to strike me down if they're real. I'm still here. It's apparently very hard for conservative Christians to see the difference, but whether someone was making threats versus someone feeling threatened are two completely different things.
And why would anyone hate something they don't believe in? Do you cry yourself to sleep at night because the tooth fairy didn't bring you any money even though you've lost all your teeth so now you hate her? It's a ridiculous statement. What you perceive as "hate" of your God is nothing but the annoyance you feel coming from those who are sick and tired of Christians trying to tell them what's fact and what's fiction. They proclaim all other religions as fiction but propose their own as fact even though they have the EXACT same amount of evidence proving their religion as every other religion on the planet does, that is, none, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis.
Christians telling other people they're going to hell if they don't act in accordance with the morals they've been told are in the bible (most haven't read it) is a prime example of a Christian making a threat. The other people who are told they're going to be tortured and tormented for eternity can either accept that threat and accept some other humans beliefs and thus change their actions based on that fear instilled in them, just as LFoD was trying to do with TiG. That is his ultimate goal, otherwise why would he even mention hell when debating someone he has a difference of opinion with? If he didn't intend it as any threat that could lead to action he wouldn't have said it. It also likely gave him some mild satisfaction as he faked his concern telling TiG he was sad for him because he was imagining TiG being brutally tormented by devils and demons when he said "Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell". It's a way conservative Christians can be smug and walk away from a debate they lost, they just imagine their opponent that just creamed them with logic and reason being brutally stabbed with pitch forks or being roasted on a spit by some goat hooved devil.
So what's truly interesting are those who believe in God and claim to be righteous but constantly judge others, threaten them, discriminate against them and attempt to prevent those who don't share their religious convictions from having the same rights as they enjoy.
I'm not presenting that as evidence he doesn't exist, I presented that as evidence I don't fear your fantasy, which is what HA's claim was.
Why would God ever want to punish someone for simply, honestly not thinking He exists? Why would it bother God at all? Do you think God has low self-esteem or something? If I ever stand before God on judgement day, I will explain to him exactly why I never thought He existed, and I don't think He will punish me for it at all.
A threat doesn't have to be credible to still be a threat. It's simply an empty threat.
You are wrong. The threat of hell is meaningless to an atheist because hell doesn't exist. There is no judgement or heaven and there will be no rapture.
Woulds it be superfluous to notice the circular reasoning, or is that already obvious? You need 3rd party evidence of proof to be true. A claim is not true because someone believes that claim to be true.
To anyone with a rational mind, hell is no "threat" since no such thing exists.
Key word there is "believe," as in that's all it is and nothing more. But whatever makes you feel better I suppose.
Funny how you say that, and then follow it with this:
So what makes you so certain of such an event? Where is your evidence or proof to support such an assertion?
The threat is still there. It's just meaningless. And who says anyone is upset about it? I find such threats of hell to be utterly laughable. You might as well say Zeus will cast me in the pits of Tartarus (which the Christian version of hell seems to borrow heavily from. Coincidence?). It's no different and just as laughable.
Your reply is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Where is your proof that Hell exists since you are the one who is claiming that it is an actual place? I assume that you remember the 50 previous times that I have explained to you that the burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim that something exists. You can imagine what Hell may be like and I'm certain that you believe that it exists but belief and proof are 1000 light years apart logically.
You presume too much.
Nothing more than emotional rhetoric and meaningless tripe. Funny, but not surprising that you can't prove any of that, much less that your god actually exists.
Does a threat need to be a big deal to be a threat?
what an ironic comment !
interesting how you can be so certain of future events happening and that there is no chance of them actually not happening at all.