PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW STATEMENT

“The IRF Roundtable is an informal group of individuals from non-governmental organizations who gather regularly to discuss IRF issues on a non-attribution basis. It is simply a safe space where participants gather, speak freely in sharing  ideas and information, and propose joint advocacy actions to address specific IRF issues and problems. In response to various participant-led initiatives regarding the protection and promotion of freedom of religion, conscience, and belief in the U.S. and abroad, all participants have the opportunity to self-select into coalitions of the willing.”

“The Roundtable meets every three months in the U.S. Capitol and average attendance has grown to 60-75 participants from civil society and government, including senior staff members from the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Helsinki Commission, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, the International Religious Freedom Caucus, members of Congress, and foreign embassies.”

“The goal of the Roundtable is to reverse the rising tide of restrictions on religious freedom that has been spreading across the world. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest annual study on global restrictions on religion, 83% of the world’s population lived in countries with high or very high levels of restrictions and/or hostilities in 2015 (up from 79% in 2015, 74% in 2014; and 68% in 2007).”

​

“In this direction, the purpose of the Roundtable is to advance IRF by:”

​

1. Engaging the U.S. government to make IRF a foreign policy and national security priority so:

• IRF is fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy and national security, including democracy promotion,

• public diplomacy, counterterrorism, and multilateral strategies.

• U.S. foreign policy tools are used to advance religious freedom around the world, per the mandate established by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.

• The political and cultural institutions necessary to advance religious freedom are continually supported, facilitated, and protected at home and abroad.

• Global levels of religious intolerance, discrimination, persecution, terrorism, and instability are significantly reduced.

2.” Engaging civil society leaders, other governments that protect and promote religious freedom, and multilateral, intergovernmental institutions to coordinate joint advocacy efforts.”

3. “Engaging in meaningful dialogues with governments that restrict religious freedom, so as to:

• Politely but persistently push factual reports that document violations of their own constitutions and/or international commitments.

• Frame the issues in their best interests, and increase mutual understanding and respect of religious communities and dynamics.

• Agree on a process to resolve differences related to particular situations in their countries.

• Create a mechanism for improvement of policies and practices, and for verification.”

​

“While participants of the IRF Roundtable continue to engage the U.S. government to do more to advance IRF, and work with it when and where it can help, they do not rely exclusively on it to achieve the goal. Rather, participants also reach out directly to other governments. The meaningful dialogues they have opened with ambassadors, embassies, and delegations are designed to grow into results driven collaborations. Indeed, they are manifestations of “bottom-up” civil society engaging the “top-down” of authoritarian governments, something participants want to model in the context of multiple bilateral relations. To borrow from the language of diplomacy, the Roundtable represents a creative intersection of “Track 1” (governmental) and “Track 2″ (civil society) its emerging model is a true demonstration of “Track 1.5” engagement in action, through which strategic partnerships, collaborations, and consultative relationships between governments and civil society organizations might advance peace and prosperity.”

​

“Policy regarding the Chatham House rule:”

“The International Religious Freedom (IRF) Roundtable model is based on participants being able to discuss religious freedom issues freely in a “safe space.” The creation and maintenance of this “safe space” is thus a foundational principle that allows participants from a wide range of backgrounds and religious beliefs to convene, discuss, and act on facts, circumstances, proposals, and policies in support of religious freedom worldwide. Such a “safe space” needs to be fiercely protected in a world in which, for many people in too many locations, it is dangerous to speak up and raise issues that impact religious freedom. The use of the Chatham House Rule is one key means to creating a safe space for effective discussion and action.

ERLC’S HAWKINS WORKED ON THE IRF STEERING COMMITTEE .ITS WORK IS DESCRIBED BELOW .

The Steering Committee intends to steward and protect this free and safe forum by the use of the Chatham House Rule, and so, when necessary, will take actions to protect the IRF Roundtable model. Therefore, as determined by the Steering Committee, if any individual, representative, or group violates the Chatham House Rule in a way that undermines the IRF Roundtable model and/or the safety of its participants or others, they will be removed from the mailing list and dis-invited to any and all future events and activities directly organized and/or hosted by the IRF Roundtable.”

CONCLUSION

ERLC IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF MULTI-FAITH DIALOG AS AMERICAN CHURCHES AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTIONS ARE UNDER MASSIVE ASSAULT. COVID-19 HAS BEEN USED TO SHUT DOWN CHURCH SERVICES AND EVEN OUTLAW SINGING /WORSHIP IN SOME PLACES.

DAILY SCOTUS DECISIONS ARE  PAINTING AMERICA’S CHURCH INTO VERY SMALL /LIMITED SPACES.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS BURNING DOWN WHILE MOORE AND HIS DISCIPLES FIDDLE WITH THEIR LGBTQ AND MUSLIM FRIENDS.

As always the ERLC under Russell Moore, as well as his many disciples in its employ – retain a distracted focus on other issues. Moore’s disciples who have moved on from the ERLC continue the same mission. Matters of interfaith religions, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights  and resettlement, redefining the family and transforming the political engagement of Baptist and the broader American Christian Conservatism seem the common ERLC obsession. Appeasing the international community with diversity and inclusion, hanging out at UN and IRF events and espousing the language of “human dignity” over  individual freedoms and even the U S Constitution appear to be the goal rather than any of the task their job descriptions call for. Dropping the ball on protecting and preserving Christians Religious Liberty -as the ERLCs name and history imply…to Moore and his underlings must seem the “Ethical ” and “Christian” thing to do. If so, then they do it very well.