Dr Paul Murray is a bishop and human rights activist who is serving as the International Vice President of Religious Freedom Initiatives for the Lanham, Maryland-based non-profit organization Global Peace Foundation. He was one of the distinguished guests at the Peace Through Strength conference, recently held in Budapest, Hungary by the Center for Fundamental Rights. He was gracious enough to sit down with us for an exclusive interview during the event.
***
In recent years, in the liberal mainstream, human rights have been very much focused on minority rights, either racial or sexual minorities. When did that change start? Because when thinkers first started talking about the idea of natural human rights during the Enlightenment, that wasn’t the case.
That’s a very good question. Religious freedom is a human right. And the problem that we have seen over the last approximately 20 years is that transition where the door was opened to allow ideologies as a part of a human right.
So when we see things about the LGBTQ community, all of a sudden that becomes a human right. When you see these things happening, it just opens a Pandora’s box and that’s the problem that we have today. Now you’re competing with other human rights issues that really are genuinely human rights. But these individuals or groups that want self-identity have come into that vacuum. And that’s partly a problem because, especially in the United States, some of our NGOs and social agencies really uplifted and promoted this messaging about these kinds of things being a part of human rights.
But during the American Revolution and the French Revolution, my understanding is human rights mostly referred to religious and sovereignty rights, based on the right of nations to govern themselves. So that has been subverted.
That has been subverted. And that's the travesties that it has been subverted. Now you have everybody putting their name as a human right. And the reason for that is because then it allows them a platform for protections, and that's what they want. They're trying to say: ‘Hey, look, we have these rights just because, and you're violating our rights’. And it just transforms the whole conversation about the original understanding of human rights.
Thomas Jefferson famously said that these rights are endowed by our Creator. Does religious scripture provide a basis for natural rights?
Well, the Bible is very clear, and I think even when you look at the Torah, on that we're all created in the image of God, and the Bible says man and woman. So right there it tells us that our promises and our connection are with God, our Creator, and therefore there is no room for anything else but what God has created for us. And it's an alienable right. No government can legislate my personal rights.
Jewish people have been prosecuted like no other group, including, I believe, even Africans in the United States in the earliest years of the Republic. And yet right now, for some reason, the Jewish people in the progressive liberal left are more seen as oppressors. Why do you think that is? How come their historic persecution doesn't come into the equation these days, unlike other groups like LGBT and African Americans?
Because there's a machinery that goes behind a lot of these ideologies and a lot of money that goes behind it, so the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. And that's the challenge that we have. When you look at antisemitism, it's on the rise. Globally, Pew Research came out with a report that said Christians are the most persecuted group and it's continuing to rise around the world. But after 7 October, we saw antisemitism rise in really disappointing ways in the United States, especially across our campuses. It's one of those things that perplexes you because you know what's right and what's wrong, yet you have this system that gets in there and does not protect individual rights.
What is your opinion about Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his administration's approach to the helping of Christians who are persecuted and their alliance with Israel? Do you think that they're doing a good job in that regard?
Yeah, I think they're doing an excellent job. They have set the standard for any other nation on what it really means to protect human rights, religious freedom for all, and protecting the family as well. I think that's very important. That's the great thing about the country of Hungary. It's an example, a beacon to many other countries around the world. And for us in the United States, knowing that in Europe there is a country that really stands on fundamental principles and morals and values is very exciting for us and that's why we're seeing a great partnership between the Trump administration and the Hungarian administration, which will continue to grow.
I can also add to that that I think when we look at what's going on across Europe, antisemitism has definitely been on the rise here across the continent. And who else is going to stand up and speak to these issues? When I met with the Secretary of State for a programme against anti-Christian discrimination, one of the things that he spoke about was Hungary being a small country. And I looked at him and I said: 'You know, the Lord just reminded me to remind you about the story of David’. And he chuckled and said the Prime Minister just on Saturday of last week had used that reference. I think that's a powerful thing. When we look at what is going on around us, when you have a foundation that's built on the principles of God and you allow God to be the foundation and you don't compromise that, then you will always be victorious. When you look at what Hungary has been going through, the challenges, the fines that you're paying because of immigration, because you've closed your borders, those kinds of things are showing that you still stand because your country, your government is saying you will not compromise on these certain things. There's no dollar amount that you can give us or take away from us that will make us compromise our values and morals. That's the great thing about Hungary.
Hungary, in its Constitution—which we call Fundamental Law—includes references to Hungary as a Christian nation. Do you think if the United States were to try to do something like that, that would go against the separation of church and state? Thomas Jefferson, whom we mentioned earlier, also talked about the wall of separation between church and state.
Yes. That was one of the problems that happened in the United States at the very beginning. As each state was formed, the people who resided there represented a certain religion. So if you had Methodists in Massachusetts that wanted to go to Virginia, in Virginia, you had Catholics. And so if they had crossed the border, that's just an example, they wouldn't have been welcomed. That's the reason why our Constitution states the separation of church and state, that no state and no government can mandate a religion. So it's freedom of religion for everyone. In our First Amendment, we speak about the right, the religious freedom that everybody has religious liberty to be able to practice their faith whatever it is in the United States without having anything come against them. Yet that's the problem we're having in the United States is that we have government encroachment on religious liberties. We have corporations that are trying to shut down religious organizations. You open up a banking account and they shut it down because they say: ‘Sorry, you're not in alignment with us’, just because you stand by your Christian values.
This is what that famous case of a bakery was about in Colorado. The bakery refused to bake a cake for same-sex marriage. But my understanding is that the Supreme Court sided with the bakers. Do you think that was an important step?
Yes, but it actually did not address the issue. See, that's the problem with that Supreme Court decision. And the issue still keeps on coming back to the Supreme Court. Because the Court would not rule based on that particular fact of religious freedom. That is why we're seeing every time that someone brings some kind of issue to the courts, it’s starting the whole problem again. The court case allowed this person to stand on their principles, but the Supreme Court didn't go right out and say: ‘Okay, if that's your religious view, you have the right to stand there.’ They used other mechanisms within the Constitution to protect that religious freedom, but they didn't come right out and draw the line. So there's really no real precedent at the Supreme Court level yet to address that.
Do you think there should be new legislation passed concerning this issue under the second Trump administration, while the Republicans have both houses of Congress? Or do you think that they should address that through the judicial system, by making the courts more conservative?
I believe that the Supreme Court justices will address some of these questions during this administration, this year or in the next couple of years. But I also think the government's responsibility is to make sure that the government doesn't get in the business of defining what religion is. And that's the challenge that we have in the United States where you have court systems that are getting involved and meddling in religious affairs when there's that clear separation between church and state.
Related articles:
