Congressional hearing on persecution of Christians

Last-12-Exit

Source is fox news:
Congressman Chris Smith and other lawmakers are saying that the united states should be leveraging trade and foreign aid to force other countries to stop persecuting Christians after Congressman Smith witnessed Christians in China being arrested for following their christain faith. Also, president Obama is taking some nore criticism for leaving a post unfilled. That post: The ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

Ive never heard of that administrative post before so I'm not sure at all what he/she does. My question is: should the US leverage foreign aid to countries that don't have the same "religious freedoms" that we have here? I'm also wondering if there would be a congressional hearing on the persecution Muslims had the congressman saw Muslims arrested simply for being Muslim.

Or am I just over thinking this and it's no big deal?

Cosmo

I have a plan...
Ship the Westboro Baptist Church to China.
That way, we no longer have to deal with them, Congress will quit trying to police religion in foriegn countries and we don't have to add an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom to the government payroll.
...
Fixed. You're welcome.

rgambs

looks like Mr Smith wants to be Ambassador at Large for International Christian Freedom

brianlux

Not being an economist, I'm not sure what it means to "leverage foreign aid". My understanding of the definition of "leveraging" in economic terms means to make a profit or to maximize advantage. So is OP asking if we should use foreign aid to make a profit?

Last-12-Exit

brianlux said:

Not being an economist, I'm not sure what it means to "leverage foreign aid". My understanding of the definition of "leveraging" in economic terms means to make a profit or to maximize advantage. So is OP asking if we should use foreign aid to make a profit?

Leveraging trade and foreign aid was the phrase used by the fox "analysts." I interpreted that as the US putting pressure on countries by threatening our aid to them if they continued to persecute Christians.

My question is should we be doing that? (if my interpretation is correct.) Or, am I over thinking this?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3186883117001/congressional-hearing-under-way-on-persecution-of-christians/#sp=show-clips

know1

I wouldn't have a problem with looking more closely at how the aid we send really gets distributed to people who really need it. My guess is that a lot of our foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe that lines the pockets of the fat cats over there in order for them to do favorable things for us.

I don't think we should cut aid to a country simply because they persecute Christians, but I do think we should cut aid to countries where the poor aren't being helped by it.

rgambs

know1 said:

I wouldn't have a problem with looking more closely at how the aid we send really gets distributed to people who really need it. My guess is that a lot of our foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe that lines the pockets of the fat cats over there in order for them to do favorable things for us.

I don't think we should cut aid to a country simply because they persecute Christians, but I do think we should cut aid to countries where the poor aren't being helped by it.

This is so true! Great point!! how many of our dollars have gone to dictators and terrorists in the guise of aid?
and if aid is given to those who need it, cutting the aid only hurts the people who already hurt.
our sanctions against Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousands of poor citizens, mostly children, without weakening his regime. m albright said "It was worth it, we had to pay that price." we didn't pay a cent and neither did Saddam.

brianlux

You mean Fox news really understands "leveraging" as an economic term less than I do? Now that's pathetic.

And please state your thoughts more accurately. "Threatening our aid"? Is that like, "Ok bag of wheat, up against the wall!"

Last-12-Exit

brianlux said:

You mean Fox news really understands "leveraging" as an economic term less than I do? Now that's pathetic.

And please state your thoughts more accurately. "Threatening our aid"? Is that like, "Ok bag of wheat, up against the wall!"

No, I wasn't saying that fox news knows more than you. I gave you my interpretation of how they used the term leveraging. And then provided the link so you could hear first hand what they said.

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about what I said. And I'm also not clear why you thought I said fox news more about the term leveraging.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

brianlux said:

You mean Fox news really understands "leveraging" as an economic term less than I do? Now that's pathetic.

And please state your thoughts more accurately. "Threatening our aid"? Is that like, "Ok bag of wheat, up against the wall!"

No, I wasn't saying that fox news knows more than you. I gave you my interpretation of how they used the term leveraging. And then provided the link so you could hear first hand what they said.

I didn't say they "know more" than I do.

Last-12-Exit said:

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about what I said. And I'm also not clear why you thought I said fox news more about the term leveraging.

I think what we have here is a simple case of communication breakdown. The part about "Threatening our aid" was not a clear statement (until you changed it). Now your last statement above is unclear as well.

So what exactly is it you are asking or trying to say here?

Last-12-Exit

lol. I just came off of a 36 hour shift at work. I should proof read before submitting. It was supposed to say that I'm not sure why u thought I said fox news KNOWS more about the word.

rgambs

anybody else see the ethnic cleansing going on in Central African Republic? ethnic cleansing of muslims...
ANYBODY THINK THERE WILL BE A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THIS? of course not they are brown folk and they don't worship whitejesus

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

lol. I just came off of a 36 hour shift at work. I should proof read before submitting. It was supposed to say that I'm not sure why u thought I said fox news KNOWS more about the word.

I get it, LOL!

To be honest, in a contemporary setting the first thing that crosses my mind when I hear the words "persecution" and "Christians" together isn't the persecution of Christians. If were talking about Rome during the time of Nero or during the time of the Roman Persian wars or during the Reformation, yes, Christians were persecuted. But I think the tables have turned. Besides, isn't foreign aid a diplomatic issue, not a religious issue and don't we have separation of church and state?... hahaha!

Last-12-Exit

brianlux said:

Last-12-Exit said:

lol. I just came off of a 36 hour shift at work. I should proof read before submitting. It was supposed to say that I'm not sure why u thought I said fox news KNOWS more about the word.

I get it, LOL!

To be honest, in a contemporary setting the first thing that crosses my mind when I hear the words "persecution" and "Christians" together isn't the persecution of Christians. If were talking about Rome during the time of Nero or during the time of the Roman Persian wars or during the Reformation, yes, Christians were persecuted. But I think the tables have turned. Besides, isn't foreign aid a diplomatic issue, not a religious issue and don't we have separation of church and state?... hahaha!

I think that is my point. Why are there congressional hearings if there is a separation? And I agree with rgambs, no, there won't be any hearings or threatening of foreign aid for Muslim persecution. Another waste of tax dollars.