In a Washington Post op-ed today, former Hillary Clinton staffer Judd Birdsall writes, “Clinton is a person of faith who understands the positive power of faith and has faithfully championed freedom for people of all faiths and persuasions.” Thus, says Birdsall, it’s “no contest:” she would do far more than Trump to advance religious freedom.

Time is short, so I have just ask a few questions to ask in response:

• Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. In 2013 the number of Christians killed for their faith doubled compared to 2012. The year before that Open Doors estimated “100 million Christians worldwide suffer interrogation, arrest and even death for their faith in Christ, with millions more facing discrimination and alienation. What policy did Secretary Clinton implement to address this persecution?
• How does freedom of religion fit with this public statement? “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” How does she think this change in “deep-seated … religious beliefs” can be accomplished without violating freedom of religion?
• What has she said on the campaign trail about domestic religious freedom? Birdsall points to a speech she gave on religious freedom in 2010. That was a very long time ago.
• Why did she endorse an “Equality Act” setting up “sweeping anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in many areas, such as housing, education, and health care,” which “could easily infringe on the religious beliefs of those morally opposed to same-sex marriage or transgenderism”?
• What does the Democratic platform mean when it says it “rejects the use of religion to discriminate”? In practice it seems to mean that some persons, including for example several wedding services providers, can’t live out their beliefs. Doesn’t this mean she’s abrogated her 2010 statement on religious freedom?

Who gave Clinton the authority to condemn Christian beliefs and practices as “insincere and insidious”?

• If discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity and sexual orientation is to be outlawed along with religious discrimination, as stated in the Democratic platform, and if there’s conflict between the two sets of non-discrimination principles, which one prevails: religious liberty or sexual liberty? Recent history shows a strong trend toward preferring sexual liberty. What has Clinton said to suggest she would reverse that trend?
• Clinton says, “The concerted effort underway in a number of states to discriminate against LGBT people under the guise of protecting religious freedom is … insincere and insidious. And we shouldn’t let it stand.” How does she distinguish between “the guise” and the reality? Christianity has always, since its very beginning, considered homosexual practice immoral. How has that somehow now become a “guise”? Likewise, who gave Clinton the authority to condemn Christian beliefs and practices as “insincere and insidious”?
• What actions would she take as president to ensure those historic beliefs would no longer be allowed to stand?

Finally,

• Is any of this good for religious freedom? Really?