Tony Perkins appointed to US panel on international religious freedom
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative Christian lobbying group Family Research Council, has been appointed to a U.S. government commission dedicated to “defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad.”
On Monday (May 14), the Congressional Record revealed that Perkins had been appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created in 1998 through the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act, and issues an annual report every May 1 on international religious freedom issues.
“I am grateful to Majority Leader McConnell for appointing me to this prestigious position. From my post at USCIRF, I look forward to doing all that I can to ensure that our government is the single biggest defender of religious freedom internationally,” Perkins, an evangelical Christian and frequent faith adviser to President Trump’s administration, said in a press release.
Perkins expressed particular interest in addressing religious freedom issues in nations that top the commission’s list of “Countries of Particular Concern,” saying in his statement, “It is my hope that through the work of USCIRF, the world will become one step closer to recognizing the vital role religious freedom and the defense of religious minorities play in peace, security and human flourishing.”
Perkins intends to remain president of the Family Research Council during his two-year term on the USCIRF.
FRC has been labeled as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,
although Perkins and the FRC dispute the label.
Perkins has been a consistent supporter of Trump, telling Politico in January that he and other evangelical Christians gave the president a “mulligan” for past behavior that may have been at odds with conservative Christian values. Perkins is also credited as being one of the driving forces behind Trump’s various efforts to ban transgender people from the U.S. military.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
421 visitors
“Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative Christian lobbying group Family Research Council, has been appointed to a U.S. government commission dedicated to “defending the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad.”
What freedom do religious people seek that they do not currently enjoy, unless this is a euphemism for worldwide Judea-Christian proselytization without limits? If their god is claimed to be both omnipotent and omniscient then why do they lack for anything that they need and feel that they deserve?
They want the legal right to discriminate against anyone that isn't white, Christian, rich, straight and republican. You know, just the way Jesus was. /s
I feel stupid for not knowing that. I forgot to read the Gospel of Pat Robertson.
The position was for improving religious liberty abroad. As to your other point about proselytizing the whole world, since you brought it up.....it will happen, period. It can’t/won’t be stopped no matter the level of persecution. The very rocks will cry out of no person is left present alive in a location.
Why can't you respect the religious beliefs of others, if you want them to equally respect your religious beliefs? Where is their religious freedom to be left alone?
Deleted as per my comment #2.2
Religious nonsense.
The vast majority of Christians are not rich, not white, and not Americans, thus they aren’t Republicans either.
You are reading the religion section here. What did you expect but religious verbiage?
Excellent question!
Just because a message is spread where everyone has an opportunity to hear it doesn’t mean that anyone should or would be compelled to accept or believe it. It would defeat the purpose of free will otherwise.
Why didn't you seed this in a private group if you don't desire critical replies? I don't have to ask permission before I reply to your religious threads and I am not required to be a echo chamber for your conservative views.
it is NEVER enough for some to simply not believe--they don't want anyone else to believe, either.
Christianity has been on the decline over the last ~20 years. Sorry.
Society would have been infinitely more advanced if the Abrahamic religions had been in decline for the past 1200 years. Religious belief is a mental health epidemic.
Who said you couldn’t reply? I didn’t. I wasn’t aware of this good news. I knew about Brownback getting the lead job in that agency established by law. I thought that Perkins was perfect for his position appointed by Trump at the recommendation of Sen. Mc Connell. Notice the picture of him speaking at the GOP convention on the day Trump made his big speech.
Teaching people logic tends to have that effect on large groups. Should teaching logic be banned or limited to people 21 and over?
You have said yourself that the left is not religious. Now you are backtracking?
American Christians are about 15% at most of the global Christian population. People who are left of center outside of Europe and North America may well be quite religious as are non caucasians in North America and Europe. So as I said, most Christians are not white, not rich, and not American, Republican or otherwise.
Thankfully we kicked Brownstain and Kobach out of Kansas.
That's great news. I hope Saudia Arabia is the first assignment for Tony, his family, and the rest of the FRC membership and their families.
Or Iran and then Pakistan.
Deleted
Deleted
[Deleted]
Deleted
I'm going to have to delete this thread, and ask that you both not pursue it any further.
Sorry about the sarcasm.
Understood. Just need you to tone it down a bit.
Understood. Sorry.
Not sure what his goal is. We already have freedom of religion.
Our freedom of religion could be better. The position he was appointed to seeks to imporove religious freedom and liberty 🗽 all around the world.
What freedom do you not have that you feel that you deserve? Do you plan to give other religions the same freedom or is this freedom just for conservative Christians who believe as you do?
Freedom of religion is all you are going to get here in the USA. Are you saying you want MORE than 100% freedom of religion? Ridiculous non-sense.
I worry much more about freedom from religion.
"Internationally" will give you a pretty good clue.
Are you suggesting that missionaries should have the religious right to harass people and try to convert them? Did it not register that the missionary was killed by a native tribe when he tried to convert them, or should that tribe go on trial for defending their culture?
In many nations of the world the missionaries work is complete and it’s the indigenous population in many nations that are advancing the faith there. There are some unentered and lightly entered areas in the world mostly running from Saharan North Africa to the Middle East to Central, south and East Asia that has limited Exposure to Christianity and spreading the frontiers of mission work is still happening. It is in these places where most of the efforts to promote religious liberty for all religions is happening and Perkins will be working on that.
Promoting your religious beliefs among native tribes is not in any way the same as promoting religious freedom. Stop trying to convert people and respect their right to believe as they choose and not what you want them to believe.
They don't seem to be satisfied with the damage/death/hurt that they have caused the indigenous people of the Americas.
Let's spread it around the world so we can help destroy more cultures.../S
Did it sound to you like I suggested anything like that?
I don't think the Indians should have killed someone who was no threat to them.
Murder is a far fucking cry from "defending your culture".
it's just not enough for some of them to believe - they have to have everyone else believe as they do, at swordpoint if needed it seems at times. They constantly need to tell everyone else their beliefs in an effort to hopefully "save" them and convert them, while constantly spreading the word to non-believers out of "love" and trying to "save" them.
He was on the island illegally, this tribe has been known to kill people yet he arrogantly thought he could "save" them and he could have killed them because they are not immune to any disease he might have carried....he was on a fools errand and paid dearly.
I am curious to know if you think he deserved to die for landing on their island illegally. Without a trial, too.
UNlike the illegals who come here this guy knew he was being shot at and continued to try to invade them. IMO: He was a dumbass who got what he was to stupid to see coming.
Without a trail, do the islanders even have laws and trials ?
I saw a trap here I'd like ta think I side stepped it with a honest realistic answer.
If not... O-well.
Whether he was stupid or not isn't the question.
Did he deserve to die for landing on their island, and without benefit of a trial?
He dug his own grave. He knew he was not wanted there, he ignored the danger. So yes.
It's kinda like jumping off a clift without putting on the repelling harness.
Not to bright and probably deadly.
A true darwin award winner !
.
He may not have deserved it. Not everybody who suffers a premature death and has some part in bringing about that death does deserve to die.
Teenagers frequently do stupid stuff that endangers their lives. They drive too fast, for example, or binge drink. And sometimes, they die as a result Do those kids deserve to die? Not IMO. But it happens.
This kid put a lot of effort into putting himself in danger. He didn't deserve to die, but it was hardly an unforeseeable outcome.
Maybe not, maybe. Actions have consequences. When you have a good idea of the consequences and it is death and still you proceed as if there are no consequences.. WTF do ya exspect ?
IMO: this guy was not too bright and it cost him his life. He wasn't the first and certainly wont be the last.
So he deserved to die because he was stupid?
Wow.
I'm not saying he had no responsibility here. He clearly did. I'm just saying that I think this, like many mistakes, is not deserving of death.
Whether death is a predictable outcome is another question.
Seems like some are almost cheering that he died, that the Indians had the right to kill him merely for landing on their island.
Look, I am all for border enforcement, but even to me, this seems JUST a little harsh.
Lots of humans die because they did stupid shit, he's not the first and won't be the last.
He gambled and lost. It was HIS choice.
Whether death is a predictable outcome is another question.
When people shoot at you that's a pretty good indicator of the probable outcome I'd say. At least it would be for me.
Actually., they kinda were your words.
I'm wondering if you think all countries should enforce their borders in this manner?
Some probably are cheering.
I think that when you're dealing with a tribe that has maintained isolation to the degree that the Sentinelese have, "rights" become a philosophical discussion. They won't stop an arrow.
It just seems strange to me that so many are condemning the guy, but very few are saying the Indians did anything wrong.
I don't believe the reactions would be the same if any other country treated foreigners that way merely for entering their land.
It is.
It's also an extreme type of situation. This guy was an idiot for testing their resolve. He knew they didn't want him there and that the were a "protected" tribe that they had already shot at him and yet he assumed his GOD would protect him from the reality he knew existed. I'd say that turned out not to be too bright.
It was still His choice.
Do you believe the Indians were justified in killing him?
That's probably true. I also dont know of any other tribal situation the same as this one. Sounds like One invader could cause genocide of the whole tribe and they may know it.
Not really, I believe HE committed suicide. He knew what he faced, it didn't stop him.
Suicide by tribe.
Suicide by Indian?
Interesting concept.
I think these particular islanders are considered to be a special case, due to the extreme isolation in which they've remained. Not subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. But since they eschew interaction with the rest of the world, conflicts should be easy to avoid.
I'd say there are extremists who do believe that foreigners who enter a forbidden land can expect to be killed. In fact, I've seen this as justification for using force against the caravan in Mexico.
Aren't we supposed to be an interactive world--with everyone?
Not isolationists?
Would there be any real difference between the US killing someone attempting to enter our country illegally once they step foot on our land and what the Indians did?
Not much different that suicide by cop.They both know the danger and ignore it.
Not that I think this guy intended on committing suicide but his actions spoke loud enough evidently and his results are the same.
Again, HIS choice. He knew what may happen and ignored the reality of it.
RIP: Sir
So if you know what the possibilities are if you do something, and that something happens, it is solely your responsibility?
IMO: Yes. A great deal of difference.
Americans would not be near as threatened by a single outsider coming here even if that person was sick. Even deathly ill.
There it may mean the end of their entire civilisation.
They have little to no modern immune system to protect them.
They have had No contact with outsiders to gain it.
They are Much more at risk from just a single "invader" ALL of them.
So no not the same.
The US allows immigration. It always has. It has also always allowed visitation by people from most nations - just as we like to tour other countries, citizens of other countries have been allowed as tourists here. It has never sought to entirely isolate itself from all interaction with other countries, and considering its origins as a nation of immigrants, to do so would be nearly impossible. We are now, and always have been, too dependent on trade with other nations.
This tribe sees things differently. They have never accepted immigrants - at least, not since originally finding their way to their island. They have always been unaccepting of visitors. By not accepting foreigners, they aren't revoking a centuries-old practice, like we would be.
The Sentinelese are the most isolated tribe in the world, and have captured the imagination of millions. They live on their own small forested island called North Sentinel, which is approximately the size of Manhattan.
They continue to resist all contact with outsiders, attacking anyone who comes near.
This guy KNEW the history of the island and tribe, knew it was ILLEGAL to go on the island, knew this was a PROTECTED island, knew he was risking death, had to BRIBE people to get him there, was shot at as a warning and still persisted in trying to contact the tribe. Did he deserve to die, no he did not.
You don't go poking the bear and think you can just get away with it.
Don't go poking a hornet's nest.
Don't go into a den of vipers
Do I blame the tribe, NO I don't.
His pure unadulterated arrogance got him killed.
So because of their traditions, it was okay for them to kill him.
Got it now.
IMO: Yes. One not smart enough to either avoid or overcome a deadly situation they chose to enter into, they are likely to get what they didn't prepare for.
Like I said. If you jump off a clift without putting on your repelling gear, who's at fault ?
If you die because you didn't buckle up whose fault is it ?
IMO: The idiot who didn't bother to use common since. When people shoot at you and you continue walking towards them especially unprepared and unprotected WTF would you expect to happen !
Hey I'm sorry this person wasn't smarter and is now dead, but that wasn't my doing.
He went where he was NOT wanted and paid the price.
So the price for people going where they are not wanted is death. Got it.
So if you aren't smart enough to avoid a bad situation, it is your responsibility. Got it.
Thank you.
Doesn't sound like you really do.
The whole civilization is threatened by ONE outsider.That makes a difference.
Are we ? NO not usually unless that person has something like Ebola then we take plenty of precautions IF we let them in to our country at all.
No, Not unless their whole civilization is threatened by a single invader.
How many ways do I have to say it....he was arrogant in thinking he could convert this tribe knowing they kill outsiders. Do I blame the tribe, no I don't since they have shown they are willing to kill ANYONE that comes on their island.
He risked their lives since they are NOT immune to any diseases he carried.
Should a tribe be wiped out because one christian zealot thought he knew better than them that they needed to be "saved" because it was what HE wanted.
Spinning..My head is spinning !
When an entire civilization could be threatened ya take precautions. Anyone not respecting or threatening that is not my problem to deal with. They seem to take care of that business themselves pretty well though . So... Good for them.
Don't want to die ? leave em the hell alone or kill em all and take their land, your choice. But at this time, They do not want, need and fear contact with us, how hard is that to understand.
Pushing yourself on them as we see is unacceptable to them.
I can't say as I blame them either. I want to live too.
We've all seen these signs in our travels.
I guess because they don't speak or write english it's not good enough for christian zealots to NOT trespass
"Do you believe the Indians were justified in killing him?"
YES!
He wasn't murdered because he was a Christian zealot. He was murdered because he landed on their island, and for NO other reason.
His religious beliefs did no exempt him from obeying the law. If you put yourself in danger despite being warned not to go there that is only your fault. That is basic personal responsibility. Warnings exist for a reason and you ignore them at your own peril. If he is too stupid to understand a warning then he lives behind walls where others will protect and care for him. He died because of his own stupidity and his family should consider themselves lucky that the government doesn't file a claim against his estate as a fine.
He just might earn himself a postmortem Darwin award for his stupidity.
His only reason to even step foot on that island was as a christian zealot thinking he could convert the tribe because he wanted to thinking he knew better then them, having total DISREGARD that he could have wiped them out
This tribe doesn't understand the outside world so everyone who is not part of their tribe is a great threat and will be killed. This is basic tribal culture. Leave them alone because they are not bothering you.
So if you put yourself willingly into a situation, you pretty much deserves whatever happens to you.
No whining about the consequences of your chosen actions, period.
That is great, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Kind of like "If you do the crime, do the time".
So much for that whole "We are an interconnected world, and it is time everyone realizes it" thing.
Religious missionaries still don't comprehend the harm that they caused in their attempt to convert others post-1500 in the Americans because their ignorance and their religious beliefs do not allow them to do so. In their mind they know better than everyone else and they are doing you a favor by telling you about their sky fairy. If you reject them and their god then you they believe that they are following the command of their god to kill you. Religion is the problem because it exacerbates stupidity and gives them the power of groups.
Once again, to the Indians, they didn't know any of that. They were going to kill him if he was a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or an atheist, a man, a woman, gay, straight or other, black, brown, yellow, or red.
They are not part of the 21st century world because of the inability to speak a accepted language. Why can't you let them alone because they are not a threat to you or anyone else if you stay away?
Yes, they were.
But it was his religious zealotry that was the motivation for him to break the law and endanger himself, and them.
Yes, for HIM.
Not for the Indians.
I don't happen to agree that killing someone in that circumstance is right.
I consider their actions to be immoral and to be murder.
yes, he was stupid, might have been a zealot, and broke the law. I believe death is too harsh of a sentence.
I am not willing to excuse their actions and blame only him.
These people do not communicate with each other in any vocal language?
He knew the danger and ignored it so he accepts what happened to him. That tribe doesn't owe you anything and they are not a threat to you.
How in the hell am I bothering them in any way, shape, or form?
I have no damn desire to go there, and have never expressed any such notions.
I haven't even suggested anyone go "bother" them or anything else.
WTF do you get this from?
The likely have a crude language among themselves. They are likely 7000 years behind us and both need and deserve to be protected fro outside influence that are a grave threat to them. Their bodies do not have antibodies for common diseases of the outside world.
They are valuable to us as an anthropological Petri dish.
It seems that you agree with the action of the dead missionary to try to convert them? That mindset needs to leave this tribe alone. I assumed that you could understand that idea.
Why the FUCK does it ALWAYS have to get personal with you?
I never claimed anyone ever owed me a fucking thing, and never claimed they were a threat to me.
Why don't you stick to what I fucking write, and not what you want me to write?
I do respect their right to continue following their existing religion or to become Christian upon hearing that message if they so choose. It’s all about presenting an option and letting the listener decide without pressure. Some it seem favor a pre censorship so that people of some cultures can be prevented from ever hearing the message so that they are never permitted to choose.
It SEEMS like you assume way too much.
That is extremely doubtful.
When do you suppose the last of the tribe will die out so that they can be autopsied?
You don't respect their right to not hear the message at all?
The Sentinelese disagree. Their castle, their rules.
Does that apply to any other country or state or people?
It seems to.
For example, I don't think a woman deserves the death sentence for the "crime" of having been raped. But women get the death sentence for being rape victims in some countries.
I don't think it's right to separate children from their parents for being refugees from a crime-ridden country, but it happens, and the excuse "Well, they broke our laws" seems to be thought sufficient.
I wonder what your reaction would be if we had killed them? Just for being here illegally, like that guy the Indians killed?
But here in the states they shit bricks if you want to build a mosque.
I get the impression that when they see, "Freedom Of Religion", they take it to mean THEIR religion, no one else's.
That’s not what was said at his appointment to the position.
sandy-2021492 what part of what I posted didn't have to do with this seed, it was about trump and christians, it's in reply to part of the seed:
HA always flags posts as "off topic" if they don't agree with them.
Thank you sandy-2021492 for the nice chat!
I am done with this seed. All my comments will be deleted anyway so no point in posting.
What other less than honest or flouting wealth prosperity gospel preachers do to embarrass the faith has nothing to do with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins getting the Religious Liberty Position he was appointed to which is what the article is about.
What I posted in 5.1 is IN the article. It is the very last paragraph of what you seeded
This is a 'religious section', huh?
Well, Perkins is yet another inside plant of Lucifer to sow more seeds of discord, division and avarice.
Way to go, McConnell. The Deceiver chalks up another one.
Community>>Discussions>>Topic>>Religion and Ethics
Yes, it would clearly appear to be in the "religious section".
Good job pointing that out to those who may have missed it.
As if Lucifer or Satan wants a push for religious liberty all around the world.
Locked
The article is at least 6 months old
and the seeder hasn't moderated the conversation and the membership has hijacked the article to talk about this article about the Sentinelese.