Freedom from state-established religion is among the most cherished of American values. Yet the promotion of religious freedom abroad as an element of American diplomacy is relatively new. It was only with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and subsequent publication of the first Annual Report on Religious Freedom that the State Department began to systematically monitor religious freedom abroad, and to pursue such freedoms as a core policy objective.
The decision to elevate religious freedom to a matter of diplomatic priority reflects a combination of conscience and strategy. Although the International Religious Freedom Act receives much of its most vocal support among the political right, it would be a mistake to see the policy as theirs alone, or as a relic of the George W. Bush presidency. Rather, giving public priority to religious freedom is seen as a way of effectively blunting the edge of religious extremism overseas, and reflects the broadly held belief that those regimes which genuinely respect human rights will ultimately be more stable and friendlier to the United States. The policy continues under president Obama, who (albeit after some criticism) recently appointed Reverend Susan Johnson-Cook as ambassador at large for International Religious Freedom.
Yet any nation will face certain problems in promoting religious freedom abroad, and those problems are further compounded when that nation is the United States. These need to be fully considered if the policy is to not backfire.
1. The first is that "religious freedom" itself can be a deceptively subjective idea. In a 2007 book, legal scholar Winnifred Fallers-Sullivan explained why she considered religious freedom to be an "impossibility" in the United States or anywhere else. Fallers-Sullivan examined court decisions on a variety of familar legal controversies -- questions such as prayer in schools, the erection of religious monuments on city property, and the use of religious symbolism in public cemeteries -- and made one point very clear: religion is never simply a matter of personal choice. Even in the United States, the law clearly defines the boundaries of what is and what is not legitimate religion. And regardless what the courts decide, it is inevitable that some part of society will feel that it's freedoms are not being respected.
2. Secondly, the criteria used to measure religious freedom themselves imply certain religious convictions. In the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the gold standard of religious freedom is the inviolability of private faith, that each person should have the freedom to follow his or her individual conscience. This definition fits very well with Western spirituality, but it is certainly not the only way to view religion. Other traditions place a much greater emphasis on responsibility of families, communities or even political authorities to train the religious life of the individual. I am not suggesting that we ignore or condone acts of violence or repression conducted in the name of religion, but simply wish to point out that the ideal of absolute religious freedom is hardly universal, and that the questions of what should or should not be permitted can rarely be reduced to black and white. The case of Terry Jones, an obscure preacher who climbed to fame by threatening to burn the Quran, provides a good example of how differently these issues are perceived abroad. I watched the Terry Jones saga unfold from my home in Singapore, and explained to bemused friends (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) that American law protected this man's right to free speech and free exercise of religion. Their response, and I think a very reasonable one, was to ask why Muslims did not also have the right to be protected from this sort of harassment.
3. The final problem is that U.S. foreign policy is very hard to separate from religion. Religion plays a very public role in American political life. No serious candidate for public office can avoid making a visible statement of his or her religious conviction. Perhaps owing to this, the influence of religion is perceived to be particularly acute in U.S. policy abroad. Much of the world sincerely believes that the United States is embarked on a modern-day crusade to destroy Islam, that Israeli spies are secretly blackmailing the president, or that Mormons control the CIA. It is easy enough to laugh these ideas off, but we do so at our peril. Perceptions do matter, particularly in the context of a policy that aims to win hearts and minds.
The United States is unique in the world. For all of its shortcomings, no other nation is so immediately associated with the pure principles of human rights. But this can be a mixed blessing, as it leaves the U.S. open to greater scrutiny to practice what we preach. Properly implemented, a policy of encouraging religious freedom is both morally laudable, and strategically beneficial. But even with the best intentions, a ham handed promotion of religious freedom runs the risk of being seen as naively hypocritical at best, and a cover for ulterior motives at worst. As with everything, success and failure lie in the details.
David Briggs: Talk Is Cheap When It Comes to Religious Freedom
Religion poisons the mind and sickens the soul. Promote freedom.
I don't see the 1st amendment as freedom from a state-established religion, but as the State, establishing itself as free from religion, "necessarily."
Congress shall make no laws respecting (honoring) the establishment (institution) of religion; nor prohibiting the exercise (work) thereof; nor abridging (deminishing) free speech (debate), or the right of people to peacefully (orderly) assemble (practice their religion, discuss/debate religion), and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (harm by secular or religion).
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets, for I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them".
To fulfill something is to fully fill something and fully end something at the same time. A glass fully filled with water, fully ends something at the same time. The glass fully filled ends it emptiness; the glass lacks emptiness. Just as the glass lacks emptiness, irrational, unjust, prejudiced, discriminatory, racist, sexist, biased law lacks justice. Irrational, unjust law is a shame to both God and Man. Irrational, unjust law imprisons both God and Man.
The 1st amendment not only frees Humakind, it frees God so that both might Be in Grace Most Graciously, whether they be atheist or theists of any persuasion. The 1st amendment is not only the greatest gift ever given to Humankind, equally important, it is the greatest gift Humankind ever gave to God.
- On the question of freedom of religion in America, the hard part is drawing a line around the role of the state. For example, should the state recognize the authority of religious communities to take certain civic functions? They do in the case of marriage and divorce, but what then happens (for example) when one party to a divorce wants to follow religious rules and the other does not? No matter which side the state recognizes, ONE of the two parties has has his or her freedoms denied.
- Jelle NL makes a very apt comparison to freedoms of speech and assembly. There are some similarities in the sense that neither freedoms absolute, and some will see sinister motives in American promotion of freedoms abroad - what we call free political discourse, someone else may call political libel. On the whole, however, I agree that these freedoms are much easier for the US to promote both in principle and in practice, and that much of what is protected under the freedom of religion could easily fall under these umbrellas.
- On the state of religious freedom in the US. Certainly it is deeply flawed, both at a national and local level, but I would be careful of equating it to other countries, where infringement of rights can translate into something much more drastic than it ever would here.
Let's say I want you to do X, and you don't want to do X. Is that infringing on my rights?, I don't think so.
If you are stealing from my house, and you still steal from my house, you have infringed upon my rights.
If two people getting divorced have different views of "how to get divorced", they have to sort them out between themselves, and if they can't our legal system will help them. Nobody is having their "rights" removed...that is just silly!
Freedom of religion "is" freedom from religion, and freedom from religion must always supercede freedom of religion, or chaos, and profound dysfunction exists, as evidenced in the history and current state of mankind.
Freedom from religion unchains not just man, but God from unjust slavery and imprisonment. Rational law allows mankind and religion to grow in graciousness, not humbled by the shackles of humiliation that religion imposes, particularly upon women. Rational law gives dignity to all it's citizens whereas religion has not.
The person who would deny another a right to divorce, based on his/her religion, hasn't had their right to practice their religion denied, they have had their unreasonble, and utterly irrational demands to enslave another, denied by the state.
When rational, reasonable secular law exists and "is supported by the people", rational, reasonable societies exist, rather then utter chaos, dysfunction.
".....promotion of religious freedom runs the risk of...."
Religious freedom presents the possiblity of Islamic reform, not destruction. Religious freedom does present the risk of giving birth to atheists.
Religious freedom also redefines monotheism and I propose that this is the greatest risk to all religions, philosophies, and potentially governments.
You are the poster child for an argument on the damage religion does to people.
"You are the poster child for an argument on the damage religion does to people."
No, I think that's the likes of Osama bin Ladin. Of course Stalin didn't do any good for atheism.
To the leaders of the Christian Right, freedom from state-established religion is what they want for Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries.
However, they don't practice what hey preach in America. In fact, during the last 30 years they have been fighting to impose their relgiious beliefs upon America through aggressive political action. And they've succeed even in our public schools by taking over local school boards and influencing state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and the presidency..
Americans must now stand up to such theocratic hypocrisy, because it not only violates the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, it violates the core message of Jesus of Nazareth, who they claim to serve. See About Christianity, at http://messenger.cjcmp.org/christianity.html
---
"Ham-handed" isn't going to go over well with either Jews or Muslims.
Better make it "Beef-handed".
Let's go with chicken-handed.
But there might be some religion that has problems with eating chicken, too.
I guess we'll have to go with tofu-handed.
"I also live in the Bible Belt." Ditto. Not native, but I'm in Alabama...
"I have had people tell me I am going to hell." Double ditto. And my daughter is gay, so she's going there with me. And supposedly her being gay is my fault because I'm not Xtian.