U.S. and Religious Freedom

Thank you very much for that generous introduction, Rabbi Schneier. You are very kind. It’s with great respect for your tenacity, your patience, and your deep confidence in your cause that I salute you and commend you to America’s diplomats wherever they may serve. You are a model for anyone who would dare initiate, and hope to sustain, a dialogue on the sensitive subject of faith.

It’s a great pleasure to be here today to participate in the Annual Seminar on Religious Life sponsored by the Appeal of Conscience Foundation. This is a singularly important feature of the Foreign Service Institute’s annual program. In my remarks, I plan to comment on various aspects of the United States’ relationship to religious freedom. The topic is too broad and complex for me to be comprehensive, but I will try to lightly sketch out our initial ideas, trace their evolution to the present day, examine the role of the United Nations in extending and protecting religious freedom and conclude with a few words on American foreign policy and Islam. Please excuse me for such an ambitious agenda; I promise I’ll move quickly. I simply want to illustrate the nature and continuity of American policy, and perhaps thereby show, in my own way, what others have stated before me—the United States bears neither Islam nor any religion any hostility. We do not endorse a given religion, it’s true. What we do, instead, is support them all.

As the great British historian of the classical world, Michael Grant, wrote in his book on Jesus:

Although we may not give it as much thought from day to day as we should, few of us would challenge Grant’s assertion.

Perhaps the preeminent political thinker in American history, James Madison, held religious belief to be a thing apart, not subordinate to the devices of even so just a system of governance as democracy. Madison called duty to the Creator "precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society." This led him to insist "that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."

Thomas Jefferson concurred. Why else would a man of so many accomplishments, including the Declaration of Independence, have proudly asked that his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom be remembered on his gravestone? Madison was the floor manager of this bill, but Jefferson’s were the words:

I cite Madison and Jefferson because I think this is what we should do in a seminar like this—step back and take a look at the foundations of current issues, try to understand the experiences and values central to our national character and, therefore, our relations with the rest of the world. Simply put, Madison and Jefferson were stipulating that faith transcends affairs of state. They were recognizing that the commonalities of political life are of a lesser order than the strictures of individual conscience, one man or woman before her Creator. For these and other Founders, it was transparently clear that a Constitution cannot regulate such affairs or begin to describe them. That is the work of a holy book—a Bible or a Koran.

As a consequence, American diplomacy—our own business—has always and will always struggle to do the right thing fully aware of its mortal limits. Power is one thing, but using it is not always the right thing. Our leaders have known from the beginning that transcendence and omniscience are not given to us as we make analyses, recommendations and decisions in the field of international relations.

In my view, this is a blessing. Humility grants us room for error, and we need room for error. That state which would, as Jefferson put it, make a man "suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief" is a state which arrogates to itself too much. It is a state which is an ally of what our Founding Fathers regarded as humankind’s great adversary—tyranny—and an enemy of America’s most cherished value—liberty.

Two hundred some odd years after Madison and Jefferson—not a long time in the span of history—the United States reaffirmed its commitment to the principles they championed. As stipulated in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998:

In support of this Act, the Ambassador-at-Large for religious freedom therefore must assist the Secretary of State in preparing those portions of the annual Human Rights Reports that relate to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination based on religion. To be frank, those of us who have worked overseas know that such legislation is sometimes regarded as evidence of a moralizing tendency on the United States’ part. But those who say such things miss the point Madison and Jefferson tried to make and which we still try to honor. Our intent is not to dictate affairs of conscience; it is to serve liberty, so that conscience may flourish in accord with its own dictates.

Where liberty prevails, peace and prosperity can flourish, justice can be served, intolerance can be defeated, bigotry can be turned aside, racism can be vanquished, and women can enjoy the same opportunities in life as men. For us, whether at home or abroad, these tenets do not change.

Neither Madison nor Jefferson never could have foreseen the multitude of religious beliefs and traditions that would take root on American soil, but their ‘hands-off’ principle has served us brilliantly nonetheless. Imagine where we would be today if religious freedom were not central to our constitution. Would our union have survived not just the Civil War, but many other state and regional conflicts rooted in religious intolerance? Would our population have been enriched by hundreds of millions of immigrants? Would our economy have grown so enormously if free trade within the U.S. were distorted by a multitude of barriers between believers in one faith and another?

I do not say that we are perfect; we certainly have not been free of religious discrimination, intolerance, and defamation, but at least we have had the benefit of Constitutional protections to which we could resort. This is precisely why we cannot be and have not been indifferent to assaults on religious freedom elsewhere…in Northern Ireland…in the Balkans…in the Middle East…in Asia…in Africa…

Where religion and affairs of individual conscience are not protected, they become a battleground for fierce political conflict, and history has shown us that there is no easy way out of this kind of struggle. As a matter of policy, then, the United States confronts complex tasks when dealing with states which do not respect religious freedom. Nonetheless, our position is clear. Given our commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that guarantee it as the inalienable right of every human being, we seek to:

• Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries;
• Assist newly formed democracies in implementing freedom of religion and conscience;
• Assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom;
• Identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors of their citizens or others on the basis of religious belief.

Thus far I have focused on the United States, our own heritage, values, beliefs and policies. I have even noted the opposition and criticism we meet in pursuing our goals. But it would be misleading (and counterproductive) to view ourselves as the lonely defenders of religious freedom and freedom of conscience in the world.

What are the "international covenants" I just mentioned, and how do they relate to my current concerns as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations? The seminal document, of course, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Article 18 states:

As you will have noted, this language is really no different in substance or intent from the language of our own laws. The United States had a lot to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But it is one thing to administer the law domestically, another to apply it internationally. The process of supporting religious freedom through the UN has been a long-term effort. We and the many allies of conscience elsewhere in the world have had to be vigilant and persistent to ensure that common understandings become common practices.

Let me offer a few examples:

• In 1981, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. It also requested that the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities take up consideration of measures to implement its provisions.

• In 1986, the Commission on Human Rights, with U.S. support, established a mandate for a Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief.

• In June 1993, the principles contained in the Declaration (on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief) were reaffirmed in the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights.

• In addition, the U.S. has co-sponsored a resolution on religious intolerance (sponsored by Ireland), urging all States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provide effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

Of course, there are many other instances of international commitment to the principle of religious freedom, far too many for me to cite. The point, again, is that the United States does not possess and would not seek any kind of dominion over this matter. To the contrary, our policy is to further international engagement – as our own conscience and interests dictate.

I would not want to conclude my remarks without pausing to examine one salient aspect of the relationship between diplomacy and religion of great concern to us all today. In an important sense, the events of September 11, 2001 were a conscious (and criminal) attempt to place Islam and the United States (or ‘the West’) at odds with one another. This is a matter President Bush has addressed directly on more than one occasion. As he said in his Address to the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, a little more than a year ago:

Against the background of statements like this, no one should infer that the United States, in responding to al-Qaeda’s violent self-exclusion from civilized dialogue, lacks interest in a fruitful engagement with the world of Islam at large, encompassing more than 1 billion faithful. Nonetheless, public opinion polling in predominantly Islamic countries does show that such inferences are being made. It’s a fact, and so we have our work cut out for us. Through public and traditional diplomacy, we need to have contact with Islamic communities wherever the United States has interests and a presence. We need to listen, try to understand, and share our own perspectives on religious freedom much as I am attempting to do right now. Nor should we limit these efforts to the world of Islam alone. The spiritual openness and respect at our core is as much a part of the American identity as our extraordinary economy, natural resources, and accomplishments in science and technology. This is a point worth making because it aligns us with the dynamics of the human spirit all around the globe.

Religious leaders often know the direction in which a people is headed before political leaders, especially when those political leaders are not elected. In East Germany, in East Timor, in the countries of Central America, and elsewhere, we have seen the forces of faith and conscience mobilize and sustain the cause of human dignity and political freedom. As American diplomats, this must matter to us. You have often heard that our political leadership ultimately must make decisions based on America’s security and its prosperity, but it cannot absent a persuasive linkage to American values. If I could sum up our foreign policy in a single phrase, I would say that ours is a pragmatism guided by ideals. That’s just the American way. There is no turning our back on the wisdom of Madison and Jefferson, no denying their reverent insight into the way in which freedom of religion actually ensures political freedom and makes our own system of governance work.

This is what we have to offer the world. Rather than antagonize one faith, we seek privilege for them all. It’s a message that bears repeating, and I would enjoin you to share in the effort of making sure it is heard.

Thank you very much.