I don’t think your headline is correct. Although it says “Obama Should Raise Issue of Religious Persecution”, I doubt you really want the President to raise the issue of me, a gay man, being persecuted by the “religious”.
Though perhaps he should, ‘cuz I’m sick and tired of rabid right-wing ‘religious’ nutjobs lieing about me (right here on B’net, in fact), and taking away my rights. Persecution by christo-fascists must stop in America, but I doubt that was what you intended.
Write gooder.

I also have an issue with this piece. Despite what you implicitly attempt to argue, America is not a christian nation. Just because the majority of the population claims to be christian does not change that (you should also ask yourself how many of those counted actually follow the religion). Therefore, Obama should not act like a muslim leader in defending the people of his faith because our nation is inherently different from muslim nations.

I agree with POvidi and wish to go a bit further. Though I am morally against the persecution of those with a different religion, I object with the implications in this message basically puting the writer’s western values on other states and I applaud the recognition by Obama in not drowning the Muslim world with American values.
Personally and on individual cases, I have no hatred and condemnation if a fellow Muslim decides to renounce Islam and become a Christian, I can only prey that he/she changes that view (obviously). But I also understand why publically chaning that view places a danger on the cohesion of a society, particularly those that rely on their faith and the religions particaption in the peace and stability of a country.
The reality is that Evangalists converts such as in Syria do not quietly convert, they are mostly converted overseas in the United States and then go out of their way to return and try and make more converts to that evangelical belief. That is for me asking for trouble, creating dissention in families and communities and should not be allowed.
I challenge the writter to respond to a hypothetical scenario. Would the average southern Bible-best towns allow door to door knocking and pretty aggressive evangalising by bearded Muslims with their hijab wearing families in toe? The law says no problem, but I smell a very, very strong and organised reaction against it.
The fact remains that the mostly secular west does not care about promolgating or changing of religious belief because of that very secularness. If, for example, the west was say 90 per cent active of one of the Christian sects, the laws and reactions would be very much different and near the same.
Myself, I am a western born convert since the age of 17 (I am now 45) and after serving my country in the diplomatic field, have now settled permanently in the Kingdom of Morocco in North Africa. Time on time Christian missionaries have been booted out of the country for exactly that and the other day walking on the street of the capital Rabat I found a senior western diplomat handing out Arabic text bibles and evangelical material – I pointed out who I am, my background and that I will inform the local foreign service that this was against the terms and conditions of his privilages under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Privilages. I have no regret, because I know what it does to society’s cohesion. His posting was cancelled.
Solkhar
(Marrakech)

Yes, President Obama SHOULD raise the issue of religious persecution – by the rabid anti-choice Christian terrorist assassins murdering doctors at womens’ health clinics, to frighten women and doctors away from anything to do with abortion. It’s time to call the anti-choice movement what it really is – terrorism.

I’m new to the blog and website though I’ve been familiar with Mr. Sekulow’s work for years and I applaud it.
My question is why the ACLJ is not involved in the legal effort to force Mr. Obama to prove his U.S. Citizenship and thus right to hold office as President.

The forum contained very appropriate questions including many on the candidates’ views of public policy and a few here and there on spiritual issues. I approve of the holistic approach to the variety of questions that were asked. People’s social, emotional, intellectual, physical, and spiritual elements should not be compartmentalized and put in a box since humans use several of these elements in the decision making process. A person’s religious beliefs strongly impact how one conceptualizes political issues. Therefore, questions about a candidate’s religious views are very pertinent and crucial, and are questions that absolutely need to be asked in a forum.

I absolutely agree that President Obama should raise the issue of Religious Persecution on his Middle East tour. In 1998, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act in order to support religious freedom as a U.S. foreign policy goal and to fight religious persecution worldwide. The law promotes freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right by pinpointing many diplomatic and economic tools which could be useful for this purpose. The essential tools include the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom http://bit.ly/1458n8 and direct United States advocacy administered by the Office of International Religious Freedom in collaboration with foreign governments. The law also pledges U.S. assistance to new democracies that are formed in practicing freedom of religion and conscience.
When Congress and the President are constructing United States’ foreign policy, the act mandates that they refer to the issues of religious freedom. Therefore, it is President Obama’s mandate and duty as president, lawyer, and head of the executive branch to respect this law and address violations of religious freedom such as persecution when forming foreign policy as prescribed by the International Religious Freedom Act.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has been designated by the Office of IRF as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC). The IRF’s report states:
“Although no law specifically requires citizens to be Muslim, Article 12.4 of the Naturalization Law requires that applicants attest to their religious affiliation, and Article 14.1 requires applicants to get a certificate endorsed by their local imam. Most non-Muslims and Muslims whose beliefs do not adhere to the Government-approved interpretation of Islam must practice their religion in private and are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, detention, and if a noncitizen, deportation. Blasphemy carries the death penalty. Conversion by Muslims to another religion (apostasy) and proselytizing by non-Muslims are both punishable by death, but there have been no confirmed reports of executions for either crime in recent years.” http://bit.ly/2uvhCv
In the Bible, both Old Testament Mosaic and New Testament Covenant Law commands that Christians love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength first and foremost. Jesus never said loving Him would be easy. Mr. Kruse writes:
To the degree we exhibit the coming kingdom in the present we create radical disturbances. Luke 12:51-53 states:
51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
In addition, Mark 10:28-31 details the cost of Peter and the other disciples’ discipleship as well:
28 Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age — houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions — and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”
Although there is, indeed, persecution with the reign of the Kingdom of God, it is our duty as Christians to abolish it and keep it to a minimum, including the aftershock and shrapnel, whenever possible.

Rev JP Timmons: My question is why the ACLJ is not involved in the legal effort to force Mr. Obama to prove his U.S. Citizenship and thus right to hold office as President.
I don’t want to speak for the ACLJ but I would safely assume that President Obama’s citizenship is only questioned by the most fanatical of the US version of the Taliban. Rational and reasonable Christians don’t need to trump up phony charges in lieu of bringing something positive and real to the table.

In regards to comments by N. Lindzee Lindholm regarding the requirement for the US by law to involve itself in international religious persecution.
I think it is these very laws that are looked upon by other countries as being the interference that President Obama is now trying to repair. That law, though on paper appears noble only is a license to judge others based on the secular values of the United States and based on another religion.
Lastly, I find your quotes of versus ominious, perhaps a tacit or even explict justification for the right to proselytizing, based alone on your views, your principles and disregarding – no ignoring that other faiths and nations do not agree, if not find repulsive.
Thus, N. Lindzee Lindholm, I repeat the example, and presume that you would have no objection to a bearded Imam with his hijab covered wife and six children in tow knocking on your and your neighbours’ doors, distributing to everyone the Qur’an and telling you that your faith is not only wrong but a certain doorway to hell. More than that, what if your oldest son choses to become then a Muslim, your daughter marries one? Let us say that half your street changes its faith, some of the town council have, now a radio station with Qur’an recitals. Obviously you have no problem right, even if everyone converts, right?

I should have added, that I personally disagree with persecution as in punishment, that someone changes their religion is a personal matter, that they have that right. I certainly condemn that someone be punished for changing their beliefs but by the same token, I condemn those that sell their religion to others, door to door, in secret against the known tennants of the faith in that land. I certainly condemn the placing of one’s values above and better or superior than others, that is fundamentalism, the enemy of progress.

Speaking of rational and reasonable Christians (there are such people?) not needing to trump up phony charges, google “godless” and remember with fear and trembling that Elizabeth Dole said her opponent in the last election, Kay Hagan, was “godless”, and she turned out to be a Sunday School teacher.
Ditto for the “godless” charge against Dr. Tiller, who was assasinated while attending his own church.
The ‘religious’ ‘right’ are such blatant l!ars. They are a poor witness to Christ when they continue to bear such evident false witness.

it’s nice that jay is involved in helping persecuted christians in the middle east.
i wonder how he feels about the christians in africa doing the persecution:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

And “Reverend” J.P. Timmons is yet another obvious example of a ‘religious’ person (I wouldn’t deign to call him a “Christian – either reasonable OR rational) who continues to trump up phony charges. Isn’t bearing false witness a sin in your church, “Reverend”?
Hey, Jay, howzabout YOU start the christian revolution and insist not only on truth but also a little charity from you fellow travellers (not to mention youself)?

This is the first comment I posted on here; seems that most people who view these are “hate” mongering liberals. Perhaps all you liberals who obviously only come on here to wave your “credentials” should check out the evidence re Obama’s citizenship; Facts: (1) the real birth certificate is sealed; the one they posted on the website has been shown by forensic scientists to be a phony, (2) he’s spent almost $1 million to keep it that way when he could have produced it for $10 (is this the “smoking gun?”)and ended all the legal proceedings (which are ongoing); (3) there are affadavits and testimonies from family members and others that he was born in Kenya (available on UTUBE), (4) research the other facts for yourself and don’t accuse people of lying when you don’t know the facts.
I didn’t vote for McCain but would say the same thing if the facts were the same for him or any Republican; don’t any of you libs believe it’s important to protect the Constitution?

Wow, even if I wanted to stop being a conservative Christian, you guys haven’t given me a rational, loving, thought-provoking alternative. What happened to all of the statesmen in this country?
1) YourName
June 2, 2009 4:37 PM – “…rabid right-wing ‘religious’ nutjobs…christo-fascists”
Can the left come up with some new labels to attack conservatives instead of these tired, overused ones? Then again, maybe they will stick – just like the slur “Christian” that the Romans used.
June 3, 2009 10:34 AM – “Speaking of rational and reasonable Christians (there are such people?)…”
Have you met all of them to make this assumption? Really…none…not even one that we can assume is rational and reasonable?
June 3, 2009 10:43 AM – “And “Reverend” J.P. Timmons is yet another obvious example of a ‘religious’ person (I wouldn’t deign to call him a “Christian – either reasonable OR rational)…”
Really? You just insinuated, in your previous comment, that there weren’t any reasonable Christians? Did something change, or was that another character assassination? I wish I had the ability to see into the heart as you can to tell if someone – though flawed – is a Christian.
“The ‘religious’ ‘right’ are such blatant l!ars.[sic]”
We ALL are? The secular progressive left don’t lie? Seriously, I am sorry that your experience with conservative Christians is so negative. The bitterness of your comments shows me this. I am sorry for it, truly. Please, though, try not to paint us all with such a broad brush. By using your standard and comments, I’d have to paint the left with the same broad brush.
2) Lowell
June 2, 2009 8:50 PM – “…the rabid anti-choice Christian terrorist assassins…”
Gee, are all pro-life folks terrorist assassins? You do a great job of character assassinations, though. May I call you a rabid, pro-choice, character terrorist? I didn’t think so, and nor would I. I have a higher opinion of you that that.
3)DSJulian
June 3, 2009 6:12 AM – “…President Obama’s citizenship is only questioned by the most fanatical of the US version of the Taliban.”
So, all Christian conservatives are a US version of the Taliban? That’s like saying all fundamental Muslims are members of the Taliban. That’s obviously not true.
I’d love to go to a site that encourages a meaningful dialog over controversial issues. Alas, I am yet to find one.

Perhaps all you liberals who obviously only come on here to wave your “credentials” should check out the evidence re Obama’s citizenship; Facts: (1) the real birth certificate is sealed; the one they posted on the website has been shown by forensic scientists to be a phony…
My real birth certificate is also sealed and the only one available to me (or anyone) else could easily enough be proved phony if anyone cared to try.
Sorry, J. P. Timmons, but it’s not that unusual. Oh, yeah. I am definitely a citizen of the U.S.
Go figure!

Hi Mr. Solkhar,
For your information, according to the International Religious Freedom Report 2008, even though your Constitution provides for the “freedom to practice one’s religion”, the report states that the Morocco government “places certain restrictions on non-Islamic religious materials and proselytizing. Several small religious minorities are tolerated with varying degrees of official restrictions. The Government monitors the activities of mosques and places some restrictions on Muslims and Islamic organizations whose activities are thought to have exceeded the bounds of acceptable religious practice and become political in nature.”
Answer me this. How is placing restrictions on religious minorities, political Islamic organizations (other than jihad), and non-Islamic religious materials and proselytizing allowing one freedom to practice their religion? Your Constitution is very tongue and cheek at best in terms of what is says and what it allows from religious Moroccan people as well as foreigners.
Bahey Edin Hassen points out that “discrimination in the legislative, administrative and security realms continues against religious and ethnic minorities in general in Morocco (http://bit.ly/9Jr6Q) Generally speaking, the Kingdom of Morocco has one of the worst human rights records of the Arab nations in the past decades. Even though the government has taken some positive steps to correct some previous abuses, violations in the past two years have included the arrest of human rights activists and detention, search and seizure without a warrant, and torture of journalists as daily practices according to the Annual Report of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (http://bit.ly/qMACO p.124).
Mr. Solkhar, I have no problem with people of other faiths knocking on my door because my God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is greater. Therefore, as an evangelist, I am secure in my faith, unlike some including yourself who see Christians as a threat. The Bible states, “There is no other name under heaven (Jesus Christ) by which we must be saved.” No offense, but considering the record of human rights violations in your country towards non-Muslims and those of different faiths, this invitation does not apply you.

N. Lindzee Lindholm, I see two issues with what you have said that confirms the views I have expressed. You have stated that “because my God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is greater.” and that you have condemned the blocking of practing your religion that includes “proselytizing”. Those two statements by their very nature says what I have argued, that some evangelical Christians desire to come to the Muslim world to activelly advertise that “your faith is wrong, my own is better and you must all convert”.
Enough said on that, religious bigotry has no place on this planet.
Lastly, you said “is placing restrictions on religious minorities, political Islamic organizations (other than jihad)”. I find that the use of “Jihad” as being offensive, there is rather blind approach to presuming that all Muslims and Muslim nations support the militant fundamentalist interpretation of what is Jihad? I consider, especially one living here in Morocco that reference as a great disrespect to those who’s lives were destroyed by an act of terrorism against the people of Morocco that have collectively and administratively reject militancy and terrorism.
(Solkhar is a psudonym of a retired western diplomat whom is a liberal Sunni Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and is an expert on terrorism-financing. He is a permanent resident of the Marrakech, Morocco)

How is placing restrictions on religious minorities, political Islamic organizations (other than jihad), and non-Islamic religious materials and proselytizing allowing one freedom to practice their religion?
Lindzee, please point me to where in your (I’m assuming Christian) religion it is an obligation to proselytize, even when the people of a nation have made it very clear that they don’t want to hear what you have to say?
Didn’t Jesus tell the apostles that if they came to a town where the people rejected their teachings they should leave that town, shake the dust of it off their sandals, and go on to the next town?
Why can’t Christians follow all of Jesus’ teachings?

Hi Mary-Lee,
Jesus COMMANDS all Christians to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded…and lo, I AM with you always.” (Matthew 28:19)
No, Jesus did not tell the apostles to leave if they received resistance. On occasion, this is what the disciples did, but the command in Matthew 28:19 is precedent and overriding.
Ms. Mary-Lee, If you make reference to the Bible, please do not take verses out of context, which often atheists or agnostics like yourself do to prove their point. And while you’re at it, read the gospel of John.

N. Lindzee Lindholm, I think most Christians would agree with the “interpretaton” of Mary-Lee – your in the minority and perhaps it is your antagonistic view that gives good evangelical Christianity and in fact the US a bad name in the non-Christian and in particular the Muslim world. Your government particularly would disagree that your view is correct.

Hi Your Name,
Prove that my view is not shared with evangelical Christians in the United States of America.
I find it very interesting that you are deemed worthy to speak on behalf of the government of the United States since you are not even a citizen of this awesome country. In America, there is separation of church and state so my government cannot tell me how to practice my faith as an evangelical Christian.

Mr. Solkhar,
You call me a religious bigot without providing any reasons whatsoever as to why you think so.
The bigotry that lies here is in the fact that Morocco states in their Constitution that the country provides religious freedom when in fact it places restrictions on people’s practices of how they choose to worship, including those of their own religious majority: Muslims.
In addition, you fail to answer my previous question. Let me restate it for you:
How is placing restrictions on religious minorities, political Islamic organizations, and non-Islamic religious materials and proselytizing allowing one freedom to practice their religion?

Brian wrote: “Gee, are all pro-life folks terrorist assassins? You do a great job of character assassinations, though. May I call you a rabid, pro-choice, character terrorist? I didn’t think so, and nor would I. I have a higher opinion of you that that.”
Not all are terrorist assassins. Some are. Many are just terrorists; doing their utmost to intimidate clinic personnel by assaulting or harrassing them outside the clinic or their homes, stalking them, posting explicit information on the web stating where they live, shop, worship, whatever. Using inflammatory language like calling them “baby-killers” or “murderers” when they are no such thing, or whining about “slaughter”, “bloodshed”, or “genocide”, serves only to fuel the hate of people like Roeder, pushing some over the edge.
Regarding what to label me, I do not have rabies, nor am I trying to frighten or intimidate anyone into changing their character, lacking though they may be. So you’re just left with pro-choice.

And it would be nice if Beliefnet would fix their software so I don’t end up as “Your Name” every time their stinking Captcha expires.