The United States and international religious freedom

Résumé du document

In 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) created both the International Religious Freedom Office in the Department of State and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Since then, a report has been produced every year within the United States, "reviewing and making policy recommendations on the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations globally". In other words, it evaluates every country on the parameter of "religious freedom", designates "countries of particular concern" and makes recommendations to the American government. Hence, the United States tends to impose its own conception of what should be the relations between Church and State on the whole world. This paper will attempt to show why it is very dangerous for the United States to try and evaluate the religious freedom of other countries and to promote "religious freedom" as a foreign policy goal.

Extraits

[...] The universality of human rights, the relativity of culture”, Michael J. Perry, Roger Williams University Law Review, Vol 10: 349, 04/26/2005 the U.S.'s International Religious Freedom Commission Is Harming Its Status In the World Community”, Marci Hamilton, 01/30/2003 “Religion After 9-11: When Our Allies Persecute”, T. Jeremy Gunn, Religion in the News, Vol No Fall 2001 Reports “Religious persecution as a US policy issue: Proceedings of a consultation held at Trinity College Hartford”, edited by Hackett Annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, May 2006 Internet ressources United States Department of State: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/ United States Commission on International Freedom: http://www.uscirf.gov/ Annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2006 Church-State relations Tensions and Transitions, introduction William Fautré speaking at the Hartford conference, part IV, p.33 Abdullahi An-Na'im speaking at the Harford conference, part II, p Abdullahi An-Na'im speaking at the Harford conference, part III, p Can God and Caesar coexist? [...]

[...] Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Since this date, a report has been produced every year within the United States, “reviewing and making policy recommendations on the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violations globally”[1]. In other words, it evaluates every country on its “religious freedom”, designates “countries of particular concern” and makes recommandations to the American government. Hence, the United States tend to impose to the whole world its own conception of what should be the relations between Church and State. [...]

[...] I would like to insist on the role of the international community concerning the religious question. As a fundamental human right, religious freedom is an important issue that could only be approached in a multilateral way. Today, the United States policy is counter-productive in that it undermine the narrow international consensus that has been reached in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. If the standards are international, then we need an international organization to enforce them. [...]

[...] p Eugenia Relano Pastor in Brigham Young University Law Review, p Lee Boothby speaking at the Hartford conference, part II, p.21 Jeremy Gunn speaking at the Hartford conference, part p “Religion after 9/11: when our allies persecute”, T. Jeremy Gunn Winnifred Fallers Sullivan speaking the Hartford conference, part p. [...]

[...] In other words, law is integral to Islamic religion, and “religious freedom” in Muslim countries means the right to establish an “Islamic State”[4]. In India, to take another example, as well as in Africa, proselytization is not considered part of “religious freedom”, because it is viewed as a political tool of the Western nations to impose a neocolonial power[5] for that reason, those parts of the world do not accept the same notion of “religious freedom” as Western countries usually do. [...]