Should religious belief and toleration be a factor in U.S. foreign policy? And should "religious rights" -- rather than a robust notion of human rights and free expression for all groups and individuals -- be a focus of government concern? Religious groups are cautioned about a controversial proposal to meld foreign affairs and their own desire to proselytize...

t a conference yesterday at the White House, President Clinton asked a group of Christian evangelical leaders to withdraw their support for the controversial Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. The president made his remarks to about 60 members of the National Association of Evangelicals, who had gathered for a private meeting with national security advisor Sandy Berger. Mr. Clinton emphasized "the administration's commitment to working with concerned groups in this country to strengthen our efforts to address violations of religious freedom and to seek concrete improvements." But he warned the evangelicals that if enacted, FFRPA could actually harm efforts to improve human rights violations by fueling extremist movements, thus inciting more religious intolerance.

    The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act has been introduced in the House by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) as H.R. 2431. Last week, the House International Relations Committee approved FFRPA in a 31-5 vote, tracking it for floor action. A similar version has been presented in the Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as S. 772.

   The legislation declares that "Governments have a primary responsibility to promote, encourage and protect respect for the fundamental and internationally recognized right to freedom of religion." The Senate writing would establish within the White House organizational infrastructure an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring headed by a Director appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. This body would "consider the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented in certain annual reports on human rights by the Department of State and by independent human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations; make policy recommendations to the President regarding U.S. policies toward governments engaged in religious persecution; and maintain lists of religious persecution facilitating goods and services, and the responsible entities within countries engaged in religious persecution."

    Under FFRPA, the U.S. government, as well as private individuals and companies would be banned from "exporting goods, including religious persecution facilitating goods and services," to offending countries. These countries would also not qualify for "U.S. and multilateral assistance..." The Act directs the President "in casting any vote concerning the membership of a country in the World Trade Organization (WTO), to consider as a significant factor that the country is engaged in religious persecution." It further orders the Department of State to deny visas to "any alien responsible for carrying out acts of religious persecution," and would provide asylum for anyone with "credible fear of persecution."

    FFRPA also singles out specific countries as offenders, including the Sudan and China for its policies regarding Tibet.

Did White House Encourage FFRPA ?

    Although the Clinton administration has gone on record opposing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, the White House may have inadvertently created a political climate favorable for its passage. In late 1996, the administration created an advisory panel with between 15 and 20 appointed members and staff from the State Department's Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; the purpose, according to Religion News Service, was to "more effectively redress international religious persecution and better understand the role of religion both as a cause and mediator of conflict." Housed within the Department of State and funded with taxpayer monies, the advisory panel was in response to pressure from evangelical and mainline Christian denomination who said they were concerned about oppression of Christians in China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere. Most of the "offending" countries have a shabby record on general human rights, not just religious expression; in many cases, there is a predominant, "established" religious institution protected by the government.

Human Rights Activists Wary

    Human rights and civil liberties groups, however, are wary about some of the groups boosting the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, including Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. The Coalition has put FFRPA as a top legislative item for this session of Congress; but critics note that Mr. Robertson has a penchant for supporting dictators in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere who agree with his theological agenda.

   Critics also charge that while there is indeed persecution of Christian and other minority faiths in many countries, especially those in the Islamic region of the world, that fact is part of a larger and more complex pattern of abuse which encompasses general human rights, as well as the treatment of women, gays, journalists, intellectuals and others. Officials worry that incorporating religious belief as a litmus test for U.S. aid could actually backfire, constraining foreign policy and undermining the policy of reform through trade and engagement.

    There is also the concern that by emphasizing religion, other areas of human rights abuses could end up being neglected. In the Islamic world, for instance, the rights of women or other groups would not be addressed by FFRPA. Is this the best way to achieve the goal of human rights? Maybe not.

    And separationists worry that FFRPA puts the United States government into what is, at the least, a gray legal area, one where the foreign policy becomes an instrument to promoting a "religious free trade" agreement. Unfortunately, the administration has not addressed the potential First Amendment aspects of the FFRPA.

[text only]