The Nexus of Human Rights
B. B. Beach January/February 2000 The twentieth century has traveled under many names: such as the American century, the space age, the century of democracy, of ecumenism, of the United Nations, of human rights. However, as we pass the millennial divide, most of these designations imply largely unfinished agendas. Yes, there have been significant advances, but there were also terrible setbacks. The advantages of democracy have still to reach billions of people. The churches are still wary of each other, and sometimes in hostile camps. The United Nations organization has greatly grown in size, but in many instances seemed to be ineffective or has been ignored. Yes, we have made great strides in advancing human rights and religious liberty, but the twentieth century saw numerous wars, an event indescribable except as the Holocaust, and countless thousands killed and millions persecuted because of their beliefs. Human rights and religious liberty remain abstractions for hundreds of millions on this planet.Thus as we enter the year 2000 humanity has much more to fix and make whole than binary-code bugs in cyberspace. The vast expanse of restricted human freedom and broken human relations needs to be remedied and put right.
Looking back over the past half century, we can be grateful for many wide doors of opportunity. When I graduated from college, there were no international instruments or worldwide theoretical consensus regarding religious liberty. In a sense the world had a graduation of sorts a few months later with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 succinctly, but inclusively, proclaimed religious liberty.
Then in 1965 the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council, in a radical departure from an intolerant past in various countries, provided another door of opportunity by accepting religious liberty for all and asked that this "See change" might be recognized and protected by civil authority.
The fall of totalitarian Communism in Eastern Europe a little more than a decade ago gave a tremendous boost to religious liberty in the countries of that region, with a clear ripple effect in other parts of the world. And all this without hardly a shot being fired! It is still hard to understand how this change could have occurred in what seemed to be powerful totalitarian police states. A Communist journalist friend in Poland said to me: "This was a supernatural development."
Recently, in another astonishing development, the United States adopted a law--the International Religious Freedom Act--to monitor and promote worldwide religious liberty in other countries. As we enter another century, it is almost mind-boggling to realize that the world's only superpower is checking on and supporting religious liberty all over the world, especially where this freedom is actively threatened. This is truly a new situation: one that would have been unthinkable just a couple decades ago.
In the months before the Y2K bug "hit," much of the computer activity was of a preventative nature. In the same way, we need to look at religious liberty preventatively and proactively as we cross the great calendar divide. Yes, there are "bugs" or "viruses" that risk creeping into the religious liberty machinery and can either weaken it or put the system of rights out of action.
As we slip by the "2000 milepost," religious fundamentalism and extremism provide an increasing obstacle to religious liberty. While strongly associated with segments of Islam, this "virus" has also infiltrated Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It both originates from and develops a mind-set that sees everything as white or black, right or wrong. The conclusion for the fundamentalist is that "I am right, and everyone having a different view is wrong." Furthermore, with this mindset, the "wrong" religious views should be contained and, even better, excised like a malignant cancer. Extremists thus often conclude that the only way to exterminate false religious beliefs is to eliminate those holding such a religion.
Nationalism is also a growing danger and is seen destructively at work in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Indonesia, and Kosovo, just to mention a few trouble spots. Borders are closed to foreign missionaries or incoming religious ideas. When nationalism unites with religious fundamentalism, you get an explosive mixture of such power that it can blow religious liberty to smithereens, and right out of the twenty-first century.
The issue of sects has become a religious liberty "bug" in various countries, especially some nations in Western Europe. Feeding this "bug" are two ideological nutrients: (1) antireligious laicity and (2) self-serving and preserving efforts to keep power and special status and privileges for certain majority churches.
Antireligious laicity wants to squeeze religion out of society, or at least public life. Since it cannot do this, for the time being, with large majority churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, it becomes "antireligious minorities laicity." It thus takes after and attacks the minority religions. Lists of "dangerous sects" are prepared by legislators, and especially new religious movements are targeted. Today the problem is largely one of discrimination, but it shows signs of evolving into grave violations of religious freedom.
Proselytism is a growing controversy, especially in Eastern Europe. Some churches have been losing members, both to the magnetic force of secularism, and to evangelistic inroads by other religious groups. Rather than thinking in terms of what they may be doing wrong, some majority old line churches use the bogeyman of proselytism to protect themselves, and they run to the government for legislative and other help in bolstering their defenses, and achieving what they cannot otherwise realize in the free market of religious ideas.
Of course, there can be false proselytism: It is absolutely wrong to make untrue statements, denigrate, or ridicule other beliefs and practices, and exploit poor or vulnerable people by offering them financial and other material incentives as an inducement to change their religion. On the other hand, it is just as wrong to force people, through psychological, social, or even physical threats of violence, to remain members of a church or religion. The right to change religion, though part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is very much under attack. Everyone has and should have the right to convince others of the rightness of his or her belief. Every human being has the right to adopt or change religion or belief according to conscience; the dignity of the human person allows for no less.
In January of the year 2000 we can say, with some pride, that we are rapidly expanding our knowledge and exploration of outer space and the great distances of the universe. But perhaps the real challenge of the new century is how can we conquer and address the closeness of human relationships and perfect religious liberty--that inside right that is the very heart of human rights.
B. B. Beach is an educator, administrator, and author, with a career long specialty in church-state relations. Among other responsibilities, he serves as president of the International Religious Liberty Association.