In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Included was Article 18, which reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
Today, more than 50 years after the signing of that document, a crucial point must always be remembered: no declaration, no constitutional enactment, and no legislative decree ever created freedom of religion. All that these declarations and decrees do is recognize religious freedom as an already existing right.
Thus, however helpful in expressing the reality of religious freedom, these acts, declarations, and decrees don't create religious freedom any more than Newton's Principia established planetary motion. Instead (like Newton's calculations) they merely recognize what already existed.
If, however, these rights have already existed, and are not, indeed, created by decree--on what foundation are they based? What justification can used for rights considered so sacred, so fundamental, that no government may legitimately take away or deny them? What enduring principles for religious freedom can be established? And, perhaps even more important, what dangers do these principles face?
Foundations of Freedom
1. The first principle on which religious freedom rests is, simply, human individuality. There is infinite value in individuality, a uniqueness that can never be reproduced and, if restricted and damaged, can never be replaced. From a Christian perspective the individual person is worth more than society for several reasons: (a) society cannot exist without individual persons, but individuals can exist without society; (b) the individual faces eternity--everlasting life--but society does not; © the individual faces divine judgment, while society (as such) does not.
2. Next is the principle of moral liberty, what the French call libre arbitre: the right of the individual, in conscience, to act as a personal referee, to freely choose, judge, and decide for himself or herself. It is this moral liberty, this right, that makes individuals responsible for their actions in the area of belief. If this liberty does not exist, there can be no individual responsibility and accountability to the Creator.
3. Both human individuality and moral liberty and responsibility, give human beings dignity, another pillar on which religious freedom should rest. This dignity must be respected by individuals and their socio-religio-political instruments. In contrast, restriction of individual ideological liberty is an attack on human dignity. This dignity can be protected only when each person respects the libre arbitre of every other person's conscience.
4. Next there is equality. Both human individuality and dignity imply equality of each individual person before both God and other human beings and in society at large. Any unequal treatment is an offense against the human person and the very basis of religious liberty.
5. This equality, of course, is why non-discrimination is another important principle for religious freedom. Like equality, non-discrimination is an inevitable corollary of human dignity, and it involves placing the belief rights of minorities on the same level as those of the majority. Fortunately, the concept of
non-discrimination regarding religion is anchored in the very charter of the United Nations and is deeply ingrained in various international instruments.
6. Another pillar is found in the notion of pluralism. Where one church or religious body has an exclusive status, or at least a preferred established recognition, minority religious groups are usually discriminated against, both de jure and de facto. Equality before the law, and non-discrimination almost by definition, presuppose some form of religious pluralism.
Though any one of these principles is important in and of itself, together they cement in place a strong foundation on which religious freedom rests. To respect any--and especially all--these principles ultimately must lead to respect for religious freedom. No nation or polity can violate any of these principles without violating essential human rights.
Threat to Freedom
Unfortunately, no matter how basic, these rights are threatened by various geo political forces.
1. Religio-political fundamentalism is one. The use of the world "fundamentalism" does not refer to a certain hermeneutical approach to Scripture, but rather to an extremist and totalitarian religious stance that sees those of differing religious persuasion as either a danger to be wiped out or at least as a target of legitimate repression. This noxious force has been growing in most religious sectors, especially Islam, but Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not immune.
2. Economic inequality poses another large threat to religious freedom. Often in areas where people are locked into politico-economic misery, they succumb more readily to the siren song and promises of future bliss bandied about by fundamentalist demagogues. The neglect of these systemic human miseries lets religious extremism fill the hope vacuum with a corresponding assault on religious liberty.
3. Though sectarianism and anti-sect movements would appear by definition to be at the opposite ends of the ideological scale, they actually feed on each other, and both are inimical to religious liberty. The sectarian person wears religious blinkers, thinks that every other view is wrong and probably dangerous, and wants to live in splendid religious isolation. Respect for the rights of the other is a low priority.
Meanwhile, the organized anti-sect movement, itself so obsessed with "sects," is willing to trample upon basic human rights through, for example, deprogramming. While there are, no doubt, some "dangerous sects," their number is grossly exaggerated and legitimate peaceful and law-abiding groups are indiscriminately tarred with the sectarian brush.
4. Alliance between government and dominant religion can be another threat, as history has aptly shown. With both European and American colonial experiences in mind, the framers of the U.S. Constitution placed a divide between government and established religion, which has served as a buffer to keep that potentially dangerous alliance at a minimum.
In this century, when Communism became the established anti-religious ideology in Eastern Europe, it proclaimed separation of the church from the state. With the fall in those countries of totalitarian Communism, some leaders of the former state churches now claim that separation of church and state is a Communist ploy and the majority church should be returned to its former status and power in society. They miss the point: the Communists never practiced separation of church and state, but only separation of the church from the state, not the state from the church! The state controlled the churches with a heavy, at times persecuting, hand.
5. Today, some old majority churches are cuddling up to the state, asking for legislation and regulations bolstering the position of the historical church and restricting free exercise of minority churches, especially new religious movements. While democracy provides that the majority rules, the concept of basic human rights, not least the right to religious liberty, places these rights beyond the reach of either political or religious majorities.
Some politicians, unfortunately, are always eager to do the bidding of the religious majority, be it of the right or left, in order to gain its support in the election process. This can be a danger to religious liberty.
Conclusion
While the basis of religious liberty has, in the forum of public opinion, become clearer in recent decades, the battle for freedom of religion continues unabatedly. Now, more than 50 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the struggle, especially in the post-Communist world, is more acute than ever. Yet religious freedom continues to be one of the most basic and precious of all human rights--one that all the acts, decrees, and declarations can only enumerate, but never establish or, for that matter, abolish.
Bert B. Beach is general secretary of the Seventh-day Adventist Council on Inter Church Relations, and vice president of the International Religious Liberty Association.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Bar
THE INTOLERANCE OF TOLERATION
One thing the principles upon which religious freedom rests should teach lovers of liberty is this: "tolerance," no matter how nice sounding, is not religious freedom.
This word "tolerance" is frequently postulated as the basis for religious freedom, a position that is patently and dangerously false. Tolerance, by the very definition of the word itself, implies that freedom of religion or belief is not an intrinsic, fundamental right, but a favor granted in a spirit of either generosity or condescension. Tolerance suggests that those tolerating may be suffering somewhat (like a sick person "tolerating" pain), but stoically put up with other religions and denominations. It is dangerous to base religious liberty on either human generosity or endurance. Tolerance, it has been said, is a counterfeit to freedom; it certainly isn't what religious freedom is or should ever be about.--B.B.B.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend