The liberal critics of George W. Bush were right about one thing: The President did help usher in a theocracy.
The reason the progressives didn’t seem to notice—or seem to care—was that the theocracy wasn’t being lead by Dominionists in Idaho but by Islamicists in Kabul. It was, in other words, a genuine theocracy, the kind that never seems to bother them. 
But in 2004 those of us who prize freedom of religion had reason to be concerned. We were hoping that since America had overthrown the Taliban and was helping to draft the new Afghani constitution that it would be similar to the constitution of Turkey—or at least be distinguishable from the constitution of Iran. What was created, with the help of the U.S. government, was an Islamic Republic, a state in which “no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam.”
While the White House issued a mealy-mouthed statement calling it an “important milestone in Afghanistan's political development,” an independent government agency had the courage to admit what we were creating: Taliban-lite.
As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) claimed, “the new Afghan draft constitution fails to protect the fundamental human rights of individual Afghans, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in accordance with international standards.” The commission was right. Today there is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.
At the time of the constitution’s drafting, USCIRF’s chairman Michael K. Young warned, “Without [religious] protections, not only will the current transitional Afghan administration have failed its people, but the United States will have failed in its efforts to lay the foundation for a free and stable Afghanistan.” Seven years later, with Afghanistan degenerating into a failed state, the USCIRF’s warning appears prophetic. That may explain why the U.S. government is attempting to treat the commission like government’s always treat prophets—by silencing them.
Nina Shea, director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, reports:
USCIRF’s mandate was to expire at the end of last month, but it was given a short reprieve through the continuing resolution on the budget. Meanwhile, on September 15, the House of Representatives, in a 391–21 vote, overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2867 to reauthorize USCIRF for two more years. In the Senate, H.R. 2867 was poised to pass under a unanimous consent agreement when a single senator anonymously called it back for undisclosed reasons. If that secret hold is not lifted by November 18, the Senate will not be able to act and USCIRF will go out of existence.
Powerful lobbyists from countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and India are no doubt putting pressure on Senators to do away with USCIRF. They are the only ones to benefit from the commission’s dissolution. As Shea notes, “USCIRF is one reliable voice within the government that does not find the issue of religious freedom too sensitive to bring up with foreign potentates.”
For over a decade, the commission has frustrated and annoyed foreign persecutors and their American apologists. USCIRF was created in 1998 to “monitor religious freedom in other countries and advise the president, the secretary of state, and Congress on how best to promote it.” At the time Congress believed that the foreign policy establishment was not giving due attention to issues of religious liberty. Eliot Abrams, a former chairman of the commission, said in a 2001 interview that, “The State Department, the media, and the lobbies were very interested in things like freedom of the press, independent judiciaries, fair trials, and free elections, but much less interested than they should be in freedom of religion. Many members of Congress felt that this was because too many people in the foreign policy establishment were pretty secular themselves.”
In a world filled with religious believers, having a foreign policy establishment comprised of committed secularists makes as much sense as hiring linguists at the State Department who refuse to speak any language but English. Russell Kirk wisely acknowledged that, “At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems.” Failing to recognize this fact leads us to misdiagnose and treat the political problems we face.
Rather than trying to secretly dismantle the USCIRF, Congress and the President should give the commission a more active role in policymaking. The joint freedoms of religion and conscience constitute the “first freedom” and are deserving of protection both in our own country and abroad. Indeed, the moral center and chief objective of American diplomacy should be the promotion of religious freedom. Nathan Hitchen explains why:
The logic is that religious freedom is a compound liberty, that is, there are other liberties bound within it. Allowing the freedom of religion entails allowing the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the liberty of conscience. If a regime accepts religious freedom, a multiplier effect naturally develops and pressures the regime toward further reforms. As such, religious liberty limits government (it is a “liberty” after all) by protecting society from the state. Social pluralism can develop because religious minorities are protected. And the prospect of pluralism in the Middle East is especially enticing as it potentially combats the spread of Islamic radicalization.
In the post-9/11, pre-Iraq War era, I subscribed to the neoconservative project of democracy promotion precisely because I believed it would lead to an expansion of religious liberty in the Middle East—and hence lead to the outcomes that Hitchen argues would flow from religious openness and pluralism. In hindsight I realize that was a foolish assumption. Democracy alone is insufficient for securing security or diplomatic progress, as we learned in 2006 when the Palestinian National Authority elected Hamas.
Of course, religious liberty promotion is no more a political science panacea than was democracy promotion. But as Hitchen notes, “Religious liberty would help society grow so complex that no totalizing ideology, no philosophical monism, could feasibly dominate the public square, because no single ideology would accurately reflect social reality.” That’s a modest goal, no doubt, but one worthy of being embraced by conservatives. A world where everyone can worship freely is a safer world for everyone.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom website
CNS News, Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department
Nina Shea, Will the Senate Quietly Kill the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom?
Middle East Forum, Elliott Abrams: "Religious Freedom is More Important Today"
Nathan Hitchen, Religious Liberty as a Moral Center for American Diplomacy
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
(What if someone's religion allows same-sex marriage?)
Who would have thought, 10 years ago, that the attack on 9/11 would so drastically change the religious life of people on the other side of the world? If you were a Muslim in Afghanistan or Iraq, and you had a lot of foresight, you may have thought, “Someone has attacked the United States in the name of Islam. The U.S. is going to want revenge, we better prepare for trouble.” However, if you were a Christian in Bagdad, how could you have known that what you were seeing on your TV from New York would result in your own death and the destruction of your church, and of the whole Christian community in your city?
The strange thing is: The religion harmed the most by the War on Terror is not Islam, but the Christian Church in the Mideast. The Christian Church in Iraq goes back, almost as far as St. Peter, but now it’s in danger of extinction. Those who haven’t been killed are leaving. Here are the opening paragraphs from an article in February’s Christianity Today-
“A ringing doorbell at the Baghdad home of an elderly Christian couple seemed innocent enough five days after Christmas. But when Fawzi Rahim, 76, and wife Janet Mekha, 78, opened their front door, a bomb exploded and took their lives.
The suspected militant attack was one of several on December 30, 2010, when 14 other Christians in Baghdad were seriously injured in their homes. The violence followed the October 31 attack on a Baghdad Syriac Catholic cathedral that killed 68 people, and a declaration by the Islamic State of Iraq, a terrorist group, that it was waging war on Christians.”
This is happening in a country filled with American soldiers and airmen. Where, incidentally, the U.S. army burns Bibles that were sent to servicemen by U.S. citizens so that the soldiers can share their faith with Iraq’s. And we’re there to establish a Democracy, to build a country that’s free?
The freedom that some Iraqis have now, that they didn’t have before, is the freedom to kill Christians and eliminate the Church.
Why is America unwilling to stop this? I’m sure that many people involved didn’t and don’t want these results. But there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our country is responding to the threat of Islam when the result is the destruction of 2000 year old Christian Churches. It’s as though we invaded Germany, then set up a purer, more deadly form of Nazism in place of what we destroyed.
Politicians, both Republican and Democrats, say nice things to Christians in order to get elected. But we must ask them, what will they do about this? When will burning a Bible elicit the same concern as someone burning a Koran? When will the persecution of Christians make the news?
... except the ideology expressed in that particular version of religious liberty. :) And it is an ideology, one to rule all others. It might be a true ideology, but it is totalizing.
They'll probably have a hard time getting converts.
Marriage, on the other hand, has a secular definition and a religious definition. Just ask the Catholics about that distinction in practice.
That's a very interesting point. We are all very different people, each with different experiences. Even the same religion can be different to everyone.
1. SSM is prohibited by religious doctrine and tradition and laws of ritual purity, therefore clerics should not be forced to perform it.
2. SSM is objectively disordered, therefore (a) there is no inherent human right to it, and (b) allowing it will create chaos and decadence, harming society.
Many proponents of SSM think religious objections to SSM are limited only to #1, which, I agree, is a pretty weak argument for public legislation in a democratic and pluralistic society. #2, though, I think is more compelling.
It's actually surprisingly hard to make an 'objective' case against it. It's not like such things aren't seen in nature. Indeed, in nature hardly anything serves only *one* purpose - sex included. Even in heterosexual relationships, its done for recreation and bonding as well as producing children.
"allowing it will create chaos and decadence, harming society."
'Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!' :) There are several problems with this idea. For one thing, it's hard to claim it has some major effect without also claiming that (a) homosexuality is a very common phenomenon, and (b) lots of homosexuals are going to marry immediately. But the *opposite* is argued regularly by many opponents of SSM; instead it's argued that the incidence of homosexuality is greatly exaggerated and few gays get married when its available. See FW Ken above stating that religions that allow it are having trouble gaining converts.
Additionally, the arguments of inevitable harm to society haven't all turned out to be particularly solid in other areas. A lot of militaries, for example, had allowed homosexuals to serve... without any detectable problems. That kind of undermined arguments against DADT in the US.
Personally, I'm with C.S. Lewis: "Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
Civil marriage should be one thing, and religious marriage another.
Then the government should not forbid them from entering into a relationship, calling it marriage, and holding a religious ceremony to seal it.
But religious freedom does not entail creating a new legal category with attendant rights, duties and penalties, to cater to someone's religious belief, does it? Or are you proposing that Catholic or Methodist ordinations should be legal concepts, too?
Well, I agree with Blackmun's dissent in "Employment Division v. Smith": https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
But, of course, I said nothing about government, only the toxic effect same-sex advocacy has on religious bodies that adopt it.
