[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FAITH UNDER FIRE: AN EXAMINATION
OF GLOBAL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 25, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-069 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Advisor
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Vacancy
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 25, 2023................................. 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. David Curry, President and CEO, Global Christian Relief
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Dr. Eric Patterson, President, Religious Freedom Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Dr. Meaghan Mobbs, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Ms. Amanda Tyler (Minority Witness), Executive Director, Baptist
Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article, Providence, ``Biden Administration Promotes LGBTQI
Rights in Foreign Policy''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``Congress Must Stop
Biden's Misuse of U.S. Foreign Aid''; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
* Opinion, Newsweek, ``Biden Administration Weaponizes
Diplomacy Against Conservative Hungary''; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
* Statement for the Record, for Sikh Coalition; submitted by
Rep. Grothman.
* Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v. Hawaii, Justice Kennedy,
Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas,
Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v. Hawaii, Justice Syllabus,
Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
FAITH UNDER FIRE: AN EXAMINATION
OF GLOBAL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
----------
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Foxx, Sessions,
Biggs, Fallon, Garcia, Goldman, Moskowitz, Porter, and Frost.
Also present: Representative Raskin.
Mr. Grothman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.
Welcome, everyone.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
And, without objection, we are going to have Representative
Luna of Florida waived on to the Subcommittee for the purpose
of questioning the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I recognize myself for the purposes of an opening
statement.
Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs' hearing on examining
global religious persecution.
Today's hearing will address one of the most fundamental
and pressing issues that transcends borders and boundaries:
international religious freedom. It is an issue that speaks to
the very core of our values as Americans and a basic principle
of human rights.
During my time in Congress, I have been deeply committed to
this cause and believe the United States can take a leading
role in championing religious freedom on the global stage.
It is the right of every individual to worship, express,
and practice their religion freely without fear. However, we
must recognize that religious freedom is not universally
recognized and respected in all parts of the world. In too many
corners of the world, individuals and entire communities face a
stark reality of violence, displacement, and discrimination.
Look at what is happening in Nigeria today. Last year, 90
percent of Christians killed globally because of their faith
were Nigerian. Boko Haram, or sub-Saharan ISIS, continue to
slaughter Christians that refuse to convert to Islam, creating
chaos and fear.
Yet the Biden Administration removed Nigeria as a Country
of Particular Concern, a designation subjecting Nigeria to
greater congressional scrutiny. Why did the Administration
remove this designation?
In Azerbaijan, ethnically Armenian Christians are being
forced to flee their homes because they are facing genocide.
And, tragically, as we have witnessed over the last several
weeks, terrorist groups like Hamas will use their extreme
versions of religion to justify committing horrible atrocities
against civilians of different ethnicities and faiths.
Religious freedom is also fundamental to our national
security interests. For example, our enemies not only suppress
religious freedom but often support terrorist proxy groups that
target people based on their faith.
This Subcommittee recently held a hearing where witnesses
described the Iranian regime's assistance to terrorist
organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah that have now invited
more terror, conflict, and instability.
For years, Iran has been supplying Hamas with funding,
weapons, and support, all of which were leveraged for the
recent slaughter of innocent Israeli citizens. Make no mistake:
Iran holds an equal share of responsibility for all the deaths
and kidnappings Hamas has inflicted on Israelis.
Yet the Biden Administration continues to give humanitarian
assistance to Gaza without any plans or guarantees that
taxpayer dollars will not go to terrorists such as Hamas.
Similarly, the Biden Administration continues to supply
humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, which, under Taliban control,
oppresses women and girls.
Additionally, the Biden Administration continues to send
foreign assistance to countries suffering from religious
persecution on the condition that the receiving country adheres
to progressive policies. It is completely inappropriate for the
Administration to be pushing their policy preference on other
nations.
The United States has a long history of addressing and
advocating for human rights and religious freedom around the
world. We have the tools and the influence to help those abroad
who are subject to religious persecution.
America itself is a very religious country. And it is
important--while we do send missionaries from various faiths
around the world, it is important that the United States not
weigh in with kind of an anti-religious agenda.
I hope to hear from our witnesses today that we use the
power to help better the lives of religious minorities and
promote religious freedom around the world, as well as not,
kind of, impose or encourage the kind of anti-religious feeling
a lot of American elites have. A world which encourages and
promotes religious freedom is a more peaceful world.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again, and I want to thank all of our witnesses also for being
here. Appreciate you all joining us.
And I want to just start by just adding that, you know, we
know that, across the world, minority communities, including
Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, so many others, face
intimidation of violence and unequal protection under the law.
Just this month, of course, we have seen disturbing anti-
Semitic and Islamophobia attacks just here in the United States
due to the rising conflicts happening in the Middle East.
Wadea Al-Fayoum, who was only 6 years old, was stabbed 26
times Saturday by his family's landlord in Plainfield Township,
Illinois, for being Muslim. His mother, Hanaan Shahin, also
suffered more than a dozen stab wounds. And I know that all of
us, our heart breaks for that tragedy and that horrific attack
of hate.
Now, as both a Catholic and a proud member of the LGBTQ+
community, I know how vulnerable minority communities can be
here at home but also abroad. And that means that the United
States has a critical voice in that work.
I think President Biden said it well in his inaugural
address, that we will lead not merely by the example of our
power but also by the power of our example. And freedom of
religion, of course, is core to who we are as a country.
Now, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. Now, every Member of this Committee took
an oath to uphold that constitutional principle, and I am proud
that in the last few years we have expanded the cause of
religious freedom across the world.
We are building our State Department in this important
work. Our work abroad, which had been decimated under the
previous Administration, has expanded in the rebuilding of the
State Department.
We have restored our global strategies so we can lead
global coalitions of righteousness across the world. We have
halted discrimination on the basis of religion in the U.S.
immigration system by ending the bigoted Muslim ban.
And the President, of course, established the Protecting
Places of Worship Interagency Policy Committee. And
congressional Democrats voted to provide the largest ever
increase in funding for the physical security of nonprofits,
including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other
houses of worship.
Deborah Lipstadt, a Holocaust expert, is also serving as
the first Ambassador-level envoy to monitor and combat anti-
Semitism across the world. Her work, of course, is needed now
more than ever.
The Administration has done outstanding global faith-based
outreach, like launching USAID's first-ever Strategic Religious
Engagement Policy. And religious engagement abroad is also a
key priority, including for really critical programs like
PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which,
of course, is a coalition of faith and community initiatives
that has saved millions of lives.
Extremist groups and authoritarian governments work hard to
spread their message of hate and attack the vulnerable, and, of
course, we confront that wherever that happens. And we also
work to protect innocent people from danger wherever they are,
and, of course, as anti-Semitism rises, especially as we are
seeing today.
We also intend to stand up to China as they continue to
repress the Uyghurs. The Democratic Congress passed the
bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed
and implemented by President Biden. And we will continue to
confront domestic extremist groups which threaten our religion
and constitutional freedoms.
Now, violent religious nationalism has been used to fuel
human rights violations all over the world, including in
Russia. We all know the role of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch
of Moscow in legitimizing the Russian war in the Ukraine.
I also just want to note, just because I am also Catholic,
I just want to touch on sometimes the narrative that seems to
be growing in some parts of the extreme right that the Justice
Department somehow is an anti-Catholic organization. Members
have attempted to confront our Attorney General, whose family
escaped religious persecution in Europe, with this allegation
in hearings just last month.
To be clear, the DOJ has never targeted traditional
Catholics and I do not believe ever will. This is yet another
attack to discredit the Department of Justice, as we know, and
to shield the former President.
Our religious freedom is too important to be used as a
political football. It is critical for our country; it is
critical for the world. And I want to thank you all for being
here today.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today.
David Curry is the President and CEO of Global Christian
Relief, an international ministry that advocates on behalf of
those who are persecuted for their Catholic faith. He also
serves as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan
Federal Government entity established by Congress to monitor,
analyze, and report on religious freedom abroad.
Eric Patterson. Dr. Patterson serves as president of the
Religious Freedom Institute. His academic interest is in the
intersection of religious liberty and national security. He has
a long history of government service, to include two stints at
the U.S. State Department in the Bureau of Political-Military
Affairs and over 20 years as an officer and commander in the
Air National Guard.
Meaghan Mobbs is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's
Forum with a focus on defense, national security, military,
family, and health-related issues. She holds a master's from
George Washington University and a doctorate from Columbia
University. She is a former paratrooper and combat veteran and
a graduate of West Point.
And, finally, Amanda Tyler is the Executive Director of the
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, an organization
that promotes the historic Baptist principle of religious
liberty. She is a member of the Texas and U.S. Supreme Court
bar.
Again, I want to thank all four of you for being here
today.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record show the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you. You can take a seat.
I appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses, we have read your statement
already. Please see if you can limit your oral statement to 5
minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that you can hear, we know that the microphone
is on. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. And
when 5 minutes have expired, we will ask you to please try to
wrap up your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Curry for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CURRY
PRESIDENT AND CEO
GLOBAL CHRISTIAN RELIEF
Mr. Curry. Thank you, Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member
Garcia, and all the Members of the Committee, for inviting me
to testify today on behalf of Global Christian Relief.
I would like to begin my testimony today by showing you a
picture of a woman named Abigail. She is a young mother of
three who, until last year, lived in a small Christian village
in northern Nigeria, which I will be visiting just next week.
On the night of March 22, 2022, Islamic gunmen stormed
Abigail's village, shooting dozens of her friends and family
members. After the attack, Abigail was nowhere to be found.
It would be days afterwards that the terrorists would call,
using the villagers' own stolen cell phone, to let her know--
let folks in her family know that Abigail and others had been
kidnapped.
She is one of just 8,000--almost 8,000 Christians who have
been abducted in the last 3 years in Nigeria. And she remains
missing today as I testify before you.
Her story is emblematic of the truly horrific levels of
violence many people face today because of their faith--the
faith that they have chosen to follow.
Contrary to popular belief, religious persecution is not a
thing of the past. It is a major and growing challenge around
the world, with billions of people living in nearly 80
countries that maintain high levels of government restrictions
or social hostility toward people of faith. Faith really is
under fire today.
For Christians specifically, the numbers are staggering.
Approximately 360 million Christians globally are experiencing
high levels of persecution or discrimination just for their
beliefs.
In Abigail's home country of Nigeria, terror groups driven
by extremist ideology have killed 12,793 Christians since 2019.
We know that all these victims are explicitly targeted for
being Christians, both because the killers and kidnappers often
expressly say so and because Christians are suffering killings
and abductions at a rate vastly disproportionate to other
faiths in the region.
In China, over 100 million Christians must practice their
faith under an almost totalitarian system of laws and
surveillance. Refusing to join the government-controlled church
is illegal, but as many as 60 million Chinese Christians choose
to do so regardless of the cost, risking their freedom and
social standing to worship and hear sermons not dictated for
them by the Communist Party members.
Some governments and especially U.S. adversaries choose to
co-opt religion to support violent aggression against their
rivals and engage in religious persecution.
As Ranking Member Garcia mentioned, the Russian Government
has formed what I call an ``unholy alliance'' with the Russian
Orthodox Church, whipping up religious support to justify its
invasion of Ukraine and the persecution of other Christian
denominations. According to one report, nearly 500 religious
buildings and sacred sites in the Ukraine have been destroyed
by the Russian military since the start of the war last year.
In Iran, the government uses Islam as a pretext to imprison
Christians and others attempting to run non-Islamic places of
worship. And those who attempt to convert from Islam to other
faiths, make up their own mind about what they believe, face
severe repression from friends and family--repression that
Iranian officials willingly overlook and even encourage.
Of course, Iran's intolerance of people of faith does not
stop at its borders. Hamas and Hezbollah, both supported by
Iran, not only terrorize those of non-Muslim faith but prevent
Muslims who live under their control from choosing the religion
for themselves.
Now, what is the answer to these overwhelming challenges?
The answer, in short, is religious freedom.
At Global Christian Relief, we are working to bandage and
heal those who are broken by persecution, but we also advocate
for religious freedom for everyone, because its implementation
means the end of the most severe forms of persecution. When
religious freedom is protected, no one is killed or abducted
for their faith and people are free to pursue truth without
fear.
The advancement of religious freedom is also important to
U.S. national security interests, as we are seeing every day in
the news. When religious freedom is not protected, extremism
and authoritarianism flourish. The more the U.S. can do to
advocate and advance this critical freedom, the more we will
deter the very groups who wish to do us harm.
And with this in mind, I would like to offer three
recommendations.
First, I would encourage this Committee to encourage the
Biden Administration to appoint a Special Advisor for
International Religious Freedom to the National Security
Council. This position was first recommended by Congress with
the passage of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious
Freedom Act in 1998, but it has only been filled once by a
dedicated official. And that would be a major step forward.
Second, the Members of this Committee should consider
sponsorship of House Resolution 82 that calls on the Department
of State to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular
Concern.
The CPC designation, as it is called, is reserved for the
worst violators of religious freedom. And despite the failure
of Nigeria's Government to prevent the targeted killing and
abduction of thousands of Nigerians on the basis of faith, the
State Department removed this designation from Nigeria in 2021,
and I believe this is unacceptable.
I want to thank Representative Congressman LaTurner and
other Members of this Subcommittee who have already sponsored
this resolution, which also calls for a special envoy for that
region that will be able to help bring resolution between the
many countries in the Sahel region that need this help from
extremism.
And, third, I recommend that the Committee directly
encourage officials at the State Department to give the
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom greater
leeway in calling out violations of religious freedom.
So, thank you so much for this time to testify. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Grothman. Dr. Patterson?
STATEMENT OF ERIC PATTERSON
PRESIDENT
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INSTITUTE
Mr. Patterson. Thank you.
Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak a bit
about the global crisis of religious freedom and its
implications for American national security.
At the Religious Freedom Institute, our mission is to
advance a broad understanding of religious freedom as a
fundamental human right, as a source of individual and social
flourishing, and as a driver of national and international
security.
When considering America's national security imperatives,
the analytical lens of religion and religious freedom is often
essential, especially when considering regions of instability
and our strategic competitors. Just look at what they say and
what they do.
More specifically, how do governments and other
organizations behave in four key areas: How do they treat their
own people on religious freedom? How do they treat their
neighbors? What is the ruling ideology or philosophy when it
comes to religious freedom? And what do they say and do on the
international stage?
Take Iran, for instance. The Government of Iran has a
political theology that sees religious minorities as a threat.
At the same token, they oppress their own majority. It is
noteworthy that observant Muslim women have been in the
vanguard of challenging the regime's tyrannical behavior and
that they have done so by using religious symbols and religious
texts.
The ayatollahs have imposed a system that is the opposite
of one that values human dignity and religious freedom.
Instead, they provide religious justifications for destruction
and violence, from sending in their own young men as human
minesweepers in the 1980's to destruction across the region and
terrorism in countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel,
Yemen, and elsewhere.
When it comes to what they say and do, countries like
Russia and China have state ideologies that see religious and
ethnoreligious minorities as challenges to the regime. My
colleague earlier mentioned some of these problems in both
China and Russia.
A second worrying type of case, though, are democracies
with civil liberties that seem to be on a downward spiral,
notably Nigeria and India. They have democratic institutions;
they have some civil liberties. But what we are seeing is
increased violence against religious minorities.
In India, it is Hindu nationalists attacking Christians and
Muslims and provinces across the country imposing so-called
religious freedom laws that are actually designed to target
religious minorities.
In Nigeria, we see a toxic situation with violent Islamists
in the north, violence against Christians in the Middle Belt,
and sharia courts in over a dozen provinces that do not give
equal due process to Nigerian citizens if they are from a
religious minority.
I have mentioned these countries--Russia, Iran, China,
Nigeria--because they are major players on the global stage and
in the regions, and understanding the religious freedom
dynamics are key to helping us think through the national
security decisions that the United States needs to make.
Now, let me pause for a moment and take a look at what the
Biden Administration is doing specifically on these areas of
international religious freedom. They have appointed a well-
regarded public servant who has served Republican and
Democratic administrations as the Ambassador at Large for
International and Religious Freedom. They continue to publish a
useful annual report from the State Department on international
religious freedom.
But I would say that the Administration's lack of a
consistent commitment to advancing religious freedom stalls
real progress.
My written testimony provides a number of concrete
recommendations, including some ones that are very similar to
Mr. Curry's. But I would like to point out two things for
sharper action as we go forward.
First, the Biden Administration, like its predecessors,
routinely waives taking any formal legal action, such as
economic sanctions, against Countries of Particular Concern.
These are provided under the bipartisan International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998.
It goes a step further in places like Nigeria by ignoring
the facts on the ground. And we have to think about this from a
national security perspective. If Nigeria descends into chaos,
civil war, as we have seen in DRC, Libya, in Rwanda and
elsewhere, the results would be catastrophic for its own
people, for its region, for global energy markets, and for the
U.S. and our allies.
Second, the Biden Administration is harming American
interests and our international relations by its aggressive
export of its controversial domestic sexual-orientation and
gender-identity policies, targeting highly religious societies.
Now, this began only 2 weeks into the Administration with
National Security Memorandum No. 4 prioritizing these policies
being directed in U.S. foreign policy. Now, this came before
any executive order on national security addressing vital U.S.
interests such as China, energy security, Russia, et cetera.
Now, let me be clear: Every individual around the world has
fundamental human rights and human dignity. What I am talking
about, though, is the relentless pressure that our
international partners feel coming from Washington on these
matters.
A case in point is Vice President Harris's recent tour of
Africa, where she criticized African societies for their deeply
held, widely agreed-upon religious convictions.
My organization and others routinely hear from citizens in
these countries, ``Why is the U.S. pushing its domestic
policies on us? Are we going to lose PEPFAR and other vital
support if we hold to our convictions?''
So, on the one hand, the Administration has done little in
terms of concrete effective action, such as sanctions, to push
back on ethnoreligious violence and the persecution of faith
communities, from Nigeria to Afghanistan; and, at the same
time, they bully our friends in highly religious societies like
Kenya, Zambia, and Ghana.
So let me conclude by saying: Religious freedom is a
hallmark of America's ordered liberty, and it is a right and a
blessing that people yearn for around the world.
We in the U.S. have a responsibility to do our part to
enhance international security by understanding the religious
dimensions of global affairs and championing religious freedom.
Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Dr. Mobbs?
STATEMENT OF MEAGHAN MOBBS
SENIOR FELLOW
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM
Ms. Mobbs. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for convening a hearing
on such an important and critical issue.
My name is Dr. Meaghan Mobbs. I sit before you as a woman
and the mother of two young girls and a representative of
Independent Women's Forum, a nonprofit that works every day to
engage and inform women about how policy issues impact them and
their loved ones. We celebrate women's accomplishments and
fight to expand women's options and opportunities.
I lead with this as it is imperative we explicitly define
what a woman is. A woman is an adult female human. While we
appear to struggle with that definition in the West, oppressive
regimes, authoritarians, and fanatics all over the world do
not, as they use that very biological fact as a means to
identify, subjugate, and tyrannize women and girls.
Religious women, globally, endure distinct forms of
violence and persecution due to their sex and their capacity to
bear future generations. The very ability to procreate--
something only women are capable of--is used as a tool to
oppress. Women, simply because they are women, face rape,
forced marriage, and sterilization.
Women belonging to religious minorities are particularly
vulnerable. Their persecution tends to be more violent,
complex, and hidden. Riddled with shame, these women and girls
often bear in silence the horrors visited upon them. These
evils are perpetuated against them for the alleged crime of
simply believing in something different than their tormentor
and their gift of reproduction.
Hamas's attack on Israel and the targeted violence against
young women is an all-too-recent example. The entire world bore
witness to young women paraded around half-naked, their pants
soaked in blood from repeated rape. A morgue worker for the
military reported, quote, ``There is evidence of mass rape so
brutal that they broke the victims' pelvises--women,
grandmothers, children.''
If we do not have the moral courage to define what a woman
is, how will we have the fortitude to do what is necessary to
protect them around the world?
The last 2 years have revealed the perilous state of our
safety and security. In less than 24 months, we have witnessed
the biggest attack on a European country since World War II and
the deadliest days for Jews since the Holocaust.
There is war in Europe, and there is war in the Middle
East. Six central African nations have experienced military
coups since 2021. And Latin America is facing surging gang
violence and crime.
The entire world witnessed the ethnic cleansing of the
Christian Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. In the last
30 days, almost all of the estimated 120,000 ethnic Armenians
were violently moved from their homes. This forced migration
followed a months-long siege and intentional starvation of this
population.
This week, non-emergency personnel were ordered to evacuate
the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and this is the seventh evacuation of
a U.S. embassy abroad in this Presidency.
All the while, our greatest adversary, China, grows
stronger and bolder.
In short, we are in a new era of conflict and violence. The
tense global climate has concurrently borne a precipitous
uptick in violations of religious freedom. In 2023, countries
where religious freedom was violated were home to over 4.9
billion people.
The persecution women face often manifests in forced
marriages, which saw a 16-percent increase, and physical
violence, which rose by over 31 percent.
More than 350 million Christians suffer high levels of
maltreatment and discrimination for their faith. Christian
women and girls, in particular, face violence and degrading
forms of victimization, with sexual violence reported in 90
percent of the top 50 countries where Christians face the most
extreme persecution.
Christians and Jews are not the only religious groups to
bear the weight of oppression. At this very moment, as we sit
here, the Uyghurs, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority group
residing in China, have been subjected to severe human rights
abuses by the Chinese Government.
Described as a ``quiet genocide,'' the treatment of Uyghurs
includes arbitrary detentions, torture, slave labor,
reeducation, and forced sterilizations. Regarding the latter,
the Chinese Government poured $37 million into forced
sterilizations and IUD implantations meant to rapidly decrease
Uyghur birth rates. Again, their crime was their faith and
their sex.
Tragically, recent foreign policies and aid decisions have
placed the most vulnerable in worse conditions. Beginning with
the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, women and girls
around the world increasingly suffer from persistent and
devastating human rights violations. There have been
regressions in access to education, the ability to move freely,
and restrictions on their ability to practice their chosen
faith.
International religious freedom, once a fundamental and
bipartisan aspect of U.S. foreign policy, appears to have been
relegated to a second-tier right. The downgrading of religious
freedom as a foundational principle is extremely concerning.
This reorientation in U.S. foreign policy underscores a
nuanced, yet very consequential, shift in which certain rights
are prioritized or deprioritized alongside the rise of
religious discrimination, armed conflict, genocide, and
atrocities.
America must return to the exportation of freedom, not
ideological indoctrination. This can be accomplished by
congressional focus and commitment to fund bipartisan
traditional elements of democracy and human rights promotion.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Ms. Tyler, you can go over if you want, obviously.
STATEMENT OF AMANDA TYLER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Ms. Tyler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Garcia, and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am Amanda Tyler, Executive Director of Baptist Joint
Committee for Religious Liberty and the lead organizer of
Christians Against Christian Nationalism.
For 87 years, BJC has worked to defend and extend God-given
religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness
to the principle that religion must be freely exercised,
neither advanced nor inhibited by government. As Baptists, we
are concerned about the infringement of religious freedom
against people belonging to any religious group and
nonreligious people too.
International religious freedom has long been a bipartisan
priority in Congress, and this hearing is another great example
of congressional commitment to this crucial element of our
Nation's work. For 25 years, Democratic and Republican
administrations have faithfully implemented the International
Religious Freedom Act.
We are concerned about blasphemy and apostasy laws, which
stifle religious expression, undermine human rights, and foster
religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence.
Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and others have been fined,
imprisoned, tortured, and executed for blasphemy offenses. BJC
applauds both the House and Senate for passing the resolution
calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and
apostasy laws in 2020.
Faith is, indeed, under fire around the world, and the best
way that we can make a difference is by not adding more fuel to
the fire of religious extremism and nationalism. Instead, we
should focus on being a role model to the world by ensuring the
institutional separation of church and state which protects all
of us.
As we examine religious persecution globally, I hope we
will also examine how well we are living up to this value at
home. The single greatest threat to religious liberty in the
United States today, and, thus, our reputation as leaders in
the fight for religious liberty to the rest of the world, is
Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural
framework that seeks to fuse American and Christian identities.
Christian nationalism seeks to privilege Christians and
Christianity in law and policy.
We see what happens when religious nationalism in a country
is allowed to flourish and use the power of the state to
attempt to force a set of religious beliefs or create only one
accepted form of religious belief.
To oppose Christian nationalism is not to oppose
Christianity. In fact, a growing number of Christians--and I am
one of them--feel a religious imperative to stand against
Christian nationalism.
More than 35,000 Christians have signed their names to a
unifying statement of principles at the heart of the Christians
Against Christian Nationalism campaign, which includes this
language, quote: ``Conflating religious authority with
political authority is idolatrous and often leads to the
oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as
the spiritual impoverishment of religion. We must stand up to
and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it
inspires acts of violence and intimidation, including
vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on
houses of worship against religious communities at home and
abroad,'' end quote.
It is deeply alarming that a Member of the U.S. House of
Representatives openly identifies as a Christian nationalist.
Yet all of us who care about religious freedom should be able
to quickly and definitively reject Christian nationalism.
What happens abroad has an impact on the daily lives of
Americans. We have sadly seen increased religious bigotry in
the United States because of the war between Israel and Hamas.
It is up to all of us to reject anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
in all of its forms.
An example of Christian nationalism and Islamophobia in law
and policy is the prior Administration's enactment of a series
of travel bans aimed at Muslim-majority countries. On the first
day of the new Administration in 2021, President Biden issued a
proclamation overturning the Muslim ban, stating, in part,
quote, ``Those actions are a stain on our national conscience
and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people
of all faiths and no faith at all,'' end quote.
BJC praised the Biden Administration's decision to overturn
the Muslim ban, but we also recognize that there cannot be any
future attempt to ban immigrants based on their religion. This
year, former President Donald Trump has stated on multiple
occasions that he will reenact his Muslim ban policy if
reelected.
Religious freedom is at a crossroads today. Religious
persecution around the world coupled with the resurgence of
Christian nationalism at home means we must redouble our
efforts to protect religious minorities and the nonreligious,
both domestically and globally.
Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I will start out with a question for--well, let us start
with Dr. Patterson.
We have a lot of Marxist, communist countries around the
world. Could you explain a little bit, by definition, what
their attitude is toward religion in general and religious
minorities in particular?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you.
Amazingly, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the
West's victory at the end of the cold war, there are a number
of communist countries left around the world, the largest of
course being China, but we have practitioners of that in
Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere.
And these governments practice a form of secular
materialism that what it really privileges is, is allegiance of
the citizens--or, better, subjects--to the state, to the
state's ideology, to its demagoguery leadership, and the like.
And so religious people are often seen as lacking allegiance,
because Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious people
have a higher authority that they worship and that they hold
to.
So, this is why China cracks down on Uyghurs, Falun Gong,
Christians----
Mr. Grothman. Are you--I am sorry. I only have 5 minutes.
Mr. Patterson. Sure.
Mr. Grothman. Are you aware, are you allowed to be a member
of the Communist Party if you are not an atheist?
Mr. Patterson. What we have seen--in the past, there have
been religious people who have been in the lower levels of the
Communist Party. But under President Xi, what we have seen is a
great hardening within the party. No senior official is going
to be a publicly observant person of faith.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Dr. Mobbs, the Biden Administration has been treating U.S.
foreign aid as a global platform from which to implement
overseas a rigidly progressive ideological agenda to counter
some nations' religious beliefs.
In March, Secretary of State Blinken repudiated the prior
Administration's elevation of religious freedom as a U.S.
priority, declaring there is no hierarchy that makes some
rights more important than others, and placed religious freedom
as a co-equal to progressive policies.
Could you elaborate on the historical context and the
policies that were in place under the prior Administration?
Ms. Mobbs. I think the critical point here, Mr. Chairman,
is that we have to get back to having that as a standalone
right.
Religious freedom as a standalone right has a bipartisan
and historical consensus in the community. And, unfortunately,
what has happened is, that has been taken away and brought to
what my colleague said here, on par with domestic policies and
the exportation of ideological beliefs.
And what we need to do is recentralize individual religious
freedom as that central and historical right to ensure that we
can export a values-based approach unrelated to domestic
ideology.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Could you--there is sometimes some concern, both in Central
America and Eastern Europe, that America is not necessarily
favorable to certain religious beliefs.
Could you comment on that a little bit? Is that a concern?
Are we kind of sticking our nose in, in other countries, as far
as how they should handle their religious beliefs?
Ms. Mobbs. I think what you may be referencing is what
looks like the exportation, again, of our domestic belief
systems--flying the pride flag over our embassies in certain
countries--like, Hungary is an example that occurred last
year--in which these nation-states felt as though we were
imposing upon them our domestic belief system rather than just
flying our Nation's flag.
And so, yes, I do think there has been evidence, as
evidenced by the Prime Minister of Hungary explicitly stating
that they felt that was the case.
Mr. Grothman. OK. So, kind of a hostility to the United
States because of our anti-Christian kind of world view?
Ms. Mobbs. Correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Curry, your organization, Global Christian Relief, is
working diligently to assist persecuted Christians in Nigeria.
Can you give us just a quick overview of what is going on
to Christians there, really quick?
Mr. Curry. The persecution of Christians and moderate
Muslims is driven by extremist groups there--Boko Haram, ISIS
in that region, and the Fulani, which have typically been seen
as a tribal group but also have a shared ideology, they have a
dogma.
And the Fulani, who are often, you know, sort of positioned
as arguing over land, really are telling the government, when
there are public statements, that they are attacking these
Christian villages because of their faith.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Curry. So, there is a unified extremism there.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Dr. Mobbs, one more time. I would like you to focus a
little bit on South America, maybe the Caribbean. Has the U.S.
at all weighed in there on domestic policies that may affect
what they feel are Christian laws?
Ms. Mobbs. Mr. Chairman, I do not feel qualified to answer
that question.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. The answer to that, sir, is yes in a number
of instances. Perhaps the most famous one was a leaked memo
from the U.S. embassy in a Central American country saying that
the U.S. Government wanted to push as much as possible in the
direction of a candidate that was pro-abortion and other things
rather than the candidate who ultimately won in that election.
So, there is a sense in many of these highly religious
societies that, when it comes to matters of life and family,
that the United States is eroding their national positions.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Yes, I think I had one Congressman tell
me that a representative from one of those countries felt that
every time the foreign aid was conditioned on behaviors in
those countries, it made their country less Christian.
OK. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
I want to broadly just start by saying, I also believe that
there is a lot of work to be done as far as it relates to the
rights of women, of young girls across the world. I probably
love few people more than my sister, as well. But I also want
to be clear: I do not like--there were some veiled, I think,
transphobic comments that were made, and I just want to be
clear also that trans people do exist in our country. Trans
women do exist in our country. And trans people also face
stigma, harassment, discrimination, and physical violence
oftentimes much more than other communities or persecuted
people. So, I just wanted to say that as well.
Ms. Tyler, I do have a couple of quick questions for you.
Since we are talking so much about religious freedom and to
ensure that folks have the ability to say and feel free to
worship as they would like to, do you think it advances the
cause of religious freedom for a Member of Congress to claim
that the Catholic Church, of which I am a member of, is
controlled by Satan?
Ms. Tyler. I think that kind of rhetoric really is a threat
to religious freedom. I think we have to understand that words
matter. And it is particularly concerning when it comes from a
member of government. I think one of the protections that we
have in the United States--and, again, we are the envy of the
world in many ways in the legal protections we have for
religious freedom----
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Ms. Tyler [continuing]. Is that our government stays
neutral when it comes to religion.
Mr. Garcia. And what about saying--this same Member said
that Catholic bishops are destroying the United States by
advocating for policies that support migrants and refugees--
that the Catholic bishops are doing that, by the way,
destroying the United States by advocating for policies that
support migrants. How do you think that advances the cause of
religious freedom?
Ms. Tyler. Well, again, I think we have to be cognizant
that words matter, and that rhetoric can threaten religious
freedom in ways that can lead, again, as we saw, can lead to
violence in other----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Ms. Tyler [continuing]. In other places.
Mr. Garcia. And those comments were actually made by a
Member of this broader Committee, of the Oversight Committee,
which I think are, obviously, repulsive comments.
Ms. Tyler, did it advance the cause of religious freedom to
try to ban Muslims from entering the United States?
Ms. Tyler. Absolutely not. And I spoke to that----
Mr. Garcia. And let me--no, that is----
Ms. Tyler. Sure.
Mr. Garcia. I am sorry. And if we are trying to protect
persecuted religious communities around the world, what is the
impact of domestic actions like President Trump's Muslim ban,
just briefly, please?
Ms. Tyler. Well, I think from--you know, as we have talked
about, I think that oppressive policies can have impact on
national security, but it also impacts the stature of the
United States and our ability to advocate for religious freedom
in other countries.
The problem, of course, with the Muslim ban and why it is
an attack on religious freedom for all is, it singles out one
faith for disfavored----
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Ms. Tyler [continuing]. Treatment----
Mr. Garcia. And I want to--no, that is exactly what I
wanted to hear. Thank you.
Now, this week, Donald Trump promised to restore and expand
his bigoted ban, he said, and I quote, ``on day one.'' He said
that, as President, he stood up for, and I quote again,
``Judeo-Christian civilization,'' which is, I believe, a slap
in the face to many other religious traditions which are part
of our country and make up the beautiful fabric of who we are
as a country.
Does this support religious freedom, for a leader to say
that a mob that chanted, quote, ``Jews will not replace us''
and included ``very fine people''--what do we think of that,
for a leader to say that? Do you think that is something that
is not--not great?
Ms. Tyler. Again, I think that words matter and that that
kind of violent rhetoric has a direct cause to threatening the
lives of people in our country and----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And I think we all know that Donald
Trump, of course, said that after the Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville, which were some really horrific remarks.
Do we think that Donald Trump was upholding religious
freedom when he posted that, quote, ``liberal Jews . . . voted
to destroy America and Israel,'' unquote, when they voted
against him, which he just did last month?
Ms. Tyler. I think those are violent, anti-Semitic remarks.
Mr. Garcia. I would agree with you. Thank you, Ms. Tyler.
And I am just raising these points. I think they are very
important.
I also just want to say that, as a Catholic, I also find it
very troubling to see religious freedom invoked to not just
justify bigoted policies but also to justify discrimination
against other LGBTQ+ people like myself.
Ron DeSantis and many other Governors across the country
have signed laws which allow healthcare workers to discriminate
against members of the community, particularly also around
gender-affirming care, if workers cite religious objections. I
believe that is dangerous. I believe that is misguided.
And I, Ms. Tyler, would hope you agree that LGBTQ+
protections and religious freedoms can be complementary. I
think that you agree with that.
Finally, just to the panel, just briefly, a ``yes'' or
``no'' question. I will start with Mr. Curry.
Do you believe, as far as LGBTQ rights abroad, should the
U.S. remain silent when someone can be executed for who they
love abroad? Yes or no?
Mr. Curry. Should--no. The U.S., I think, needs to speak
out. And I also believe----
Mr. Garcia. Well, that is it, sir. So, you agree that if
someone is LGBTQ+ as far as--the U.S. should not remain silent
if they face execution or persecution abroad?
Mr. Curry. No, we should not remain silent.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. The U.S. should not remain silent.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. The U.S. should not remain silent.
Mr. Garcia. And Ms. Tyler?
Ms. Tyler. The United States should not remain silent.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
And I want to thank all of you for that answer. I think
that is absolutely correct.
And, for the record, all of our witnesses agreed that the
U.S. should not remain silent when someone can be executed for
who they love somewhere else across the world.
So, thank you for reaffirming that belief.
Mr. Grothman. Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank our witnesses for being here today.
Dr. Mobbs, it has been 2 years since the Taliban seized
control of Afghanistan amid the Biden Administration's chaotic
and deadly withdrawal from the country. It has been reported
that the status of women and girls' rights in Afghanistan has
reverted to that of the pre-2002 era when the Taliban last
controlled the country, effectively erasing progress on women's
rights in the intervening 20 years.
Has the Biden Administration taken any actions to preserve
the gains made for women in Afghanistan?
Ms. Mobbs. Unfortunately, no, they have not, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
The United States spent nearly $1.8 billion on programs
supporting Afghan women and the rule of law. Was that money
totally wasted?
And are there any efforts the U.S. can take to protect the
Afghan women and girls that do not involve providing money to
the Taliban?
Ms. Mobbs. As a U.S. veteran who served in Afghanistan, it
is difficult for me to ever comment on the use of funds during
our time in Afghanistan, because I do not want to say my time
or any of our servicemembers' time was wasted in Afghanistan.
However, unfortunately, the way that we allocated and utilized
money in Afghanistan ended up being wasteful and was in pursuit
of goals that we could not accomplish.
Unfortunately, currently, the aid that is also being
provided does not have enough protections on it to ensure that
it is actually going to humanitarian goals and reaching the
people that need it, like starving children, and also the
education of women and children.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much for your service, by the way.
Again, Dr. Mobbs, last week, President Biden announced the
U.S. would send $100 million in humanitarian assistance to
provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza and the West
Bank. The President also warned Hamas not to steal or divert
the humanitarian aid that countries around the world are
funneling into the region.
In your opinion, is there any way to ensure effectively
that U.S. taxpayer funds will not be siphoned off by Hamas for
its military operations?
Ms. Mobbs. The reality of what we have seen is,
unfortunately, there is not a highly effective way, as the bulk
of humanitarian aid that has gone to Palestine has
unfortunately been siphoned off to Hamas through a variety of
different means. There is false charities; there are bank
accounts set up to do so. It is extremely difficult to do so.
And, certainly, sending out such a large amount of money in
a short period of time prevents what would be substantial
oversight to ensure it is actually going to where it needs to
go, which is to the human rights for the children and the
women.
Ms. Foxx. In the current conflict between Israel and Hamas,
has Hamas targeted women and girls in its attacks? And how is
it targeting them?
Ms. Mobbs. Yes, ma'am, of course. They targeted women and
children in Israel. They also use schools and hospitals and
children as human shields.
Ms. Foxx. Yes. It is really disgusting, what is going on
there, and I think we should speak out more and more and more.
No one should be assassinated or kidnapped for his or her
religious beliefs--no one. I do not care--or their chosen
gender or their race or for any reason. And what is happening
in Israel, the atrocities committed by Hamas, every Member of
Congress should speak out against those.
Mr. Curry, a Country of Particular Concern is a designation
by the Secretary of State of a nation engaged in severe
violations of religious freedom under the International
Religious Freedom Act. The Trump Administration had designated
Nigeria as one Country of Particular Concern. However, the
Biden Administration removed Nigeria from that list.
Why did the Biden Administration remove Nigeria from the
list? And do you believe that the move was warranted?
Mr. Curry. I do not believe it was warranted. The waivers
that are often used on Countries of Particular Concern do not
require a reasoning behind it, and I have not heard any
justification as to why Nigeria was removed.
But I think that we have to look at these waivers as a
whole, because it really weakens the law that was passed that
really would allow us to put pressure on these countries that
allow religious extremism and persecution.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
All over the world, there are people in prison right now
for having been accused of and found guilty of violating
blasphemy, heresy, or apostasy laws, which are of course
unconstitutional in America.
In 2020, the House passed a resolution, which I had
introduced, denouncing the blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws
and calling for this to be a central plank in U.S. foreign
policy, to free religious prisoners and to strike these laws
down.
Do all of you agree--maybe we can just go down the line--
that these laws are a threat to religious freedom and human
rights all over the world?
Ms. Tyler?
Ms. Tyler. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. And Mr. Curry?
Mr. Curry. Yes, I absolutely agree.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
And does anybody want to say a quick word about what their
group is doing to try to overturn these laws?
Would you perhaps, Ms. Tyler, take a second?
Ms. Tyler. Yes. So, BJC did endorse your legislation, Mr.
Raskin, for H.R. 512 to send a signal to the State Department
to prioritize countries getting--or not enforcing their
blasphemy laws. Because one-third of countries around the world
do have blasphemy laws, although not all of them enforce them.
I think a point that is important to make is that blasphemy
laws do not only hurt the religious freedom of religious
minorities in those countries but also co-religionists, because
it tries to enforce a single view of a religion that----
Mr. Raskin. They do, indeed, and I am going to have
something to say about that.
Religious freedom in our country means two things. Our
Framers rebelled against centuries of religious warfare, wars
between the Catholics and the Protestants every bit as vicious
as wars between the Shia and Sunni today. They rebelled against
holy crusades, inquisitions, witchcraft trials, you name it.
And they came up, in our Constitution, with two parts of
religious freedom: free exercise that every citizen has and,
also, no establishment of religion. The government cannot
establish religion. And these two values stand best when they
stand together. They reinforce each other.
Just very quickly, does everybody agree that we need to be
promoting both of these values in our foreign policy?
Ms. Tyler?
Ms. Tyler. Yes, and beginning at home.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. And Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, with a caveat: that we could imagine
societies where a vast part of the majority are part of one
religious orientation and where they have free exercise for the
common people, for other citizens from religious minorities,
and yet they may--due to their history, religion, and it being
a large majority, where there may be a favorable treatment
toward one religion, but where religious minorities could
freely practice.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. OK. I am not sure about what you just
said. That sounds to me like setting a predicate for religious
persecution.
Just because a large majority of people believe in a
particular religion does not give them the right to legislate
that and compel against other people, right?
Mr. Patterson. What I am talking about is countries that
may be on a historical trajectory toward increasing religious
liberty over time, particularly smaller countries that have a
large religious population that is pretty homogenous.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Curry?
Mr. Curry. I would agree with your statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
Well, look, I belong to the Tom Lantos Human Rights
Commission. I have adopted numerous prisoners of conscience. I
would challenge and encourage all of my colleagues to do what I
have done. Sometimes, if you feel like you are not able to move
a huge institution like the U.S. Congress, you can save
somebody from spending the rest of their life in prison.
I adopted a religious prisoner in Pakistan, Abdul Shakoor.
He was an 82-year-old bookstore owner who the Pakistani
Government had imprisoned for heresy, simply for religiously
subversive thoughts, allegedly. And we got him out. And he is a
Muslim himself, but he practiced the Ahmadiyya faith.
I advocated for the release of Kunchok Tsephel, who is a
Tibetan writer who created a website promoting and celebrating
Tibetan culture. Chinese authorities sentenced him to 15 years
in prison. He was released just last year, 13 years into his
sentence.
So, for those of you who really believe in religious
freedom and understand how persecution is a danger to people
all over the world, colleagues, you can do something by joining
the Lantos Human Rights Commission and adopting religious
prisoners of any faith, because every faith is being
discriminated against and persecuted somewhere. And our job is
to try and champion the American value of religious toleration
for everyone of any religious belief--or no religious belief at
all, because that is part of religious freedom too.
Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I will
yield back to you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I want to thank each of you for being here today.
I think that the indications that you have really provided
deep details about--every American is aware that there is
conflict around the world. We even see conflict here in the
United States.
And I believe that your insight--for instance, Dr. Mobbs,
you probably have a lot of insight in some areas where perhaps
the Taliban or others would be directly in confrontation with
not just human rights but, really, religious intolerance and
the use of the various elements of violence against people on
that measure. And I would like to vet this issue, if I could,
for just a minute.
Mr. Curry, I did not have my trusty pen out when you spoke
about a resolution that you would like Members of this body to
be in tune to, but you mentioned an H.R. number that you felt
like outlined good consideration of good policy. Would you mind
giving that to me again?
Mr. Curry. Yes. That is House Resolution 82 that calls on
the Department of State to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of
Particular Concern.
It has a request that we appoint a special envoy which
would be able to mediate between Nigeria, Niger, Mali, all of
these countries in the Sahel region which are now affected by
these extremist groups who all have a shared ideology even
though they battle amongst themselves for power.
This would be a critical, critical thing for us to see pass
and would really, I think, help aid religious minorities in the
north of Nigeria.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
Dr. Mobbs, we are engaged in watching, literally, on our
TVs every day the Palestinian conflict with America's ally
Israel. And it is based on not only hatred and bitterness but,
really, on annihilation of the right of the Israelis and Jewish
people to exist.
You evidently came into conflict--or saw this conflict
firsthand in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. Could you talk
with us about a wise way to look at how we should look at this
conflict and, in particular, where religion is the key element
of discrimination against people who do not read the Bible or
the Koran exactly the same way you do?
Ms. Mobbs. Sir, I would say that, when people tell you what
they believe, we should believe them. As you mentioned, Hamas
believes in the eradication of the Jewish people and the Jewish
State, and we should take them at their word that they will go
to every end to reach those end states.
And so, a wise policy would be to take them at their word
and support our ally Israel in their eradication of this
population that only serves to end them.
Mr. Sessions. So, in other words, we would try and
encourage anyone that did not follow that ideology to leave
what I will say is Gaza and let the battle ensue.
Ms. Mobbs. Of course, I think that the protection of the
innocents is always paramount, and I think that a humanitarian
corridor must be established for those to leave so that they
are not going to be subjected to conflict.
I think that absolutely should occur and that is the best
path forward. And we should support Israel, as is their right,
to go after the terrorists who perpetuated the evil upon them.
Mr. Sessions. And that self-protection that they would be
allowed to--so that in 2 weeks or 6 months or 4 years they were
not faced with this same problem again.
Ms. Mobbs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sessions. Good.
Dr. Patterson, you have provided us a lot of what I think
is really good information about violators, people who came and
have used religion in those circumspects against people.
Talk to me again about the Chinese experiment. Are they
pushing forth and sending out across the world their ideas
about the same things that they do to their own people?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, sir. Let me mention two things
about that.
The first one is that China's reach, for instance, against
Uyghurs and other minorities, specifically Uyghurs though, is
not just internal; they have pushed on countries like Turkey
and others across Central Asia to repatriate Uyghurs, Kazakhs,
and others to China for detention, imprisonment, and who knows
who else----
Mr. Sessions. Would that include the New York City issue
where the Chinese have police stations?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, this New York situation, of course, is
insidious. And what we have seen is this type of Chinese
infiltration in many places around the world.
The other side of China's influence is that many poorer
countries look at the United States and say, ``If we take aid
from you, you are going to make us do all of these new, novel
social ideologies you want to impose on us. The Chinese, they
will give us a low-interest loan, no questions asked.'' And our
organization has heard that very dichotomy from people in
Africa and Latin America.
Mr. Sessions. My thanks to the panel.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Religious prosecution and violent extremism globally are
very serious threats to U.S. security and human rights abroad.
Today, on my line, I want to focus in and hone in on religious
extremism happening here in the United States, domestically,
because I believe it is also a very important part of this
conversation.
Christian nationalism is a form of religious extremism
making its way into our policies and undermining our democracy.
These extremist actors are co-opting the language of
Christianity and religious freedom to push an undemocratic
agenda that seeks the very opposite of what they claim to do.
And I want to start off by saying, I am a man of faith. I
was raised Southern Baptist. I love potlucks. I was in Awana. I
got the Sparky Award. I was in youth band for about 10 years.
This is a huge part of my life and part of the reason why I am
so passionate about it.
As a man of faith, I know that Christianity is not
Christian nationalism. I oppose my faith being used to
whitewash a racist, violent, and dangerous ideology.
Ms. Tyler, I have a few questions for you, but let us start
with this: How does religion differ from religious extremism?
And why does religious extremism, specifically Christian
nationalism, threaten the safety and lives of people in our
communities?
Ms. Tyler. Well, I think that religious nationalism is this
tendency to merge our religious and national identities. And it
can occur along a spectrum but can also be co-opted by those in
power to enforce a certain religious viewpoint on everyone
else. And that is why it is such an urgent threat to religious
freedom.
But it is also, as you point out, an urgent threat to
democracy. And it is because it is taking this increasingly
violent aspect.
And we saw that on January 6 in the way that Christian
nationalism was used as a permission structure and as a uniting
ideology for people who were here at the Capitol that day in
search of a political cause that was then infused with
religious fervor.
Mr. Frost. And what would you say the relationship is
between White supremacy and Christian nationalism?
Ms. Tyler. Christian nationalism often overlaps with and
provides cover for White supremacy and racial subjugation. That
is because the ``Christian'' in ``Christian nationalism'' is
not so much about theology as it is about an ethno-national
identity.
Mr. Frost. Yes.
And Christian nationalists have played vital roles in very
violent attacks, even recently--the killing of 11 people
attending services at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh;
the killing and murder of 9 people attending a bible study at
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South
Carolina, the ``Emanuel Nine''; the killing of 33 people
shopping at Walmart and Tops in El Paso and Buffalo.
Ms. Tyler, how does Christian nationalism pose a threat to
our democratic institutions?
Ms. Tyler. Well, I think all of those examples are what
happens when this ideology of Christian nationalism is used by
White supremacists to try to justify their violence. It uses
the symbols and the language of Christianity to try to justify
what is indefensible. And it turns, again, their hatred into a
religious cause, into something that they believe is ordained
by God.
Mr. Frost. Most Christian nationalists claim to support
religious freedom while at the same time working to have the
exact opposite of that happen.
Have you noticed a coordinated attempt in America to co-opt
the right of religious freedom to try and justify stripping
rights away from people?
Ms. Tyler. Well, I do think that language really matters
here, and definitions. And, too often, we hear the language of
religious freedom being used for what is really religious
privilege or Christian nationalism.
True religious freedom requires equality for all people
regardless of religious belief. And that is why it is so
important, as our Constitution promises, that the government
will stay neutral when it comes to religion to allow all
religions to flourish.
Mr. Frost. And this threat to democracy has made its way to
Congress. I mean, my colleague Representative Marjorie Taylor
Greene has said, quote, ``Christian nationalism is `actually a
good thing'''. It is an ``identity that Republicans need to
embrace'' and ``I am being attacked by the godless left because
I said I am a proud Christian Nationalist,'' end quote.
My colleague Representative Lauren Boebert said, quote,
``The church is supposed to direct the government. The
government is not supposed to direct the church. I am tired of
this separation-of-church-and-state junk,'' end quote, ``junk''
being the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Bible itself, in Second Corinthians, actually warns us
against this. Paul warned against this. He warned us against
people who would preach of a Christ that differs from the true
Christ that we learn about in the Bible. That is exactly what
Christian nationalism is doing.
I condemn religious extremism everywhere, globally and
domestically. And we have to recognize the threat it poses to
our most sacred freedoms and root it out everywhere.
And I think it is incumbent especially upon us as
Christians, and me as a Christian, to be at the forefront of
the fight to ensure that White nationalism and Christian
nationalism does not see the light of day.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the panelists for being here today.
Dr. Patterson, I want to ask you first--and maybe we will
expand it. We will see how it goes.
A number of nations have been listed as particularly
pernicious in their persecution of people of faith--China,
Iran, Nigeria, et cetera. My question to start off is, do you
know how many of the nations that we are concerned with today,
as we sit here, have actually signed on as signatories to the
International Criminal Court?
Mr. Patterson. I do not know how many have signed on to the
International Criminal Court.
But on this specific issue of religious freedom, most
countries around the world, including terrible violators like
Afghanistan, have signed the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which has strong religious freedom
language protecting religious freedom for institutions and
organizations.
Mr. Biggs. Well, the reason I ask about the International
Criminal Court is because the International Criminal Court,
last I heard, has about 48 signatory nations, and I am curious
what the number is here.
I happened to be at the Rome conference where the document
was drafted, and I will tell you that there was indicia of--I
should not say ``indicia''--there was a crime of genocide
recognized in the International Criminal Court, which would
allow prosecution of violators both as state actors and non-
state actors.
And what we see in Nigeria could be characterized, I
believe, as genocide under the ICC. I also believe that what is
happening to the Uyghurs could be categorized as genocide under
the ICC.
But I am not sure--I do not believe China has signed on. I
am not sure about Nigeria. And in our own state, we have never
ratified membership in that. In spite of what the ICC said,
just because--just because 48 nations ratified it does not mean
anybody else is underneath that.
So, I want to expand a little bit and get into some of your
recommendations, Dr. Patterson. And I would like Mr. Curry and
then Dr. Mobbs to actually comment on this.
These recommendations, like the GAO to assess and publicly
report on the implementation of IRFA of 1998, are you aware of
any report having been done? And tell us what you think should
be done and what should be assessed, what should be included in
that assessment.
Mr. Patterson. Certainly.
I do not know of a report like this that has been done, at
least not in recent years.
A couple of things that could be assessed is, first,
justifications for waivers--year after year after year of
waivers.
A second thing that could be looked at here is: What
programs that the U.S. has put money into have actually reaped
actual, tangible results promoting religious freedom? Where do
we see actual difference anywhere on the ground?
Mr. Biggs. And so, to that point, do you see any place
where our funding and our non-imposition of our own domestic
policies on these nations have actually produced more religious
freedom in any of these nations that we are looking at?
Mr. Patterson. Well, in some cases what you are doing is
just trying to keep the door open or open new doors.
But one case--and Congressman Chris Smith has a lot to say
on this specific case. The one time where we did a binding--a
semi-binding compact, almost like a Millennium Challenge
Corporation type of thing but on religious freedom, the one
time was with Vietnam. And Vietnam came off the CPC list
because they promised to do some things. They had about a year
or two of progress. They actually went back on the CPC list
eventually because they reneged on that.
But there is a case of success.
Mr. Biggs. OK.
And I hate to bring this up, but, as one of the witnesses
has said, words do have consequences, they have meaning. And
the implication--to call the travel ban a religious travel ban
continues to be a narrative that actually is a vile lie. That
narrative is a vile lie.
The travel ban of 2019 was imposed originally under the
Obama Administration in 2015. They undertook a great deal of
study. Fifty nations were included in that original ban,
including Chad. But after Chad increased its ability for us to
share and vet people coming in from Chad, Chad was removed from
that list.
The Supreme Court addressed this, and they concluded that
the proclamation was neutral on its face regarding religion and
applied to people of all faiths.
So, it undermines one's credibility to continue with this
pernicious lie.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Appreciate it.
Appreciate the conversation.
In 2022, the Anti-Defamation League said there were 3,697
anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. That was a 36-
percent increase from 2021, just a year before.
I think it was an excellent decision by President Biden to
elevate the position of the head of the Special Envoy to
Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism to an ambassador at large.
You know, when my Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-
Nazis and the Proud Boys and White supremacist groups----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I find that
offensive, that the gentleman would make a broad statement like
that. And I think that he should back that up with any
individual but not a broad group. That would be inappropriate
for me----
Voice. It is not true.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. And untrue----
Mr. Moskowitz. Do not worry, I am getting to the part you
will like.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I do not--perhaps you are. I find it
offensive that you have used this forum----
Mr. Moskowitz. Sure, no problem. Donald Trump--Donald Trump
had dinner with a Holocaust denier at his house. Do you want
more facts?
Mr. Sessions. Then use that, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. No problem.
When my Republican colleagues support a President of the
United States who is having dinner with a Holocaust denier at
his house and they remain silent, silence is complicity.
When there are Nazis----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moskowitz. When there are Nazis----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Moskowitz. I would like my time back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Moskowitz. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Sessions. Well, I am sure you will get that back.
Broad statements are inappropriate and are not worthy of
this hearing.
Mr. Moskowitz. I know you are in denial that he had dinner
with a Holocaust----
Mr. Sessions. I was unaware of it. So, for you to assume--
--
Mr. Moskowitz. It was national news for, like, a week.
Mr. Sessions. That matters not.
What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is, this hearing
needs to stay very cordial and very much on the level. And
attacks like this are exactly why our country is going through
what we are going through. And----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be--there needs to
be a point of order, actually, on this.
Mr. Moskowitz. There is no point of order. I----
Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moskowitz. I called nobody out, other than the former
President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Mr. Sessions. That is not correct, sir. You referred to
``Republicans.'' That is----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be a point of
order, please.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please
admonish the people of this Subcommittee that we are trying to
make progress together----
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be a point of
order.
Mr. Moskowitz. Yes. And I would like my time back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. We need a point of order.
You will get your time back. We are not running the clock.
OK. If there is no point of order, just continue.
Mr. Moskowitz. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, I will go back to what I was previously saying, is
that, when Republican colleagues, not all of them, but some
Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-Nazis and the Proud Boys
and White supremacist groups----
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to
please----
Mr. Raskin. Sir, there is no point of order here.
Mr. Grothman. We need a point of order.
Mr. Moskowitz. I know this is----
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. Uncomfortable, but I want to
get through this. So, it is just a paragraph, and we will be
fine. So--so much for free speech.
When some of my Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-Nazis,
Proud Boys, and White supremacist groups because they are their
voters, and when President Trump hosts Holocaust deniers at
Mar-a-Lago, sometimes we hear silence from our friends on the
right.
When Nazis are holding rallies in the streets, when mass
murderers go into synagogues or grocery stores and have Nazi
symbols or anti-Semitic dossiers under White nationalism or
Christian nationalism, we actually do not hear silence; we hear
denial.
But do not worry, I want to make this Committee bipartisan.
Because this is a bipartisan issue. Anti-Semitism is
bipartisan. And there is plenty of bipartisan silence on what
is happening to Jews in this country on the left.
``Gas the Jews.'' ``Kill the Jews.'' ``Glory to the
martyrs,'' celebrating Hamas killing innocent people, at GW
last night, my alma mater. ``Glory to the martyrs''--glory to
the people that raped women, that killed babies in their cribs,
glory to those people.
``Bring back Hitler.'' ``Jews are not wanted.'' ``No wonder
the Germans killed them.'' ``Zionism is a mental illness.''
``No wonder why Hitler wanted to get rid of them.'' ``Fuck the
Jews.''
Posters of children hostages being pulled down all over the
country. Swastikas coming back, not just at rallies, but people
are just wearing them. Cheering in the street after rape,
killing babies. Using rape as a cause of resistance. Burning
people alive, like they did in concentration camps, to bring
back the smell of burning Jews.
We are constantly told that you can be critical of Israel's
policies without being anti-Semitic--except that is not what we
are seeing in the street. We are not seeing from the
progressive left them saying, you know, ``Israel.'' No, they
are saying ``the Jews,'' right?
We are constantly told, ``No, no you can criticize a
country's policies and positions. It is not about a religion.
It is not about an elimination of people.'' Except that is not
what they are saying; that is not what they are doing. All
being done in the cause of ``resistance'' or ``progressive
values.''
And, again, while it is not all of my Members, silence from
the progressive left.
You know, I get it; Jews do not look like the usual victim.
We do not look like victims. No, we look more like oppressors.
And in social media, where everything is, you know, binary--
right?--we do not like complicated arguments--right?--and where
facts do not matter anymore because folks like Elon Musk took
away all of the guardrails, and where anti-Semitism and racism
and hatred is just breeding on social media, it is no wonder
why what we are seeing now scares the Jewish community, because
we have not seen this since the Holocaust.
You know, it is because Jews are subhuman. That is--that is
what it is. It is a double-standard that is only applied to us.
And both parties are failing, because you know what? Each
of them have no problem calling out anti-Semitism when the
other side does it, right? The Republicans will call out ``the
squad.'' Democrats will call out, you know, Republican Members
when they say, you know, Jews and space lasers.
No, no, we have no problem doing it on the other side,
because that is easy. Super-easy to criticize the other side.
No, but it is much harder to do it when it is within your own
ranks--much harder to do it within your own ranks. That is when
we see the silence.
And so--I will conclude, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Jews have often wondered why it took so long for
people to come to their aid during the Holocaust, why millions
of people were slaughtered before people came to their aid. Now
we know. Now we know why it took so long.
And we also now know--because we see it in this country, in
the streets and in the halls of Congress--we now know who those
people are who would not come to our aid now if that happened
again.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do appreciate
the opportunity to talk about this. It is so vitally important.
There was a Prussian diplomat, Klemens Wenzel Furst--and we
know him by his last name--von Metternich. And he said that
when France sneezes the world catches a cold. And now that term
has been applied to the United States, of course. When we
sneeze, the world catches a cold.
So, what we do here really does matter. And it is not just
for the 340 million people in this country, but it is for
billions across the world.
I had a friend of mine in my twenties. He is an American.
He was born in Iran. His father still lived in Iran. And he
said he cannot go back because they might press him into
military service and might punish his father and just take all
his possessions, after working for 50 years of his life,
because that is what theocracies, authoritarian theocracies,
tend to do.
And it really opened my eyes, as somebody that has
experienced the blessings and bounties of this country, when we
have a big moat called the Atlantic and a bigger one called the
Pacific, and we are protected. And we do not realize that you
do not have to go back to 1500 or 1000 AD to see this kind of
religious oppression and persecution. It is happening right
here in this world in 2023.
So, we not only live in the right place, we do live in the
right time. But some people live in the wrong place, and still,
in 2023, for some folks it is the wrong time.
Nothing to me is more important than a human being able to
worship the Almighty to the dictates of their own conscience. I
think that is why we are all here. That is why it was a little
upsetting to hear this kind of partisan gutter-politics that
then morphed into something sane.
So, what I wanted to do is ask a couple of questions
about--because I really would hope this would be bipartisan.
And our office is going to draft a letter that hopefully will
get Republicans and Democrats to sign on to it.
So, the International Religious Freedom Act, which allows
the Secretary of State to designate countries that commit
systematic and ongoing egregious violations of religious
freedom, these Countries of Particular Concern, CPCs.
Mr. Curry, in Afghanistan, if you are born--or, you are
raised Muslim and you leave that faith, can you face egregious
consequences?
Mr. Curry. Absolutely. In many countries, including
Afghanistan, you are not allowed to change your faith. In some
countries, you are forced to register and never--you cannot
choose a faith of your own. But, both culturally and
politically, it is not allowed in Afghanistan.
Mr. Fallon. What if somebody wanted to build a--I would ask
Mr. Patterson, or Dr. Patterson--sorry. If you wanted to build
a Jewish temple in Kabul today under the Taliban, what do you
think would happen?
Mr. Patterson. Yes. Impossible.
Mr. Fallon. It would not happen.
Mr. Patterson. And you would probably face the death
penalty.
Mr. Fallon. OK.
So that is pretty egregious, wouldn't you all agree?
Dr. Mobbs? Yes.
Ms. Tyler, you would agree? Yes.
Mr. Curry, is Afghanistan designated as a CPC?
Mr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. It is? OK. What other countries would you feel
are--should be designated and are not?
Mr. Curry. Well, I think, you know, one country that I
would highlight for you that has been designated as a CPC but
has been given waivers would be India.
This is a country that we want to have strong partnership
with, we have lots of business relationships with, but,
surprisingly, this democracy is one of the foremost persecutors
of religious minorities. Christians and Muslims in India face
great repression from the political movement there.
And so, if I could highlight anything as it relates to CPC,
it is India, countries like it, which are designated but there
is no teeth to it because the State Department continues to
waiver--waive the consequences.
Mr. Fallon. Dr. Mobbs, Russia, of course, is in the news
every day because of their illegal and grotesque invasion of
Ukraine.
Why do you--so the Russian Orthodox Church--Putin, who was
a secularist for his entire life and then suddenly embraces
Christianity--why do you think they are persecuting
particularly Jehovah's Witnesses so severely?
Ms. Mobbs. I think they are just willing to persecute
anyone that does not do exactly what he says.
Mr. Fallon. Just, if you get out of line? So, you could
be--if you are a Russian Orthodox, is it more just toward just,
kind of, accentuating the Russian identity and ethnicity?
Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Yes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will yield back.
Thank you all.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Dr. Patterson, could you summarize the purpose
of this hearing as it was intended to be held?
Mr. Patterson. The purpose of the hearing, as I understand
it, is to look at the national security implications of U.S.
international religious freedom policy and the state of the
globe.
Ms. Porter. OK.
And Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. That is my understanding as well.
Ms. Porter. OK.
So, the summary that I have says, ``This hearing will
examine the Administration's oversight of assistance to
organizations promoting religious freedom for oppressed
religious minorities and others persecuted. The hearing will
also examine how global religious persecution presents national
security concerns.''
So, one of our top goals today is to have the U.S.
Government stop organizations that persecute religious
minorities, correct?
So, if we want the United States to be successful in that,
we need to understand exactly what religious persecution looks
like. And many of you have given helpful examples today. I want
to consider a different example.
Let us say, like, that an organization creates a list of
people that it fears is going to commit crimes. And we have
that organization--that organization says in writing that it is
not using religious affiliation; it is just about crimes. But
we see the list, we do the analysis, and we can confirm that 98
percent of the people on the list are part of a single
religious minority.
Dr. Patterson, could that be an example of the type of
religious persecution that we are trying to prevent with this
hearing?
Mr. Patterson. If I understand the parameters of what you
just said, I think one of the things that we would be concerned
about was that, as I understand it, you are talking about
preventing a future wrong by going after this group rather than
them having committed any crime in the first place. And, of
course, that is a much larger legal principle, that we do not
want to go after preventing someone that we might think might
do something down the road.
Ms. Porter. And definitely not based on their--if the main
guiding fact seems to be, to get on this list, being a
particular religion, as opposed to anything that someone has
done, we would be concerned about that.
Dr. Mobbs, what do you think about that? Would you want to
know more at least?
Ms. Mobbs. I would want to know more.
Ms. Porter. OK.
Ms. Tyler, how about you?
Ms. Tyler. Yes, I mean, I think that hypothetical talks
about how one could use religion as a proxy for a security
threat--which is a way of singling out a single religion for
government disfavor.
Ms. Porter. Dr.--Mr. Curry? Excuse me.
Mr. Curry. As I understand it, yes, I agree.
Ms. Porter. OK.
So, at the beginning of this hearing, we said it is the
United States' duty to do oversight of religious persecution. I
gave an example that we think could at least raise concerns.
Let us say we find out that the organization making this
list is the FBI and that the religious minority is Muslims.
This is a real-life example. A copy of the FBI's terrorism
watch list was leaked, and an analysis showed that 98 percent
of the names on that list are those of Muslim people.
Now that we have the specifics, are you still--do you still
think that we should do oversight and the Administration should
do diligence to make sure that the FBI watch list is targeting
people based on risk and not on religion?
Ms. Tyler?
Ms. Tyler. Absolutely. I think if we are to defend
religious freedom around the world, we must be sure that our
government is also defending religious freedom here at home.
Ms. Porter. Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. Absolutely. Being placed on a list should be
based on behaviors, predictions, risk analysis, and should not
be predicated on religion at all.
Ms. Porter. Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. I concur. And I think it is exactly right
for Congress to be doing oversight in the first place over the
executive branch.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Curry?
Mr. Curry. Yes.
Ms. Porter. So, we have a strong consensus here, and I hope
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with me
in asking that the Administration would give us more
information about how they have constructed this list and why
the list seems to be based on religion, and if it is not true,
that they are able to explain that and answer that to us.
We have a duty as a country to do that kind of oversight to
stop persecution. And we do not have credibility,
internationally, to take on the kinds of challenges that you
have described today if we are not doing it here.
We have heard it today from witnesses, Republican and
Democrat alike, that religious persecution harms our national
security. And that is just as true when we may be missing or
under-identifying national security threats to our own country
internally because we are using religion as a basis to identify
people for the terrorism watch list.
The Committee needs to keep pressing, on a bipartisan
basis, to do oversight on the FBI's terrorism watch list until
this issue is fixed or until our questions are answered.
I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Mr.--oh, first of all, I would like to submit
for the record three articles here on these topics: one from
Heritage Society [sic], one from Newsweek, and one from The
Providence Journal.
Mr. Grothman. And then Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in protecting people
of faith abroad. Sadly, this Administration's persecution of
Christians here at home strips them of any credibility
whatsoever in fighting religious discrimination abroad.
The Department of Justice under this Administration has
indicted at least 34 people for protesting outside of abortion
clinics under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Many pro-lifers face years behind bars. One man, Mark Houck,
was arrested in front of his wife and seven children in an
unnecessary and brutal raid where FBI agents brandished their
weapons at the family.
Multiple FBI field offices worked together to construct a
memo that encouraged the infiltration and targeting of Catholic
worshippers.
The DOJ threatened states that passed laws protecting
children from mutilation and harmful chemical infusions.
Biden signed a law last year that perverted the Federal
definition of marriage.
The U.S. military refused to grant thousands of brave
servicemembers a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Health and Human Services is seeking to limit the ability
of employers to oppose providing contraceptive coverage for
religious reasons to refrain from violating their conscience.
January 6 prisoners have claimed that Federal prison
officials have prevented them from attending religious
services.
Meanwhile, rioters have destroyed property to the tune of
$2 billion in the ``summer of love,'' and pro-abortion
terrorists who firebombed pro-life pregnancy centers roam free.
This Administration should start with itself when it comes
to eradicating religious freedom.
Now, a question.
Mr. Curry, does the persecution of Christians here at home
by this Administration undermine the ability of advocates to
help prosecuted Christians abroad?
Mr. Curry. Congressman, I am sorry. I beg your pardon. My
expertise is on international persecution. I would----
Mr. Gosar. Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. Would you mind saying the question one more
time.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. Does the persecution of Christians here at
home by this Administration undermine the ability of advocates
to help persecuted Christians abroad?
Mr. Patterson. I would say that the persecution of people
of faith at home does undermine our efforts abroad.
Mr. Gosar. Would with you agree, Dr. Mobbs.
Ms. Mobbs. I would agree, yes.
Mr. Gosar. Ukraine has taken procedural steps to ban their
Ukrainian Orthodox Church over alleged ties to Russia.
Zelenskyy has sanctioned several leaders of the Church of
Ukraine. Ukraine's Constitutional Court unilaterally changed
the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A government body
meddling in the affairs of a church to the extent of renaming
should be utterly anathema to any person of goodwill.
A Christianity Today article from just a couple days ago
claims that the Ukrainian national police, known as the SBU,
have accused 68 Church of Ukraine priests of collaboration,
treason, and other offenses. The Ukrainian citizenship of 20 of
these priests was revoked.
Are you concerned, Dr. Mobbs, that the Ukrainian Government
is violating the religious liberty of its citizens.
Ms. Mobbs. I would say, anytime you have any violation of
anyone's religious liberties, we should be concerned.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. I agree with that statement.
Mr. Gosar. Since it is international, Mr. Curry.
Mr. Curry. Yes. Both the Russian side and the Ukrainian
side are using religion as a wedge, and it is unacceptable.
Mr. Gosar. I see the same thing. You are exactly right.
The Ukrainian Security Service orchestrated a raid on the
Russian Orthodox Christian monastery in Kyiv in November 2022.
Is this what a democratic country that respects the freedom of
religion looks like?
Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about that
raid, sir.
Mr. Gosar. OK.
How about you, Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. I do not know about that specific case.
Mr. Gosar. No? OK.
Well, the Media Research Center recently broke a story
detailing how the Department of Homeland Security approved of a
grant to Dayton College under a program meant to fight all
forms of terrorism and targeted violence. Money from the grant
was used to produce a seminar where a DHS agent included the
Christian Broadcasting Network, along with other conservative
entities like The Heritage and FOX News, in a ``pyramid of far-
right radicalization.'' Another presenter of this group was an
Antifa member, who admitted proudly that his group often breaks
the law.
I am curious to get the panel's take on how protecting
religious freedom at home will complement congressional and
executive pressures to protect the people of faith abroad.
Could you comment on that, Dr. Mobbs?
Ms. Mobbs. I think that it is very clear that what we do
here echoes elsewhere. So, in order for us to be a model around
the world, we have to ensure that we are doing what we say we
are doing here at home, which is allowing religious freedom and
protecting all of the constitutional rights enshrined in our
Constitution.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Dr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson. I agree with that statement. And it is
particularly worrying when people glorify lawlessness and
violence as if that is somehow something that is positive. We
cannot hand that on to our children.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I applaud the lady from--the gentlelady
from California, because she is right on target with where this
needs to go. Because we have to look at home as well as abroad.
And our law enforcement agencies are no dissimilar person; they
have to be looked at very intensely.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank our witnesses for being here.
I want to give a little bit of a perspective from an
American Jew right now, from New York City, which has the
highest population of Jews, outside of Israel, in the world.
What happened on October 7 was an effort by an extremist
jihadist terrorist organization to kill as many Jews as
possible. And for someone like me, who has grown up in this
country, hearing about stories of the Holocaust, stories of the
pogroms in Europe from which my grandmother escaped to come to
the United States, it has always been historical. But, today,
we are living with the reality of the same thing.
And it is difficult being a Jew in America right now. There
are mass protests against Jews who suffered from a terrorist
attack. There are dramatically increased threats. And, in many
ways, it feels very isolating.
And so, in large respect, I appreciate having this hearing
today, because we do need to make sure that we are addressing
the persecution and discrimination and hate against all
religious groups.
And I appreciate that my colleague from Arizona raised some
issues in terms of some of the Christian groups, but obviously
it is not limited to Christians. There is horrific anti-
Semitism and there is horrific Islamophobia that is going on,
including the awful, awful murder of a 6-year-old Palestinian-
American boy in Illinois.
And, Dr. Patterson, I think your statement is right; we
cannot pass this on to our children.
And so, I am grateful that you are all here to discuss what
has to be a unified anti-hate platform among all religions,
among all ethnicities, among all races, so that we get back to
the foundational principles of this country and of this great
democracy--that we are all created equal, and we all have an
opportunity to succeed and to thrive regardless of our
religion.
I want to ask just a couple of questions, Ms. Tyler,
because this is a global fight, but it is obviously also a
domestic fight, and there is domestic extremism that we are now
seeing on both sides.
And I am curious what you think we can do in Congress to
assist the Administration's efforts to ensure that people of
faith are free to worship without fear of attack here in the
United States.
Ms. Tyler. I mean, I think it starts with the rhetoric that
is used in Congress. I think that people follow what they hear
here.
And so, it is important that we as a country live up to the
values that we have established in our Constitution and also in
who we are as a people--that we do not use rhetoric that
dehumanizes other people, that we do not claim that God is on
the side of any--of any side of any war, and that we take care
of civilians and we do not equate civilians with the
governments of their countries.
And I think any attempt to try to use religion or religious
people to justify a particular government policy has the
ability to, first, harm religion but, also, to spread violence
and hatred in the country. And so, I think that Congress has a
very important role to play, both in debate that happens here
and also in the instructions and the oversight that Congress
plays with the administration.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you for that thoughtful response.
And, Mr. Curry, in my last few seconds: Because of your
expertise in the international realm, I am curious how you
think or how you perceive domestic religious extremism and
discrimination has an impact abroad.
Mr. Curry. I think anytime we look at international
religious freedom, what I am trying to do is hold up the
international standard that people have the freedom to
associate, to choose their own faith, and to practice it
freely. I would say that standard should hold for us, as well,
here.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
I think what I am going to do is--we will just go to
closing statements.
Mr. Garcia, do you want to say anything?
Mr. Garcia. No. I just want to thank the witnesses again.
But I do want to just reiterate the point earlier that I
think the Biden Administration is and the State Department is
rebuilding a lot of these programs. I do want to commend them
for calling out, particularly at this really difficult moment,
anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and all the attacks on other
minorities happening across the world in countries.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.
I wish we would have spent a little bit more time focusing
on Americans' involvement in what are normally religious
matters in other countries.
I once met a woman here, who was appointed by President
Trump, who felt that the pushing of, let us say, a Planned
Parenthood agenda in Africa was largely racially driven but was
certainly opposed by the primarily Christian churches in Africa
at the time.
I think Dr. Patterson--I wish I would time to do a followup
question, but--pointed out that apparently some loans that
Western--or, the United States was giving out, as opposed to
Chinese loans, were conditioned upon things that were sometimes
against religious beliefs held in these third-world countries.
We have talked about the concern in Hungary for kind of an
anti-traditional Christian worldview held by the United States.
I think there were some kind of outlandish statements made by
people on the other side.
But right now, I think we are seeing around the world anti-
Semitism, but, to a certain extent, an anti-Semitism born of
kind of an anti-Western world view. And for whatever reason,
young people, very disturbingly, are drawn into that, for
whatever psychological reason. I think I saw kids with T-shirts
that were just shocking in our own Cannon Building the other
day. You know, kind of hard to believe why young people would
be drawn into this, but I think there is kind of a self-hatred
toward Western values here that young people are drawn to.
But, in any event, I encourage people to pay a little bit
more attention to the United States. They are getting involved
in what are normally religious issues or religious beliefs in
other countries. And I think that there is an element of kind
of an atheistic, humanistic world view that is kind of becoming
the official religion of some people around the United States,
and that is a horrible thing.
But, in any event, I know you guys took a lot of time out
of your busy days to be here today, so thank you one more time.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]