Open Letter I Wrote to Five (5) Senators

[jbg]

December 12, 2011

Senator Charles Schumer

322 Hart Senate Office Building

U.S. Capitol

Washington D.C. 20510

I am writing in order to preserve the vital U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), currently under imminent threat of termination. The USCIRF expresses U.S. values overseas in the way none of our other agencies can, on a minimal budget of $4,000,000.

Over the years, indeed since the founding of our country, the State Department has had to “thread the needle” and cater to the interests of countries whose values we do not share. This task is necessarily a delicate one. That means that the State Department cannot, and does not speak with a robust voice as to our core values of freedom of expression, particularly religious expression.

The U.S. is one of the only countries of the world founded on the idea of openness to all religions, or indeed lack of religion. Most countries of the world were established either on the basis of a predominant religion, i.e. Anglican, Catholic, or Islam, or a state religion, i.e. Communism or Fascism. The results, compared to the U.S. are, at best, stifling. They are, as we learned today with the execution of a woman in her 60’s in Saudi Arabia as a “sorcerer”, deadly.

If foreign countries can spend large amounts of money subsidizing hate through madrassahs, or even more benign forms of propaganda, the U.S. can afford $4,000,000. Indeed, the problem does not appear to be money. The problem appears to be an extortionate “hold” on the legislation placed by one Senator who wants a pork-barrel project for his State that the House of Representatives does not want.

Our country has higher ideals than back-scratching and log-rolling.

Very truly yours,

JBG

[waldo]

re: your expressed concerns relating to the probable shuttering of the U.S. State Department's, Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF):

you neglect to mention the U.S. State Department also houses a separate federal office, the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF)

... as Harper Conservatives are stealthily in the process of establishing a new Office of Religious Freedom, located within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade... said to be modeled solely after the U.S. IRF, it begs the question, are Harper Conservatives instituting a flawed U.S. model, one lacking a complement like the USCIRF?

[olp1fan]

I like Frances laws where you cannot wear any religious symbols visibly in public

[waldo]

I like Frances laws where you cannot wear any religious symbols visibly in public

notwithstanding you're missing the 'bigger picture'; that you're, seemingly, intent to drag yet another MLW thread down the symbols path...

certainly, France recently passed an act prohibiting face concealment in public spaces; however, when you speak of French laws concerning "conspicuous religious symbols", are you perhaps confusing "public schools" with public, at large?

[Guest Manny]

They want to take away my right to wear according to what I believe, and instead I must replace it with clothes from Walmart. A "free" society...

[jbg]

you neglect to mention the U.S. State Department also houses a separate federal office, the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF)

That is exactly the office I am writing about. Do you lack skills in either of Canada's three official languages?

[waldo]

re: your expressed concerns relating to the probable shuttering of the U.S. State Department's, Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF):

you neglect to mention the U.S. State Department also houses a separate federal office, the Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF)

That is exactly the office I am writing about. Do you lack skills in either of Canada's three official languages?

huh! Which of these is not like the other? USIRF versus USCIRF

just sayin, it would appear your favoured hobby-horse is a failed entity... one with a usefulness that has ended:

The Case for Pulling the Plug on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom

The reality is that there are eight very good reasons why USCIRF should no longer continue:

1. There is no compelling reason for the Commission -- it plays no vital role. When the International Religious Freedom Act was first drafted there was no Commission included in the initial draft; it was added to a subsequent draft to secure external support and votes in the House;

2. Recognizing the lack of a compelling role for the Commission, it originally had a sunset provision that would close it after five years;

3. The Commission produces a report that is duplicative and adds no value. The Department of State already produces a comprehensive report on the state of religious freedom around the world and the Commission's reports add little or no additional insight. In fact, USCIRF's reports are significantly taken from the State Department's reports;

4. The Commission has spent $4 million a year and has nothing effective or legitimate to show for it. Yet, looking at the hype the Commission generates about itself, one would think the Commission is doing the job that it thinks the IRF Office at the State Department is not doing. That's especially problematic, because there's no oversight for this rogue agency -- whose members are not elected and have no term limits and that thinks it can act in the place of the State Department and Congress;

5. Commissioners abuse travel privileges. USCIRF Commissioners have traveled first class and stayed in five-star hotels, while the Ambassador-at-Large and State Department officials are subject to strict travel restrictions that respect the use of tax-payer money. This kind of inappropriate use of tax-payer dollars cannot be justified in these financial times;

6. What's more, they've actually caused damage to American diplomatic relations and undermined initiatives of the International Religious Freedom Office. USCIRF's work on Saudi Arabia is a prime example. They set back the Department's work to purge Saudi textbooks, which are distributed worldwide, of discriminatory and inflammatory statements;

7. The Commission was intended to be a sort of think tank that could provide recommendations to the State Department and work cooperatively with the International Religious Freedom Office and the Ambassador-at-Large. That's why the Ambassador-at-Large is an Ex Officio Member of the Commission. Instead, the relationship has become adversarial because the Commission sees its role as that of a watchdog over the International Religious Freedom Office and the State Department. When its recommendations are not adopted, it becomes more shrill and strident and this is not conducive to effective dialogue, let alone cooperation;

8. It makes no sense for the watchdog to have more resources than the entity that is supposed to be doing the work. Better to give those resources to the entity with the proper mandate.

[The_Squid]

That is exactly the office I am writing about. Do you lack skills in either of Canada's three official languages?

LOL

ummm.... I think you owe Waldo an apology....

[jbg]

LOL

ummm.... I think you owe Waldo an apology....

Why, because he can't write in either English, Canadian or French?

[waldo]

LOL

ummm.... I think you owe Waldo an apology....

of course, we see the guy has now doubled down... while at the same feigning ignorance... of both my pointed question as well as the very existence of the USIRF.

huh! Which of these is not like the other?

USIRF

versus

USCIRF

[jbg]

of course, we see the guy has now doubled down... while at the same feigning ignorance... of both my pointed question as well as the very existence of the USIRF.

Your own so-called "pointed question" was both incoherent and incomprehensible.

[waldo]

Your own so-called "pointed question" was both incoherent and incomprehensible.

no - not at all. I pointed out the two distinct areas, the USIRF & the USCIRF... my initial interest perked by the somewhat 'covert' nature of Harper Conservatives moving to establish a new Office of Religious Freedom, said to parallel the USIRF. Of course, I pointed out you failed to advise on the existence of the USIRF; equally, I provided a rather damning summary account of why your favoured (and redundant) USCIRF should not continue.

it seems your only reply is to, now repeatedly, resort to pointed insults. Now, since you took the time to actually post your letter, you were looking for some degree of validation... I've given it to you. Is there a problem?

[jbg]

no - not at all. I pointed out the two distinct areas, the USIRF & the USCIRF...

My understanding is that they are two names for the same organization.

[waldo]

My understanding is that they are two names for the same organization.

if one is to take this at face value... to accept it... it means you didn't read any of my posts, and chose not to select both/either of the separate links for the USIRF & USCIRF that I provided to you. It also means you chose not to select the linked article I presented or read the extract from that article I quoted. It means you chose to ignore a reply from a MLW member that pointedly stated you were in error and owed an apology. You chose to do all of that while repeatedly throwing insults my way. Now, given those insults pointedly derided over your claims of my failings in language comprehension and coherence, it begs the question:

if your repeated insults were to the exclusivity of you claiming to have read any of my posts, followed any of my links, ignored the linked/quoted article and ignored another MLW member's aligned post... just what did you base your repeated insults on, hey?

Edited December 15, 2011 by waldo

[jbg]

if one is to take this at face value... to accept it... it means you didn't read any of my posts, and chose not to select both/either of the separate links for the USIRF & USCIRF that I provided to you.

I stand corrected and I apologize. The USIRF is a small agency within the State Department which coordinates the relationship between the larger, independent USCIRF and the State Department. You're right, it sounds stupid.

[Jack Weber]

They want to take away my right to wear according to what I believe, and instead I must replace it with clothes from Walmart. A "free" society...

A corporate driven/Free Market society...

...yippee....?

[Guest Manny]

I stand corrected and I apologize. The USIRF is a small agency within the State Department which coordinates the relationship between the larger, independent USCIRF and the State Department. You're right, it sounds stupid.

So perhaps you should write another letter to five senators- "Never mind..."

...

Edited December 18, 2011 by Manny

[jbg]

So perhaps you should write another letter to five senators- "Never mind..."

They were apparently reauthorized, and given funding. So the news is good, though the process stinks.

[LonJowett]

This thread was funny.

Edited December 18, 2011 by LonJowett

[jbg]

This thread was funny.

Who in the original version of this post were you calling a moron?

[waldo]

They were apparently reauthorized, and given funding. So the news is good, though the process stinks.

yes, per last weeks Congressional vote, the USCIRF was extended for another 3 years... with significant adjustments also implemented; including retroactive term limits such that 7 of the 9 current members will be out of a job in 3 months, a 25% budget decrease, as well as alignment of business practices (e.g. expense claims), with the State Department's IRF department. These adjustments will help to offset the over-riding criticisms of the USCIRF... but in the 'end', you still have two separate departments/entities, the IRF and the CIRF, with similar/identical mandates... redundancy at its finest!

[jbg]

yes, per last weeks Congressional vote, the USCIRF was extended for another 3 years... with significant adjustments also implemented; including retroactive term limits such that 7 of the 9 current members will be out of a job in 3 months, a 25% budget decrease, as well as alignment of business practices (e.g. expense claims), with the State Department's IRF department. These adjustments will help to offset the over-riding criticisms of the USCIRF... but in the 'end', you still have two separate departments/entities, the IRF and the CIRF, with similar/identical mandates... redundancy at its finest!

Are you not big enough to accept an apology?

[Guest Manny]

Are you not big enough to accept an apology?

What, so now you are against it?

"Dear Senators, I mis-spoke. How could you be so stupid..."