|
|
|
|
Introduction Participants Contents
VI. General Discussion Abdullahi An-Na’im: Tom Farr reiterated the point that I made earlier about how religion is a foundation of human rights and human dignity. I would very much like that to be so. But I realize that this is the view of a tiny minority. For example, to the vast majority of Muslims around the world, Islamic conceptions of rights are inconsistent with the human rights of women and non-Muslim religious minorities. We must address those aspects of the relationship between religion and human rights, rather than focus on the positive side. William Inboden: A question that has really come out through the conference is this notion of a hierarchy of human rights—in particular, a concern about putting religious freedom at the top of the hierarchy. I would say maybe we need to expand our thinking a little bit and not just think about nonmaterial human rights, such as freedom of conscience, thought, assembly, speech, etc. We need to think about human needs as well. For example, I think we all agree that particularly in the developing world there is a human need for clean drinking water, health care, education, food. And a lot of people I have spoken with in the developing world are much more concerned with putting food on the table and getting their kids healed from an awful intestinal disease from contaminated water than more ethereal notions like freedom of speech or human rights. Where am I going with this? I would not criticize Human Rights Watch for not caring about these other human needs. I don’t think Human Rights Watch is imposing some sort of hierarchy where they only care about human rights and they don’t care about the kids who don’t have food or water or some of these material needs. Likewise, I don’t think it would be fully accurate to say those people who want to focus on religious freedom as one particular human need or human right are doing this to the detriment of any other human needs or human rights. I think we all have our battles to fight, and we ought to give each other the benefit of the doubt in this regard. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: Religion is a deeply ambiguous, complicated aspect of human culture. I think we make a mistake if we try to wish that away, trying to look only at the good side of the story. You never get rid of the bad side. Religion is different and I think we have to acknowledge that. Michael Lestz: If there had been a long established record of the United States focusing and pushing for global human rights recognition I don’t think this Act would be interpreted in the fashion which it is being interpreted. However, we have at best a very spotty record in terms of supporting and pushing for global efforts in securing human rights and therefore this Act is perceived as yet another sort of American exceptionalism. And as to whether or not other countries are less hypocritical or more hypocritical than the United States, the comment of Mr. Gunn just took it out of my mouth. He said, well, you know we are doing pretty well on women’s and children’s rights, so it’s not really important that we ratify those conventions. That’s, in my mind, the definition of exceptionalist. We don’t really need these things because we are already there. And I think that’s a significant problem, a problem that really comes out in the American approach to human rights, generally speaking. Jeremy Gunn: Just quickly, I didn’t say that I think the United States shouldn’t ratify the Women’s Convention or the Children’s Convention. I think it’s important for the United States to do this, and I think it’s important that Congress ratifies it. Michael Lestz: But the reason for the importance that you mentioned seemed to be only so that other countries don’t call us hypocrites. That seemed to be the implication that I got out of your comment. I think the conventions are important to sign irrespective of any other country signing. Jeremy Gunn: But the United States was involved in drafting those conventions; the United States ought to support them. I think that what you have done is singled out one of my arguments and assumed that was the only one, which wasn’t the case. Tom Farr: Back quickly to the issue of what we might call the source of human dignity—what I heard people saying is that the international commitment to universal human dignity ought to be seen as a product of current social practice, or perhaps of recent enlightenment. If that is so, it can be swept away tomorrow. The purpose of the introduction to the Report was not to say that religion provides the only understanding of human dignity. In fact, it notes that religion is historically a source of great conflict, and that there are non-religious understandings of human dignity. But if the question is the source of the universality of human rights, one answer is a religious understanding—that each human has a spark of the divine and must for that reason be treated with respect. This is not simply a Western ideal, although it is in part that. It represents a willingness to root human dignity in metaphysical soil, to say that that is universal. If the notion of human dignity is merely the product of this era, then it seems to me that human rights can be dissolved. A religious understanding of human dignity makes it universal and timeless, less vulnerable to the whims of any era. Jack Cullinan: I have to agree with the source of human dignity, and I can agree with using that as the substructure on which to build the argument. But it’s possible for people to disagree about ultimate issues, yet agree on more proximate ones, as we might in this case. Cole Durham: I am going to pick up on the comment that was made first I think by Jeremy, that religion should be on the list of things in the general nondiscrimination provisions. This argument was then questioned by Winni because she thinks religion is different, more problematic. It seems to me that religion may and probably is different than race and gender, which are absolutely given, in the sense that you have no control over them. But the question is, what should follow from that? Should that make religion a second class consideration vis-à-vis the other categories? Or should that make it an elevated category, closer to the core of human dignity? Now, there is no doubt that religion is dangerous. It’s dangerous because people care about it more than life. It’s one of the few values that has that characteristic. That makes it such a dangerous value. But there is no question that at a minimum it should be on the list. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: I don’t think it belongs on the list. And the reason it doesn’t belong on the list is because, listening to you and Tom Farr, I feel like I am in church. I go to church, but I don’t think a churchy sensibility belongs in American policy. It dishonors the many, many people in this country who have self-consciously walked out of religion for whatever reason. These are good, moral, sacrificing people for whom your description of what it means to be a human being would be deeply offensive. It would be to say, "You’re really not a very important part of American history because American history is about a religious understanding of humans." Cole Durham: The protection is for religion or belief. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: Well, you keep saying that but nowhere here does it honor the real values that come out of non-belief. I think that there are some. They are one reason for disestablishment. Cole Durham: Well, the reference is to international standards, which, as Jeremy said, consistently talk about religion or belief. My point is that there is something really fundamental about conscience and human dignity that really does belong on the list. I think it’s deeply troubling for you to suggest that religion does not belong on the list. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: You are using these words interchangeably. Conscience, to me, does not have the same problem as religion. Freedom of conscience is what every human being who lives has a right to. Cole Durham: That is what I’m saying. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: That is different than to say religion has rights. Religion is something that comes with a whole lot of baggage. Giving rights to religion is very different than saying you ought to be respectful… Cole Durham: We agree that religion or belief has rights and that… Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: Oh, no, let’s just give conscience rights. Let’s respect… Cole Durham: You want to believe only in non-religion? Jeremy Gunn: By that she would mean to exclude religion. Berel Lang: Just change the title of the act to IFCA—freedom of conscience, not freedom of religion. That would be an improvement. John Hanford: Closely related to this discussion, but shifting the angle a bit, there is actually a simple, practical reason why this legislation deals with only one human right, and that is because it is typically the nature of legislation to deal with one issue at a time. Several here have cited United Nations conventions. You will notice that, in the same way, it is generally the nature of such conventions to address one area of human rights or one international issue. Or those of you who are academics—typically, when you write a book, you focus on one human problem, without feeling it necessary or practical to cover every aspect of the human predicament. In the same way, when we consider the pros and cons of this Act, I do not believe that it would be reasonable or even compassionate to refuse to address religious freedom legislatively, unless the Act could focus on every area of human rights at the same time. This was an issue that had come before Congress. Some of us were trying to conscientiously refine this legislative process and write a better bill. And our concern was, simply, do we care about people who are tortured for their religious beliefs? Or about laws which outlaw certain religious practices and put people in such vulnerable positions? There may be some here who are uncomfortable with religion being focused upon, because you see it, as someone stated earlier, as too "complicated" a human right. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that I don’t care about people being tortured… John Hanford: You seem to think it’s too complicated… Winnifred Fallers Sullivan: No. John Hanford: You seem to think that it’s too complicated to raise as an issue and to address legislatively, but the fact of the matter is that this Act passed unanimously in the Senate, 98-0, and unanimously by voice vote in the House, suggesting, in a practical sense, that every member of Congress does not believe that religious freedom is too complicated an issue to act upon. And I think that this is a better reflection of where most of America is on an issue such as this. Jemera Rone: I think the legislative history of this act will probably reflect there was a great deal of interest in protecting the rights of Christians and so forth when the bill was conceived and also when people responded, constituents and so forth. So I think that the burden is probably on the U.S. government to show that in this Act they’re not engaging in crusading or proselytization on behalf of the Christian religion and I think… John Hanford: Where do you see that? Jemera Rone: I think that is the impression that’s going to be created. I see here that people are trying to be sensitive to that, and trying not to create that impression. But I think it’s certainly an uphill battle in terms of world opinion. John Hanford: We can’t respond to an impression; but where do you see it? And for those of us who don’t regard religion as something that carries so much "excess baggage," as one participant put it, that we simply can’t address it and have to take it off the table, one must ask, "What’s the alternative?" People are being hauled in daily around the world for torture and other forms of abuse on the basis of religion—arguably more than for any other issue, with the sole exception of political dissension. Our country has a history of standing up for people who are being tortured or unjustly imprisoned. What is the alternative? Laura Bryant: I think it’s accurate to say that awareness of Christian persecution was a significant part of the process. It’s okay to have momentum that may come from that. But the question of where momentum came from is very secondary to what actually was put in place. And I don’t think there’s anything in the actual policy that specifically promotes or singles out Christianity or any other religion. Jay Demerath: You seem to have an impression that people around the world are actually going to read this bill. Just as you did not hold hearings in New Delhi and you did not hold hearings in Africa, Latin America and other places around the… John Hanford: We sought their counsel. Jay Demerath: You are not going to get the kind of reading or hearing that I think you’re expecting to get. I think there is a risk that in asking for so much, you are going to get too little. In asking for a bill that is specifically labeled religious, concern for religious freedom, you’re going to raise suspicions and hackles to such an extent that you’re not going to get much at all as a result. John Hanford: We haven’t gotten the sort of hackles you’re talking about, except here. Jay Demerath: No, no, not just here, don’t kid yourself. I am not an old-fashioned cultural relativist. I have a lot of concerns about human rights and human abuse and human persecution, and I would like to address those. But let me suggest that this is not the way to do it. John Hanford: Sir, if this isn’t the right approach, what are you doing? Give us concrete suggestions. Jay Demerath: Let me suggest that this is an internationalizing world. And if you can’t handle it with international appeals to an internationally agreed upon consensus of rights… John Hanford: We do, as required in the bill. Jay Demerath: Just hold on. If you can’t work with these people then I submit you’re not likely to get the job done. I know what your response is going to be. If you internationalize it you won’t get people to sign on. And even if they do sign on it will either be disingenuous or cosmetic or they won’t act on it. Fair enough. But the important place for the U.S. to concentrate its effort is precisely to get them to make real commitments to such an agreement and begin to act internationally. Because if the U.S. tries to do it on its own, we will incur more hostility and trouble than we have now. Ira Rifkin: I want to say for the record that I was at the initial news conference in the capitol building when Wolf-Spector was introduced. And it is my clear recollection that despite what the final Act came to be, despite Saperstein standing with everybody up there, despite the fact that Michael Horowitz was a driving force behind the writing of the bill, and despite the fact that Arlen Spector is Jewish, as are Saperstein and Horowitz, this Act was then perceived as a bill that came out of the religious right and was for the protection of Christians. Jack Cullinan: The Catholic bishops initially refused to support Wolf-Spector and insisted on changes in exchange for our support. When that happened, then David Saperstein and the others got on board with us. Now, this happened at a time when no one knew the alternative bill was being drafted; the Wolf-Specter bill was the only game at that point in time. And our hope was to continue to press for changes and try to make a better bill. Mark Hulsether: My perception also is that the broad constituency that backed this bill tends to be conservative Christian—conservative, at least, within a broad spectrum of U.S. politics. Until quite recently we had a Protestant-dominant culture in the United States. And if you want to think about the context in which one thing or other might be pragmatically attainable in the U.S. Congress, we have to talk about what’s happened in the last generation where there’s been a loss of this presumption of power by conservative evangelicals. And then the larger mobilization of the religious right seems to me, in part, to be a response to that. I think you have to understand that as part of the deep background context for the mobilization of this law as well as other laws that are being promoted in the name of protecting religious rights of evangelicals in the United States. John Hanford: It has seemed from several comments that some of you carry the suspicion that this Act was the work of the religious right. While it is undoubtedly true that there are many in the religious right who care deeply about this issue, this suspicion of their involvement with this bill is one which those of us who worked on the Act would view with a certain degree of irony, because we had such mixed experience and even some frustrations at times with the religious right. I do not want to get into naming names, but in one instance, for example, when Laura Bryant raised a couple of substantive questions about the Wolf-Specter bill, she was told by one leader that it was because of people like her that the Nazis succeeded in sending millions to the death camps, and she was standing in the way of large numbers of religious believers being saved from a similar fate. There was significant support amongst the religious right for the Wolf-Specter bill and at the same time, a certain degree of grumbling in other quarters about that support. There were some good things in the Wolf-Specter bill, and my goal is not to criticize that right now. The International Religious Freedom Act was supported by the Episcopal Church, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Baptists, a United Methodist organization, Prison Fellowship, and a number of other organizations, as well as by the Christian Coalition, with many religious right groups remaining uninvolved. We actually thought there would be more significant support coming from the religious right, when we stepped forward with this, and we were somewhat surprised at how tepid such support was. As a practical matter, this was a moment of opportunity. Something was going to be voted on in Congress on this issue. And so it was a question of whether we just let it be something that came out of a messy process, or whether we devoted a great deal of effort at trying to draft as effective and careful an approach to this complicated issue as possible. I will admit it’s complicated. And so again, all of us are open to counsel on a better approach. That’s what I have been asking for and that was a central question posed by our moderator for this session today. I can also point to our experience in receiving correspondence on Capitol Hill from constituents. We are not hearing back from Americans who are upset that we passed this Act to assist people who are arrested or persecuted for their faith. We gave IRFA a strong, conscientious effort in terms of seeking to serve a serious human rights problem overseas in a manner consistent with sound foreign policy. Now we will have to see how it works out in implementation. We can all try to influence and assist in the implementation process, in order to make sure the bill doesn’t prove to be counterproductive, but instead works to benefit, in a lasting and meaningful way, those persons who are being treated unjustly on the basis of their beliefs. Tom Farr: The proof will be in the pudding. If the new U.S. approach to religious freedom works, we’ll all know it. Maybe we can meet again next year and measure its success. I look forward to receiving not only your contributions to the Report itself, but to learn whether or not you think it’s working or whether it’s having the negative effects that some of you fear it will have. We should be able to say either, "Well, this was a mistake" or, "This was good." Rosalind Hackett: I am hopeful, as someone who does research on areas of religious conflict, who teaches human rights courses, and who is also an activist in a small way, that despite the problems associated with the bill and the reports, that you are contributing to enlarging the discourse of human rights and helping it spread into areas where it wouldn’t normally go. And I am talking about churches and particular Christian groups, for example, or even non-Christian groups, in this country. I see it in my own students who are picking up on human rights talk in a way that they wouldn’t have done five or 10 years ago. And it’s how we build on that so that they won’t just select rights that just match their own opinions. They need to understand that this is a very holistic issue. |