Dateline: May 20, 1998
United States foreign policy is in the process of taking a giant leap backwards after the unfortunate 375-41 passage on May 14th in the House of Representatives of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (FFRPA). If this bill becomes law, countries which are deemed guilty of "a pattern of religious persecution" would face automatic sanctions - sanctions which would include broad bans on exporting most material to the offending country. Although it is touted as a bill which would advance both religious tolerance and religious freedom, it would ultimately achieve neither. Instead, it would both only hinder US foreign policy and create a "damaging hierarchy of persecution" which would make faith-based oppression more important than other forms of victimization, like those based upon race, nationality, ethnicity, and gender.
The House version of the FFRPA was introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and the Senate version was introduced by Don Nickles (R-Ok.). One of the provisions of the bill would create a specific State Department office which would monitor and report solely on religious persecution. An ambassador-at-large within the State Department would also be invested with the power to investigate matters of religious liberty. Although President Clinton presently opposes the bill, it appears as though his own actions helped encourage its introduction. In 1996, under pressure from evangelical and conservative religious groups, an advisory panel funded by taxpayer money was created within the Department of State and which is supposed to monitor and redress religious persecution around the world. Now, those same religious groups who are also major supporters of the FFRPA seem to wish to make this panel more official.
Who exactly are the supporters of this bill? As stated, it is primarily evangelical and conservative religious groups like Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Established groups which promote human rights and civil liberties around the world are justifiably wary of such groups' support of this bill, since some like Pat Robertson himself have demonstrated little or no compunction in also supporting a variety of dictators in Latin America and Africa who happen to agree with at least some of his personal theological goals. It does not appear, then, that Mr. Robertson has any wider interest in human rights, even though the countries where religious liberty is threatened also have problems with most human rights. Many of those nations punish all who do not follow the official dogma, not just religionists. The predominant belief system is accorded a special, protected status - something which was once accorded Christianity in this country, and which many present supporters of the FFRPA wish to reinstate. Thus, the question arises as to whether these supporters genuinely care about religious pluralism or if it is merely an attempt to have our government aid them in getting a theological foot in the door of foreign countries.
Although the basic idea of working against religious persecution around the world is certainly admirable, a closer inspection reveals a number of reasons to oppose at least this particular bill. The first involves foreign policy issues, and these are the reasons why the Clinton administration is presently opposed to this bill and why President Clinton has personally asked members of the conservative National Association of Evangelicals to withdraw their support of the FFRPA. In cases of religious persecution, sanctions against the offending country would be instituted automatically. President Clinton has, in fact, promised to veto this bill if and when it reaches his desk. John Shattuck, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, has said that this sanctions-oriented approach fails to recognize the value of dialogue in the promotion of liberty and forces the US into a one-size fits all approach to foreign policy. What's more, claims Shattuck, such a policy could "run the risk of strengthening the hand of those governments and extremists who seek to insight religious intolerance." Isn't this bill supposed to work against intolerance? The last thing we want to do is fuel extremist movements abroad.
Another problematic issue involves the Constitutional gray area that this bill would force our government into. None of the serious First Amendment issues have been addressed by either the White House or by Congress. Unfortunately, as a law this bill would create for religious belief, ritual, and advocacy a special status. Because of this, a nation which violates the civil liberties of non-religious groups would not be subject to the same penalties. Wider issues of abuse and persecution are ignored and religion is declared by the American government as more important than nationality, ethnicity, gender, or anything else. Should the taxpayers pay for this sort of preference? Should the taxpayers pay for the State Department to single out religion above all other categories as deserving more protection and recognition?
Religious persecution in other countries has always existed as part of a much wider pattern of human rights and civil liberties abuses on the part of governments. Groups which suffer from abuse include not only religionists and missionaries, but also journalists, women, intellectuals, gays, members of political opposition parties, and many others. Will emphasizing religion cause the neglect of other abuses? That is a legitimate fear. Interestingly, the countries where these widespread abuses exist are commonly those where there is no separation of church and state as there is America. American Atheists President Ellen Johnson, in a statement opposing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, noted that "...religious persecution is due to the fact that those societies do not have state-church separation. Some of the groups supporting FFRPA regularly attack the establishment clause and denounce the 'wall of separation' which Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers properly sought to build in to the American system." In the case of China, the "separation" problem exists in that there is no distance between the government and one prevailing ideology - communism. This is not at all unlike the problem which occurs when religion is not separated from government.
Once an ideology is accorded a special, protected status, the repression of those who do not adhere to that ideology will be an inevitable result. In attempting to combat such repression in other countries, the FFRPA may in fact be taking a step in the direction of creating the exact same problem in America - granting a special, protected status to a particular ideology.
For more information, see:
- Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
- "The Wrong Signal," by Anthony Lewis
- Christian Groups Should Be Wary of Economic Sanctions (from the Cato Institute)
|
|
