fbpx
Articles

Is religious liberty an American foreign policy priority?

/
May 2, 2016

Last month, the State Department updated the list of the worst violators of religious freedom around the world. The fact that the State Department took this step is noteworthy and significant: while the law requires the list to be updated annually, no president since 1998 has done so every year. The State Department maintained last years’ list, adding one new country, Tajikistan. There are now 10 countries of particular concern: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

However, the State Department released this news on a routine Friday press conference with no event, no press release, and no fanfare.

Those of us who are citizens of liberal democracies are ultimately responsible for the manner in which our democracy governs and conducts statecraft. And so for us, Psalm 94 contains a potent warning: “Can wicked rulers be allied with you [that is, with God], those who frame injustice by statute?” Likewise, the advice of King Lemuel’s mother is applicable to us as well: “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov. 31: 8–9).

While the designation of countries of particular concern this year was an important step, the United States can be doing more. Promoting and protecting international religious freedom must be a key priority within American foreign policy.

The State Department has tools at its disposal

Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, Congress gave the State Department a powerful and diverse set of policy tools to advance religious liberty around the word. The central mechanism is the designation of Countries of Particular Concern. Once a country has been added to this list, the State Department has the authority to take a number of actions, such as:

public or private diplomatic discussions
public condemnation
delay or cancellation of scientific or cultural exchanges
detail, delay, or cancellation of official state visits
withdrawal of security assistance and arms trade
a number of different economic sanctions

Is the State Department actually using those tools?

Given the wide range of options available, it is therefore troubling that the Obama Administration waived any action at all for four of the countries of particular concern: Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and newly added Tajikistan. In other words, Tajikistan was added to the list, but this was the only consequence.

Further, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended adding Central African Republic, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam. No action was taken on these countries. Given recent events in Pakistan, such an omission is particularly troubling.

One could argue that this is just semantics: placing the country on the list in the first place is condemnation enough. That further action was waived in the “important national interest of the United States” is irrelevant because the country remains on the list of countries of particular concern.

And we should also acknowledge that statecraft is chess, not checkers. Sometimes the most powerful actions the United States can take are behind the scenes, allowing violators of human rights to avoid embarrassment in exchange for doing the right thing. The public will likely never know many of the great accomplishments of American diplomacy in service of religious liberty and human rights for all.

Religious liberty vs. “important national interests”

But even with that said, the fact that the State Department was not even willing to publicly condemn Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan for violating the religious liberty of its citizens for shows the importance of this human right in relation to other interests. This condemnation was waived after all, in view of an “important national interest of the United States.”

Further, John Kirby, spokesman for the State Department acknowledged that the actions taken against the six other countries of particular concern are not new or additional: no additional sanctions were added. According to Mr. Kirby, this “adds a layer of validity to a sanction or an action that’s already in place.” That’s one way of looking at it. But another way is that there was no real consequence for any of the worst violators of religious freedom.

We are grateful for many of the actions the State Department has taken to focus on religious freedom, to engage with religious communities, and to better understand the role of religion in civic life around the world. Ambassador Saperstein is a tireless and powerful advocate for the oppressed around the world. The creation of the Office of Religion and Global Affairs has been a useful step as well. Secretary of State John Kerrygave a strong speech on religion and foreign affairs at Rice University this week. In that speech, Secretary Kerry acknowledged that religious liberty is good for everyone, a topicERLC’s Matt Hawkins wrote about.

But in these remarks, Secretary Kerry did not mention the week-old designation of countries of particular concern, a curious omission in a speech on religious freedom and the role of religion in American diplomacy.

The designation of countries of particular concern is an opportunity for action, not just talk. Persuasion and engagement are important tools, and this is a good starting point. But inducement – another tool in the statecraft toolbox – is not being used in a meaningful way to advance religious liberty. This is why the ERLC supports congressional efforts to strengthen State's tool box with the bipartisan Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. We hope the State Department’s timid release is not a reflection of the importance of religious liberty relative to other human rights. We urge the State Department to make the violation of religious liberty – a fact that affects hundreds of millions of people around the world every day – a key priority in American foreign policy.

Travis Wussow

Travis Wussow serves as the Vice President for Public Policy and General Counsel. Travis led the ERLC’s first international office located in the Middle East prior to joining the Washington DC office. He received a B.B.A. in Finance from The University of Texas at Austin and a J.D. from The … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24