Key to World Peace: Religious Freedom
- May 22, 2007 - 9
In his letter to the Turo Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, George Washington promised “to establish effective barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution.” He argued for an attitude that respected the inherent and equal right of everyone to worship God as they think best or to not worship God at all. The government, wrote Washington, would give “to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
Over two hundred years later, President George W. Bush elaborated on Washington’s promise: “Religious freedom is the first freedom of the human soul. The right to speak the words that God places in our mouths. We must stand for that freedom in our country. We must speak for that freedom to the world.”
Religious liberty has played an integral part in American history. Religious freedom, freedom of conscience, is an integral part, a foundational part, of why this nation exists.
But does religion matter in international affairs? Just about everywhere we look in the world today there is a religious dimension to conflict. The old concepts of security based on sovereign nations competing for armaments and strategic superiority are being replaced by high-tech weaponry and ethnic and religious strife—which often are synonymous with one another.
It is important for future leaders to take religion seriously—to understand its yearnings, use its potential, and counter its danger. Diplomats and politicians and policymakers who are not equipped to do that will fall short in promoting U.S. policy goals in the twenty-first century. We need people who can factor religion and religious concerns into domestic politics and international relations just as they do economic and security concerns.
The promotion of religious freedom is linked to the promotion of other fundamental human civil rights, including the growth of democracy. Governments that protect religious freedom for all their citizens are more likely to be governments that protect other human rights. Encouraging stable, healthy democracies is a vital national interest of the United States. The spread of democracy makes for good neighbors, for economic prosperity, for increased trade, and for a decrease in conflict. Countries with governments that protect everyone’s right to practice their faith are not active breeding grounds for terrorists.
The 2007 annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom paints a bleak picture of our world with eleven countries—Burma, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam—noted as “countries of particular concern.” It is believed these governments have “engaged in or tolerated systematic and egregious violations of the universal right to freedom of religion or belief.”
The Commission also identified eight countries— Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, and Nigeria—as requiring close monitoring, given that the governments of these nations have engaged in or tolerated attempts to regulate thought, conscience, and religion or belief.
As the 2007 annual report states, religious freedom has a central place not only in the “area of advancing human rights but also in promoting accountability, conflict resolution, and reconciliation within societies.”
When we prioritize trade and security concerns over human rights and religious freedom we travel a dangerous road. The better way is to seek to link these concerns in a way consistent with our own interests and the long-term betterment of the lives of those in countries where violations of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion are common.
By placing attention on the state of religious freedom in individual nations, we greatly enhance prospects for long-term peace and security in the world.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Human Rights, Persecution, Religious Liberty, War
9 comments (post your own) feed
1 On May 25th, 2007, at 4:59pm, steve wrote:
Land said - “Countries with governments that protect everyone’s right to practice their faith are not active breeding grounds for terrorists”. What rubbish! Where did the London bombers come from? Where did the Bali bombers come from? Where did Timothy McVeigh come from? It is religion and not nationality that can be found at the root of all this evil. Deluded people can be made to do stupid things.
2 On May 31st, 2007, at 10:48am, Dan wrote:
I totally (and respectfully) disagree with Steve. To disagree with Dr. Land’s statement is to misunderstand the nature of man. It is the darkened hearts of human beings that is the real culprit here. The light of Christ is its only hope. America and other democratically run countries are not a “breeding ground” for terrorists because of religious pluralism, but freedom of conscience does bear a price--a price of personal responsibility or the lack thereof. Delusion is in the heart of man, not in religion, and ESPECIALLY not in the Biblical teaching of the Christian worldview.
3 On May 31st, 2007, at 2:42pm, David F. Rasmussen wrote:
Dan, I don’t follow your reasoning. Of course you are right that “the darkened hearts of human beings” are the problem, and “the light of Christ is the only hope”. Amen! But what connection does this have to do with Dr. Land’s thesis that democracy and religious pluralism are “the key to world peace”?
Dr. Land’s statement is another example of the ERLC’s continuing slide into the belief that our problems and their solutions are political in nature.
Delusion is indeed in the heart of man, especially in religion. A major Biblical theme is the danger of false religion, from the false “gods” of Egypt, Canaan, and Babylon, to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the unbelief of the Sadducees, and the deceit of heretics in the early church. Given that religious liberty is a good thing that we should support, it is not the solution to humanity’s search for peace. Again, the only hope is the Gospel of Christ (not “the Christian worldview”.)
4 On May 31st, 2007, at 3:59pm, steve wrote:
Dan, Land made the sweeping generalization that religious freedom and terrorism is somehow mutually exclusive. I simply pointed out that this was not true and gave a few religious based examples. Obviously there are other reasons why people commit acts of terrorism.
It irks me that Land plays loose with the facts and casually overlooks facts such as the US gave Saddam his chemical weapons; it trained Bin Laden to help install the Taliban; it trained the 9/11 pilots. It spawned terrorist attacks such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and Oklahoma. The US is not an innocent bystander even allowing for its religious pluralism.
And delusion is not found in the heart. Delusion is found in the neurons of the brain. It is a scientific phenomenon.
5 On Jun 1st, 2007, at 11:10am, David F. Rasmussen wrote:
Steve, there you go again. You insist that delusion is nothing more than a “scientific phenomenon” - that our human consciousness is merely a complex of chemical reactions - and yet you go on about “evil”, about the nation not being “innocent”, and about being “irked”. Chemical reactions are neither evil nor innocent, and your experience of being “irked” at Dr. Land would be of less interest to me than my cat’s annoyance at being pushed him the table at breakfast - if I did not believe that you are something more, a human being with what Scripture calls a heart.
By the way, I don’t think you’re just irked at Dr. Land. I think you’re indignant. As am I. My reasons have to do with theology. Yours seem to have to do with a sense of .... justice??
6 On Jun 1st, 2007, at 12:38pm, steve wrote:
David, what’s your point? All the concepts you raise (except about chemical reactions being evil or innocent - not sure where you drew that conclusion from) are manifestations of human cognitive processes that are underpinned by chemical and physical reactions. What else are you suggesting they could be? Your cat actually uses similar processes to be annoyed at you when it is “pushed [under] the table at breakfast”.
I do find your reference to ‘scripture’ amusing. What knowledge did the authors of the bible have of human cognitive processes? - None! Surely you aren’t suggesting that their words should be used to override the vast base of scientific knowledge that currently exists on the subject.
7 On Jun 4th, 2007, at 1:54pm, David F. Rasmussen wrote:
Steve, your statement that human thought is “underpinned by” chemical processes is not controversial. What divides us is naturalism’s claim that human thoughts, and all things transcendent, are nothing but chemical processes.
Let me try again. Chemical processes are not right or wrong. They just happen. If they are all that is, then there is no innocence, evil, or justice. Everything is permissible, and nothing matters. There are only phenomena. If you happen to feel irked, it is nothing but a sensation. It can never be real indignation, because there is no violation of the good to be indignant about.
My point was that I thought that you were really expressing indignation at perceived injustice; ergo you really do believe that there are real (transcendent) values. I find this both amusing and poignant.
8 On Jun 6th, 2007, at 1:48pm, steve wrote:
David, your logic is hard to follow. Why have you introduced the word ‘transcendent’? Are you suggesting that the values you live by exist outside of your own persona? How spooky!
The fact is that the values people choose to live by are very much an internal phenomenon. Some are gained through indoctrination and some through free thought. The reason humans choose to delineate between good and evil love and hate etc is simple human evolution. Humans have a tendency to love because those who didn’t were eliminated from the gene pool. There are no transcendent values.
David, I know this may irk you but life really is just a set of chemical reactions. Many humans, because of the complexity of their evolutionary progression, find this hard to come to terms with and so invent imaginary beings to give their existence some purpose beyond what is real.
9 On Apr 18th, 2008, at 12:51pm, Kenneth M. Daugherty wrote:
“By placing attention on the state of religious freedom in individual nations, we greatly enhance prospects for long-term PEACE AND SECURITY in the world.” - Richard Land
“peace and security”
I wonder if Mr. Land has read his bible.
“For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.” - 1 Thess. 5:3
Mr. Land is an ecumenist, and if you ever get the chance to read the pope’s messages (e.g. World Peace Day), you will see that Land sounds more and more like a Roman Catholic. Take a look at the pope’s message to the UN today.