By Doug Bandow on 7.16.07 @ 12:06AM
A new Hudson Institute report reveals that throughout the world both religious and secular extremists are often intolerant of others' faiths.
WASHINGTON -- "The modern world is becoming increasingly
religious," yet at the same time there is "intensifying
persecution," according to the Hudson Institute's Paul Marshall. He
spoke at a forum last week to summarize the results of a detailed
new study that will be published next year. Marshall's presentation
surveyed the globe and found a few bright spots amid much
tragedy.
There are "religiously free" nations in every region, he told
the audience, with Western Europe and the North Atlantic largely
free. Latin America, too, stands well, with the exception of
Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba.
Yet even in several European countries religious liberty is
unnecessarily limited: "[O]ne sees mounting state discrimination
and increasingly aggressive identity indoctrination squeezing out
religious values in the public square," Marshall warned. As a
result, Belgium, France, Germany, and Greece are less free
religiously than are Brazil, Guatemala, Japan, Latvia, Senegal, and
Ukraine.
Still, one can practice one's religion without great fear in
even these more restrictive European states. Alas, there are many
religious hellholes, concentrated in Asia, North Africa and West
Asia, Africa, and the former Soviet Union. Eleven nations fell into
category seven at the bottom. Another eleven were at level six.
The worst persecuting states "tend to be communist, nationalist,
or Islamist," explained Marshall. China, Cuba, North Korea, and
Vietnam fit the first category. Belarus, Burma, Eritrea,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan fall into the second group.
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, Pakistan,
Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan meet the final
criterion.
It is an odd mix, communist and Islamic. As Marshall pointed
out, "extremely religious or extremely secular states comprise most
of the religiously intolerant countries." Notably, secularity does
not guarantee religious freedom, as is evident from the communist
nations, as well as Turkey and to some degree France and Mexico.
Nor do issues of state religions or state subsidies for religion
correlate much to religious liberty, noted Marshall.
PERHAPS THE MOST STRIKING correlation with religious persecution is
religious background. Obviously, intervening events can have an
important impact: Do people's Buddhist beliefs matter much when a
communist government is making policy? Nevertheless, most nations
with a Christian background are relatively free. The only set of
countries where that relationship does not hold is Orthodox states,
many of them former Soviet constituent republics or Soviet
satellite states.
The one Jewish state, Israel, rates a middling 3. The two Hindu
states, India and Nepal, come in at 5. Buddhist states do much
worse, with four in the bottom two categories; however, most of
these are communist-ruled.
Worst, by any measure, are nations with an Islamic background.
Twelve fall into categories 6 and 7. Another 20 are at levels 4 and
5. Just two, Mali and Senegal, are genuinely free (in category
two). Of six mixed Christian-Muslim states, one is at level seven
and five are at levels 4 and 5.
The individual injustice resulting from refusing to recognize,
let alone protect, freedom of conscience in these nations is
obvious. But there is a larger political impact, since "religious
freedom is necessary to protect economic and political freedom," in
Marshall's words.
In particular, the lack of religious liberty in the Muslim
worlds creates an incubator for anti-Western terrorism and
discourages the development of more liberal, democratic societies.
Warned Marshall: "Radical Islam probably is the most serious threat
to religious freedom. The question of religious freedom is
important anywhere in the world. It is particularly important in
the Muslim world." For persecution most often is employed against
dissenting Muslims, making the "question of religious freedom in
the Islamic world a key factor in which political forces win out,"
explained Marshall.
AMONG THE OTHER ATTENDEES was Brian Grim of the Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life. While the secular West tends to
segregate religious values from economic and political factors,
Grim argued that freedom is a "bundled commodity." He has conducted
extensive research on public attitudes towards, religious freedom
and its relationship to such characteristics as economic and
political liberty. In his poll of eleven countries last year, Grim
found that 76 percent of people said religious freedom was
important for them but only 64 percent believed it to be important
for others. "This gap indicates a problem," he observed, for that's
"where some restrictions come from."
Grim found religious liberty to be very highly correlated to
civil liberties, political freedom, and open economies. Social
intolerance and government controls tend to reinforce each another,
creating a cycle of persecution. Interestingly, religious
restrictions also correlate to failed states. Argued Grim:
"religious freedom is more than just a Western or American pet
peeve," but has long-term geopolitical impacts.
Nevertheless, the West is limited in what it can do to promote
religious liberty. Obviously the issue should concern all people of
good will. Another contributor in attendance, Richard Land,
president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission, noted that religion reflects the "deepest
longing of the human soul." Protecting the right of people to
worship God is a matter of freedom of conscience and, as such, is
the cornerstone of a free society.
The point is not just to protect Christians or Jews. Bahais and
others face virulent persecution in countries such as Iran.
Moreover, noted Land, "the most victimized are Muslims who refuse
to accept" extremist Islamic interpretations. Religious liberty is
a "universal right to practice and change one's faith. It cannot be
denied by countries that want to be part of the community of
nations," he concluded.
Not all countries desire to be part of that community, however.
What then? Iraq shows that war is no answer; it is the U.S.
invasion that has inadvertently sparked the large-scale destruction
of that nation's historic Christian community. Economic sanctions
are another dubious tool, best limited to the most exceptional
cases. The U.S. can prod, push, and embarrass, but diplomacy is
likely to have only limited impact.
Which leaves non-governmental organizations. Religious,
political, and human rights groups all can play a role. So can
corporations and financial institutions. Ted Malloch, chairman of
the Spiritual Enterprise Institute, also spoke at the Hudson event.
He emphasized that "religious liberty begets economic liberty," so,
he added, if "you want economic prosperity, you need to protect
religious freedom." At the very least the international business
community can tell countries that persecute that they will be
viewed as undesirable investment destinations. It is imperative
that religiously unfree nations pay a price for their actions.
People around the world will be best off when their countries
are capitalistic and their governments are democratic. But the
"first freedom" truly is religious liberty. Societies which are
afraid to allow people to live out their faith to God are unlikely
to trust people to otherwise control their lives. Ultimately,
religious liberty begets political, economic, and civil
liberty.
topics:
Business, Religion, Islam, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Africa, North Korea
