USCIRF Appointee: Religious Freedom is Fundamental Right
Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest, was recently appointed by President Obama to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. The USCIRF makes policy recommendations to the US government regarding “freedom of religion or belief abroad.”
In a recent column, Reese expounded on the 2014 USCIRF report (published before his appointment) and highlighted the USCIRF’s assertion that religious freedom is a “fundamental human right,” one that even the US doesn’t always get exactly right:
One frequent mistake is to equate freedom of religion with freedom of worship. Even some American policymakers have spoken of freedom of worship rather than freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion is much more encompassing. It “includes the rights of worship, observance, practice, expression, and teaching, broadly construed,” the 2014 USCIRF report explains.
While he uses some international examples in his article, Reese almost seems to have focused on a religious liberty issue that has recently arisen inside the United States:
Nor is religious freedom only about beliefs that you hold in your heart but don’t express. It also includes expressions intended to persuade another individual to change his or her religious beliefs or affiliation voluntarily.
All of these details are important because some societies speak of religious freedom as long as the believer is quiet and inactive. In this sense, freedom of religion goes hand in hand with freedom of speech, assembly and press.
The “keep it at home or inside the walls of the church” mantra has been raised by a few atheists in the US more than once. Frequent critic Michael “Mikey” Weinstein and his organization have also taken that view (while simultaneously describing as illegal the expression of beliefs during those same church services) — despite claiming to advocate for religious freedom.
The US commission even notes that states don’t have to be secular to support religious freedom,
“…provided that basic rights, including the individual right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, are respected for all without discrimination.” If jobs or government benefits are denied to the adherents of a particular belief, then religious liberty has been violated.
Religious freedom is a right enjoyed by all Americans, and one that the US would evidently like to see enjoyed by all humans. The USCIRF, which focuses on international issues, accurately recognizes religious liberty is a human right, not an American constitutional one.
ADVERTISEMENT
As a devout and engaged Catholic, I found this to be a very interesting article — I love the intellectual challenge that is often found in the writings of the Jesuits.
With regard to religious freedoms within the military, though, I’d highlight another key observation from Fr. Reese’s article:
“This does not mean that there are no limits to religious freedom, but ‘freedom of religion or belief may be subject to only such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.'”
That last bit, about ‘the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’, is what comes into play when balancing the rights of a military leader to express his/her religious views versus the rights of his/her subordinates not to be subjected to inappropriate pressure from a superior NCO or officer. The notion that everyone is free to “persuade another individual to change his or her religious beliefs or affiliation voluntarily” only works when the two individuals are in what can reasonably considered a peer relationship.
In a very hierarchical setting such as a military organization, where one individual has real power and control over another, and the second is accustomed to following the directions and orders of the first, then it’s much more difficult to ensure that an attempt at ‘persuasion’ does not include a coercive element, even if it’s an unintended one.
Interesting comment, but like your compatriots you are subtly conflating two separate issues. You mentioned:
and
Your first comment is about religious expression; the second is about attempted conversion. They are two distinct things, yet you are treating them as if they are equivalent.
For example, a cadet writing a Bible verse on a whiteboard is religious expression, not the use of a position of authority to attempt religious conversion. (Yet your organization claimed the latter in demanding “visible” punishment for whiteboard incident.)
No reasonable person disagrees that a person should not use their authority to try to convert another. The disagreement lies in trying to use that reasonable prohibition in situations to which it does not apply.
That incongruence is likely the reason the Air Force is reportedly set to modify its current policy on religious freedom.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I appreciate it.
I certainly agree that “a person should not use their authority to try to convert another,” and I would hope that everyone on both sides of this debate believes that, as well.
I also believe that there are no easy answers – this is a sticky and complex issue.
Where you and I may not agree is whether the fundamental emphasis at the heart of this issue, as it pertains to religious freedom in the military, should be on the leader or the subordinate. Having been raised in a home where Catholic social teaching was an integral part of the values with which my siblings and I were imbued, my inclination is virtually always to align my efforts with individuals or groups who possess the least power or control. So the lens through which I view this particular matter is whether a military subordinate’s rights can be adequately protected if a leader is encouraging participation in sectarian religious activities. As you and I both know, the military environment is unique. In my opinion, having experience in both military and civilian organizations, an ‘invitation’ from a military superior is not as easily declined as one that a civilian might get from a co-worker or even a civilian boss.
If the Air Force does modify AFI 1-1 (something that I believe would be a mistake), I just hope that they do so in a way that does not make it more difficult for subordinates to live and work in an environment free of unwelcome or inappropriate sectarian influence.
Thanks again for an interesting exchange.