WASHINGTON (RNS)—When hundreds of Jewish, Muslim and Christian faith leaders from the United States and abroad descended on Washington for a recent conference on religious tolerance, participants were quick to note an unexpectedly large delegation of evangelical Christians.

Speakers at the Alliance of Virtue for the Common Good event repeatedly highlighted their surprise and delight over the noticeable contingent of evangelicals among the more than 400 participants at the three-day series of discussions and speeches.

Hamza Yusuf, president of Zaytuna College, America’s first accredited Muslim college, said the evangelical presence was notable given recent polling. According to a 2017 poll from Pew Research, nearly three-quarters of white evangelicals say there is a natural conflict between Islam and democracy, compared with roughly half or fewer of those in other major religious groups who express the same view.

White evangelicals also were the major religious group most supportive of President Trump’s 2017 travel ban barring immigrants and refugees from several Muslim-majority countries, according to a 2017 survey from the Public Religion Research Institute.

“The evangelicals coming took great courage, because of a lot of the attitudes within that community,” Yusuf said.

‘Tribal way’ will lead to destruction

At one point, Bob Roberts, pastor at Northwood Church in Keller, a Texas Baptist congregation, asked evangelicals in the crowd to clap if they were excited about the conference and its message.

“This is new for us. It shouldn’t be new for us,” he said over the applause. “I’m not a Muslim, but I just really care about religious freedom. … The tribal way we are doing religion today is going to destroy us.”

In an interview, Roberts said the “older, higher levels” of evangelicalism are unlikely to embrace the message of the conference, because they “have an old worldview.” But he argued younger evangelicals have “realized the world has shifted” and the Washington Declaration issued at the conference is a model for future efforts to protect religious liberty.

“Here’s something that’s really problematic about how we think about religious freedom: We get Christians together and say, ‘Here’s how we’re going to do it.’ That day is over,” he said. “If we don’t have conversations on religious freedom with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews—they’re wasted conversations.”

Challenges noted

Deborah Fikes, a Texas Baptist and former permanent representative from the World Evangelical Alliance to the United Nations, also discussed the challenges of interfaith work among conservative Christian groups.

“Growing up, Catholics were criticized, Muslims were criticized … the Methodists were criticized. … It was always such a focus on our differences,” she said during a panel. “Yes, there are definitely obstacles (to tolerance) for evangelicals because of that culture.”

Fikes said in her U.N. work, she observed American military actions abroad can foster negative perceptions of America, especially when conflated with the belief that the United States is a “Christian nation.”

She expressed concern that in America, the “conservative political party’s policies” are “really hurting the most vulnerable,” pointing to evangelical support for the Trump administration’s recent decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, despite widespread objection among Middle Eastern Christians.

“I know that conservative Christians … are so passionate about protecting Christian minorities in the Middle East, but that one decision has greatly harmed and compromised the Christian minorities we want to protect,” she said.

Group issues Washington Declaration

The conference touted its Washington Declaration at the end of the gathering, which said in part: “Recognizing that our shared values are more important than our differences, and that we are strongest when we act together, we pledge to combine our best efforts to foster unity where there is discord, aid the impoverished, tend the vulnerable, heal the poor in spirit, and support measures that will ensure respect for the dignity of every human being.”

It later adds: “There is no room for compulsion in religion, just as there are no legitimate grounds for excluding the followers of any religion from full and fair participation in society.”

In addition, the Washington Declaration called for concrete steps: serving a billion meals to victims of violence and conflict and proposing the creation of a “multireligious body” that would “support mediation and reconciliation that will act in accordance with our shared values to build peace in the world.”

The declaration did not mention Trump’s travel ban, and it was not clear how many attendees, if any, hailed from the Muslim-majority countries listed in the most recent iteration of the ban—Syria, Iran, Chad, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

The conference also included the first public address by newly appointed U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback. The former Kansas governor—confirmed by the Senate last month after Vice President Mike Pence cast a tie-breaking vote—described the conference as a model and spoke of religious freedom as the “most important foreign relations topic today.”

“This is the big one,” said Brownback, who grew up Methodist, converted to Catholicism and reportedly also attends an evangelical church. He said later: “The administration has made clear this is a foreign policy and national security objective.”

WASHINGTON—In light of a looming deadline for beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, World Relief brought together evangelical leaders to urge Congress to act on behalf of immigration reform.

“Providing a permanent DACA solution is the most pro-family, pro-education, pro-economy and pro-faith step that Congress and the president can take on this issue,” said Jesse Rincones, executive director of Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas.

Communities and churches will be affected

Not having a DACA solution would be a failure that would affect more than just 120,000 DACA recipients in Texas, Rincones noted.

“It will be our local churches and our local communities that continue to deal with the repercussions of such a failure,” he said.

Dreamers—the term often applied to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children—pay about $241 million in local and state taxes, Rincones noted. If 120,000 Dreamers are deported, the Texas economy would take about a $6 billion annual hit, he said.

“You don’t have to know a Dreamer or have one in your church to be affected,” Rincones said.

If 2,000 teachers in Texas who are in the United States under DACA were deported, the state’s education would be at risk, he added.

“Deporting Dreamers, many whose only country they have ever known is the U.S., means getting rid of the most assimilated and integrated immigrants our country has,” Rincones said.

If a bill is passed, then what the country will see is families who can stay together, students who can use their degrees in the work place, and pastors who can continue to serve their communities, he added.

“And what we will also see, is a country blessed and strengthen by their efforts,” Rincones said.

‘Congress has been unwilling to address it’

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, likewise called for a long-overdue immigration solution.

Lankford noted dialogue—but no solution—regarding immigration reform throughout his time in the Senate.

“It’s not that it has not been something obvious to everyone, that there was an issue or a need. It is that Congress has been unwilling to address it,” he said.

Instead of waiting for Congress to find a solution later, this is the moment to figure out what the law will say about the future of Dreamers and other immigrants in the country, he said.

Lankford served 22 years in youth ministry in Baptist churches. So, he said, he understood why church leaders were calling for a fair legislation for immigrants.

“Each individual is created in the image of God. Each individual has value and worth. Each individual has dignity,” Lankford said.

King noted most of his political philosophy comes from Abraham Lincoln, but said his religious thoughts come from the Gospel of Matthew.

“In Matthew 25, which for me summarizes my Christian faith, is the list of people who we are called upon to be responsible for,” King said. “I think the second person on that list is the stranger, and that is who we are talking about here.”

To see the full press conference, click here

WASHINGTON (RNS)—In his second appearance at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump steered clear of partisan politics and focused on his belief in the country’s dependence on God.

‘A nation of believers’

“America’s a nation of believers and together we are strengthened by the power of prayer,” Trump said in his 14-minute speech that emphasized connections between religion and government.

The 66th annual event, which drew more than 3,600 people to the Washington Hilton Feb. 8, was a time for prayer, speeches and networking between religious and political leaders from scores of countries. Guests at the breakfast included the presidents of Guatemala, Kosovo and Latvia.

Trump cited mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence, the words “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and the etching of “Praise Be to God” atop the Washington Monument.

“Each year this event reminds us that faith is central to American life and to liberty,” he said. “Our rights are not given to us by man. Our rights come from our creator. No matter what, no earthly force can take those rights away.”

Trump’s speech, which also honored first responders, tireless teachers and hard-working parents, was a shift from his first speech to the annual event last year, in which he promised to “totally destroy the Johnson Amendment,” a 1954 legislative measure that prohibits tax-exempt houses of worship from involvement in partisan politics.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who spoke after Trump and described the “miracles” of his and others’ surviving a June shooting at a congressional baseball practice, expressed his appreciation for Trump’s challenge last year. He noted the House passed a measure to repeal the Johnson Amendment. But the Senate later removed it from the final tax bill.

Both Scalise, who declared “You can’t separate church from state,” and the president emphasized the importance of Americans’ right to express religious views.

“We see the power of God’s love at work in our souls and the power of God’s will to answer all of our prayers,” Trump said. “When Americans are able to live by their convictions, to speak openly of their faith and to teach their children what is right, our families thrive, our communities flourish and our nation can achieve anything at all.”

The prayer breakfast included an appearance by a military veteran who bounced back from serious injury in a car bomb attack in Iraq, and the president giving a shoutout to a 9-year-old girl who has a disabling illness but whose doctor said she was able to walk again because “this little girl has God on her side.”

Tribute to Doug Coe

Held in early February each year, the breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian organization also known as the International Foundation. It is co-hosted by Democratic and Republican members of House and Senate weekly prayer groups. The breakfast is a predominantly evangelical Christian event, but Orthodox, Catholic and other Christians also take part, as do some non-Christians.

The breakfast also paid tribute to one of its longtime organizers, Doug Coe, who died last year in late February.

President Trump described Coe as someone “who everybody loved” and added: “For 60 years Doug devoted his time and passion to this prayer breakfast and to many other wonderful causes.”

Coe had emphasized the foundation’s focus on people-to-people relationships. The breakfast is known not just for its big-ticket main event but the ancillary gatherings that give leaders a chance to meet and talk.

Russians in attendance

This year, there were a significant number of Russian attendees at a time when congressional leaders have been investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign.

Speaking in the corridor afterward, Konstantin Bendas of the Pentecostal Russian Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith said a delegation of about 55 Russians attended the breakfast.

“When politicians cannot agree with each other, that’s the time when mere humans, mere people, should step in and start negotiating,” he said, speaking through an interpreter. “And believing people will kneel in prayer. And I think partially we have managed to do that today.”

Other attendees said they appreciated the multiday opportunity to connect with other people of faith.

“A lot of people focus on just the breakfast,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president and CEO of Enough Is Enough: Making the Internet Safer for Children and Families. “But it really is about three days of events and people coming together from all over the world and coming together in the spirit of Jesus.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The names Echol Cole and Robert Walker are far less familiar than Martin Luther King Jr. But labor action over harsh working conditions triggered by the deaths of those two African-American sanitation workers prompted the civil rights leader to travel to Memphis, Tenn., where he was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

On Feb. 1, faith leaders joined political and labor officials to mark the anniversary of the 1968 deaths of Cole and Walker, who both had taken cover from a rainstorm inside their garbage truck when its compactor malfunctioned and crushed them.

The city did not give their families enough money to cover their funeral expenses. Their deaths led to a protest in which local strikers from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees carried “I Am a Man” signs.

King joined their cause, visiting the city twice for it. He commended the many clergy who had become involved in it when he preached his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” sermon on April 3, 1968, which would be his last.

The Feb. 1 observance was part of the “I Am 2018” campaign, in which leaders of the Church of God in Christ, the nation’s largest black Pentecostal denomination, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees aim to draw attention to continuing needs for economic and racial justice.

“February 1 was so pivotal in all that took place with the two gentlemen that were killed due to the poor wages and the almost plantation style of work environment that triggered the movement and the strike that ultimately led to Dr. King’s involvement,” said Pastor Linwood Dillard, Church of God in Christ project coordinator for I Am 2018.

He expected dozens of clergy at a Memphis wreath-laying ceremony, including a moment of silence, prayers and a reading from King’s last sermon. Remembrances were planned in dozens of cities, with sanitation workers pulling off roadways and online supporters changing their profile pictures, organizers said.

“Echol Cole and Robert Walker represented the struggle of working people then, and still do today,” said Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We honor them and the brave men who took on a racist, rigged system and vow to continue fighting for economic justice for all workers.”

WASHINGTON (BP)—The White House’s immigration reform plan—which would provide a pathway to citizenship for about 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children—garnered a wide range of reactions after its main planks were unveiled Jan. 25.

The proposal includes not only a solution for the immigrant category known as Dreamers, but also $25 billion for a wall on the country’s southern border and other border security measures, as well as an end to extended-family “chain migration.”

‘A good starting point’

After the Trump Administration called for the U.S. Senate to bring the proposal to the floor, reactions to the plan varied from hopefulness to fierce opposition.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said he was pleased the White House is offering a plan for Dreamers but acknowledged it was a beginning to a process.

“I’m especially glad (the framework) outlines a path to citizenship” for Dreamers, Moore said. “This is a good starting point for Congress to get to work. Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and it’s well past time to pass a permanent solution.”

Officials on opposite sides of the immigration debate “must be willing to make a compromise to get the job done,” said Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

“While there are certainly aspects of this proposal either party may disagree on, there is also much they can celebrate,” he said. “Let us accomplish a bold and lasting solution for childhood arrivals, and yes, let us deliver enhanced border security too.”

Deep division

Differences over the White House proposal could be seen within the Senate Republican caucus.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., applauded the White House for presenting “a solid framework” for reform and urged Congress quickly to begin a debate “focused on solutions, not partisanship.”

“This framework provides certainty for families, enacts common-sense reforms to nuclear family sponsorship policy and protects our nation,” Lankford said. “Ignoring our many immigration problems is a form of amnesty that must end.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, balked at citizenship for Dreamers.

“I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally,” Cruz said, according to The Hill newspaper. “Doing so is inconsistent with the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”

Mike Needham, chief executive officer of the conservative Heritage Action for America, described the proposal on Dreamers as amnesty, saying, “If any amnesty negotiations are to take place, they should remain extremely limited in scope so as not to encourage further illegal immigration.”

Dreamers ‘held hostage’ to desire for border wall

Democrats criticized proposals related to funding for the border wall and the limitation of family sponsorships to immediate family members.

“Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., a leader in bipartisan Senate negotiations on the issue.

The Trump plan “would put the Administration’s entire hardline immigration agenda … on the backs of these young people,” Durbin said.

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called the White House plan “shameful.”

Basic element of White House plan outlined

The four pillars, as the White House describes them, of the framework are:

• Securing the border through, among other proposals, a $25 billion trust fund for a southern border wall system and improvements on the northern border, as well as increased removal of some in the country illegally.
• A 10- to 12-year path to citizenship for Dreamers who meet work, education and character requirements.
• Restricting family sponsorships to spouses and minor children.
• Eliminating the visa lottery for countries with low rates of immigration to this country.

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., expressed hope members of the Senate from both parties “will look to this framework for guidance as they work towards an agreement.”

Deadline for Dreamers near

A solution for Dreamers, a label that stems from the name of a bill introduced to protect this category of immigrants, is nearing a March 5 deadline set by Trump. The administration announced Sept. 5 it would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program but also instituted a six-month delay for Congress to act.

President Obama established the program in question by executive order in 2012 to protect undocumented immigrants who arrived in this country before their 16th birthday. DACA has provided relief for deportation for about 800,000 people. The order to protect Dreamers came after Congress failed for more than a decade to pass proposals to address the issue.

The effort to provide a solution for Dreamers is only one of many issues involved in reforming America’s immigration system. An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants are in the United States, but congressional efforts to enact a comprehensive measure have failed.

‘A special category of immigrants’

In early October, Moore of the ERLC brought together 51 evangelical leaders— including four former SBC presidents—in a statement endorsing “the underlying policy aim” of DACA “because we believe this is a special category of immigrants who are not legally culpable, who in most cases have no home other than the United States, and who are a blessing to their communities and to their churches.”

Those who have taken part in DACA have pursued education, worked and paid taxes, served in the military and refused to become involved in crime, the statement noted.

“A solution for Dreamers rightly excludes those convicted of felonies or multiple misdemeanors,” the signers said.

Messengers to the 2011 SBC meeting in Phoenix approved a resolution on immigration reform that called for the advancement of the gospel of Jesus while pursuing justice and compassion. The measure urged the government to make a priority of border security and hold businesses accountable in their hiring.

The resolution also requested public officials establish after securing the borders “a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country.” It specified the resolution was not to be interpreted as supporting amnesty.

The resolution acknowledged immigration reform “has prompted often-rancorous debate in the American public square.” During consideration of the resolution, an amendment to remove the paragraph regarding establishment of a “path to legal status” failed in a ballot vote of 51-48 percent.

At least seven months could be required to implement long-term relief for Dreamers if and when Congress approves a measure, the National Immigration Forum and the Niskanen Center have reported. Beginning March 5, about 1,000 people a day will lose their protection from deportation, according to their report.

In 2001, members of Congress proposed for the first time the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act—hence the name Dreamers for those in this category of undocumented immigrants. The measure gained reintroduction several times thereafter without passing before Obama acted.

TAUNTON, Mass. (RNS)—Two months after the deadliest church shooting in American history, federal authorities are spearheading new efforts to help equip local faith leaders to prepare for the worst.

U.S. attorneys’ offices in Colorado, North Carolina and Massachusetts have been convening security workshops for houses of worship in the wake of the Nov. 5 shooting that left more than two dozen worshippers dead in Sutherland Springs.

The Colorado initiative builds on past efforts to reach faith leaders, while four regional events across Massachusetts this winter mark a new initiative in that state.

Although not a national campaign, the outreach reflects a Trump administration priority to get government more involved in anti-terrorism training for civil society, observers say. The faith-based sector is a priority because data show religious institutions are the most common terrorism targets in the United States.

‘Protect the flock’

Response has been strong. More than 300 participants turned out for a Jan. 11 event in Taunton, Mass., where representatives from federal, state and local agencies covered active shooter threats among other scenarios.

“I’m not taking a chance on anybody in our congregation getting injured or killed,” said Richard Reid, pastor of North Baptist Church in nearby Brockton, Mass., who attended the workshop. “My job as the shepherd of the church is to protect the flock. And I will do so with whatever means I need.”

The workshops underscore a sobering reality: Religious institutions can be easy targets and relatively frequent ones. In 2015 and 2016, 38 percent of all terrorist attacks in the United States were strikes on religious figures or institutions, according to data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. That’s 38 attacks over two years (15 in 2015 and 23 in 2016) and more than any other sector experienced, including governments. (Data for 2017 is not yet available.)

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office learned that houses of worship could benefit from a greater understanding about how to handle an active threat or public safety crises,” U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said. “There was a need for education around how to develop contingency plans for emergencies and what to expect from law enforcement during emergencies.”

Churches seek to increase security

Since the Sutherland Springs massacre, congregations nationwide have been taking steps to increase security, according to Cheryl Kryshak, vice president of risk control for Church Mutual Insurance, the largest insurer of religious institutions in the United States.

Security training firms report a surge in demand from faith communities since the Texas attack; congregations now wait as long as a year for private training events.

Forging partnerships with law enforcement often is part of heightening vigilance, Kryshak said, along with creating church security teams.

In tightening security, North Baptist Church in Brockton has been no exception. Since November, ushers have been locking all doors as soon as worship begins. A laptop in the pulpit enables Reid to see throughout the building and outside via 15 security cameras. If the doorbell rings during worship, Reid can see who’s there and alerts security if he spots a threat.

But in-house security goes only so far at North Baptist, where conservative stances on social issues have made the church a target for verbal attacks, Reid said. Should a physical attack ever occur inside the church, the security team would immediately dial 911 and wait for police to arrive, he said.

“My phone is on the pulpit, ready to rumble,” Reid said. “The closer we can work with the authorities, the better off we’ll be in the long run.”

‘Robust partnerships’

What’s emerging in Massachusetts is likely a pilot ripe for replication in other states under the administration of President Trump, according to Peter Weinberger, senior researcher in countering violent extremism at the START center.

“With the Obama administration, there was a role for law enforcement, but it certainly wasn’t as active as it is today,” Weinberger said. “The Trump administration is now looking for robust partnerships (with religious institutions). They want really close coordination.”

Weinberger sees this new degree of collaboration playing out in Massachusetts. While the Obama administration largely left disaster training to religious organizations and their private consultants, the Trump administration wants law enforcement involved up front in training as well as incident response. That means faith leaders are coached to focus on what the law requires, including in situations where faith community members are behaving suspiciously.

Weinberger said he’s heard concerns suggesting faith leaders are being compelled to surveil and report on their own communities. But he’s not persuaded by those arguments or by notions that closer partnerships are inherently problematic.

Faith leaders “want to know, ‘What happens if we know that (some in the congregation) are online with extremist groups?’” Weinberger said. “‘What do I tell members of my community if they approach me in confidence? What are my obligations legally and ethically?’ It’s helpful to have law enforcement involved in that.”

To bear arms or not to bear arms

Outside the Taunton workshop, which was closed to news media, faith leaders said they were seeking authorities’ guidance on security issues that have stymied their communities.

“Our security team is split,” said Mark Oliver, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Brockton, during a lunch break at a sandwich shop. “One group believes they should be bearing weapons. The other half says: ‘No, we don’t want that. We don’t want that message being sent out there.’”

One local police panelist advised against having weapons in worship, Oliver said. The FBI declines to give advice on concealed carry practices, according to FBI Boston Division spokesperson Kristen Setera.

Attendees said they received other practical guidance, for example: Be alert for unusual behaviors that could be risk indicators, such as an unfamiliar worshipper who arrives on a hot day in a heavy overcoat drenched in sweat.

“The outreach right now is to try to establish communication with these different congregations and connect to ensure public safety,” said Mark Camillo, a former U.S. Secret Service agent and security expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

As agencies build trust at in-person sessions, he said, they’re apt to get more tips from religious communities.

“What your authorities hope would happen,” Camillo said, “is that somebody with a strong moral compass is going to say, ‘Hey, I’m hearing this, and I normally wouldn’t know where to go with it, but now I have a contact to bring the attention that’s needed.’”

WASHINGTON—By the narrowest margin, the U.S. Senate voted Jan. 24 to confirm Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

The deadlocked Senate voted 49-49, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote to allow Brownback to fill the post left vacant since David Sapperstein stepped down a year ago.

Brownback will head the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, which monitors religious freedom abuses globally.

Immediately after the Senate vote, Brownback took to Twitter to tweet: “I’m looking forward to starting my new position as ambassador and working hard for the American people and religious freedom around the world.”

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who had made filling the ambassadorship a legislative priority, voiced his support for Brownback and his belief in the importance of the Office of International Religious Freedom.

“Confirmation of Sam Brownback as the ambassador-at-large sends a message to the world that religious freedom is a priority of the United States government,” he said. “It is an important first step, but we cannot stop there. Religious freedom must be an integral part of our overall national security and we must use all tools available to condemn acts of religious persecution.”

Contrasting responses

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty—which does not take positions on appointments to office—offered a measured response to Brownback’s confirmation.

“Some of Gov. Brownback’s prior positions on issues of religious freedom for everyone are concerning, such as his praise for President Trump’s original travel ban that differentiated among refugees fleeing religious-based persecution,” said Amanda Tyler, BJC executive director.

“The prolonged nomination process and razor-thin margin on final passage reflect additional concerns that Gov. Brownback’s domestic policy positions may negatively impact his ability to serve in this diplomatic post.

“We are encouraged by Gov. Brownback’s testimony that he would continue the work of Ambassador David Saperstein, and we look forward to working with Ambassador Brownback in his new role.”

In contrast, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called Brownback “an outstanding choice” for the ambassador’s role and said he was “delighted to see the Senate confirm him to serve in this critical post.”

“This ambassadorship is a key piece in our nation’s responsibility to act on behalf of the persecuted around the world, one that requires a seasoned, respected leader who brings conviction and gravity to the work of this crucial post. Governor Brownback is exactly this kind of leader,” he said.

Moore pointed to Brownback’s human rights record in the Senate, predicting he “will be an exceptional ambassador.”

“He has my prayers and pledge of full cooperation, and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead. We need all the diplomatic and intellectual power we can muster in addressing these critical matters of human rights and global security.”

In spite of the narrow vote along party lines, former U.S. Congressman Frank Wolf insisted international religious freedom remains “one of the few nonpartisan issues in Washington, both fundamental to our identity as Americans and also essential to our national security.”

“In Sam Brownback, we have a leader who not only understands the intricacies of Capitol Hill; he has a heart and the demonstrated passion for the mission of this office,” said Wolf, distinguished senior fellow with the 21^st Century Wilberforce Initiative.

Experience in the House and Senate

Before Brownback was elected governor, he served in the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2011, after having served in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995-96.

In the Senate, he was co-sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. He also was co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

During the Darfur crisis in 2004, Brownback led efforts for a genocide declaration, and he also introduced human rights legislation related to North Korea and Sudan.

He chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, and he co-chaired the U.S. Helsinki Commission.

Support from conservative Christian groups

Brownback’s nomination received support from several Christian religious freedom advocacy groups.

Nate Lance, advocacy manager for International Christian Concern, welcomed the news of Brownback’s confirmation as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

“This ambassadorship plays a critical role in prioritizing religious freedom issues in U.S. foreign policy and advocating for religious minorities around the world who are persecuted for their faith or lack thereof,” Lance said. “Having someone who is a governor and former U.S. senator elevates this position, making the ambassadorship a stronger advocate for freedom of religion or belief.”

Thomas Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute, voiced appreciation to the Senate for Brownback’s confirmation.

“Ambassador Brownback’s deep experience, and his commitment to religious freedom for all people, will help ensure American leadership in the vital work of reducing global religious persecution,” Farr said. “We believe he will make U.S. religious freedom policy an integral part of America’s national security strategy.”

Michael Farris, president/chief executive officer and general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, praised Brownback for his “clear passion and understanding” of religious freedom issues.

“America must defend and protect religious freedom globally, and Gov. Brownback is unquestionably capable of engaging this vital mission,” Farris said. “It’s clear from history that when any nation abuses or suppresses religious freedom, other freedoms are likewise in danger. America needs a strong advocate for the basic human rights and dignity of those who wish to live consistently with their faith without undue government interference.”

Strong opposition noted

On the other hand, the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized Brownback for his support of a 2012 anti-Sharia law bill that prohibits state courts and agencies from using Islamic law in rendering decisions.

Gay rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, opposed Brownback for signing an executive order that reversed a previous order barring discrimination against LGBT state workers.

Planned Parenthood also criticized his record both on LGBT rights and abortion rights.

President Trump initially nominated Brownback for the ambassador’s position last July. When the Senate failed to vote on his nomination before Dec. 31, Trump had to renominate him.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—In 2017, Kristen Day was one of relatively few women to attend both the record-breaking Women’s March, whose organizers voiced strong support for abortion rights, and the March for Life, an anti-abortion gathering a few days later.

This year, the pro-life Democrat only returned to one of them, saying she didn’t “feel welcome” at the Women’s March.

Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, explained her decision was the result of a “bad experience” at last year’s Women’s March. As the demonstration drew to a close, a marcher accosted her, she said. The marcher disliked her sign, which read “Pro-life for the whole life.” The attacker allegedly began yelling and banging on her car until police eventually intervened.

Day, a Catholic, opposes abortion but touts liberal views on other issues—a position she says increasingly is tenuous in today’s polarized political climate.

Even so, she said, “a lot of Democrats” who support minimum wage increases, maternity leave and immigration reform also believe “that life begins in the womb.”

Some pro-life Democrats motivated by faith

Yet political strategists still grapple with how to engage Day and other pro-life Democrats, many of whom root their anti-abortion position in their religious faith. And as Democrats express hope of sweeping the U.S. House and Senate this November at the hands of an energized progressive base, it’s unclear whether the party will muster robust engagement of this subgroup, or if doing so is even in their interests.

The number of Democrats who are ambivalent about abortion—or even outright opposed to it—is sizable. A 2017 Pew Research survey reported 22 percent of Democrats believe it should be illegal in all or most cases.

According to 2014 polling data provided to Religion News Service by the Public Religion Research Institute, 24 percent of that group are black Protestants; white evangelical Protestants and Hispanic Catholics account for 14 percent each; 12 percent are religiously unaffiliated, and the rest are small slivers of various religious groups such as white mainline Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others.

Controversial in some circles

But these numbers don’t answer the question of what progressives can do to accommodate this group, or if doing so would be a boon at the ballot box.

Erica Sackin, director of political communications for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says headline-grabbing controversy obscures an energized progressive electorate galvanized around what she called a “mainstream political belief”—namely, that most Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a claim backed by data from Pew Research.

“At the end of the day, everybody has different personal feelings about abortion,” she said, noting Planned Parenthood has its own religious advisory board. “What people across the board can agree on is that it’s not the government’s job to make that decision for people.”

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party remains embroiled over the issue. Tensions came to a head last July, when Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Ben Ray Luján declared there would be no “litmus test” on abortion for Democrats seeking office in 2018. The line outraged NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, who described it as “an ethically and politically bankrupt strategy.”

It also appeared to contradict Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, who said in April that “every Democrat” should support abortion rights, adding, “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

Luján’s comments echo those of other prominent progressives, however. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in April “of course” it’s possible to be a Democrat and hold anti-abortion views, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., endorsed an anti-abortion Democrat in Nebraska.

“We have got to appreciate where people come from and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda,” Sanders told NPR. “But I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.”

Heartland values

According to Day, the back-and-forth may be less about what the majority of Americans think and more about efforts by Democrats to win back conservative parts of the country. She pointed to a 50-page report released in January and co-authored by three-term U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.

The report, “Hope From the Heartland: How Democrats Can Better Serve the Midwest by Bringing Rural, Working Class Wisdom to Washington,” notes liberal-leaning Americans in Midwestern rural areas often express anti-abortion views. Former Ohio state Rep. Nick Barborak reportedly told the authors if Democrats expel anti-abortion Democrats, “We might as well write off eastern Ohio.”

PRRI data suggests this assessment would resonate with at least some of the party faithful. According to PRRI’s 2014 poll, 35 percent of Democrats in the South believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, as do 27 percent of Democrats in the Midwest.

But looking ahead toward the midterms, the real question is whether anti-abortion Democrats in these regions prioritize the issue as much as their Republican counterparts. Planned Parenthood’s Sackin cited the recent U.S. Senate race in Alabama as evidence they do not: After all, Democrat Doug Jones, who advocated for abortion rights, defeated Republican Roy Moore, who was strictly anti-abortion, in deeply red Alabama.

Moreover, she noted, some pollsters argue abortion only played a minor role in the election, as Alabama voters who cast their ballots solely on the issue were overwhelmingly Republicans and never “gettable” voters for Jones in the first place.

Day read the results differently. She argued Jones never would have beaten an anti-abortion candidate in the heavily evangelical Christian state were it not for the numerous allegations against Moore of inappropriate behavior toward teen girls.

Regardless, Day isn’t giving up her fight anytime soon. She said she’s considered leaving the Democratic Party in the past but always was brought back by phone calls and messages of encouragement from people across the country.

“There are (millions of) pro-life Democrats out there who want me to fight for them, and bring the party back to life—in two senses of the word,” she said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—At least three members of the White House’s informal board of evangelical advisers distanced themselves from President Trump’s alleged vulgar reference to certain poor non-white countries during talks about immigration reform.

In the past, when Trump’s critics have pressed board members to repudiate language of the president that was widely deemed offensive, the advisers have demurred, arguing that it’s not their role to publicly chastise the president.

But this particular crude comment, allegedly made Jan. 11 in response to lawmakers who asked about protections for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, seemingly left at least some of these advisers uncomfortable enough to counter with their own words on the topic.

Other board members, usually quick to jump to the president’s defense, declined to answer questions about the remark, which caused an immediate firestorm, with many commentators describing it as racist.

‘Created in the image of God’

That was not the take of Samuel Rodriguez, a member of the unofficial evangelical advisory board and the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. However, he noted “every single person is created in the image of God” and spoke of welcoming people equally from Nigeria and Norway, albeit after “a rigorous vetting process.”

Later, he said more: “In addition, and with great due deference, I believe that the comments attributed to our president can best be described as wrong, inappropriate and hurtful. Why? Because when God looks at these nations, he sees his children.”

Ronnie Floyd, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and another adviser, was also critical of the president’s remarks. He told the Washington Post: “I would not agree with those comments at all. We need to see that every person is made in the image of God.”

Johnnie Moore, a former vice president of Liberty University and the de facto spokesman for the unofficial advisory board, responded in an email about Trump’s alleged remark: “Obviously, those words aren’t words we would use, and everyone who knows us knows this.”

Disputed derogatory term

Trump published a series of tweets denying that he used the crude term after the Washington Post reported on the meeting. He also said that he “never said anything derogatory about Haitians.”

“The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made—a big setback for DACA!” one of his tweets stated.

But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was at the meeting, corroborated the Washington Post report to Associated Press Jan. 12. “He said these hate-filled things, and he said them repeatedly.”

More than 80 percent of white evangelicals cast their ballots for Trump in the 2016 election, making them his most loyal group of religious voters.

Need for bipartisan cooperation

In the midst of the uproar over the president’s alleged derogatory language, Moore and others on Trump’s unofficial evangelical advisory board focused on efforts to reach a bipartisan deal on immigration.

That was the issue on the table when Trump, whose language in reference to immigrants often has been harsh—and in the opinion of many of his critics, discriminatory and racist—made his comments on people from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa.

Moore said Democrats need to compromise with Trump, who wants to build a wall to keep people from illegally crossing from Mexico into the United States.

“If the Democrats support an inanimate object (the wall)—a policy supported by most Democrat leaders also for many, many years for the same security reasons for which Republicans support it today—then the Republicans will easily line up in mass to get Dreamers permanently cared for,” Moore said, referring to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in September the administration’s intention to end DACA, created through executive order under President Obama to offer work permits to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. But Trump offered a six-month window for Congress to pass legislation before the program expires, a move his evangelical advisers claimed was partly the result of their lobbying efforts.

Deja vu all over again

Tony Suarez, a vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and a member of the unofficial board, declined to offer a direct response to Trump’s inflammatory remarks. He, too, focused on the issue of immigration.

“We are experiencing deja vu,” he said. “Every time we get close to reaching a deal on immigration we get derailed right before the finish line.”

The blowback over the president’s allegedly insulting language echoes the response when Trump said “both sides” were responsible for the tragic violence in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, when he seemed to equate white supremacists with counterprotesters.

One evangelical board member subsequently left the group in protest, but Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. told Fox News at the time that Trump “doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.”

When asked for a response Jan. 12 to Trump’s alleged remarks in the recent Oval Office meeting, Falwell said through a Liberty official that he had “no comment on this issue.”

‘Right on target’

At least one member of Trump’s unofficial evangelical advisory board, which includes more than 20 clergy and prominent lay people from several denominations, publicly backed Trump.

According to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress—whose book the president promoted on Twitter in October—issued a defense of Trump Jan. 12.

“Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him, President Trump is right on target in his sentiment,” said Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas. “As individual Christians, we have a biblical responsibility to place the needs of others above our own, but as commander-in-chief, President Trump has the constitutional responsibility to place the interests of our nation above the needs of other countries.

“I’m grateful to have a president like Donald Trump who clearly understands the distinction and has the courage to protect the well-being of our nation.”

Pastor Mark Burns, another adviser, also aligned himself with the president in a tweet, saying his remarks were about “lazy governments” and not racism.

‘They are us’

Meanwhile, other faith leaders condemned the alleged remarks.

The National Council of Churches issued a statement in which it “unequivocally” condemned the remarks, describing them as “deeply disturbing.” It also decried another alleged statement by the president suggesting the United States bring in more people from countries such as Norway, saying such rhetoric “reveals a deep-seated racism that is unacceptable.”

The Progressive National Baptist Convention also issued a statement: “It is not enough that Trump says these hurtful words and suffers no consequences. It is that he is developing policies on the basis of race that will hurt people of color for years to come.”

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm and longtime critic of Trump, tweeted out a message of solidarity with nations in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean: “The church of Jesus Christ is led by, among others, our brothers and sisters from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. They are us.”

Ed Stetzer, a professor at Wheaton College and another evangelical critic of Trump, also encouraged his fellow faithful to condemn the remarks Friday in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

“So, the commander in chief used a filthy or ‘tough’ word to the point that it stunned those who heard it,” he wrote. “But beyond the profanity, the most startling part of his remark is his suggestion that certain people’s living conditions should disqualify them from immigrating to the United States.”

This article was edited to remove the offensive term allegedly used in the White House meeting.

WASHINGTON—President Trump nominated Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback—once again—as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom Jan. 8.

It marked the second time in six months Trump nominated Brownback, a former senator, to fill the post left vacant since David Saperstein stepped down nearly a year ago.

Since the Senate failed to vote on his nomination before its Christmas recess, Trump had to resubmit the nomination. U.S. Senate Rule 31 requires senators to agree unanimously to continue considering nominees at the end of a year.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may or may not hold hearings again, but the committee must vote again before he can be considered by the Senate.

‘Crucial time’ for action

Nate Lance, advocacy manager for International Christian Concern, commended the Trump Administration for making the nomination and urged the Senate to move forward.

“Now is a crucial time for the U.S. government to act swiftly to fill the position and implement strong policies that will intervene on behalf of religious minorities,” Lance said. “It is ICC’s desire to see the former governor act quickly on the commitments he made while working to secure the position. We look forward to working with him to further the cause of freedom of religion or belief.”

Randel Everett, president of the 21^st Century Wilberforce Initiative, pointed to dramatic examples of international religious freedom violations that have occurred in the past year.

The People’s Armed Police in China destroyed the Golden Lampstand Church in Sanxi Province on Jan. 9, he said. In recent months, 650,000 Rohinya Muslims have fled Myanmar into Bangladesh to escape what some human rights advocates term “ethnic cleaning,” he added.

“Millions continue to be displaced, thousands have been captured and killed in the Middle East and in Northern Nigeria as a result of religious violence,” said Everett, former executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

“While Congress plays games of partisan politics leaving the position of U.S. ambassador for international religious freedom unfilled, 77 percent of the world continues to live under religious persecution and oppression.”

Before Brownback was elected governor, he served in the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2011, after having served in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995-96. During his time in the Senate, he was co-sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. He also was co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and representatives of several other conservative Christian groups backed Brownback’s nomination.

However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized Brownback for his support of a 2012 anti-Sharia law bill, which prohibits state courts and agencies from using Islamic law in rendering decisions. Gay rights groups took issue with Brownback for signing an executive order that reversed a previous order barring discrimination against LGBT state workers.

Editor’s Note: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on Brownback’s nomination Jan. 18.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Emergency Management Agency changed its policies to allow damaged churches and other houses of worship to receive disaster relief aid.

The revised policies state “private nonprofit houses of worship will not be singled out for disfavored treatment” compared to other not-for-profit applicants. The new policies are retroactive to disasters declared on or after Aug. 23, 2017.

However, some advocates of church/state separation insist the changes give religious groups favored status over other nonprofits and put the government in the untenable position of determining which houses of worship it will help rebuild.

Texas and Florida lawsuits

FEMA revised its policies in light of two lawsuits—one from three Texas churches damaged by Hurricane Harvey and the other from a pair of Florida synagogues affected by Hurricane Irma. The case involving the Texas churches is on appeal, and the Florida synagogues’ case is pending in federal district court in Key West.

The suits challenged a policy that allowed some nonprofit community centers to receive FEMA funds to repair storm-damaged facilities but excluded buildings used for religious activities.

“Better late than never,” said Daniel Blomberg with Becket, the law firm that represented the houses of worship in Texas and Florida. “By finally following the constitution, FEMA is getting rid of second-class status for churches, which, in the words of the Supreme Court, was ‘odious’ to the First Amendment. We will watch carefully to make sure that FEMA’s new policy is implemented to provide equal treatment for churches and synagogues alongside other charities.”

The FEMA policy guide specifies houses of worship are not considered ineligible for assistance “on the basis of the religious character or primarily religious use of the facility.”

The agency particularly cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. 

In that 7-2 decision last year, the court ruled Missouri acted improperly when it denied public funds to a Lutheran church that sought assistance from a state program providing grants for playground improvements.

‘Problematic’ policy

Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, asserted the FEMA policy change is “problematic” and not required by the court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer.

“Our constitutional tradition has long treated churches as a special category to protect their unique status,” Hollman said. “It is not within the government’s authority to build churches, nor should the government have the power to decide which houses of worship get rebuilt after a disaster.”

Maggie Garrett, legislative director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sees the FEMA policy change as a violation of the First Amendment.

“The constitution is clear. A fundamental principal of religious liberty is that the government doesn’t build churches, synagogues or other houses of worship,” Garrett said.

The FEMA assistance in question is “a narrow grant program” not available to all nonprofits, she noted.

“The policy changes give special treatment to houses of worship,” she said.

The longstanding principle that government funds should not be used to build churches, synagogues and mosques protects the rights of taxpayers not to fund houses of worship contrary to their convictions, Garrett said.

It also protects houses of worship from the entanglement that accompanies government funds, she added.

WASHINGTON—Senators recessed before Christmas without voting on Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s nomination as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

President Trump nominated Brownback in July to fill the post left vacant since David Saperstein stepped down Jan. 20.

The Senate’s failure to act sends Brownback’s nomination back to the president’s desk, because U.S. Senate Rule 31 requires senators to agree unanimously to continue considering nominees at the end of a year.

For Brownback to be considered when the Senate reconvenes, President Trump must re-nominate him. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may or may not hold hearings again, but the committee must vote again if he is to be considered by the Senate.

Elijah Brown, executive vice president of the 21^st Century Wilberforce Initiative and general secretary-elect of the Baptist World Alliance, expressed his disappointment at the Senate’s inaction.

“At a time when 500,000 Rohingya Muslims have been forced to flee from Myanmar as refugees in what the State Department has declared ‘ethnic cleansing, to use just one example, this position ought to be seen as a priority,” Brown said.

“In fact, the office of the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom has never been more pressing. It is my hope that nomination and confirmation could occur quickly in early 2018. Ideally this would be finalized by the 2018 National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 8.”

Before Brownback was elected governor, he served in the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2011, after having served in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995-96. During his time in the Senate, he was co-sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. He also was co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

Brownback’s nomination for the ambassadorship gained public support from Randel Everett, founding president of the 21^st Century Wilberforce Initiative, and Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, among others.

However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized Brownback for his support of a 2012 anti-Sharia law bill, which prohibits state courts and agencies from using Islamic law in rendering decisions.

He also drew the ire of gay rights groups for signing an executive order that reversed a previous order barring discrimination against LGBT state workers.