Americans are often surprised to learn that many foreign countries have anti-proselytism laws. Often, these laws define proselytism as something beyond run-of-the-mill evangelizing. Proselytism typically connotes coercion and undue influence: the religious hard sell. Encouraging listeners to convert in exchange for food or money would qualify, for example; persuading listeners that your faith is the true one would not. On this view, proselytism is a sort of religious unfair trade practice, and anti-proselytism laws a consumer protection device.
I’m ambivalent about these laws in principle. History contains many examples of missionaries who exploited the poverty and ignorance of their listeners, and it seems to me societies could have a legitimate interest in discouraging that sort of thing. Not all countries have signed up for the American version of the religious free market, after all, nor does civilization require them to do so.
But anti-proselytism laws have two major flaws. First, as a recent UN report argues, it is very difficult to draw a line between proselytism and protected religious expression. When does evangelism become coercive? When the missionaries establish a soup kitchen? Or a school? It’s very easy for religious competitors to fabricate evidence of missionaries’ bad faith. History contains many examples of that, too.
Second, and more important, anti-proselytism laws are often written and applied in transparently one-sided ways. Many Muslim-majority countries, for example, prohibit only proselytism directed at Muslims. Proselytism directed at non-Muslims is legal. And one doesn’t need to engage in coercion or bad faith to violate these laws. Straightforward evangelism will do.
Events in Libya this past weekend provide an illustration. Libya arrested four foreign nationals and charged them with proselytism–a crime that carries the death penalty. Apparently, the four were caught printing and distributing Bibles. A report in the Guardian reveals the locals’ shock that anyone would have the gall to do such a thing:
Benghazi lawyer and human rights activist Bilal Bettamer said Libya was a wholly Muslim country and Christians should not be trying to spread their faith. “It is disrespectful. If we had Christianity we could have dialogue, but you can’t just spread Christianity,” he said. “The maximum penalty is the death penalty. It’s a dangerous thing to do.”
And this guy is a human rights activist. Even Christians expressed dismay at what the foreigners were accused of doing, though perhaps Libyan Christians have no other choice. According to the local Anglican priest:
the five Christian churches in Tripoli have a tacit agreement with the authorities not to proselytize. “We don’t distribute literature, so we don’t have any problems,” he told the Guardian. “It is better not to indulge in these activities because we respect Libyans. We respect their religion.”
As of Monday, the foreigners have also been charged with espionage. The prisoners have been given access to their embassies, but one of the four, a Christian from Egypt, told reporters he had not requested assistance. He assumes the Egyptian government will do nothing to help him.
Mark Movsesian is Director of the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University.
February 19th, 2013 | 9:10 am
Interesting article, but there is one flaw, which I can excuse the author for not seeing.
For those of us who are committed Christians, we must obey the words of Christ, Who we believe is God. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19
He did not say, “except the Muslems” and therefore, we have a mandate.
February 19th, 2013 | 10:38 am
Israel strongly discourages Christian proselytism within its borders. It is a Jewish state. Libya is a Muslim state, and it seems to me they have the right to do the same—although the death penalty is far too extreme. It seems to me that if you argue the Boy Scouts have a right to exclude atheists and gay people, you should stand up for Libya’s right to keep itself a Muslim country.
He did not say, “except the Muslems” and therefore, we have a mandate.
Fine, but be ready to accept rejection and even martyrdom. It is not the business of the United States or Christians to insist the Libya pass the First Amendment.
February 19th, 2013 | 10:52 am
He did not say, “except the Muslems” and therefore, we have a mandate.
Fine. As long as Christian proselytizers realize they are breaking the law in Muslim countries, let them do whatever they think is right . . . and pay the penalty for it. I think the native countries of the four arrested Christians have a right to pressure Libya to let them go, or to treat them leniently. I think it would be an atrocity if Christian missionaries were executed in Libya. But I don’t think predominantly Christian countries have a right to expect Muslim countries to accept Christian proselytizing.
Christian missionaries in the past faced hardships and death. I don’t think it is the job of the West to guarantee the safety of missionaries in Muslim countries.
February 19th, 2013 | 11:33 am
Supertradum, the author did not say, “Muslims should not be preached to.” He said, “Laws against missionaries implying that conversion was the price for food are not totally unjust.”
A better point to address is that some of the suffering are in a position that is best addressed by religious conversion. Admittedly “it is better to be a Christian then a coke addict”, is not the highest form of apologetics, and perhaps any religion would be of use in this area. However rescuing people in such states has always been an identifying mark of Christianity; just as gentlemanliness for Confucianism; or the application of religious values to normal life, and the righteous bearing of arms is for Sikhism or so on. Because of this the difference between “undue proselytism” and charity is grey. For many the best charity in the Earthly sense is for them to become a Christian. I do not say this as a Christian although I am in fact such. Nor do I say that the only purpose for religion is material or that all religions are equal. I do say this as an observer noting that many people are in an Earthly position for which “getting religion” is the best cure, and Christianity emphasizes helping them to “get” it.
February 19th, 2013 | 12:09 pm
It is approaching the apex of arrogance that western politicos and academics have widely spread the notion that things such as “international law,” or other ideas meant to suggest that an international standard of human rights has recently been discovered and should now be the saviour of all the downtrodden and oppressed around the World.
God is with those who are persecuted in his name. Let’s recognize the idols we’ve made our governments into and remember Him who is our only hope in this world as we go forth.
February 19th, 2013 | 4:46 pm
“Even Christians expressed dismay at what the foreigners were accused of doing, though perhaps Libyan Christians have no other choice”
They don’t want to have their heads cut off. The Anglican priest who said that the five Christian churches do not proselytize, do not distribute literature, do respect Libyans, do respect Islam probably spoke in a very loud and clear voice. He is apt have been sweating bullets, too, when asked these dangerous questions by ignorant Western journalists.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact