Shaming our Way to Religious Freedom

[pogi]

Former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback was on the former Trump administration working to combat religious persecution abroad.  He has now started an organization here in the US with the same intention.  On the surface, this sounds like a noble cause, but in reading about the tactics that will be used it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen that will only deepen the divide and exacerbate the tension that already exists.  I fear this will only create more hate, more intolerance, and more divisiveness in our country when we really don't need any more of that.     

from this Deseret News article, Tom Farr complains:

Quote

“Cultural and political elites ... defame as bigots and haters those with whom they disagree on matters of religion and public policy and public morality,” said Tom Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington, D.C., during Tuesday’s event.

Ok, fair points.  We shouldn't defame or shame those who simply disagree with us on matters of religion and public policy/morality.  It sounds like he is saying that if religious people are disregarding the concerns of people of no-faith or of the LGBTQ community, it is only because of their religious beliefs - nothing personal.  People of faith shouldn't be publicly shamed and defamed for this.  

So, how does this organization intend to combat this?

Quote

This week, Brownback, with the support of faith leaders from across the religious spectrum, launched the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting the right of religious expression by, among other things, naming and shaming politicians who disregard the concerns of people of faith.

In other words, anyone who simply disagrees with them on matters of faith, public policy, and public morality will be defamed and publicly shamed.  Hmmm...what was that they were just complaining about?  Do they really not see the hypocrisy in this? 

Further from the article.

Quote

What the mostly conservative group of speakers did not address is that many of today’s most pressing religious liberty debates are only partly caused by a lack of respect for or understanding of religious freedom and religious people.

In other words, concerns about the postgame prayer or Catholic foster care agency don’t necessarily stem from anti-religious bias; some people are more worried about protecting impressionable young football players or gay couples hoping to foster or adopt than protecting the people of faith who interact with them.

Fair points. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/1/19/22891381/this-new-group-says-people-of-faith-are-under-attack-heres-how-it-plans-to-help-them-sam-brownback

I guess my question is how should we react to this?  Will those who have complained about the cancel culture and public shaming tactics we see today stand up against these tactics when they are used for a cause they believe in?  What would be a better approach?

Edited January 20, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback was on the former Trump administration working to combat religious persecution abroad.  He has now started an organization here in the US with the same intention.  On the surface, this sounds like a noble cause, but in reading about the tactics that will be used it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen that will only deepen the divide and exacerbate the tension that already exists.  I fear this will only create more hate, more intolerance, and more divisiveness in our country when we really don't need any more of that.     

from this Deseret News article, Tom Farr complains:

Ok, fair points.  We shouldn't defame or shame those who simply disagree with us on matters of religion and public policy/morality.  If religious people are disregarding the concerns of people of no-faith or of the LGBTQ community, it is only because of their religious beliefs - nothing personal.  People of faith shouldn't be publicly shamed and defamed for this.  

So, how does this organization intend to combat this?

In other words, anyone who simply disagrees with them on matters of faith, public policy, and public morality will be defamed and publicly shamed.  Hmmm...what was that they were just complaining about?   They are only hurting the cause of religion by engaging in such tactics.  

Further from the article.

Fair points. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/1/19/22891381/this-new-group-says-people-of-faith-are-under-attack-heres-how-it-plans-to-help-them-sam-brownback

 

This will not end well.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This will not end well.

Maranatha...please!

[The Nehor]

Everything is a Russian nesting doll chain of idiocy.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Divisive language to be sure, but what if it were phrased slightly differently?

Quote

This week, Brownback, with the support of faith leaders from across the religious spectrum, launched the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting the right of religious expression by, among other things, using media and other forms of communication to highlight the behavior of politicians who disregard the concerns of people of faith.

That way, it's more about people using their first amendment rights to speak out against stuff worthy of being spoken-out-against.  Yeah?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Divisive language to be sure, but what if it were phrased slightly differently?

That way, it's more about people using their first amendment rights to speak out against stuff worthy of being spoken-out-against.  Yeah?

I guess we will see how they behave, but those are their words - why shouldn't we take them at their word? 

That's a neat trick though.  With the swipe of a wand pubic shaming doesn't exist and has never been a problem and will not continue to fracture society.  It is just people using their first amendment rights to speak out against stuff worthy of being spoken-out-against. 

[sunstoned]

I shamelessly stole this from the comment section of the article.  It resonates with me.  There is religious freedom in this country.  Religions basically have a free hand in how they worship, what they worship, and they don't even get taxed for it.   What people like Sam Brownback who push this religious persuasion nonsense don't seem to understand is that religious freedom does not give you the right to impose your beliefs and practices on others. 

 

Quote

 

“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                           Jon Stewart

 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I shamelessly stole this from the comment section of the article.  It resonates with me.  There is religious freedom in this country.  Religions basically have a free hand in how they worship, what they worship, and they don't even get taxed for it.   What people like Sam Brownback who push this religious persuasion nonsense don't seem to understand is that religious freedom does not give you the right to impose your beliefs and practices on others. 

Having interacted with and heard stories from Christians in places like Pakistan and China it is very sad that American Christians think they are being persecuted. If I were a cruel and vengeful God I might be tempted to make them experience some real persecution beyond someone saying “Happy Holidays!”

[sunstoned]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Having interacted with and heard stories from Christians in places like Pakistan and China it is very sad that American Christians think they are being persecuted. If I were a cruel and vengeful God I might be tempted to make them experience some real persecution beyond someone saying “Happy Holidays!”

I agree. In some countries, like Egypt, it is dangerous to be a Christian.

[bsjkki]

I read the whole article. The ‘name and shame’ was not a quote but a characterization by the author. This is a what the group plans to do. 

Sounds like like they plan to promote those who champion their cause. I’m inferring, even though it’s not stated, they will let voters know who is not pro religious freedom. 

This is common in our country. Groups promote candidates who support their cause. Warn against those who do not. 
 

I would say the tenor of the article expresses a bias by the author. I would like to hear the speeches. 
 

This is ‘much ado about nothing.’

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

Listened to the first two speakers. Overall positive tone of protecting the right of worship for people of all faiths. 
 

Listen for yourself. Did not hear any ‘name or shame’ reference at all from Sen. Brownback. Minute 14-16 he outlines what the groups is for. Not one mention of naming those who don’t agree with them. 
 

So far, a bit disgusted with the author of this article. 

[bsjkki]

Journalistic malpractice. The 'reporter' did a few things very wrong. Put words in the mouth of those she was reporting on. No one came close to issuing a 'naming and shaming' tactic.  I listened to the whole thing. She then uses language like 'bemoans' that belittles the experiences shared in the press conference. She then, instead of finding someone to quote in opposition or criticism of this group, takes it upon herself to do so. An overall shameful piece of journalism. I wish I had the transcript and I would go line by line through the article and point out all the inconsistencies with what was said and what she said was said. 

Pogi...you are upset about something that didn't even happen. About a tactic never expressed. They took the 'we will promote religious freedom' route. They had faith leaders from most major faiths in America. The rabbi was the most 'fired up' (do you blame him after Texas) but he was also only promoting a message about protecting their rights to worship as they see fit. 

*If anyone has the ear of the Deseret News, can you please ask them why they would print a divisive piece about religious freedom that includes a mischaracterization of the press conference. I am truly appalled at this bit of 'fake news.'

[bsjkki]

Here is a write up by the Catholic Review. Institute launches national committee aiming to protect religious freedom - Catholic Review

This new group will rate politicians’ approach to religion. Are Democrats doomed to fail? (msn.com) New Headline. Same article...even more misleading, divisive headline. 

Overall, this event garnered very little news coverage. CBN, Catholic Newswire. MSN picked up the Deseret News article. 

[The Nehor]

Based on Brownback’s history I doubt this will go well with him running it. Brownback is one of those fiscal conservatives who was still in love with the discredited “trickle down” theories and aggressively put them into action and Kansas quickly became a disaster as he pursued policies that were pushing his state down to third-world status to the point a bipartisan group in the state legislature overrode his veto to kill his tax reductions and budget cuts.

It may be a relief to some in Kansas that he is busy doing something else. Last I heard he announced he was going to pursue “racial reconciliation” to a chorus of eye rolling.

[Stormin' Mormon]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I shamelessly stole this from the comment section of the article.  It resonates with me.  There is religious freedom in this country.  Religions basically have a free hand in how they worship, what they worship, and they don't even get taxed for it.   What people like Sam Brownback who push this religious persuasion nonsense don't seem to understand is that religious freedom does not give you the right to impose your beliefs and practices on others. 

 

 

I would agree that religious people and institutions have no right to impose their religion on others, if only that accusation was not so profligately thrown around.  A family-owned business declining to cover certain types of birth control methods in their health care coverage (not all, just the ones they consider to be abortifacients), is not forcing their religion on their employees. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is ‘much ado about nothing.’

But, is it really?

I think this Deseret News reporter did more homework then you giver her credit for.  The "name and shame" tactics being accused against Brownback and Wolf are not without history and context.  It looks like this committee is a reiteration of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRC) under the Trump administration.  Wolf is one of the founders and Brownback was the commissioner.   That commission targeted foreign actors and it looks like the only difference with this committee is that it will target domestic actors.  This pair has a long history of partisan over religion tactics including naming and shaming - tactics which many collogues have called for reform in.  It appears that now that their partisan champion is out of office, they are just reorganizing under this new commission.  

Quote

The act also created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent watchdog to report on U.S. IRF efforts. USCIRF’s reports traditionally list the worst offenders in hopes that the countries it calls out will be shamed into better behavior.

But two decades of “naming and shaming” have done little to curb religious repression around the world. Over the past four years, in addition, the human rights activists, research organizations and religious communities that make up the IRF community have sacrificed their credibility by eagerly working with the Trump administration while leveling surprisingly little criticism at the administration’s many problematic policies.

Over the past four years,  the Trump administration has given significantly more institutional access to the IRF community, which felt that both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations downplayed the significance of its cause. President Donald Trump had Vice President Mike Pence announce in its first six months in office that IRF would be a priority and quickly nominated former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback as ambassador-at-large, who met frequently with the community and organized the ministerials.

Former U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, one of the founders of the IRF community, said Trump has been “stronger” on IRF than any other president. Johnnie Moore, a USCIRF commissioner, said the Potomac Declaration, the founding document of the ministerials, represents “religious freedom’s Magna Carta.”

But in fact the process itself changed little. It is time for that to change for two reasons.

First, it isn’t working. The hope was that “naming and shaming” would put international and domestic pressure on abusers, but according to the latest report on global religious restrictions by the Pew Research Center, infringements of religious freedom reached their highest level in 2018 since the project began.

Second, the supposedly bipartisan IRF community has tied itself so closely to the Trump administration that the movement’s credibility and integrity have been compromised. The moral authority of the IRF community lies in its ability to bring both sides of the political spectrum together, and in its readiness to criticize and praise both parties’ administrations equally.

Under Trump, the IRF community traded access for consistent support of the administration’s policies. There was little opposition to Trump’s attempted “Muslim ban,” or the cuts to refugees, many of whom are fleeing religious persecution. Members of the IRF community even praised religious freedom abusers like Egypt in line with administration policy.

“United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: 2017 Annual Report.” Image courtesy of USCIRF

The Biden administration can rectify these errors by ending “naming and shaming” and focusing instead on religious engagement. This means reestablishing the Office of Religion and Global Affairs in the State Department that was created under President Barack Obama and make it, rather than the IRF office, the center point of religion in U.S. foreign policy.

This office took a broader approach to global religion than the IRF office, helping to engage with religious actors on a variety of issues. Organizations like the Institute for Global Engagement have had great success in establishing trust between governments and their societies to expand religious freedom. In Vietnam, IGE promoted dialogue between the government and religious freedom groups, leading to significant improvements in that country.

To restore IRF’s integrity, incoming President Joe Biden and his foreign policy aides also need to look beyond the community that has become too closely tied to the current administration. This starts with choosing an ambassador-at-large for religious freedom and staff that have independence from the movement. 

Religious persecution is widespread around the world, and America needs to act decisively to stop it. We can only do so if we assure countries around the world and activists here at home that we are pursuing the cause fairly and without favor.

https://religionnews.com/2020/11/17/its-time-to-end-name-and-shame-religious-freedom-policy/

This is a report friendly to the USCIRF which highlights the tactic of name and shame as one of their primary tools:

Quote

Nevertheless, the IRF Act remains an important foundation for action. The Act begins eloquently: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States … as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation … Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and fundamental freedom….”

In practical terms, the International Religious Freedom Act:

1) Created an independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to make recommendations to the president and Congress.

2) Designated an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom at the U.S. Department of State to lead an Office of International Religious Freedom.

3) Mandated an Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include every country in the world.

4) Provided a menu of options for U.S. government action to name, shame, and sanction violators of religious freedom, with a special focus on “Countries of Particular Concern’ such as Iran and North Korea.

5) Called for institutionalized training, programming, and recognition for U.S. diplomats engaged in this work

https://wng.org/opinions/recommitting-to-a-global-religious-freedom-strategy-1635416662

Do we need a smoking gun?  Ok.  Direct quotes from the USCIRF:

Quote

"What a shame to the wonderful Pakistani people.  USCIRF calls once again on #Pakistan to repeal its blashemy laws" said US Comission on Internaional REligious Freedom (USCIRF) Commissioner to Tuesday (local time).

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/us-rights-commission-calls-on-pakistan-to-repeal-blasphemy-laws20210331110655/

Quote

USCIRF Commissioner @JohnnieM: "Shame on #Iran..."
https://twitter.com/USCIRF/status/1334554101066162183

This is from a virtual hearing of the USCIRF on technological surveillance of religion in China: 

Quote

Is there a way that Commerce or USCIRF can shame those companies by exposing them to the American people? Because I think the reaction among the public would be, would be quite damaging to more than just those companies' reputation.

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/about-bis/newsroom/2653-testimony-of-acting-under-secretary-for-industry-and-security-cordell-hull-at-the-u-s-commission-on-international-religious-freedom-hearing-on-technological-surveillance-of-religion-in-china/file

Same people running the same show.   I don't doubt that their cause is just and that they have done much good, but I strongly agree with the critique of this colleague that there are better, healthier, and less divisive ways to improve the cause of religious liberty:

Quote

Instead of serving as a bipartisan group of experts making informed recommendations to the administration and Congress, we have been satisfied with acting more like a congressionally funded NGO using press releases and op-eds to “name and shame” countries that violate religious freedom.

“Naming and shaming” has a role to play in confronting violators of human rights. But in order to have an impact, the party that “names and shames” has to have credibility with the party being accused.

Unfortunately, this fact has never been recognised or appreciated by many of my colleagues.

As a result, our condemnations oftentimes not only fall on deaf ears, they may even make a bad situation worse.

This issue of credibility is especially important now that we have an administration that includes individuals who hold shockingly Islamophobic views.

If we are to be credible, we need less hubris and more humility.

For these reasons, I have challenged my colleagues to develop a more focused approach that involves making in-depth studies of the conditions in a few targeted countries where we feel we can make a difference so that we might provide creative problem-solving ideas on where improvements in religious freedom can be made.

Such a strategy would involve: convening hearings (something we have the power to do, but have rarely done); engaging former US diplomats and regional experts to advise us on circumstances in each country and what changes are possible in each instance; examining how each country’s civil society may be effectively engaged and how we might involve US civil society groups (with roots in countries of concern) as advocates for change and promoters of religious freedom.

Should such a strategy be followed, I believe we would add value to our advocacy efforts and be able to provide the administration and Congress with informed recommendations that might make a difference.

Unfortunately, new congressional legislation passed last year does not propose a new strategy. Instead, it only doubles down on the failed approaches of the past.

More money, more staff, more reporting and new mandates will not make a change. 

They will only add to an already dysfunctional and unproductive situation.
https://jordantimes.com/opinion/james-j-zogby/some-problems-uscirf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

But, is it really?

I think this Deseret News reporter did more homework then you giver her credit for.  The "name and shame" tactics being accused against Brownback and Wolf are not without history and context.  It looks like this committee is a reiteration of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRC) under the Trump administration.  Wolf is one of the founders and Brownback was the commissioner.   That commission targeted foreign actors and it looks like the only difference with this committee is that it will target domestic actors.  This pair has a long history of partisan over religion tactics including naming and shaming - tactics which many collogues have called for reform in.  It appears that now that their partisan champion is out of office, they are just reorganizing under this new commission.  

This is a report friendly to the USCIRF which highlights the tactic of name and shame as one of their primary tools:

Do we need a smoking gun?  Ok.  Direct quotes from the USCIRF:

This is from a virtual hearing of the USCIRF on technological surveillance of religion in China: 

Same people running the same show.   I don't doubt that their cause is just and that they have done much good, but I strongly agree with the critique of this colleague that there are better, healthier, and less divisive ways to improve the cause of religious liberty:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realize the opinion piece was written May of 2017 by an Obama appointee reflecting on his 4 years of service. Brownback was nominated June of 2017?

The tweet was from March of 2021. After Brrownback’s  tenure. But I have no problem with the US highlighting religious freedom issues in foreign countries. But, maybe as a partial NBA team owner famously said this week he doesn’t really care…maybe you don’t either.
 

Even with all that. The Deseret News article was not about that organization. If she had said she fears the group might use those same tactics, it would have been more accurate.
 

It is much different to be involved in government sponsored group representing US interests. So, you are comparing apples and oranges. And your ‘Orange man bad’ article is what it is. 🤦‍♀️

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[T-Shirt]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Based on Brownback’s history I doubt this will go well with him running it. Brownback is one of those fiscal conservatives who was still in love with the discredited “trickle down” theories and aggressively put them into action and Kansas quickly became a disaster as he pursued policies that were pushing his state down to third-world status to the point a bipartisan group in the state legislature overrode his veto to kill his tax reductions and budget cuts.

This is all overhyped BS.  It is interesting that you have fully swallowed a dishonest reporter's claims, as if they are true, and pontificate on the foolishness of, "name & shame" when that tactic is the most prominent tool in your toolbox.  Heck, I think you might even be the inventor of it.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You realize the opinion piece was written May of 2017 by an Obama appointee reflecting on his 4 years of service. Brownback was nominated June of 2017?

The tweet was from March of 2021. After Brrownback’s  tenure. But I have no problem with the US highlighting religious freedom issues in foreign countries. But, maybe as a partial NBA team owner famously said this weak he doesn’t really care…maybe you don’t either.
 

Even with all that. The Deseret News article was not about that organization. If she had said she fears the group might you those tactics, it would have been more accurate.
 

It is much different to be involved in government sponsored group representing US interests. So, you are comparing apples and oranges. And your ‘Orange man bad’ article is what it is. 🤦‍♀️

Remember Tom Farr?  The guy who made this hypocritical comment:

Quote

“Cultural and political elites ... defame as bigots and haters those with whom they disagree on matters of religion and public policy and public morality,” said Tom Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington, D.C., during Tuesday’s event.

He has been around since the institution in the 90's, and is now with this organization.  Frank Wolf was also been a part of the organization for decades.  Brownback continued the same practices and policies outlined above, which were accelerated under Trump, even as they turned a blind eye to his Islamophobic practices.   It is all the same people professing to continue all the same practices but on a domestic level.  If you notice, the IRF never officially admitted or listed "naming and shaming" as a tool and tactic that they would use.  All of their suggested tools and tactics mirror what this new organization says.  Even though they may never admit it, the proof is in the pudding.  That is what they did.  Smoking gun.  Same people holding the same gun at new targets.  Apples and apples.  Orange man is their role model and hero.  That should tell you enough. 

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Remember Tom Farr?  The guy who made this hypocritical comment:

He has been around since the institution in the 90's, and is now with this organization.  Frank Wolf was also been a part of the organization for decades.  Brownback continued the same practices and policies outlined above, which were accelerated under Trump, even as they turned a blind eye to his Islamophobic practices.   It is all the same people professing to continue all the same practices but on a domestic level.  If you notice, the IRF never officially admitted or listed "naming and shaming" as a tool and tactic that they would use.  All of their suggested tools and tactics mirror what this new organization says.  Even though they may never admit it, the proof is in the pudding.  That is what they did.  Smoking gun.  Same people holding the same gun at new targets.  Apples and apples.  Orange man is their role model and hero.  That should tell you enough. 

I get it, you don’t like them. I have no issue with the US highlighting human rights abuses across the globe or educating people about religious freedom abuses. 
 

Tom Farr’s statement is accurate. You don’t have to agree with me or him about this either. He does not represent you. You don’t have to support this group. You can hate on Senator Brownback. It’s a free country. 
 

Did you listen to the actual press conference?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I get it, you don’t like them. I have no issue with the US highlighting human rights abuses across the globe or educating people about religious freedom abuses. 

I love how shaming techniques are ok when they are used by a cause that you believe in which targets people with whom you "disagree on matters of religion and public policy and public morality" , but when those very same tactics are used against your cause, they turn into this:

Quote

“Cultural and political elites ... defame as bigots and haters those with whom they disagree on matters of religion and public policy and public morality,”

20 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Tom Farr’s statement is accurate.

When will the hypocrisy and madness end?  Are we seriously going to support these divisive and unchristian tactics?  It has a terrible tract record.  It doesn't work!  It makes things worse. 

While I love and support religious liberty, lets not take it through the mud lower ourselves to the same standard and the tactics of those who hate us.  

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I love how shaming techniques are ok when they are used by a cause that you believe in which targets people with whom you "disagree on matters of religion and public policy and public morality" , but when those very same tactics are used against your cause, they turn into this:

When will the hypocrisy and madness end?  Are we seriously going to support these divisive and unchristian tactics?  It has a terrible tract record.  It doesn't work!  It makes things worse. 

While I love and support religious liberty, lets not take it through the mud lower ourselves to the same standard and the tactics of those who hate us.  

You are caught up on ‘naming and shaming’ phrase in a way I find incomprehensible. They never alluded to it at all. This group, in their press conference made their case in a very positive way and said what they support.  I challenge everyone to watch it and make up their own mind. 
 

 

 

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are we seriously going to support these divisive and unchristian tactics? 

Tom Farr said elites have called religious groups haters and bigots. Is this ‘naming and shaming’ in your definition?

Edited January 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You are caught up on ‘naming and shaming’ phrase in a way I find incomprehensible. They never alluded to it at all. This group, in their press conference made their case in a very positive way and said what they support.  I challenge everyone to watch it and make up their own mind. 

You missed my point about the IRF never alluding to it in public either (they listed similar tactics though).  Despite that, naming and shaming is what we saw.  Should we expect any different from the exact same people listing the exact same methods?   As LoudmouthMormon has eloquently demonstrated, it is not hard to turn "naming and shaming" into flowery language that we see from the public face of the IRF and this new group group.  It is too easy to see through their flowery words given the proof in the pudding of history with no sign of accountability or attempts to change practices.  

29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Tom Farr said elites have called religious groups haters and bigots. Is this ‘naming and shaming’ in your definition?

Yes, calling out people and organizations by name as haters and bigots is "naming and shaming".  He was giving an example of it being used by his enemies suggesting that such a tactic should not be used against people whom you simply disagree with on maters of religion.  What he failed to point out is that his institution has a LONG history of the same tactics of naming and shaming people who disagree with them on matters of religion.  Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?  

Edited January 21, 2022 by pogi

[T-Shirt]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, calling out people and organizations by name as haters and bigots is "naming and shaming".  He was giving an example of it being used by his enemies suggesting that such a tactic should not be used against people whom you simply disagree with on maters of religion.  What he failed to point out is that his institution has a LONG history of the same tactics of naming and shaming people who disagree with them on matters of religion.  Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?  

You will have to provide examples of what you are referring to, I have not looked closely into his history.  That being said, there is a huge difference between naming politicians who are actively opposed to your cause and calling people bigots, homophobes and other unsavory names for the soul purpose of shutting them up.  The truth of these unfair epithets is irrelevant in the playbook, all that matters is if they are effective in shutting down the opposition.  The first is an acceptable and necessary tool in a political campaign, the second is dishonest and despicable, yet highly effective.

Edited January 21, 2022 by T-Shirt