As BJC general counsel, I spend the vast majority of my time dealing with domestic religious liberty issues. Indeed, there are plenty of controversies arising at the federal and state levels to keep BJC staff busy without reaching beyond our borders. While our primary focus is on upholding the principles of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, our reason for doing so connects us to religious freedom struggles across the globe.
The annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF – see May cover story in Report from the Capital ), as well as a recent controversy concerning the United Nations Human Rights Council, reminds us that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken for granted.
International law has long recognized the importance of religious freedom. Many international agreements are based on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States signed in 1948. Two sections are particularly relevant to religious freedom.
Article 18: 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. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Recent polls show changes in religious affiliations among Americans, offering strong evidence that we enjoy a great deal of religious freedom in the United States. Others elsewhere are less fortunate: the USCIRF details religious freedom violations in numerous countries. Even in international forums, such as the United Nations, the commitment to individual religious liberty leaves much to be desired. For example, the U.N. Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution that appears to sacrifice the liberty of individuals in a misguided attempt to prevent criticism of organized religion.
The "Combating Defamation of Religion" resolution passed by a vote of 23-11, with 13 abstentions. While it is not binding on U.N. members and analysts debate its effect, many religious freedom advocates appropriately worry that the Council resolution provides international cover for domestic blasphemy laws. At the very least, the subject is worthy of contemplation since it may reflect stark differences about religious freedom in different parts of the world.
Couched in terms of promoting and encouraging "universal respect for and observance of fundamental freedoms for all," the resolution broadly recognizes positive contributions of religion. It properly notes instances of intolerance and violence against individuals based upon their faith, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, but then calls for action that may threaten the very freedom it purports to protect. The resolution calls for states to protect against "acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs." In essence, it appears to fight discrimination with censorship. The vote illustrates significant divisions in the international community: support came largely from members of the Organization of Islamic Countries, China, and a few developing countries, while Canada, Chile, and many European countries opposed it. Mexico, Brazil, Japan and India were among those that abstained.
Generally, defamation is a legal offense based on the communication of a false statement that casts someone or some group in a negative light. The notion that a religion can be defamed is controversial. Courts are not competent to decide the truth of religious statements; moreover, punishing those who criticize religion stifles individual liberty. The resolution raises concerns that religious dissent could be met with repression justified in the name of preventing defamation of religion. For Baptists, a denomination born out of persecution for challenging religious orthodoxy established by the government, religious freedom must insist on the right of individuals to criticize religions.
While it may not be surprising that there are deep divisions in the international community over this issue, I am hopeful that the United States will regain its presence on the Council and that as this issue continues to be debated, more countries will recognize the significance of protecting individual religious freedom as a fundamental human right that cannot be compromised in efforts to shield organized religions from criticism or dissent.
Holly Hollman's column appears each month in the BJC's newsletter, Report from the Capital. To sign up for your free subscription, just send your name and mailing address to [email protected].
