1997 NCC General Assembly, Nov. 11-14, 1997, Washington, D.C.
1997 NCC General Assembly, Nov. 11-14, 1997, Washington, D.C.
At the close of the bloodiest century in history, it is fitting that Congress would turn its attention toward the goal of reducing, if not eliminating, this most fundamental violation of human rights.
Legislation has now been introduced in both chambers of Congress (and passed by the House) that is intended to alleviate the suffering of persons around the globe who wish to exercise their God-given right to worship as they see fit. Representatives Frank Wolf, Ben Gilman, Christopher Smith and Lee Hamilton as well as Senators Arlin Specter, Don Nickles, Joseph Lieberman and Connie Mack are to be commended for their roles in guiding this legislative effort. Religious groups, such as the National Association of Evangelicals, also deserve credit for placing the issue of religious persecution at the top of the nation’s moral agenda.
The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCCC) has worked to ensure that any proposed legislation has the intended result of actually reducing the incidence of religious persecution as well as improving the lot of those who are the victims. Many of the concerns raised by the NCCC have been addressed, but questions remain. We hope these questions will continue to be explored honestly and openly as our government seeks to craft an appropriate response to this pressing international concern. In particular, we hope to ensure that the faith communities most affected by the proposed legislation have an opportunity to be heard. To that end, we are in communication with our overseas partners and missionary leaders and are making them accessible to members of Congress and to the press.
After much thought, prayer and deliberation, we offer the following suggestions to those desiring to pass legislation that addresses religious persecution:
1. Violations of human rights abroad are best addressed through multilateral efforts. A unilateral response is often ineffective and counter-productive. Further, unilateral action may destroy America’s ability to participate in development efforts that improve life for the poor and alleviate the conditions that give rise to various human rights abuses including religious persecution.
Comment: One of the biggest weaknesses of both the House and Senate bills is the failure to provide real support and encouragement for multilateral efforts. Unfortunately, the opportunity to amend the House bill has been lost, but modest changes in the Senate bill could help to ensure that it will have the intended effect of actually reducing religious persecution. First, Section 401 or 403 of the "International Religious Freedom Act" (IRFA) could be amended to require the Secretary of State to seek multilateral support before unilateral sanctions are imposed. Another possibility is to provide additional funds to the United Nations earmarked for international tribunals that could hear charges of religious persecution. Finally, the 30 day delay before the imposition of sanctions under Section 409 could be extended in order to allow for diplomacy as well as for multilateral efforts.
2. Appropriate training for government personnel as well as more thorough investigation and reporting is likely to reduce the incidence of religious persecution.
Comment: These sections of both the House and Senate bills are adequate.
3. Sanctions should be a matter of thoughtful last resort, not automatic first resort. As indicated above, multilateral participation in invoking of sanctions is the desirable strategy.
Comment: Obviously, the House bill is flawed in this regard. The Senate bill, on the other hand, has more flexibility. However, to ensure that IRFA meets its intended goal, Section 401 should be amended in two ways. First, the Secretary of State should be required to review the Commission on International Religious Persecution’s recommendations before they are passed on to the President. This may be intended by the sponsors, but it is unclear from the text of the bill. Second, and more importantly, the President should be required to make a finding that any sanctions recommended by the Commission are likely to help rather than hinder the plight of the victims before any sanctions are imposed. This decision could be subject to congressional review under Section 409 as with other decisions of the President under Title IV of the bill.
4. Care should be exercised so that traditions and cultures of other nations are respected. Although we cherish and affirm the principles of the First Amendment as the best mechanism for protecting religious liberty, we recognize that they are rooted in western philosophical, political and religious thought. We should not seek to impose the American arrangement on others. This includes respecting the traditions of established religions and churches common to European as well as Islamic nations. America’s response to religious persecution must not be perceived as "anti-Islamic."
Comment: Section 3 of IRFA should be modified in accordance with suggestions by the State Department to ensure that the bill will not sweep into its reach every nation that has an established religion or that practices some form of discrimination. Casting the net too widely is likely to strain relations with numerous nations at different places on the religious freedom spectrum and could actually reduce religious freedom as well as diminish opportunities for missions organizations headquartered in the United States.
5. Steps should be taken to ensure that the issue of religious freedom is not further politicized. Making the State Department rather than the White House the locus of our overseas efforts is one means of encouraging this. Annual showdowns between the President and the Congress over appropriate responses to the actions of a particular nation should be avoided. Disagreements over responsive action should not become the basis for partisan wrangling. Meaningful review by the Secretary of State should be part of any effective strategy for combating religious persecution.
Comment: Decisions to move the locus of persecution monitoring from the White House to the State Department helped to "de-politicize" proposed federal legislation. The issuance of a separate, annual report on religious persecution (Section 6 of the "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act" and Section 102(b) of the "International Religious -Freedom Act") may, however, serve to politicize the issue in a manner that actually harms overseas faith communities as Democrats and Republicans seek to use the annual event for domestic political gain. The suggestion simply to fold the religious persecution report into existing human rights reports should be considered.
By subjecting any proposed legislation to these five principles, members of Congress can help to ensure it will have the intended result and that it will enjoy the support of the broad spectrum of America’s faith communities.
NCC Home Page
Index of Resources on
Religious Freedom and Persecution Abroad
NCC General Assembly
NCC News Service Index