International Religious Freedom: Another orphan issue of the 2008 campaign
Amid the final campaign push, the 10th anniversary of the nation’s landmark covenant on international religious freedom passed largely unnoticed on Monday. That is more than a shame. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president who proved to be better at promoting this issue than his ostensibly faith-friendly successor, George W. Bush.
This issue is not only one of the pressing moral concerns of the day, but good for national security, as well–and smart politics, if either campaign had noticed. The issue is one I have spent a good deal of time researching, and I wrote about IRFA and the lost opportunity in an op-ed for The Star-Ledger of New Jersey on Sunday.
This is an issue of great concern to Catholics, and one where the global reach and traditions of Catholicism offer a particular contribution. In the Ledger piece I cite Georgetown scholar-in-residence and former diplomat Tom Farr, and his excellent new book, “World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty Is Vital to American National Security.” Farr is one of the best go-to sources I’ve found.
Let’s hope that whoever wins on Tuesday, they’ll appreciate the advantages and virtues of promoting religious rights abroad.
I’m suprised (and disappointed) that there are no comments here on David’s thoughtful post – and, note, he included the comments of several readers who were not particularly kind.
I don’t expect much of this from the candidates who are too busy being either desperate (MCCain) or in “cruise control” (Obama,) to even begin to teke up the issue.
Maybe David should have waited til post election to address the new President.
We certainly need a new direction, with many prongs, in our international relations and the point here struck me as germane.
Okay, I’ll comment – why the gratuitous swipe – “a Democratic president who proved to be better at promoting this issue than his ostensibly faith-friendly successor, George W. Bush.” In reading the op-ed, the only example cited is the Beijing Olympics. Please, Bush did nothing more or less in relation to the Olympics than any other president, Republican or Democract would have. Indeed, Clinton was far friendlier to the Chinese than any of his predecessors while the same repression, or worse, was going on – so why doesn’t he come in for the same criticism.
Also, whether you approve of the Iraq War or not, between it and Afghanistan, I would argue that the Bush Administration has done more to promote actual religious freedom than any president since Ronald Reagan. At least the people no longer being stoned by the Taliban might think so.
As a Catholic, I am just as concerned about my own faith’s future freedom in this country under an Obama administration – we shall see.
Bob, thanks for the comment. Perhaps I should have waited until after the election, but heck, worth a shot getting someone’s attention, maybe for a future administration?
Sean, the “swipe” wasn’t gratuitious, or even a swipe, really. I suppose I could have put a weasel word modifer like “arguably.” But what the heck…In any case, you won’t find much argument about the disappointment with Bush in terms of religious freedom, either from the right or, of course, the left. It’s an op-ed, so can’t cover the entire ground. But even leaving aside the Iraq War and the entire “war on terrorism,” the great disappointment is how little Bush has used the tools at his dispoal. He also hasn’t adapted to the changing realities of the wrodl. Again, that’s not the focus of the piece, and playing up that one observation, which is uncontroversial, is more about your antennae than anything.
Bottom line is, international religious freedom has become the domain of the GOP, and that’s a mark against the Dems. This is a major issue for me, but hell with that–it’s a major issue for the world, and for loads of believers in the U.S. It’s crazy that neither candidate took advantage of the freebie, as both could have used it.
Hopefully whoever wins will give it real weight. But there’s lots of good stuff out there you can read. Allen Hertzke is very good.
David Gibson: But I don’t think it would be a “freebie” for Senator Obama, quite the opposite I reckon – it would undermine his entire foreign policy philosophy and would also inflame some large constituencies within his political party on ideological grounds. Although, presumably a President Obama would reverse the current administration policy regarding the UN Human Rights Council and could seek a seat for the United States there and try to advance the cause of religious freedom within that structure if his administration was so inclined.