Religious freedom should be at the heart of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. Both history and modern scholarship make it clear that highly religious societies cannot attain stable, lasting democracy without religious freedom in full — the set of institutions and habits that guarantee equality under the law for all religious actors and a sustainable balance between religion and state.
This means that achieving the secular benefits of democracy — security, economic opportunity, peace with the neighbors — is highly unlikely without religious freedom. So is the elimination of religious violence and religion-related terrorism.
Of course, religious freedom isn’t a silver bullet. It must be nested in a “bundled commodity” of fundamental freedoms that root democratic governance. Nor is it an absolute right: The very concept of equality for all religious actors entails limits on each.
Which brings us to the president’s speech. As usual, religious freedom made a rhetorical appearance but remained largely irrelevant. For example, Obama demanded for Egyptian Copts “the right to worship,” but not the right to full equality under the law. If democracy is to succeed in the region, minorities must of course be protected from violence and persecution while they worship. But they must also have the right to bring their religious beliefs into the political life of the nation. And Muslim majorities must be able to debate the relationship between Islam and freedom without being subject to imprisonment or death for blasphemy. Nowhere in the broader Middle East does this kind of religious freedom exist. Until it does, U.S. foreign-policy goals are unlikely to be achieved.
The president clearly rejects these and other arguments for a strong U.S. international religious-freedom policy. With over half the administration gone, the U.S. religious-freedom ambassador has just this week taken her position at the State Department, a point not lost on Middle Eastern governments (or, for that matter, U.S. diplomats). An important corrective, however, is on the horizon: Congressman Frank Wolf’s proposed amendments to the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act will, if adopted by Congress, require the State Department to pay greater attention to this vital aspect of American diplomacy.
— Thomas F. Farr is a visiting associate professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.
It's worth noting that the US religious freedom ambassador just took her post because her nomination was blocked by Senator DeMint by a hold-over letter. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReligious freedom is necessary for democracy because religious freedom is necessary for freedom of speech. Without religious freedom, speech can be curtailed by the people in charge declaring that certain views in conflict with the allowed religious beliefs and practices.
To put it more directly - freedom of religion is a necessary for freedom of thought. If fact the two are the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Nor is it an absolute right: The very concept of equality for all religious actors entails limits on each."
That line bothers me. How does the concept of equality under the law for all religious entail limits on each? Certainly there are limits on religious freedom such as forbidding the murder of people who refuse to convert to your religion and a requiring that your veil be removed for a photo in order to get a driver's license. But these result from a right to life and other needs - not from equality for all religions.
I wonder what limits Mr. Farr has in mind and whether they are really necessary or a matter of not really respecting religious freedom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator Demint (rightly) questioned Rev. Cook's qualifications and expertise in the area of international religious freedom. He is certainly not the first to wonder why this administration hasn't taken the filling of this position more seriously. Time will tell if Cook has the knowledge base (and the backing of the State Dept.) needed to make an impact in this vital area of national security. Kudos to Dr. Farr for continuing to highlight the need for a stronger international religious freedom component of our foreign policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it is worth noting that the Administration took a year and a half to nominate someone, and then chose a person with questionable qualifications.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReligious freedom as in ... Arab countries granting the same rights of citizenship and freedom to worship to Jews in their countries as Jews grant to Arabs in Israel? Yeah, that'll happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But they must also have the right to bring their religious beliefs into the political life of the nation."
I realize we don't currently put people to death for religious views, but does the abused and misunderstood extra-constitutional concept of "separation of church and state" (under which we do gag and harass, Christians in particular) not disallow this very thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's also worth noting that George Bush was not much of a defender of religious freedom. He endorsed Islam instead of free religion guarantees in Iraq's new Constitution, and did nothing for religious freedom in Afghanistan.
Our elites seem to have little appreciation for the critical importance of religious freedom in a democratic society. There can be no equality under the law without it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse