I learned some interesting things while reading Joseph K. Grieboski's column in the Huffington Post about America's apparent need to have an Ambassador for Religious Liberty. Despite his exhortations, I find myself unable to agree with Grieboski's premise. Every problem he wants the next Ambassador for Religious Liberty to address could (and should) be addressed by a variety of other members of the Department of State.
Rep. Peter King, R-NY |
We must not ignore the problems fueled by religious discrimination. Still, it is not the responsibility of the United States to provide representation for oppressed groups to their own governments, which is partly what Grieboski means when he vaguely references giving "a voice" to oppressed religious peoples.
I see nothing in Grieboski's article that convinces me we should further blur the lines between secularism and religion in the government by promoting bureaucratic redundancy through an appointment to the position of Ambassador for Religious Liberty. And even if I did agree that the country needed this position filled, we would have to overcome the image problem caused by our own religious intolerance before we could ever be taken seriously by the leaders of other countries.
0 comments:
Post a Comment