The extent to which Freedom of Religion and Belief (FoRB) should be promoted and protected as a foreign policy goal is becoming an increasing focus across numerous industrialized countries. While it has long been a priority for the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union have also recently increased their efforts to place more emphasis on this right in their engagements abroad.[i] Yet this newfound enthusiasm for FoRB is arguably being undermined by concurrent developments in the domestic public spheres of these countries.
The murder of Lee Rigby in the UK in 2013, the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this year, and the Copenhagen café shooting that has occurred only in the last few days, have all contributed to renewed fears of public displays and professions of religious belief, with governments being called on to implement even more strict regulations around the visibility of religion in the public sphere, both online and offline.[ii]
What are we to think when a government seeks to promote greater freedom of religion and belief in other countries while at the same time restricting freedom of religion and belief within their own borders? Such competing tendencies seem counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Surely, if FoRB really is the same universal right for everyone the world over, our commitment to it should be the same, regardless of whether we are considering the situation in our own country or whether we are looking elsewhere? In theory, yes, but in reality this is far from the case.
A key factor affecting government approaches to FoRB in domestic and foreign policies is that, in the post 9/11 and Global War on Terror context, anything related to “religion”, including FoRB, has become inextricably bound up with “national security”. The link between “religion” and “security” is by no means a new development. Security and secularization have arguably been bound together through the common assumption that the modern nation-state emerged as a response to the so-called “Wars of Religion” of the sixteenth century.[iii] In this narrative, religion, we are told, is inherently dangerous, violent and irrational, leading to insecurity and chaos when it is not controlled by a secular state.This definition of religion creates the necessary justification for privatizing it and excluding it from the public sphere through government imposed measures and controls.[iv] This is the secular logic that underpins the arrangement of religion’s relationship with politics within the internal, domestic public spheres of most industrialized, so-called “Western” countries. At the same time, however, since the late 1990s, and especially since the events of 9/11, the promotion of FoRB has become a central pillar of US and increasingly UK and EU foreign policy, underpinned in part by the belief that greater religious freedom abroad will contribute to increased security at home.
In both domestic and foreign policy, state intervention with regard to Freedom of Religion is justified in part in terms of national security. Making FoRB part of foreign policy efforts inevitably means that it is inextricably bound up with the goals and priorities of the nation-state, and given priority only insofar as it supports the broader security aims and goals of the state. As such, it is little wonder that efforts to promote FoRB abroad are often greeted with skepticism and cynicism, as a “cover” for renewed imperial efforts by “the West” and/or for the promotion of Christianity. Until FoRB is delinked from national security and until there is consistency across domestic and foreign policies on these issues, its status as a universal right, rather than a tool of national security agendas, will always remain in question.
[i] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmfaff/551/55111.htm http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un_geneva/press_corner/all_news/news/2013/20131126_forb_en.htm
[ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/opinion/after-paris-attacks-wrong-responses-to-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0 This is only the latest in a series of measures taken by some governments in the EU to restrict the public display of religious symbols and the presence of religious argumentation and profession in public debates, the most severe of which is arguably the 2004 ban on religious symbols in France.
[iii] Mavelli, L. 2011. “Security and Secularization in International Relations” European Journal of International Relations 18(1): 177-199
[iv] Wilson, E.K. 2012. After Secularism: Rethinking Religion in Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
Dr Erin Wilson is Director of the Centre for Religion, Conflict and the Public Domain at the University of Groningen. Her research focuses on the intersection of religion with various dimensions of politics and public life, at the local, national and global levels. She has published on religion and global justice, globalization, active citizenship and the politics of asylum. Her current research interests include the relationship between religion and political apologies, climate change and political activism in an increasingly post-secular age.
My opinion regarding FoRB is that unless same status ,rights, consideration and attention on par is afforded to atheists it will inevitable result in a multitude of situations that one can easily group as unfortunate set of unintended consequences. Currently in encourages people to act under various misaprehensions.
Hi
Having recently attended a freedom of speech seminar in Trinity College Dublin it is clear that what is ‘freedom of speech’ for some sections also has the power to completely the opposite for others – we have to have freedom of speech yet it must also be tempered with respect for others. I would never condone what happened in Paris in any shape or form – might we, collectively, look at what we say before we say it. We may always be offending someone and over-critiquing what we say isn’t the answer but sometimes we say things without thinking and defend it with freedom of speech.
These arguments seemed to me perverse: a secure and a secular state encourages Freedom of Religion and Belief. Think of Pakistan, Iran even India dominated by religious leaders – not much FoRB in any of them compared with the UK for instance. Once you remove the special privileges of religious organisations, there is room for freedom to grow.
‘What are we to think when a government seeks to promote greater freedom of religion and belief in other countries while at the same time restricting freedom of religion and belief within their own borders?’
We should think that just like any other civil value and ideal FoRB is politicized in order to promote foreign policy agendas, geopolitical interests and power struggles between international actors. In 2003 the similar issue was evident in the notion of democracy that the USA preemptively and aggressively exported in Iraq while in the same time the Bush administration pushed domestically the clearly un-democratic Patriot Act.
‘The link between “religion” and “security” is by no means a new development. Security and secularization have arguably been bound together through the common assumption that the modern nation-state emerged as a response to the so-called “Wars of Religion” of the sixteenth century.’
The notion of security can creatively deform, through the rights of the mighty, any principle. The claim that the secularization of religion in the name of domestic and external security as an outcome of the so called Religious Wars in the 16th century is in my opinion only one side of the story. I believe that another outcome of the same process and was the principle of Westphalian sovereignty. This is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. It established the norm of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. And yet again this doctrine was established in the height of European colonialism.
‘Since the late 1990s, and especially since the events of 9/11, the promotion of FoRB has become a central pillar of US and increasingly UK and EU foreign policy, underpinned in part by the belief that greater religious freedom abroad will contribute to increased security at home.’
Again, the initial post 9/11 US foreign policy response of pre-emptive unilateralism had nothing to do with FoRB but more with utilizing the sense of swift and ‘just full’ retribution in the name of national pride under the pretext of exporting western democracy and ideals. However in the aftermath of the backfiring Arab spring, which the western media and academia had once so quickly and prematurely celebrated as an unplanned result of the America’s war on terror but nowadays prefer to ignore, the rise of extreme Islamic fundamentalism offered the right ground for the use of the notion of FoRB as an ideal worth keeping military operations going on in the region of the Greater Middle East. The real goal in both foreign policy expressions were the establishment of puppet governments and the creation of satellite states that will allow the western powers to the upper hand in the geopolitical chess board.
As the ripple effects of this western imperialism are felt back home in the form of increased domestic violent extremism, to use the term coined by Mr Cameron and Mr Obama in their meeting, it creates the perfect domestic ground and sense of insecurity that would allow the public opinion to be manipulated in order for the citizens of western countries to forego their liberties in the name of public safety.
In the end, religion as a system of faith that draws devotion and asserts control over people automatically becomes a means to exert power and therefore will sooner or later be turned once again the forum of conflict between those that have the power to claim religion as their ‘universal’ right.
Every one of us holds a point of view that will offend someone, somewhere. Freedom of speech is important, otherwise nothing will get discussed and we’re better when we consider other people’s points of view. I think we have freedom of belief, what I believe is simply what I believe, it’s in my head, expressing it can be opposed by governments and by laws and that we must safeguard against. It’s often said that we should put our own house in order first, but here in the UK, whilst it may not be perfect , I feel pretty safe to express my beliefs, religious, humanist or otherwise, there are many states where that would not be the case.