Suzan Johnson Cook to resign as religious freedom ambassador

[hrmjustin]

Lauren Markoe

WASHINGTON (RNS) Suzan Johnson Cook, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, will announce this week that she is resigning after 17 months on the job, according to two sources familiar with her office.

President Obama nominated the former Baptist minister to serve as his top adviser on protecting religious freedom around the world. When confirmed by the Senate in April 2011, she became the first woman and the first African-American in the position, which had been held by two people before her.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011.

Obama had been criticized for taking too much time after his own swearing-in to nominate a religious freedom ambassador, a position created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

He first nominated Johnson Cook in June 2010, but her nomination expired in January 2011 and Obama was forced to renominate her several weeks later.

Read more at http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/16/suzan-johnson-cooke-resign-today-religious-freedom-ambassador/

[kestrel91316]

1. Now THIS is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[hrmjustin]

2. I am not sure. I think promoting religious freedom is important.

[trotsky]

3. I think we can all agree that's important - which is why that's not the point.

The question is whether a special ambassador is needed for this function.

[hrmjustin]

4. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the ambassador advocates for people to have

the right not to believe as well.

[trotsky]

5. How did we advocate for religious freedom before we had a dedicated ambassador for it?

Was there something not working previously? Do we have any information showing a specially-funded ambassador has fixed those shortcomings, if they existed?

[hrmjustin]

6. Interesting and good questions.

However I still have no issue with it.

[rug]

7. This is why.

This Act was a response to the growing concern about religious persecution throughout the world. There had been instances of toleration on the part of the governments when the religious rights of their citizens and others had been violated. There are governments around the world which openly sponsor and tolerate restrictions on their citizens' right to practice, observe, study, or associate with other members of their religious faith.

The former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, John Shattuck, cited specific countries that fail to recognize the fundamental right of religious freedom. There is a civil war ensuing in Sudan because of the ruling party's intolerance of opposing religions.[3] The Chinese Catholics and Chinese Protestant groups battle government repression, and the Chinese government tightly regulates religious practices in the regions of Tibet and Xinjiang.[4] Members of the Rohingya Muslim minority are forced to take refuge in the neighboring Bangladesh. There are suspect cases of minority oppression in Europe as well. Russia's new religion law seeks to make restraints and inhibit new religious communities' ability to own property, publish literature or operate schools.[5] This Act tries to recognize such kind of blatant forms of religious discrimination and oppression. It finds that over one-half of the population of the world lives under regimes that have strict policies against basic religious freedoms. Title VII of the Act has noted that some regimes engage in persecution that includes subjection of those people who engage in practice of religious faiths that are not state sponsored, to detention, torture, beatings, forced marriage, rape, imprisonment, enslavement, mass resettlement and death. Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) in his speech to the Congress on October 2, 1998 stated:

“ […]this is an important aspect of the bill. If the definition of religious persecution were limited to only torture, imprisonment, or death, […] the Act would only cover about a few countries, and would not include about 80 to 85% of the religious persecution that takes place in the world […]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Religious_Freedom_Act_of_1998

[cbayer]

8. Disagree.

Since so much international conflict is connected to religion, it is critical that our state department have people with a keen understanding of religion and the ability to speak with some authority when the issue of religion and religious freedoms are on the table.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

[kestrel91316]

9. We should have people like that attached to every embassy - like, you know, a competent ambassador?

[cbayer]

10. Not sure what you are saying here, but if we have an embassy

in a region where the politics are very much tied up with religion, it would make a lot of sense to have expertise in the area.

They don't replace a competent ambassador any more than any member of the embassy team.

[kestrel91316]

11. I think all ambassadors should be competent in religious matters as they pertain to

our international relations. One would think that would be a basic job requirement.

[cbayer]

12. Do you think they should be competent in all areas? Or just in religion?

Do you think they carry the level of expertise in all the aspects of diplomacy or do they have staff, aides and consultants to whom they turn for education and guidance?

It would be nice if they had competence in all areas, but then they would be superhuman.