Reclaiming Religious Freedom—A Liberal Responsibility
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
On June 17, the International Religious Freedom Summit was held in Nairobi, Kenya. Recently, 200 Christian IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) were massacred in Nigeria.
Terrorist groups like Al‑Shabab frequently also target Christians in Kenya.
Dr. Gloria Samdi-Puldu, president of the Nigerian-based LEAH Foundation, supports girls and women like Leah Sharibu, kidnapped by the extremist group Boko Haram in 2018 for refusing to renounce her Christian faith. Samdi-Puldu, who is exhausted by the trauma she faces daily, shared that religious persecution is finally being recognized, giving her reason for hope.
What she may not realize is the actual lack of interest in combating religious persecution.
Red Cross officials inspect the damage at the burnt COCIN Church building in Mangu, Nigeria, on Feb. 2, 2024, following weeks of intercommunal violence and unrest in the Plateau State.
Red Cross officials inspect the damage at the burnt COCIN Church building in Mangu, Nigeria, on Feb. 2, 2024, following weeks of intercommunal violence and unrest in the Plateau State.
KOLA SULAIMON/AFP via Getty Images
The world is facing one of the fastest-growing human rights crises: religious persecution, increasingly escalating into ethno-religious cleansing and genocide. And it's growing in many parts of the world.
Yet liberal politicians, media outlets, and NGOs too often stay silent. This abandons what former President Bill Clinton intended when he championed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, making religious freedom a cornerstone of American foreign policy. This has created a vacuum filled by conservative organizations, which—while doing important and lifesaving work—can also bring ideological baggage to what should be a universal human rights cause. The cost is real—120,000 Armenians were ethnically cleansed in 2023 with little Western media attention. Uyghur Muslims in China, Baha'is in Iran, Alawites in Syria, and Christians in Nigeria suffer daily atrocities. When I meet survivors of religious persecution, they ask, "Why don't Western liberals care about us?"
Robert Řehák, the Czech Republic's ambassador for Holocaust issues, interfaith dialogue and freedom of religion, leads the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA), sometimes called the Article 18 Alliance. This intergovernmental coalition brings together 43 countries, working collectively to promote and defend freedom of religion or belief worldwide.
"The struggle for religious freedom is a necessity because the world is increasingly radicalized and polarized. To combat this, we need avenues for dialogue that can counter these dangerous tendencies. It is also a fight for peace, prosperity, and the prevention of future conflicts," Řehák told Newsweek.
Hard Lessons from the Field
In Beirut, Lebanon, I recently met Ablahad Stayfo, an Assyrian/Syriac activist who spent 15 years opposing the Assad regime in Syria. When I interviewed him in 2012, I asked whether the opposition valued religious freedom. He dismissed the question. Now, in 2025, he told Newsweek, "You were right, Nuri. We should have made it a priority. The progressive politicians we worked with didn't care. And now Syria's future is uncertain."
My organization ADFA commissioned Layal Nehme to document Christians who fled Syria and Iraq to Lebanon. When I recently asked what happened to those she interviewed, her response was devastating.
"Unfortunately, most have emigrated to Canada or Australia. While I am happy for them, I am devastated that the numbers of Christians are dwindling," she said.
The Price of Liberal Silence
Why the silence? Too many liberals fear that talking about religious freedom will align them with religious conservatives. But this fear is morally bankrupt. The regimes that persecute religious minorities are also the ones that oppress women, LGBTQ people, journalists, and dissidents.
When the movement lacks progressive voices, it risks becoming ideologically skewed. Without sustained political pressure from across the spectrum, authoritarian regimes and extremist groups face little consequence for destroying religious communities.
Time to Act
At the IRF Summit in Washington, D.C., this January, I urged humanitarian organizations to improve their media outreach—to keep these stories alive and visible. This benefits both the media and the communities they aim to help.
I urge my progressive friends to reclaim religious freedom as a liberal value:
—Show up at conferences and advocacy events.
—Speak out about religious persecution.
—Support bipartisan initiatives like the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).
—Cover religious freedom violations with urgency.
—And encourage more countries to join the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA).
This is not a fight that belongs to the right or the left. When we think that way, we fail those who need us most. It's time for liberals to join the fight again—a cause they themselves began—and to understand that it is their struggle as well.
Listening to eyewitnesses and survivors from several African countries—of different faiths—was both heart-wrenching and deeply important. Several African activists I spoke with criticized the IRF Summit, saying it should have been organized by Africans themselves. That critique matters. But if local capacity or resources were lacking, then the summit in Kenya was still a meaningful start. It laid the foundation for continued cooperation. Importantly, both Muslims and Christians were given the floor to address the attendees.
To ignore the growing threat to religious freedom is to ignore Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and to fail those who need us most.
Nuri Kino is an independent investigative multi-award-winning reporter and minority rights expert.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As it attacks Iran's nuclear program, Israel maintains ambiguity about its own
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear program because its archenemy's furtive efforts to build an atomic weapon are a threat to its existence. What's not-so-secret is that for decades Israel has been believed to be the Middle East's only nation with nuclear weapons , even though its leaders have refused to confirm or deny their existence. Israel's ambiguity has enabled it to bolster its deterrence against Iran and other enemies, experts say, without triggering a regional nuclear arms race or inviting preemptive attacks. Israel is one of just five countries that aren't party to a global nuclear nonproliferation treaty. That relieves it of international pressure to disarm, or even to allow inspectors to scrutinize its facilities. Critics in Iran and elsewhere have accused Western countries of hypocrisy for keeping strict tabs on Iran's nuclear program — which its leaders insist is only for peaceful purposes — while effectively giving Israel's suspected arsenal a free pass. On Sunday, the U.S. military struck three nuclear sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's program . Here's a closer look at Israel's nuclear program: A history of nuclear ambiguity Israel opened its Negev Nuclear Research Center in the remote desert city of Dimona in 1958, under the country's first leader, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. He believed the tiny fledgling country surrounded by hostile neighbors needed nuclear deterrence as an extra measure of security. Some historians say they were meant to be used only in case of emergency, as a last resort. After it opened, Israel kept the work at Dimona hidden for a decade, telling United States' officials it was a textile factory, according to a 2022 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an academic journal. Relying on plutonium produced at Dimona, Israel has had the ability to fire nuclear warheads since the early 1970s, according to that article, co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, and Matt Korda, a researcher at the same organization. Israel's policy of ambiguity suffered a major setback in 1986, when Dimona's activities were exposed by a former technician at the site, Mordechai Vanunu. He provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to The Sunday Times of London. Vanunu served 18 years in prison for treason, and is not allowed to meet with foreigners or leave the country. Israel possesses dozens of nuclear warheads, experts say Experts estimate Israel has between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, although they say the the lower end of that range is more likely. Israel also has stockpiled as much as 1,110 kilograms (2,425 pounds) of plutonium, potentially enough to make 277 nuclear weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organization. It has six submarines believed to be capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles believed to be capable of launching a nuclear warhead up to 6,500 kilometers (4,000 miles), the organization says. Germany has supplied all of the submarines to Israel, which are docked in the northern city of Haifa, according to the article by Kristensen and Korda. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East pose risks In the Middle East, where conflicts abound, governments are often unstable, and regional alliances are often shifting, nuclear proliferation is particularly dangerous, said Or Rabinowitz, a scholar at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a visiting associate professor at Stanford University. 'When nuclear armed states are at war, the world always takes notice because we don't like it when nuclear arsenals ... are available for decision makers,' she said. Rabinowitz says Israel's military leaders could consider deploying a nuclear weapon if they found themselves facing an extreme threat, such as a weapon of mass destruction being used against them. Three countries other than Israel have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea has withdrawn. Iran has signed the treaty, but it was censured last week, shortly before Israel launched its operation, by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog — a day before Israel attacked — for violating its obligations . Israel's policy of ambiguity has helped it evade greater scrutiny, said Susie Snyder at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote adherence to the U.N. treaty. Its policy has also shined a light on the failure of Western countries to rein in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she said. They 'prefer not to be reminded of their own complicity,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
As it attacks Iran's nuclear program, Israel maintains ambiguity about its own
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear program because its archenemy's furtive efforts to build an atomic weapon are a threat to its existence. What's not-so-secret is that for decades Israel has been believed to be the Middle East's only nation with nuclear weapons, even though its leaders have refused to confirm or deny their existence. Israel's ambiguity has enabled it to bolster its deterrence against Iran and other enemies, experts say, without triggering a regional nuclear arms race or inviting preemptive attacks. Israel is one of just five countries that aren't party to a global nuclear nonproliferation treaty. That relieves it of international pressure to disarm, or even to allow inspectors to scrutinize its facilities. Critics in Iran and elsewhere have accused Western countries of hypocrisy for keeping strict tabs on Iran's nuclear program — which its leaders insist is only for peaceful purposes — while effectively giving Israel's suspected arsenal a free pass. On Sunday, the U.S. military struck three nuclear sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's program. Here's a closer look at Israel's nuclear program: Israel opened its Negev Nuclear Research Center in the remote desert city of Dimona in 1958, under the country's first leader, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. He believed the tiny fledgling country surrounded by hostile neighbors needed nuclear deterrence as an extra measure of security. Some historians say they were meant to be used only in case of emergency, as a last resort. After it opened, Israel kept the work at Dimona hidden for a decade, telling United States' officials it was a textile factory, according to a 2022 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an academic journal. Relying on plutonium produced at Dimona, Israel has had the ability to fire nuclear warheads since the early 1970s, according to that article, co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, and Matt Korda, a researcher at the same organization. Israel's policy of ambiguity suffered a major setback in 1986, when Dimona's activities were exposed by a former technician at the site, Mordechai Vanunu. He provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to The Sunday Times of London. Vanunu served 18 years in prison for treason, and is not allowed to meet with foreigners or leave the country. Experts estimate Israel has between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, although they say the the lower end of that range is more likely. Israel also has stockpiled as much as 1,110 kilograms (2,425 pounds) of plutonium, potentially enough to make 277 nuclear weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organization. It has six submarines believed to be capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles believed to be capable of launching a nuclear warhead up to 6,500 kilometers (4,000 miles), the organization says. Germany has supplied all of the submarines to Israel, which are docked in the northern city of Haifa, according to the article by Kristensen and Korda. In the Middle East, where conflicts abound, governments are often unstable, and regional alliances are often shifting, nuclear proliferation is particularly dangerous, said Or Rabinowitz, a scholar at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a visiting associate professor at Stanford University. 'When nuclear armed states are at war, the world always takes notice because we don't like it when nuclear arsenals … are available for decision makers,' she said. Rabinowitz says Israel's military leaders could consider deploying a nuclear weapon if they found themselves facing an extreme threat, such as a weapon of mass destruction being used against them. Three countries other than Israel have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea has withdrawn. Iran has signed the treaty, but it was censured last week, shortly before Israel launched its operation, by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog — a day before Israel attacked — for violating its obligations. Israel's policy of ambiguity has helped it evade greater scrutiny, said Susie Snyder at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote adherence to the U.N. treaty. Its policy has also shined a light on the failure of Western countries to rein in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she said. They 'prefer not to be reminded of their own complicity,' she said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Touts 'Obliteration' of Iran Sites Seen in Satellite Images
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said "monumental damage" was done to Iran's nuclear sites citing satellite imagery after Tehran disputed whether the strikes on the facilities had dealt a knockout blow to the Islamic Republic's atomic program. Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday that "obliteration is an accurate term" for the strikes on three key Iranian facilities amid attempts by analysts to clarify whether the strikes had completely destroyed Iran's hopes for developing a nuclear bomb. Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed told Newsweek that at this stage, Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back by the attacks but not entirely dismantled. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. MEHMET ESER//Getty Images Why It Matters Trump said the U.S. struck Fordow, around 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz. The U.S. president is often accused of hyperbole and social media posts saying Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been destroyed have been greeted with caution by analysts as questions remain over whether the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer spells the end of the Iranian nuclear threat. What To Know On Sunday, Trump posted that "monumental damage" had been done to all nuclear sites in Iran, citing satellite imagery. He described how the white structure in one image was embedded into the rock and the biggest damage took place far below ground level," adding "Bullseye!!!" U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said there was "severe damage and destruction" to the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, but did not say Iran's nuclear capacities had been obliterated. Trump did not share the imagery in his post but he could have been referring to pictures published by the firm Maxar on Sunday showing large craters or holes at the top of the ridge above the underground complex at Fordow. When asked if Iran still retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that "BDA is still pending" referring to Battle Damage Assessment by intelligence analysts and reconnaissance teams, using data from drones, satellites, radar, or ground reports. Melamed, a Middle East analyst told Newsweek Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Tehran can either escalate, which threatens the regime's survival, or negotiate, which would preserve its power base "while swallowing a bitter pill," he said. At this point, all eyes should be on Beijing who will likely pressure Iran to deescalate. Pranay Vaddi, who served as special assistant to President Joe Biden as well as senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, told the publication Defense One that if the deeper reaches of Fordow had survived, Iran could still enrich uranium beyond the reach of the monitors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). That may require further "high risk" U.S. action if the locations are beyond the reach of bunker-busting bombs. Also, Iran retains substantial know-how on enrichment and possibly nuclear weaponization, added Vaddi, senior nuclear fellow in the Center for Nuclear Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, has said it was not yet possible to assess the damage done at the Fordow nuclear facility. Iranian state media said key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved "to a safe location." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed: "At this stage, it can be assessed that Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled." Pranay Vaddi, former senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, to Defense One: "If the deeper reaches of Fordow survive, Iran is able to enrich, and there's no monitoring anymore because Iran suspends any IAEA access, that's a bad outcome and may require further U.S. action." What Happens Next Tehran has threatened retaliation for the strikes. Experts say these could include additional rocket launches at Israel, the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz or strikes against U.S. military sites.
