James Diddams: I’m very excited to introduce our next speaker, who’s had a career spanning over 20 years as an international human rights lawyer. He’s worked in the George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administrations. He is also a senior fellow at Pepperdine University, where he heads the Global Faith and Inclusive Societies Program. Lastly, he is most recently the author of Ending Persecution: Charting the Path to Global Religious Freedom. Knox Thames has literally written the book on international religious liberty. So, if everyone could please welcome Knox Thames!

Knox Thames: I was sitting in a church in Cairo, Egypt, off Tahrir Square, watching a grown man cry. It was February 2010, a few months before the Arab Spring would wash over that country and change so much—and so little—in the region. And we were there watching a man cry. It was my first visit to Egypt. I was part of a U.S. government delegation visiting that incredibly important country to understand the climate for religious freedom.

We landed in the wee hours. Many of us had never visited before. We actually got up early, after a few hours of sleep, to go see the Great Pyramids of Giza—those incredible wonders of the world. Then, later that afternoon, we were watching a grown man cry. By the world’s standards, he was a person of no real importance. He did menial day jobs. But he had made a decision that had both changed his life for the better and for the worse. He had become a Christian, and now he was being hunted by his government, his neighbors, and his family. He didn’t know what to do. And he sat there and cried.

A few years later, in April 2017, I was visiting Pakistan in the giant city of Lahore—a city of 30 or 40 million people. In our beautiful American consulate there, I was watching another grown man cry. This individual was from the Hazara Shia Muslim community, a group distinct to the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. ISIS hates them because they’re the wrong kind of Muslim. He shared about how his friends had been murdered by a suicide bomber. He sat there and cried because he didn’t know what to do.

So, in a certain sense, these experiences were both unique and yet incredibly common. Unique in that these were two individuals made in the image of God, and their stories matter to God. But also incredibly common, because there’s a pandemic of religious persecution sweeping the world that impacts people of all faiths and none, in every corner of the world.

What I’m going to share a bit about today, as your last speaker—and I’ll try to keep it interesting, since you’ve finished the race almost—is drawn from my book that was just introduced. It looks at my 20 years of government service and asks questions about how the United States can continue to lead the world in advocating for religious freedom for everyone. What can we do differently to meet the challenge of global persecution so that we can have an answer to these gentlemen and the millions of other people like them who are suffering for what they believe?

Today, I’m going to talk about four topics: what is persecution (just to have a definitional ground floor), attempts to counter it (focused on during my time in government and other efforts), new ideas to implement, and the need for continued effort. 

This was drawn from the book, like I said—it was released just two months ago. I wrote it as a practitioner, for a policymaker audience, an activist audience, but also for the classroom. I think this would be of interest to students and teachers because I talk about what it’s like to represent the United States on these important issues—on these important value issues.

First, this idea of persecution and what it is. Like I said, there’s a pandemic of persecution sweeping the world. The Pew Research Center reports that roughly two out of every three people on Earth live in a country that restricts the free practice of faith. So, think about that: two out of three people on Earth live in a country that puts severe limitations on how people can pursue truth as their conscience leads. 

Now, a quick caveat: that doesn’t mean everyone is being persecuted, but there are very narrow lanes of permissible religious activity. If you decide to change lanes, question the lanes, or leave the road altogether, you’ll be prosecuted by your government, persecuted by your neighbors, and sometimes both.

In addition, Pew reports that roughly 84% of the global community believes in God or a higher power. So, the world is furiously religious. While interest in things of faith is fading in Europe and North America, that is not the case around the world. For the remaining 16%, there are still people who have a belief system. They may not fit into a specific box, or they may be more agnostic or humanistic, but they also have beliefs that shape their world.

The world is an incredibly religious place where people are looking to something beyond themselves to give their lives purpose, meaning, and direction. So, we take these two trends— incredibly high levels of government restrictions and societal restrictions on faith practices and incredibly high levels of people who are interested in faith—and this is a recipe for instability, human rights violations, and suffering on a massive scale.

I like to say that religious freedom will be the challenge of the 21st century because everybody is everywhere. People and groups are mixing together as never before in human history. Groups you used to read about in an encyclopedia—or that would be me, you guys on Wikipedia—you’re now rubbing shoulders with in the grocery store or on the playground. 

This can produce incredible synergies, new ideas, and innovations. But we also know that living together in diversity is hard. There’s a natural fear of people who look, believe, or pray differently than ourselves. Understanding how we can create a community where we respect the rights of people to hold different beliefs—not agree on everything, but agree to disagree on these ultimate questions and do so peacefully in community—is hard work. 

So many countries are failing that test. When we talk about persecution, I want to emphasize that we need to use that word very carefully. I’ve been concerned about how, in some contexts, advocates, in an attempt to draw attention to their cause—which is worthy—call anything persecution. But friends, persecution is violent. It’s death. It’s destruction, jailing, beating, torture, and rape. It’s biblical kinds of persecution. To honor those people who are truly suffering—to honor those two men who cried in front of me—we need to be careful about what we call persecution.

There can be other things that are wrong. They can be discriminatory, hateful, or intolerant, and we want to advocate against those too. But we need to reserve the word “persecution” for the most violent of situations. So, in the book, I try to define what persecution is. When you talk about it globally, it seems monolithic; it seems overwhelming. But from my experience, I saw at least four different typologies. If we’re going to develop a response—like you would with medicine for a specific disease—we need to understand the specific types of persecution so we can formulate an effective response.

The first kind of persecution that I talk about in the book is authoritarian persecution. This is where the mechanics and power of the state are brought to bear against religious believers to crush them, jail them, or push them out of existence. I should add, by the way, that with each chapter focusing on a different type of persecution, I have a corresponding chapter that gives examples of things we tried to do, when I was in government, to counter them—the good and the bad ideas we grappled with. 

With authoritarian persecution, I talk about what’s happening in China against the Uyghur Muslim community and in Burma against the Rohingya Muslim community. These are the best examples of the power of the state brought to bear against religious groups that they are afraid of or find undesirable.

The second typology of persecution is extremism. This is where mobs are gathered by so-called community leaders to attack someone who said something they don’t like or believed something they’re afraid of. They burn down their homes or tear down their sanctuaries. Here, I spend a lot of time on Pakistan, a country I visited almost 10 times over my career. I look at the case of Asia Bibi, who, a few years ago, was probably the best-known prisoner of conscience in the world. She was sentenced to death for her fidelity to Christ. I also talk about a distinct community called the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which is persecuted by the Muslim majority. They have some different beliefs that are not quite orthodox, and the state goes after them with a vengeance. Mobs are riled up to attack their churches, communities, and mosques. That is an example of extremism.

The third typology is democratic persecution. This is where a majority community undermines minority protections, using the power of the ballot box to transform their beliefs into law. Here, I look at India and Nepal. India is a massive, massive country, and Nepal is a small country by Asian standards, but it still has 30 million people, making it bigger than most European countries. I examine how politicians have campaigned on a platform of hate and discrimination, convinced voters to back them, and then changed the laws to advance their theological agenda.

The last form is terrorism. This is ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram—where individuals are willing to murder to advance their ideology or theology. I talk a lot about Iraq, a country I visited countless times. I joined the State Department in a special envoy role during the Obama Administration and stayed on during the Trump Administration, focusing on religious minorities in that region. I share stories about what we did to try to recreate the environment where religious minorities—Christians, Yazidis, and others—felt like they had a future after terrorists had attempted a genocide. How do we pick up the pieces?

My next point is this question: What do we do about it? Persecution is running rampant. What can we do? Well, I think there is some good news in this dark, dark situation. 

First, we should be very thankful that we’ve got global standards through the United Nations—primarily the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, followed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of them have an article—Article 18—that defines what religious freedom is, and it defines it expansively: the right to have any faith, no faith, change faith, meet together for worship, pray alone or with others, and educate your children.

We can be proud that, as Americans, the Universal Declaration was overseen by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former First Lady. She led this incredibly diverse drafting committee in the early days of the United Nations, when they were meeting in San Francisco because the headquarters hadn’t been built in New York yet. When I would engage governments and press them to let people out of jail or change their laws, they would say, “This is just an American invention.” I’d reply, “Actually, it is part of our story, but this is a UN standard that all countries have agreed to uphold.” 

So, we have that yardstick with which to measure compliance and to aim to encourage countries to uphold it. In addition, there are tools at the United Nations. The United Nations is a complicated place, but there are some good tools that can be used. There’s a special rapporteur—a special envoy on religious freedom—that’s been around for several decades, filled by different experts. There’s something called the Universal Periodic Review at the dysfunctional Human Rights Council, but it’s a good tool that can shine a light. There are statements and resolutions. 

We should also be proud, as Americans, that we’ve been a global leader in advocating for religious freedom. Back in 1998, Congress passed, almost unanimously, and Bill Clinton signed into law the International Religious Freedom Act, which declared that the protection and promotion of religious freedom shall be a foreign policy priority of the United States. It created a special ambassador and a special office at the State Department, mandated the writing of special reports, and established a special sanctions system so we can actually put teeth into the concerns that we express. No other country comes close to matching our commitment to advancing religious freedom for everybody, everywhere. 

As someone who has worked in those systems for a couple of decades, I was always really proud that it was the United States leading the way on this core issue, which is such an important part of our story and a reflection of our values. 

In addition, there are new networks forming. There is a new alliance centered on religious freedom for everybody, as well as NGO networks—non-governmental organization networks—bringing together people of different faiths. These individuals may not agree theologically but agree that every person has the right to pursue truth as their conscience leads. This is all great. I mean, it’s not hyperbole to say that never before in human history have governments and faith leaders come together to advocate for the religious freedoms of other peoples in other countries and of other faiths. 

So, this is a good news story. But the reality is that this good news story isn’t good enough. We have to continue to think about what we can do to ensure that everybody enjoys soul freedom. 

The third point is that we need new ideas to implement. We have the structures in place, and we need to continue to invest in them and ensure they’re working properly. But the bad guys innovate, and we need to be innovating too. We need to make sure that we value our values. It’s good that we talk about them. It’s good that we bring these values into our foreign policy. But we can’t just stop at words. If we say human rights matter, then they really need to matter. If we say religious freedom matters, then it really needs to matter. Otherwise, our statements become nothing more than arid euphemisms.

In the book, I talk about four key areas—what I call the “four Cs”—that we should pursue: consistency, coalitions, call-outs, and consequences.

Consistency means making sure that we’re talking about the importance of religious freedom with friend and foe alike. I have this interesting thought experiment in the book. Consider a country in the Middle East where a regime came to power through a religious revolution, fosters terrorism in other countries, spreads a hateful ideology worldwide, and borders the Persian Gulf. You’re probably thinking of Iran, and that would be right. But it also describes Saudi Arabia. With one, we sanction and denounce. With the other, our concerns are pretty muffled. Again, if we say this matters, it needs to matter with friend and foe alike.

Coalitions. I’m a multilateralist. While the United States is the indispensable actor, we can’t do it all alone, and we shouldn’t. Religious freedom is a shared value with our European friends and with our friends in this hemisphere—Canada and South America. We should work together in coalitions. This can actually be more effective in many situations. As a superpower, our relationships are complicated, and being savvy about who’s the best carrier of that message, supported by American knowledge and resources, might be the best way forward. Or maybe the United States needs to take the lead. Either way, we need to work in coalitions. We also need coalitions between religious communities and civil society actors. I talk about a “three-legged advocacy stool.” If any one of those legs is wobbly—if you don’t have governments, religious leaders, or civil society actors—you won’t be able to reach as high as you need to in order to impact change.

The third point, call-outs. The United States needs to make sure it shines a light on abuses. We have the biggest megaphone in the world. We’re blessed with the resources and influence we have, and we need to use them because religious freedom matters. It’s in our interest, and it reflects our values. If a country doesn’t like it—if Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, or Xi Jinping doesn’t like what we’re saying—they can change their policies. They actually have the answer to this problem. But we should not be shy about representing our beliefs and voicing our concerns.

Lastly, there need to be consequences. In the book, I talk about the need for consequential diplomacy. It’s important that we raise these issues—that’s a starting point—and that we shine a light. With small and medium-sized countries, this can sometimes be enough to get someone out of jail or to start a reform process. But for the big players, it’s not enough. How do we leverage all the influence we’ve been blessed with to see oppressive systems change and space opened for religious freedom? 

It’s hard work. As someone who worked in these human rights spaces as a civil servant with political leaders from both parties, there’s a sad bipartisan tradition of pulling our punches on these issues. I try to call balls and strikes in a fair way, highlighting the good but also pointing out where we’ve fallen short. This is an area where no administration has been willing to put our full force, weight, and influence into these issues when countries are unwilling to change. If we’re serious about this, that needs to happen.

Lastly, continued effort is crucial. People need our help. To put it bluntly, only the United States is strong enough to lead this. When we’re not there, other bad actors fill the void—the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis. The burdens of leadership are heavy, but we’ve been blessed with resources that give us the power to advocate for these rights. 

As I said, this reflects both our interests and our values. Religious freedom is a core part of the American experience. The first settlers came here fleeing religious persecution in Europe. It’s who we are as a country. We’ve never done it perfectly, but we’ve worked really hard to get it right in a way that many other countries haven’t. 

It also reflects our interests. We know that when countries get this issue wrong—when they allow the persecution and victimization of people because of what they believe—it fosters instability, extremism, violence, and human rights violations, and they just don’t make effective partners for us. This is why we need to carry this forward.

Lastly, stepping outside of the book, as Christians, we should care about this. I think we are called to pray and advocate for anyone who is facing persecution—both our brothers and sisters who suffer on the front lines of faith for following Christ, and also their non-Christian neighbors. I’ve seen time and time again that when Christians are persecuted, almost always someone else in their community of a different faith is also suffering for their beliefs. I think we’re called to be that voice for them.

The previous speaker talked about the parable of the Good Samaritan, and that’s something I’ve always taken great encouragement and guidance from as I’ve done this work. I hate to make a biblical reference after an actual theologian—I’m just a lowly lawyer—but the way the parable was set up in Luke 10 is in the context of, “What does it take to inherit eternal life?” Jesus tells us this parable in that context of the ultimate question.

As Scott said, the lawyer—of course it was a lawyer who thought he could stump Jesus—asks Him, “What does it take to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus says, “Do this, and you will live.” Then the lawyer comes back with another “gotcha” question—I’m reading into the text a little bit—and says, “Well, who’s my neighbor?” That leads into the story of the Samaritan.

Now, having a Samaritan as the star was a shocking development to first-century ears—something I think we lose today. It’s like, if you’re a Harry Potter fan, learning Snape is a good guy, or if Darth Vader was Luke’s dad. This is that kind of moment for the audience, going, “Oh my gosh!” because Samaritans were viewed as religiously and ethnically different from Jews, and they hated each other. You’ll remember elsewhere in the Gospels, the disciples didn’t even want to walk through Samaria; they wanted to go around it. 

So, for Christ to put the hero of the story as someone who crossed lines of religion, ethnicity, hatred, and animosity to go care for someone different from himself—to risk his own safety (maybe the robbers were still around), to give his time and his efforts—and then to say, “Go and do likewise,” that’s what we’re called to do.

I’ve been very fortunate to be able to do this work as a civil servant, advocating for all people of all faiths and none, because it’s in our interest and reflects our values. But it also aligns with my values and how I think we, as Christians, are called to do this work. 

With a lot of young people here, I’ll say: the harvest is white and ready to be taken in, but the workers are few. We need the next generation to be interested in religious freedom advocacy. There’s a hurting world, and they depend on people to stand up and speak out, to rally the forces of good to speak into this darkness. 

My program just sponsored a conference at Dallas Baptist University last week, where we’re trying to start a new approach for Christians to think about this. Yes, we’re called to this work to advocate for anyone who’s suffering. We had a woman named Miriam Ibrahim, a Christian who was held in prison in Sudan for two years because she wouldn’t convert to Islam. She actually gave birth to her second child in her prison cell. She talked about her commitment to Christ, and we talked about how Christians prayed for her. Too often, we forget about our suffering brothers and sisters.

But we also heard from a Uyghur Muslim advocate whose father has been sentenced to life in prison for just speaking up for his community. She hasn’t seen him in a decade. She shared about her community on her dad’s birthday, and she was literally begging us to help them. They have nowhere to run. 

That’s the challenge before us. There aren’t a lot of easy answers, but I know that if we are faithful to this—if we commit ourselves to prayer and advocacy—we can begin to make a difference. I hope it’s something that all of you will consider getting involved in. 

Thank you, and I’m happy to take any questions in the time we have left.  

Q&A

Question: Hello, my name is Kanan Fairley. I am a student at Abilene Christian. One of the points that you brought up was that there needs to be a little bit more consequential diplomacy, and how the past presidents have kind of failed or had a few deficiencies in that area. What do you expect from the next president as far as it goes for implementing a lot more consequential diplomacy? What actions do you want to see from them?”

Answer: Yeah, that’s a great question. I mean, I hope whoever wins will enunciate a clear American commitment to advancing religious freedom for all. It’s written into our law, so that ensures that whoever wins, there will continue to be a special office at the State Department and special State Department reports, and that’s good. But I would love to see either Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris talk about this as an American ideal and an American value. 

If you want to partner with us—if you want to draw closer to us—then you need to get this issue right. In the book, I talk about how the United States, despite all our power—or maybe because of all our power and resources—is really bad at negotiating. Oftentimes, we come into diplomatic engagements acting more like the supplicant than the superpower. 

I think we need to be really clear. If you want to draw close to us, you need to be good on these issues. There’s been a lot of attention given to India as the counterweight to China. It’s the world’s largest democracy, and there has been a sort of bromance between Republican and Democratic administrations for Narendra Modi. But all the trend lines in India are going in the wrong direction, and yet we continue to almost beg them to be our friend. Actually, it’s China that’s on their border, not ours. It’s China that’s been fighting with them over land and resources. 

I wrote about how we need to be really clear to a country like India: If you want to draw close to us, if you want to be under our security umbrella, if you want us to be pals while you’ve got this aggressive country on your border, there are some basics you need to get right—and you’re failing on this one. 

There are a lot of ways to leverage relational power, and then there’s the power of sanctions. We’ve seen what’s possible with Russia, but that sort of seems unique to Russia. We need to be more, frankly, aggressive after following diplomacy, giving them chances, and encouraging them. One thing I talk about in the book is that it’s hard to get a country like China or Russia to change its ways. But if we’re firm on our values and we have these consequences—even if they don’t work in those situations—other countries are paying attention. They will say, “Wow, if they’re willing to do that to China, little old me? They’d do that to us. It’ll destroy our economy or ruin our ability to rule.” That can establish credibility and actually establish human rights deterrence. If we’re true to this, I think this is where we can do a lot better.

Question: Hi, I’m from Pepperdine University, but I’m interning with the Religious Freedom Institute. The U.S. has so many different opportunities and laws catering to religious freedom, and it’s founded on that belief. But so many other countries, while they do have some of these laws, are not aware of them. So, as a people, how are we supposed to act? Our Christian calling tells us to advocate for people, so how are we supposed to support other countries and advocate for those who aren’t aware of this right?  

Response: As individual Christians or as a country talking to other countries?  

Question: As individual Christians, but also in the sense of advocating for other countries. 

Answer: We’ve established something called the “Christians Against All Persecution Network” (CAAP Network), found at [caapnetwork.org](http://caapnetwork.org). We’ve got resources—prayer guides, Bible studies—to first equip you with knowledge. I think that’s where it starts. The Bible is very clear on this in Proverbs: “Get wisdom, get knowledge.” Then start to think about what you can do in your immediate surroundings.

Dealing with Uyghur persecution in China is really hard to do as an individual when you’re in college. But I had this incredible experience when I was in Walmart returning something. The lady at the cash register had a name and features that led me to believe she was Uyghur. I asked, “Are you a Uyghur Muslim?” She said, “Yes.” I said, “I know it’s really hard there for your people. How is your family?” She was so visibly moved that someone knew enough to ask. 

In the United States, being the most diverse country on Earth with people from all over, everywhere, you can ask God to give you eyes, and you will see people in your immediate surroundings who either have fled persecution or have family members who are suffering. Just asking about it can be a cup of water on a hot day. For example, the Afghans we airlifted out—they have family back under Taliban rule. You may have Jewish friends or Israeli friends concerned about October 7th, or Arab and Muslim friends concerned about Gaza. These are just simple things you can ask about, and that’s an easy first step—to your neighbors, your physical neighbors.

We’re also incredibly blessed to live in America in the 21st century, so you can go to your congressman, your senator, or presidential candidates and ask, “What are you doing to advance religious freedom?” A study just came out showing that if 10 people write to their congressman, they can get a meeting. That gets it over the line for the congressman’s attention. I guarantee you, having been in Washington a long time now, if elected representatives don’t hear that this is a concern for their constituents, most won’t spend much time on it. There are a few driven by personal experience or commitment, but most prioritize the issues they’re hearing about.

Can you get the students at Pepperdine to write to the congressperson representing that area or back home where you live? These are very doable things; they just take intentionality and commitment.

Question: Hi, I’m Greg Moore. I work at Patrick Henry College, and I was thinking of the case of Pastor Wang Yi, a Chinese house church pastor who’s been arrested for a few years now. I think his name has been raised in diplomatic meetings between the U.S. and China, but it hasn’t helped him. I’m just wondering, is there a scorecard somewhere? How well does it work for the State Department to take up a case of a specific person? What’s the win-loss ratio, or how intense does it have to get before something moves? 

Answer: It’s a case-by-case situation. Early in my career, I worked on the country of Uzbekistan, a former Soviet republic that was jailing thousands of Muslims and many Christians. We’d make lists, and because they wanted to draw close to the United States, we’d give them a list, and people would get out of jail. That was pretty low-cost; it just took time.

China, however, is on the other end of the spectrum. They’re pretty immune. They don’t appear to cave. But time and time again, I’ve heard from people who were in jail that when the United States raised concerns, their life in prison was a little bit better because the bad guys knew the good guys were on to them.

There’s a rule we like to talk about in human rights circles: Do no harm. We’re always very careful because when the United States says something publicly, it carries far and wide. We ask: will that make the situation better or worse? In the case of Asia Bibi, a woman in Pakistan, I worked on her case for eight years. We were very careful in that context to say the minimum from a U.S. government mouthpiece because we thought it would rile up the extremists in Pakistan, making it harder for the government to do the right thing.

At the 11th hour, when she had finally been pardoned for a trumped-up charge of blasphemy and was being led out of jail but placed under house arrest, that’s when I played a role in organizing a group of 10 like-minded countries. We all delivered something called a demarche, which is a technical diplomatic term for when a government officially conveys the views of its leadership. We said, “Let this woman out.” We had already worked quietly with the Canadians to have a place for her to go and restart her life with her family. That worked. 

It’s a long, long slog, but I think we should continue. Whether through private communications, public communications, or civil society communications, raising names helps them in the end.

Any other questions?

Question: Hello, I’m Mariah Barnell. I was wondering, how can we do better about not allowing religious freedom to be equated with moral relativism? I think a lot of nations are concerned—for example, your Islamic nations are concerned—that allowing religious freedom would lead to moral relativism in their nation, which would ultimately lead to the destruction of their culture. So how can we do better about not allowing certain groups to equate the two and to say that moral relativism is the same as moral freedom or religious freedom?

Answer: Yeah, you know, when I think about this, the ultimate “other,” or the polar opposite of the United States’ system, would be a country like Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, one religion is established, one denomination of that religion is established, and if you’re a citizen of that country, you have to be a member of that religion—unless you’re born into the Shia community. Otherwise, you have to be a Wahhabi Sunni. If you want to change, you will face execution.

I’ve had conversations over the years with Saudi diplomats. I’ve said, “While I appreciate your commitment to your faith as a person of faith, in my experience, when faith is forced, it’s brittle; it’s shallow.” In the United States, we have this openness to faith. It’s rambunctious and always changing, but there’s a vitality to it because people are choosing to be members of their community.

So, if the Saudi government really wants to have an authentic commitment to their faith, actually allowing people to choose to be in it—or to exit it—would be the way to accomplish that goal. At the end of the day, environments where people are free to enjoy their God-given right to freedom of conscience are better. Of course, I wish everybody would join our community. I know some of my friends won’t, and that’s their right. I’ll still care for them, love them, and want the best for them. But if they choose to join, it’s authentic, it’s real, it’s deep, it’s alive. That’s going to be better for the church than if something is forced or directed.

Question: Hi, I’m Elena with the Institute of World Politics. This is kind of going back to the point about how we all inherently know we have freedom of religion. You said, obviously, you want the next president to speak out on this issue, but do you think administrations aren’t hard on the topic in other countries because they don’t think people care about it? Or do you think people don’t care about it because administrations don’t go hard on it? And how do you think we can get people interested?

Answer: Yeah, that’s a great question. Over the years, I’ve tried to be pragmatic. Of course, we talk about this as an American value, and it’s enshrined in our law that we should advocate for it. But every administration comes in with its own priorities. You need to present this issue in a framework or use a lexicon they value. 

After 9/11, everything was about countering violent extremism. So, we would talk about how an environment that has religious freedom empowers voices that can compete with extremists who are pulling people toward violence. That’s why we need to support religious freedom, for example.

If I were back in government at the religious freedom office at the State Department, on day one of whoever wins, I’d be reading those speeches very closely and thinking, “Okay, this is an area of interest. China—both candidates are going to be very tough on China. Well, if you want to be tough on China, I can help you out. There’s this group being victimized in addition to the Tibetan Buddhists and the underground church.” I’d propose ideas on how we can be tough on China while still aligning with our values. I think we have to be savvy.

I also hold a visiting fellowship at the U.S. Institute of Peace, where we conducted a study on how to ensure that international religious freedom promotion remains a bipartisan priority. Domestically, religious liberty issues have taken on a partisan tone, which is unfortunate. So, what do we need to do to protect the international work? At the end of the day, this often involves issues of life and death. Strangely, that actually helps, because everyone is still against people being murdered for believing the wrong thing. 

In our working group, which included people from the right, left, and center—all faiths and none—we found that the way you frame it matters. Conservatives respond to the term “religious freedom” and support advocacy for everyone’s right to believe—or not believe. Progressives, due to the domestic debate, preferred the framing of “religious minorities being victimized for their beliefs.” Both groups, however, would meet at the same place of agreement. 

When I was at the State Department during the Trump Administration, I oversaw the big summits on international religious freedom, working with Sam Brownback. Mr. Brownback had a great idea to bring in Nancy Pelosi to sit with Frank Wolf and discuss concerns about religious persecution in China. It was such a moment of encouragement to see these two people, on vastly different sides of the political spectrum, agree that what’s happening in China is wrong and that the United States has an important role to play. 

Part of my work has been to say, “Let’s preserve this issue as one where the right, left, and center agree that it’s something we need to pursue.” We should avoid using it as a political sledgehammer to help one side, because doing so will ultimately undermine the cause in the long term.