The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act stalls in the Senate, as questions are raised. Should the U.S. Government be in the business of "monitoring" compliance with our ideas about religious tolerance? Does it do any good? And does legislation such as FFRPA subordinate a wider agenda to obtain human rights and civil liberties for everyone, not just faith groups and believers?

Web Posted: July 27, 1998

espite overwhelming support in the House, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee postponed any action on a bill which would have required the government to impose sanctions on other nations which engage in "religious persecution."

   The committee sidetracked the latest version of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, after at least three Republicans announced that they would join eight Democrats in turning down the measure.

    Introduced in May, 1997, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act calls for the establishment of a government Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. The office 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. polices 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." FFRPA was introduced in the House by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) as H.R. 2431. After clearing the House International Relations Committee, the bill then sailed through the full House in May, 375-41 -- well beyond the necessary two-thirds margin required to check any presidential veto. The act was "one of the top priorities of this Republican Congress," House Speaker New Gingrich declared in May of this year.

    The expected battle in the Senate, though, has brought out a split in Republicans between religious conservatives -- the precinct "foot soldiers" of the party -- and the corporate interests which are the major contributors and provide much of the GOP financial base. One hint of trouble appeared during last month's trip to China by President Clinton; religious conservatives such as the Family Research Council opposed the administration's decision to continue extending Most Favored Nation trading status to the world's most populous country. FRC's Gary Bauer and others charged that China systematically violates the rights of Christians and other faith groups, and engages in a policy of widespread, forced abortion in an effort to control its population.

    But the White House, major business interests and even some Republicans argued that snubbing China was unrealistic, and that a policy of "engagement" would encourage not only economic expansion and trade, but changes within Chinese society as well. Indeed, during his trip President Clinton managed to score major points, appearing on national television in China, and openly declaring America's support for the reform movement.

    China is one of the nations specifically mentioned in the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, along with Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia. Those nations are accused of suppressing religious expression (mostly by Christians) and blocking recruitment efforts by foreign missionary groups.

    The prospect of trade sanctions against China -- a thriving Asian economy and lucrative market for many U.S. and international corporations -- did not sit well, though, with some Senate Republicans, including Sens. Don Nickles (OK) and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Hagel charged that the FFRPA would put the United States in an impractical and strategically vulnerable position, and end up alienating potential allies and trading partners. "It would be supremely arrogant for us to grade every country on earth," Hagel warned. The U.S. Department also lobbied against the measure, warning that the FFRPA could end up limiting the nation's foreign policy options. State also predicted that the legislation, once put into practice, could in face encourage religious and nationalist bigotry, and fuel extremist movements. John Shattuck, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor warned the House International Relations Committee that the FFRPA was overly-broad.

    "The administration strongly supports the objectives of eliminating religious persecution. But we believe the current draft of this legislation would frustrate that goal."

   Practical doubts about the act arose in the midst of the recent nuclear standoff involving India and Pakistan. U.S. law required immediate economic sanctions on both countries when they tested a series of underground nuclear devices. But as analyst David Rosenbaum notes in today's ALL POLITICS, "Within days farmers complained about their inability to sell wheat to Pakistan, and the ban on exports was repealed."

   Religious right groups, however, including Christian Coalition have continued to stake out a hard-line position on the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. FFRPA has been a major action item on the Coalition agenda for this session of congress, and executive director Randy Tate defended the measure as "a historic opportunity to protect people of faith around the globe." Tate, Bauer and other FFRPA supporters also accused their opponents of "selling out" human rights for trade agreements and profits.

    Human rights groups were also divided over the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, and skeptical of the newfound commitment of certain groups, especially the Christian Coalition and others linked to televangelist Pat Robertson, for "human rights." William Schultz of Amnesty International declared that he welcomed participation in the cause by "those who genuinely care about human suffering, no matter what their views of God and the state." He asked, though, "Is it right for Christians to limit their outrage to violations against Christians?" and "What exactly is the motive of political and religious conservatives, and is it pure?"

AMERICAN ATHEISTS -- FFRPA "HYPOCRITICAL"

    American Atheists has opposed the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. In press statements last May, AA President Ellen Johnson charged, "This is just another example of where religious right groups are just 'hypocrites behind the collars.' They're not defending free speech per se, only speech and activities involving Christian groups that want to proselytize foreign countries."

    Johnson added that "Christian Coalition and its allies are no friends of genuine free speech. They're talking about expanding freedom and democracy throughout the world, but here at home they undermine our system of education, embrace censorship, discourage freedom of expression, limit critical thinking and meddle in our medical decisions."

    Ron Barrier, National Spokesperson for American Atheists was skeptical about Pat Robertson's support for human rights. He cited Robertson's penchant for "schmoozing with dictators," including former Zaierean strongman Mobutu Sese Seko.

COMPROMISE DUE?

    Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss) still promises action on some version of the FFRPA before Congress recesses in October. Compromises are in the works, according to Sen. Nickles and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (D-Conn) who has crossed the aisle to support the legislation. But any compromise that can clear the Senate would lack the "teeth" built into the House approved version; and that could cause a problem for the GOP come November, when groups like the Christian Coalition are important for maintaining the Republican majority on both ends of Capitol Hill. Big money is squarely against any legislation such as the FFRPA that jeopardizes lucrative profits and trade, but the GOP needs to appease the religious right, and keep the backing of Christian Coalition, Family Research Council and others.

[text only]