tv Colorado Christian University- Religious Freedom CSPAN April 13, 2018 4:33pm-6:01pm EDT
we have resources on our website for background on each case. the landmark cases companion book. a link to the national constitution center interactive constitution and the landmark cases podcast at c-span.org/landmark cases. next daniel mark, chairman of the u.s. commission on international religious freedom looks at the current state of religious liberty here at home and around the world. the centennial institute at colorado christian university hosted the event. >> unfortunately religious freedom is worsening across the globe for all religion. for years i helped represent open doors usa in washington d.c. and we worked with congress to strengthen america's work internationally
and i spent time in geneva at the united nations human rights council and new york city at the un. working with countries to embrace religious freedoms for all people. helping countries, helping civil societies embrace religious freedoms. to help us understand the threats to religious freedoms and what they face in the world, colorado christian university is proud to welcome doctor daniel mark, chairman of the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. daniel marcus is an assistant professor of political science at villanova. he has taught since 2013. he teaches political theory, philosophy of law, american political science and politics and religion. all the easy things. at villanova, he is a faculty associate of the matthew j ryan center for the study of free institutions and the public good. he holds the rank of battalion professor in the navy reserve officers training corps unit. he is also on this during committee for the villanova real theology project and on the graduate committee of the department of particle science.
he is the faculty advisor to the mock trial team and the men's lacrosse team and as a mentor to the universities face and learning scholar program. for the 2017, 2018 academic year he is on leave from villanova university and is a visiting professor in the department of political science at the university of notre dame. he is under the sponsorship of the program for the inquiring into religion and public life as well as the notre dame institute for advanced study. program on church, state and society. in the 2015, 2016 academic year he was on sabbatical as a visiting fellow in the department of politics. at princeton university under the sponsorship of the james madison program. doctor mark is a fellow at the witherspoon institute in princeton and works with the
fund in new york. he is a scholar of the james wilson institute on natural rights and the american founding in washington d.c. he had taught at the strauss center. doctor mark is also a member of the advisory council and has served as an assistant editor of the general interpretation and is a contributor to the art of the universe blog. he speaks frequently from the library of groups including activists at west point, the american enterprise institute, the love and fidelity network, the ethics and religious liberty can of the southern baptist connection, and many others. he spoke recently at the world meeting of families, a triannual event organized by the catholic church which drew 20000 participants to philadelphia. in addition to speaking here
in his book and arizona university, baylor, byu and a lot of other groups at the universities i'm not going to list off. in addition to his academic writing, he has published on topics related to international religious freedom in u.s. news & world report's, investors business daily, foreign affairs, the hill and has appeared on cnn, cbs and relevant radio. he holds a ba in. [inaudible] 's he wrote his dissertation under the direction of robert p george, one of our favorites here on the subject of authority and legal obligation. there he participated in the program and law and public affairs and the bioethics forum. doctor mark was appointed to the u.s. commission on international religious freedom on may 9. by then, speaker of the house john boehner and was appointed to speaker the house for a two
term that expires this made and we are so grateful to have such a distinguished scholar with us. please welcome doctor daniel mark. [applause] >> good evening everyone. thank you. it is great to be here. thank you for the kind, generous long introduction. i hope the rest isn't a letdown after this. i was not informed i was competing on interface jokes coming appear so i don't have any good ones for you, but not that funny anyway so thank you for setting the bar really low. [laughter] >> thank you also to the yellow women who did the prayer and the pledge. i do want to note that just after the punctuation of thank you very much doctor mark, we
love you, so on and so forth, i didn't know if that was for me, anyway, i appreciate it and it's great to be here. thank you so much to the president. it's an honor to be with you and i am very grateful to you and the vice president for the invitation and for the very fine hospitality. thank you also to c-span for being here and to the live broadcast so that my mom can watch this at home. i'm a professor at villanova and chairman of the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. just so we're clear, i do want to mention tonight i am speaking for myself and not representing the institution with which i'm affiliated so i can express my own views freely. we are on the record with cameras so i'll have to obey
myself a little more than i usually like too. usually i lose control in the q&a anyway. we'll do what we can and i will try to leave a lot of time for question-and-answer. i know for me that's the most enjoyable part. 150 years ago this june they shocked the world. a jewish boy in italy was taken from his family by the authorities and raised as a catholic under the supervision of the pope. this was done under the law and then part of the states after it was discovered that five years earlier the boys catholic nanny had secretly baptized the 1-year-old child when he fell ill and she
feared he was going to die. the law required this quote, unquote catholic child recruits received a catholic education. a major event at the time has gotten added attention lately because of the premier journal of public life and the article on a recent publication of an english edition of the memoirs. the articles author appeared to be justifying it by the police. justifying is too strong a word so i'll say explaining sympathetically. needless to say, this brought some heat on the editor who was criticized for publishing.
it's not my plan to discuss the case itself or the questionable article inspired by my more or even the wisdom of publishing such a piece. i do want to take as my starting point for this lecture the opening line of the editor's response to the criticism of its decision to print the article. the episode is a stain on the catholic church. what everyone thanks about baptism, forcibly separating up child from its parent is a grievous act. even if one can construct a rationale for doing so as the author of the article does, it was wildly wrong for him to take him from his parents given the scandal brought upon the catholic church, scandal that continues to this day.
to be clear, i'm not here speaking for protestants to criticize catholic spread this is not where this is going. and considering these words, setting aside politics and motivation and so forth, what we have before us is a fundamental issue concerning religious freedom. we have before us the underlying question of whether people have the right to choose and live their faith free from interference of the government or whether religious freedom are determined solely by judgments of prudence such as weather encroachments on religious freedom would detract from international standings. in other words, we have to question of whether people have a right to religious freedom in principle or only in practice when it includes the state. skipping for a moment to the
punchline, let me say that i think the first view, namely that religious freedom is a god-given inalienable right. to be sure, this does not mean that it has no limits. life with other rights can and do exist. the nature and scope of those limits will have to be the subject of another talk. here, instead, i would like to make the case for why it is more important than ever to articulate the principles case for religious freedom. i begin by describing a variety of ways in which religious three freedom is threatened from the right, the left and around the globe and weigh that is deeply worrisome. from there, i will suggest a way forward in defending religious freedom.
given the battles over the scope of the first amendment in this country, i'm sure that many of you are eager to hear about religious freedom in the west. before that, i want to address religious freedom outside the west. that's where in so many places religious freedom is imperiled. it comes from what i call the totalitarian threat. this has two prongs, one religious and one secular. we find religious totalitarianism in places like ira it ran in saudi arabia. recent developments suggest that country may be headed in a new direction. stay tuned, we will see. what's critical to remember about those places about the problem isn't just religious freedom for minorities, it's religious freedom for everyone. even if an individual or group or even the majority of the country happens to adhere to the enforced version of religion, those people do not possess religious freedom.
none of them is free to adhere to a different version of the government-backed set. things may be worse for religious minorities but the bureaucratic ways of these countries higher population, not just minorities of religious freedom. such violations of religious freedom are not, but in many ways the threat is growing. isis is the epitome and the peak of such extremism. the caliphate stands for religious totalitarianism. thank god isis has been beaten back in some places but it lives on in many others and the ideology is not going away anytime soon.
iran has spread noticeably into iraq, syria, yemen and other places. i would not classify pakistan as totalitarian. very shortly before my visit. pakistan is maybe the world leader in prosecutions, convictions and imprisonments to blasphemy but perhaps worse is the horrific vigilante perpetrated against the accused in so many cases. this violence is fostered by a
climate of impunity that all too often sees accusers and attackers suffer no penalty. the case i mentioned of the university student was particularly notable because it exploded the narrative in pakistan that blasphemy accusations and vigilante attacks are poor and. [inaudible] the victim in the university case was a young, educated well-to-do muslim man. it was a toxic totalitarian ideology that allows no deviation. i was so worried about blasphemy laws but let me out another word about pakistan.
they are like the mormons, followers of a 19th century profit at odds with the more traditional adherents of their faith. they are despised throughout the muslim world, but in pakistan they are singled out even in the country's constitution for special official discrimination. for instance, in order to vote a mahdi's must renounce their beliefs. they are not allowed to call themselves muslim and they are not allowed to call their houses of worship mosques. recently, the government proposed a very moderate change to the wording of the law that would not guarantee but at least make open the door to a mahdi's voting freely. in reaction to this tiny step, they brought the capital city
of islamabad to a standstill. it was a situation the government was only able to defuse and resolve by yielding to the demands that the change in the lobby withdrawn and the law minister who proposed it resign. >> the blasphemy law are an enormous problem. i suspect you will be surprised to learn the extent of the regulation around the world. in 2016, they released a report that constituted the first ever attempt, as far as we know, to catalog and analyze all the blasphemy laws in the world. i encourage you to check it out on our website. guess how many countries in the world has blasphemy laws? almost 70. one third of the countries in the world. surprised? are you the more surprised when you learn which countries
have them. in addition to the usual suspects, and there are plenty, the list includes austria, brazil canada cyprus, finland, germany, ireland, italy, new zealand, spain and switzerland, to name a few. to be sure, blasphemy laws in these countries are often not enforced ou or are enforced minimally. the commission believes that all countries should repeal their blasphemy laws. why is this so important. for one thing, we think it will set a good example and put pressure on countries in which blasphemy laws are enforced more vigorously with consequent is. at the heart of the matter,
it's because of the principle that's at stake. religious freedom as enshrined of article 18 of the declaration of human rights entails that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. this includes the freedom to change his religion or belief in free him either alone or in community with others in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observanc observance. for that right to be secure, the right to believe and to change one's belief, people must be free to deviate or dissent from the local orthodox. they must be allowed to reject the local gods and call their own gods by whatever name they see fit. blasphemy laws enforced or not , canada, or pakistan establish that in principle
the government can regulate what you believe. i say believe because truth truthfully it's all inseparable from the expression of that belief in one form or another. blasphemy laws establish that one's religious freedom isn't a right in the proper sense, but an entitlement or privilege subject to jurisprudence by the state. thus, religious totalitarianism ultimately aims to control the entire person, even down to one thought. this much has certainly been shared with the secular counterpart. this brings up the other major threat to religious freedom of law, secular to totalitarianism. in some cases it's truly ideologically secular. while religious totalitarianism here is false gods, secular false gods fears the true god. this is the case for example in china where the communists
is officially atheist. chinese officials and the same goes for other communistic dictatorship, religion is a threat because it offers a source of allegiance outside the party. they are very keen to stamp out religion wherever it flourishes free from government control. if you follow the news lately they can follow the state appointment bishops but not the other one spread one good none on lately the government have stepped up in suppression of their practice of islam with far-reaching measures including prohibition, fasting during ramadan and even on giving children certain muslim names. it's mostly found in western china and the government perpetrates these violations claiming separatist agitation. although islam is extremism is a real threat around the world
, the chinese government does not merit the benefit of the doubt when it comes to religious freedom, in particular more human rights in general. as far as we can tell, the majority of muslims are people and their treatment is unjust. >> i raise the issue in china because it points to a broader phenomenon of secular governmen government, those who are oppressed thing religion in the name of security. this is particularly true in the central asian states of the former soviet union known as the stand but including azerbaijan. once again i conclude that the threat of extremism is real, yet too often legitimate concerns are used as a pretext for restrictions on religious freedoms. in these countries, elaborate systems of registrations and approvals, governments regulate and monitor all
religious activity. muslims who make up the vast majority of these countries as well as christians and other small groups suffer unjustly in the name of national security. here the government is not so much seeking to impose an ideology as it does a bureaucracy and yet it hopes to boast unrivaled authoritative nest by reserving character. in some ways, this becomes a stand-in for the religion itself, north korea being the most radical and ridiculous example. either way, the end result is that religious and secular totalitarianism take religious freedom as their enemy. from that perspective, we in the west have it pretty good. serving on you surf which monitors and reports on
religious freedom situations in the world, i am acutely aware of how the challenges at home parol in comparison to what goes on abroad. the lesson from this is not what you think. it's not that we should feel so good as to become complacent about our present circumstance. on the contrary. the painful international scene should be an ever present reminder to us of how rare, how precious and how vulnerable religious freedom is and how vigilant we must be in defending it. we are not inherently better or more deserving of religious freedom than anyone else in the world. we should not take our good fortune for granted. rather we must work hard and here's the key, we must work hard to preserve the cultural and political and legal conditions that make religious freedom possible. in short we should not make either mistake, we should not
forget our good fortune about how good we have it, and we do, nor should we feel so pleased as to take our good fortune for granted. moreover, developments always show us how the erosion can occur. let me talk about the mes the challenges to religious freedom from the right and the left. to ward off any misunderstandin misunderstanding, i'll add that i'm not hung up on the labels right and left but they are useful because everyone understands. i'm going to start with the challenge from left because i think it's more obvious and better known. in the big picture, there is some good news. in religious liberty cases, they have come up 9 - 0 in the supreme court while admittedly many of the cases on the most sensitive social issues have not. other trends are very worried
such as the failure of the original religious freedom restoration act in my temporary home state of indiana and similar problems elsewhere, not to mention many actions by the obama administration. also are the sociological trends. it's a cliché by now so perhaps you know it that the fastest-growing religious group in america is. [inaudible] not the sisters and habits but then none and o any of religious affiliation. that is worrying for plenty of reasons. my concern about this trend is that people who do not value religious freedom, religion, will not value religious freedo freedom. people who do not value religion will not value religious freedom.
when some accused of being nothing more than camouflage or bigotry, which they often do, we must be more than simply asserting that we have the right under the first amendment to be bigots. : : many on the left don't think that should exist in the first place. and they are entitled to that belief. but they are stuck with the inconvenient fact that governments are protected by the second amendment. in the constitution. so that involves seeing how far governments can be limited if the second amendment cannot be repealed altogether. as one third experiment,
imagine people no longer value the press. how long would freedom of the press remain protected given all of the mischief the press has from reporting on celebrity gossip, to undermining national security by revealing classified information. it is easy to roll back the free press in the name of combating these ills. americans if they do not appreciate the importance of religious freedom, and religious freedom, it will fall to claims of discrimination. as i eluded to in a moment ago. the main challenges to religious freedom in the west today stem from identity politics. and especially identity politics pertaining to sex. declining heresy traditional faith further enables this assault on religious freedom. but there's something deeper in
play. and at stake here. underlying the identity politics of sex and therefore, the current attacks on religious freedom and discrimination, is postmodern or hypermodern denial of human nature that amounts to a rejection of all reason and authority. i better repeat that. underlying the identity politics of sex and therefore, the current attacks on religious freedom and discrimination is a denial of human nature that amounts to a rejection of reason and authority. this in essence protects anything that stands in the way of a radical personal autonomy not only to choose unrestrained what we do, but even what we are. although the point of this ideology and its purpose and underlying may not be an attack on the church, but the church
is for all intents and purposes, the main enemy. because it is the standardbearer of an chief witness to everything the other side wishes to deny. in fairness, all the major religions and included what major world religions stand in the way of and ultimately against the idea that by the deepest meaning or purpose it is shaping ourselves and our world according to our own will. it is just that in our country, hourglass country, the church has the fortune of being the leader on our side. one central consequence in this denial of human nature is that it leads to a denial of human rights. without human nature, we cannot construct a coherent account of human rights. i'm aware of course, that the people i have in mind here claim all sorts of things in the name of human rights. but the new menu of human
rights is subjective and finally indefensible. indeed, the contradicting, the contradiction of inventing some new right while discarding others proves the point i wish to make. that they have confused the concept of rights. the consistency of their thinking because of nature is no longer a philosophical basis for discovering what is a right and what is not. having abandoned the proper grounds for him rights in order to make room for the ever-expanding list of demands. they have less a concept of rights so thin or so what down if you prefer that that the idea is in danger. it is not just the religious freedom is under attack because traditional beliefs are a threat to radical autonomy, but the notion of life itself is under attack and necessarily so
by the logic if those ends are to be pursued. that is the view looking to the left. now to the right. tonight i want to discuss two separate strands on the right. and i want to be very clear what i am distinguishing. i'm not lumping them together. the first i have in mind is the alt-right. they have seem to have disappeared from the vocabulary almost as suddenly as it appeared. nevertheless, the phenomenon bears addressing it briefly. anyway, the alt-right is like those i described on the left in that it represents another kind of identity politics. and rejects the inherent quality of all human beings captured so memorably in the declaration of independence. and the alt-right assuming there on the right off it is
right-wing a way that is mostly alien to american conservatism. thank god. the letter, american conservatism being a version of classical liberalism. based on fundamental design between the alt-right identity politics and the nation one hand and -- on the other hand is probably why think antagonism between the republican party is so bitter. if there is another challenge to classical liberalism from the right, and it is a significant one. in the realm of ideas, these critics are much more consequential than the alt-right. and they may have long-term political sway because they dwell among the elite opinion makers in our country. i will let you know that this includes some people that i like and respect very much even as we disagree. i mentioned earlier that we need to safeguard the cultural and then the political and legal conditions that make
religious freedom possible. as i see it, both conditions arose from the influence of roman and christian ideas and civilization. even among those who acknowledged the christian roots of the american system specifically, some argue that the fusion of christianity and enlightenment thinking too much on the latter that america is too much john locke. after students in there and i trust you know who he is. these critics, the problem with classical liberalism problem here, the problem with classical liberalism is not that we are doing the american experiment wrong. that we have lost our way of the founders or that the experiment has failed and flawed and bound to fail.
they address this in principle and especially on individual rights. i accept that these individualist tendencies need to be balanced with other values such as community and authority. but not because classical liberalism is itself, -- indeed, the all conservatives agree that individual rights are not enough. but the question is whether there actually the problem. though it will be overstating this to say that these thinkers constitute a group or school of thought, that results of their work is that we have today, a constellation of figures on the right you in different ways and for different reasons, say the question political liberty, economic liberty and religious liberty. one of the most famous critics on the right of our current
state of affairs is the author and blogger -- many of you have probably heard of his book, the benedict option. first a disclaimer. i know him and in his book and he is not arguing for many of the things that have come to be associated with the frame, the benedict option which is taken on a life of its own. but because it has come to me for so many it has handy term. in defining this, he sometimes uses the phrase, strategic retreat. which is more modern. but for others, the benedict option means heading for the hills were circling the wagon. what he means is that others are the folks i'm concerned with. so those who see the goals of the society and except that some action is necessary, which includes me, and probably a lot of people at this university and affiliated with it.
to debate over what to do really matters and is quite revealing. the questions of benedict action advocates is, what exactly do you intend in your retreat from american society? is the plan to escape classical liberalism altogether? or to ride out the storm until classical liberalism in america comes back to its senses? do they want their benedict option communities to be oasis of classical liberalism? in a world gone mad? were for their communities be vestiges from classical liberalism? i joke with him that his book ought to have been titled -- orthodox jews. there is an important distinction between modern orthodox and -- modern orthodox
jewish has small walkable neighborhoods, insistent and of jewish schools and emphasize regular prayer and also award-- orthodox have a rejection of western culture and values. again, he himself, let's ask with the critics of classical liberalism and vision. is there a goal to build a newer, better the likely smaller -- or is the goal to create just enough space to rebuild a christian culture with being a classical liberal order? do they wish to read ground individual rights on a true and sound basis? or do they want to instrumentalized, minimize and relative eyes individual rights which they see as -- to the
common good in the long run. they believe economic and religious liberty? not just improving but in principle? do they believe it was wrong for the pope to kidnap -- or just poor judgment about consequences? in the end, do they see classical liberalism and christianity as compatible or incompatible? let me repeat my earlier concession critics may say that -- is so my nacvetc go so far. i am not here to contend that religious freedom and individual rights are enough on their own. that was not the founders view and it is not mine.
as john adams said, liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence then the body can live and move without the soul. when i talked about preserving the conditions that are the best pictures of the american order i recognized that liberty alone is insufficient. virtue, which requires religion is often necessary. to be sure, classical liberals and the critics acknowledge that virtue and religion unnecessary for society. but the critics contend that classical liberalism itself necessarily inevitably undermines the very conditions that make its own existence possible. in other words, the classical liberalism is cannibalistic. they argue that individual rights lack a free society from the inside. if they are right, then it is to try and frustrate christian
-- this is why we hear more and more talk today about it liberalism, on separating church and state, christian monarchists. at risk of over superfine i would say that those conversations don't sound like they are about restoring the christian culture. but about restoring -- let me counter one intellectual movement with another. largely populated. let me counter this with another movement. a movement that culminated and specifically on religious freedom. the critics are correct. to worry about rights when rights come to mean the freedom to do whatever you feel is given. but the best versions of classical liberalism have never accepted that. the correct view is embodied in
the whole distinction in our language between liberty and license. license is a freedom to do what you want. liberty is the freedom to pursue the dead. what is so important about this is that it points to a proper understanding of right by granting the right of religious freedom and the good religion. rights are justified in virtue of the good they allow us to pursue. that is, we cannot understand which rights are until we understand what rights are for. to recover a proper account directly must have a proper account of -- once we know what is truly good for the nature, what is truly part of human flourishing, then we can know
which rights are real and which aren't. free speech for example. it is essential to the good of truth because true knowledge must be held in light of all of the events around it. and religious freedom is essential to the good religion because in order to be genuine, it must be freely chosen. the rights protect the goods. here's a line from the opening section. religious freedom which meant demand is necessary before the duty to worship god has to do with immunity from coercion and civil society. therefore, it is these uncharged traditional catholic doctrines and i think we can say christian doctrines on the moral duty of man and society toward the true religion and toward the one church of christ. underpinning the right is a
good. even a duty here. with the right point in which it safeguards. now to international religious freedom for a moment. in many places as you can imagine, we are not asking whether religious freedom will be preserved but whether it will emerge. and it will matter in these places not just whether the idea of individual rights came but what notion of individual rights? and if liberalism does spread, and it may not, and if it does looking at time that cherishes and nurtures religious freedom for the it be the kind that dismisses it? as long for example, what they need i think is a reformation. in the spirit of -- the caliphate has no go for
individual rights and no does someone want to make space for liberalism that is religion. nor should it. and in contrast to the worst excesses of radical individualism today, he makes it possible to explain why religious freedom is good because it starts with why religion is good. this is the kind of foundation that rights need. religious freedom today is caught between the left and the right. on the left, simply fight in the name of individual rights weaken the concept so much as to make it meaningless and indefensible. sometimes, they explicitly attack religious freedom had on in the name of more legitimate or more pressing so-called rights. on the right, they say having in our society wreaked in the name of liberty. some have concluded that liberty is a problem.
in the circumstances we need to discover or recover a proper account of rights. that begins with a proper grasp of the good religion and finally, all the good and that constitute human flourishing. thank you. [applause] >> all right. very well done, thank you. we now have time for some questions. back here. raise your hand. we have one over here as well. raise your hand if you have a question. doctor watson. >> i think i'm liberated from the podium now have been doing my duties. i'm going to get comfortable here that is all right. i would like to ask how safe it is in pennsylvania. another plan was actually working on trying to get him extradited back to -- but they
have imprisoned all of his movements. tens of thousands and i'm just worried about the safety and whether we are going to mend fences by giving up his rival and give it back to him. >> thank you. a very big question about the very egregious situation in turkey right now. as you know, we find ourselves in the terrible position of essentially having a nato partner who is no longer an ally of our country. pretty bad situation. one of the things that has happened and i hope people know about this, telling about this alone might be worthwhile. there's an american -- being held in prison in turkey. his luck entitle a sentence. he is detained in turkey. this past week was the one year anniversary of his detention. he is a man who work peacefully for decades with a small congregation in turkey.
not a troublemaker, not anything. then in the wake of this crazy failed attempt -- he found himself in jail. at one point, they denied and said you have a pastor and we have a pastor. he wants -- sent back from turkey i'm sorry from the united states to turkey. i mean he is just living peacefully in the united states conducted our country will send them back because of his black male. that is my view. and of course that is the position i would take if you asked me personally. to give into that kind of blackmail i think that would be don't negotiate with terrorist kind of boat which is going to endanger for the americans. but it is really bad. on the commission, we take trips to some countries when we
can to learn to advocate but to learn in depth about circumstances of religious freedom and that we just cannot do over the internet. we have a trip, we were on a bipartisan delegation. two commissioners went to turkey and they asked the government and they were the first people, the first americans who are not his family and not from the us embassy to see him in the entire time of his detention. it is a really bad situation. we can go on and on about the problems in turkey but there are very many long-standing religious freedom issues there for but the authoritarianism in turkey is concerning on a number of friends for many issues and certainly, their followers and this religious freedom now an old man living in pennsylvania that has the brunt of it i would say. it is a very widespread
question that would require whole semester. thank you. >> good evening. i am cheryl. it is a pleasure hearing you. especially -- we are from pakistan. we raise the topic of -- one of the muslims suffering at the hand of moses. you might know a woman who was burnt and i would like to bring your attention that it is not only -- our enormous christian students who are beaten and who have suffered just like her. but they have never let it -- the present pakistan, especially christian girls. the christian nunnery schools,
my daughters were in one. they are forced and threatened and given reason for not being especially taking english schooling. the boys however, are held a different incidences and are told to change their religion or their forced or threatened. is there anything under consideration for the pakistani students especially? or the christian students? >> thank you. first of all, i agree with you and validate what you are saying. this is just the tip of the iceberg in pakistan.going there for just a few days and having meetings all day everyday was barely enough to even scratch the surface. we cover pakistan every year in our report that comes out by may 1 each year. it is one of the countries by the way, that we recommend each year for designation as a country of particular concern. it is the worst category that the state department does not designate. so we recommend this, we
recommend assisting countries. the state department agrees with us on 10 of them. designated 10 of them. pakistan is over they did not. i thought we had this year. instead they put in a new category called schedule watch list which is brand-new based on december 2016 legislation. but it is a problem. there should be -- i use the example that i did just to illustrate that it is even beyond. this problem which affects christians and hindus and others in pakistan is so deep that the poison has spread throughout and even muslims. not because it is not christians. of course, we met with this legal aid society basically that helps these young girls are kidnapped and forced into conversion into marriage. and it is crazy. there's a woman that we met, we
met some of the young girls themselves as a center tries to rehabilitate them and it is really terrible. there was a woman, christian mother of four who was kidnapped by a man, an adult woman. forced to convert and bury him to the christian husband, he saw a police report. the police refused to do anything of course to follow up on the case. the woman managed to somehow get away and return somehow to her actual husband. and so the muslim man filed a police report, filed a complaint that this man was holding his wife. i mean, that is how pervasive it gets sometimes. again i spent the whole night i could tell you. we are concerned and we are one small voice but everybody here can be a voice. and pakistan, which was 24
percent, we need to get more but the pakistani flag is green with a white bar and at the end where if it will go on a pole. that it took 1/4 of the length of the flag and it is supposed to represent originally, the religious minorities which are 24 percent in pakistan at partition. religious minorities are three percent of pakistan. seven years later. the official story is that at partition, and is moved out of pakistan to india and muslims of india into pakistan but there is more to the story and religious minorities are not doing well. but majority muslims are also deprived of their religious freedom. i'm trying to keep you employed. [laughter] >> can i take you to andrew?
>> yes. >> are there any alternatives to the deal? and the us government the open of any other paths for him getting out besides this swap? >> of course, and this is not being discussed seriously or -- i mention this because it highlights how egregious it is. what they are doing. but i think there are a lot of other things considered. they're not listening for the most part. i do not think they're getting good responses. we do know that there been some marginal improvements in the treatment and he is not being tortured in prison thank god because some of these countries that is a regular occurrence. maybe even the turkish prisons are famous for being bad. but i think they're trying because there's only so much they can do if people are not
listening. they are working on it. allegedly, the president has taken i mean our president has taken this and the fact that there is no response on that means that he is really dug in which is bad news. for the pastor but let's start with everybody praying for him. and remember him in your prayers and we will continue to go from there. >> thank you so much for the wonderful presentation. first of all, i like to show you a prayer on january 27. the closing of the chapter and what we can learn from it and i love your perspective on religious freedom. but for -- we talked about the freedom being in place so in the future religions can talk together freely about the true religion. when do you think humanity will
be able to talk about the true religion? >> if i knew the answer to that! [laughter] look, there is the theological side and the political side. what we need on the political side is to find a way to work together peacefully, not killing each other. which we have done a reasonable job of in the west. but i think more than that. i teach a course called politics and religion and i'm working on some writing in the area. one of the things that i bring to the course, i don't tell students how to think one way or the other and they cannot figure out my views and that is part of the fun. i think i will continue to write about this. they want more than way to prevent just a way -- to be
working together toward a shared or certain -- in a shared project is what i'm trying to say. i think we should have unity. the greeks got this american project we are all in together and not just going in our separate streams. and that is critical. it is not going to happen by this stage by trying to get one to believe the same thing. but it is to recognize and this is a common good that we do all share. and will think part of us are missing the picture with different religious views but there is a good that we share can they are the goods that we can work together and work toward together. i think that is how you want to think about that and everything related to it.
[inaudible] >> i have a friend who is atheist. we have conversations and he would say that religion is not good for society. and i have encountered that by saying that secular humanism is a religion which you agree with that? is it a valid argument? >> well, secular is certainly a stand influenza b to think part of the argument for the place of religion in the public square that it is arbitrary and unfair to let one group ideologies come in and then another. there secular humanism is devoutly held as perhaps your christian faith is. and so, i do not think in that
respect, i do not think it makes sense to say that ideology is religious and it must be a method be excluded from the public conversation in a way that ãi think we do need to think about rational justifications for the laws that we don't want to impose things and other people. i'm okay with i think ultimately it can be explained rationally.i think religious believers who don't separate faith and religion can bring a very important voice in the conversation. now, you wanted to say about that if i remember before it's too late, -- i lost it. [laughter] your secular humanist friend --
right! that's it, thank you! if religion is bad and you can see this secular humanism is religion, if i were you i would have conceived religion is bad. i certainly, the problems he seen the world in the name of religion promises human beings. human beings with power, human beings in general do bad things. you would say those with power to more bad things. and you know, we can play the stupid games but more people died -- ben garbarek health, doesn't make the things that were done in the name of religion and us god of course. i'm not minimizing those in any way. i think it is a silly way to talk about things.
i am an orthodox jew. i want america to be a religious christian country. because at least the form of christianity has taken in america in modern times is a very benign, i do not need benign and valid but a good way. and of course you can talk to scientists that contain about the charity in america by the christian people. religion is obviously enforceable that in our country and it should be encouraged. so in that respect, secular humanism is not a religion because not doing the same thing. there is no such thing as the or as a multigenerational community of secular humanists. and it is in your things and
give me some time but what i mean is, in order to good we need virgin. this is one of the key things is federalist and anti-federalist fiercely agreed upon. then they disagree the right way to institute that truth. but fiercely agreed upon that we will not -- what is virtue come? historically, religion. and can atheists be a good person? sure. but the way virtue is transmitted as their religion page do not have secular philosophers who are all virtuous because of secular philosophy passed down here because it is not primarily not in philosophy but in the experience of community it is religion that provides the experience of a community in that way. and so, i think you got me. not >> we will do a few more over
here. >> good evening. thank you for your presentation it is phenomenal. i hope my question -- given your experience i think you have the unique qualifications to provide perspective. i've been trying to figure out why it is that jewish people vote consistently democratic. it says 70+ percent consistently. and given your own presentation describing the left as opposing religious liberty and goes on the right defending it. honestly with the jewish and israel, why is it that jewish people vote in the class? >> so, i'm laughing because i get this all the time. it is a very good question. you're asking the right question for sure. the jews obviously have a very strong interest in religious freedom. but i don't think that's part of the equation because only the most recent years that religious freedom has become a
partisan issue. and international religious freedom act, and a talk about domestic but let me say it's national for a second. on the international religious freedom act was passed in 1998 and signed into law by pleasant clinton it was passed i believe unanimously by congress. at least by the senate. this week, or last week there was a 49/29 split in the senate on whether to confirm the international religious freedom. knowledge of the vice president quote - to break the tie in the senate to confirm him he had to earlier boat to tie the senate of whether -- essay that actually without even, you can probably tell by the time i was liable to say that without casting or without even expressing a view on one way or another but to imagine how we
have gone in 20 us from the international religious freedom now another other political issues of course but how we have gone from being a unanimous issue to be a sharply divided thing. okay that's why i will not include religious freedom in my answer about the jews. it is true that jews are overwhelmingly liberal democrats. and you can see this in exit polls, presidential elections, every time in the cycle. part of it is a legacy of fdr. when the jews were poor and new immigrants in america in the early 20th century, social scientists will say typically that the number one predictor of how a person votes is how his parents voted. of course, that is not true. young people like you did by the parents in so many ways i am told. so, god bless her, my wife who cannot join us was at home in indiana one month away from delivering our first child. and she said that i have two
have some thoughts with this child about kicking. so it seems like the baby is already defiant. but in any case, i had to give a shout out to my wife in the camera. i'm here on a pleasure trip in beautiful colorado. so, part of it is that. part of it is just to keep in mind that jews in america are 90 percent not orthodox. of the major denominations orthodox conservative reform, that is a misleading label. orthodox are most traditional, conservative are moving further left. and so 90 percent of jews are not orthodox. and so in many cases, for those people, they are voting on issues like pro-abortion or that sort of thing because that is their primary concern. it is not israel or something
else. if israel is most important concern nowadays, people tend to vote more republican. there are holdovers from israel also. but if israel is the tuppence and then that is why people say i cannot understand how or why so many young orthodox jews voted for trump. but if you're putting on israel, people certainly, obama did not come across as the most pro-israel president. people reacted to that. and again, i do not even say that, i didn't mean to offend anyone in the room that has the opposite view. i'm not presuming we don't have that view but he was, he instituted a policy warming up to iran. which was the country that has committed itself to getting to destroy israel. and the famously bad relationship with benjamin netanyahu. and so anyway, i'm digressing.
but the point is that part of it is history and part of it is issues. religion and social justice, you're probably going to vote democrat. >> we attempted to more questions. >> that is my fault. i'm so long-winded. >> i am going back to what you touched on the little bit earlier in your talk. that is the issue of homosexuality and gay rights and trans rights and those type of things. i'm a christian and i have actually been told by friends of mine that i need to throw that in my religion of the door for the part that talks about it being an abomination. and i need to fully embrace gay marriage and that the whole lgbt movement and if i don't, i'm a bigot, i am a horrible
person and exerts upon the hole and die, basically. so i'm just curious about your perspective on that and how those two pieces of society can coexist in the idea of religious freedom because my religious freedom to practice what i believe is severely being challenged and damaged in that sense. >> yes. well, okay. yes, -- first of all, let me say that they are giving you bad advice. i don't know but the son of the late justice antonin scalia has a very short article and what i taught intro american politics, at villanova, it was called the
title was the current set of history. says they keep telling me to be in the right side of history but i would rather be on the christ side of history. and every day you have the top, whose side you want to be on? the side of history or the side of god? and also because part of the answer is that we are in for a fight. we are, we actually do have to end and that starts -- there are political fights that we have to win, there are elections and legal fights and the supreme court but also the culture. -- if you're interested in me, my answer is, go for the 99 percent of the world and when you're done with that you can come for me. [inaudible]
i love this community and the work that you do. having said, how can we coexist together? i think that was really the heart of your question. obviously, the answer, i don't mean obviously in a condescending way. obviously the answer starts with love. we do not have a perfect track record in the poisoning of the side in the most loving and compassionate way possible. i am not a food depot like everything is homophobia. he says being nice is not a virtue. but speaking the truth in love is a virtue. so we do need to speak the truth. we do not need to shy away from this. we have to pick and choose our
battles but we cannot use cowardice as an excuse whenever kicking a battle. we have to make sure we always speak these truths that we have the keep speaking them. it is for their own good. just as all of us are the people who truly love us. and if we truly love them we will tell them the hard truth that they need to hear as well. but they need to know is that we are speaking in love. i think that is the hardest part. that means we have to watch overtone, i gave a talk about this once. at villanova about the campus culture wars. and i said social media is generally not the right forum for speaking truth and love. not the place where the most loving truth is found in our current society. it is not as someone told me, it is very hard to tell tone
through email.you have to be careful.which means i think, the best approach is if you really want to live together, it is speaking truth and love one on one. speaking to people directly, getting to know people, building a relationship first and then having a hard conversation. i know we are talking about a societywide problem and it is not easy to do that. but somehow that has to be the answer. i just like to ramble on about this. i will give you that as the start, the incomplete, insufficient lame answer. but thank you for the question. >> can we get him on camera? he looks extremely a lot like my brother! want to make sure that in the official record, -- >> i would like to take a picture with you. >> my name is -- i come from
the middle east specifically lebanon. early in the speech you say people that do not care for religious cannot care for religious freedom. we have more than 220 million christians persecuted in the 21st century. every nine minutes we have one christian that is massacred for his faith. the effects of these massacres are more human. the first part of the question is that democrat, republican, liberal or conservative, just have to be a human being to relate to these massacres by just seeing them. second part of the question is, don't you think or do you believe that the questions and the protectors of the religious freedom in the world specifically in the us are doing enough to save the persecuted christians of the middle east and the actual
persecution. >> the first answer is yes, the second answer is no. the first answer yes. of course. we need to relate to is first and foremost on a human level. and we do not depend christians or muslims or jews. we defend everyone. we have international freedom and their commitment to the right of every person in the world to believe or not believe. people are persecuted in many countries as atheist as well. not because i recommend atheism but because i think you have the right to be free of coercion. yes, we have to relate on human level. it's hard to do because in our hypermedia world, there is so much coming out and it is not humanly possible to feel the compassion we need to feel for everyone around the world. we should work on it. don't get me wrong. we don't need to do a good job
-- until this much less of than anyone. we don't even do enough good enough job with the compassion for people around us. the ones that we evolutionary biologically programmed to be able to feel compassion for. and the people in the digital age information across the world. which is not to make an excuse for anyone. if we stop and think for a moment, on a human level about what is going on around the world, about what it is like for the muslims outside of north korea probably the worst thing to be born into. if you are in vermont to have to walk barefoot, having nothing to begin with across barbed wire to try and escape into bangladesh from the approaching burmese army who are massacring maybe not at this moment but over these past few episodes. she relate to that on a human
level, i mean you have to and you have to feel the compassion but is really hard to do. and with a new story every day and a 24-hour news cycle, is just not possible. which is why will need to do our best. as i said before but not taken for granted and not being complacent. which is the only thing work hard to educate ourselves on religious freedom around the world. because if we don't there is no way to give it the attention it deserves. something can be in theirs for one day. then his work savagery and barbarism that we have witnessed certainly the recent history and that can be there when they enter the next day -- on the second part, i will say no. we've been pushing on that. i do not mean that but not
enough has been done. 2003, iraq had 1.3 million or 1.4 million christians. something in the neighborhood. now it is less than that. we are seeing a world historical event. we are seeing and i hope it gambles in a better direction. i'm not overconfident. the recognition of ancient, things that once -- the taliban district to join buddhist statues. and the statues were many centuries old. and was able to start, those are artifacts that are forever in world history. i'm not talking middle east about artifacts. we talk about human beings and
communities. remember when isis advanced and for the first time in 1600 years, that -- was not celebrated in mosul. individuals and communities. we are all for finding ways for refugees to be resettled in the right places and the right ways and the right time.but we have to remember, refugee resettlement. refugee resettlement means that the communities there are gone forever. christianity is a cradle of civilization. but they're gone forever. we are not doing enough. i think this administration has been doing some good things. the news about funding and where the funding is going is where will be directed as a step in the right direction. there are good people working on this.
in fairness it is an enormous problem. it will be impossible probably for anybody in the country but i certainly share your pain. and more acutely than i do i certainly want to share your pain and be in solidarity with you in your pain about what has gone on. that is a sour note, i'm sorry! [applause] >> i want to say a few things. what should we recognize the fact that religious freedom is a priority here at colorado christian university. and our president is here, give him a round of applause. [applause] as well as the vice chair of the board of trustees here. please raise your hand. thank you. [applause]
[inaudible] we just came back from a retreat and visit one of the top issues will continue to fight here at ccu. i would like to recognize father andre. if you connect or disconnect with him. and doctor, can you stick around as well? >> yes i also did bring a fat stack of cards, my business cards. if anyone wants to follow up with me, or if you want to check out the website. and we can pray but the second thing is educate yourself and others as well. would love everyone to support. and let your representatives now that international religious freedom is a priority for you. and please feel free to come up and play big part. thank you. >> thank you.
this is a great organization to follow. get a chance to connect with them. also if you're concerned about christian persecution, open doors usa is a great organization. you can start to get involved in the process of raising awareness on the issue of religious persecution. as because, february 12 is the next lecture series that will be here. we have about all candidates that will be here republican and democrat. you can listen to them, hear from them, make an informed decision. it will be your time to vote in the upcoming election for that is february 12 right here at 7 pm. god bless you. have a wonderful evening and thank you for coming out. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> on washington journal, former maryland lieutenant governor kathleen kennedy townsend and arthur michael cohen talk about the evolution of liberal politics in 1968. it is part of our 1968 american turmoil series. the much decide when typing any of the eight eastern on c-span. at 9:30 p.m. and interviewed deputy white house press secretary talking about his family, recalls growing up in connecticut and his early beginnings of politics. also the relationship between the media and the white house and what it is like working for president trump. watch the entire interview tonight beginning at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. this week the ninth circuit us court of appeals heard oral arguments in city and county of san francisco beat trent break it because of the presence executive order to deny federal funding.the so-called sanctuary cities. you can watch a tonight starting at eight eastern on c-span2.
this weekend, on c-span live saturday at 5:30 p.m. eastern. road to the white house 2020 at the new hampshire democratic party dinner with former missouri secretary of state jason kander. and sunday 6:30 pm eastern road to the white house 2020 coverage continues with montana democratic governor steve bullock in polk county i would get on booktv on c-span2. -- black classic press in baltimore. on sunday at a pm eastern also -- receives a book award for his book, a benedict option. a strategy for us christians in a post christian nation.and on c-span3 at 4:55 pm eastern prominent figures in law. -- sunday for pm on reel
america. programs for his estate with republican california governor ronald reagan and former alabama governor george wallace. watch this weekend on the c-span networks. >> monday on landmark cases. brandon progresses ohio. ku klux klan leader was convicted of hate speech under an ohio law. but the supreme court unanimously ruled the state law violated his first amendment record our guest to assist the gays are nadine -- former head of the american civil liberties union union and law professor new york law school in manhattan. and katie -- a senior attorney at columbia university ninth first amendment to city. watch landmark cases monday and during the conversation. # landmark cases follow us at