Capital Commentary is the weekly current-affairs publication of CPJ, written to encourage the pursuit of public justice.
Why Religious Liberty is More than Coexisting
By Jeremy Taylor
November 1, 2013
A version of this article originally appeared on SharedJustice.org, an online journal of the Center for Public Justice dedicated to engaging young Christian thinkers in a conversation on what it means to do public justice.
For all of the warts and exceptions, Americans enjoy a fair amount of liberty in matters of faith. Writing from Fredericksburg, Va., in 1777, Thomas Jefferson said, “All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” And, while his theology was opaque, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom became the catalyst to the Bill of Rights and modern-day religious freedom initiatives.
Although the practice and profession of one’s religion has been largely ubiquitous since Jefferson’s writings, religious harmony practiced in a free and open manner has remained elusive for much of the world. One can look to the Far East and see an ongoing civil battle between Muslim separatist groups and the central government in the southern islands of the Philippines or the secular persecution of the Rohingya people of Myanmar. Shuttling across the continent of Asia, the religious strife within the Middle East is far too protracted to name. The recent horror in Nairobi is a sobering reminder that groups such as al-Shabaab are still present in pockets of African nations. One could even look to Paris and the city’s 2004 ban on “religious symbols,” which many consider to target Muslim headscarves, as an example of religious intolerance.
Government restrictions on religion and social hostilities related to religion are on the rise in almost every region of the world. The irony of this trend is that such developments come on the coattails of the 2011 Arab Spring and other popular uprisings where the masses have demanded greater freedoms and more equality. In many ways, it is a logical reaction for regimes such as Assad’s in Syria or even the Vietnamese Communist party to want to hold on to power by indiscriminately squelching freedoms of all kinds. But what are the costs of such campaigns of intolerance and violence? Is there any model that can be emulated in hopes of closing the global religious liberty gap?
A memorial to Oscar Straus located in downtown Washington, D.C. stands as a reminder of religious liberty in public policy with the descriptors “statesman, author, and diplomat” inscribed. As the first Jewish-American to hold a presidential cabinet position in 1906, Straus studied the great thinkers of religious freedom who didn’t look for ways to simply exist alongside of others but to integrate within those with divergent faiths and worldviews.
The Oscar Straus memorial consists of two statues: one representing reason and the other justice. The base of the justice statue has the following inscription: “Our liberty of worship is not a concession nor a privilege but an inherent right.” Interestingly, the US foreign policy community seems to be moving toward a more substantial understanding of this inherent right. Just this past August, the Department of State announced the establishment of the Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives as a “portal for engagement with religious leaders and organizations around the world” that would reach “out to faith-based communities to ensure that their voices are heard in the policy process, and works with those communities to advance US diplomacy and development objectives.”
At the official launch of the office, Secretary Kerry remarked, “As leaders and citizens, particularly people in public life, everybody talks about how we draw strength from the example of our faith communities—but not enough people actually translate those words into actions or policies or life philosophies.” Although the United States has published a scorecard of sorts on the state of religious freedom around the world, this nascent office indicates an interest in more than simply grading other nations. Rather, it takes an active diplomatic posture that acknowledges the importance of diverse faiths in international affairs.
Acknowledging this diversity demands as close to equal treatment as possible within the realm of policy. Practically, the Center for Public Justice makes two suggestions for application.
1) There must be no privileging of secularism or of anti-religion in the public square. That would be to discriminate unjustly against public religions.
2) There must be no discrimination against those who make no religious profession or who are antagonistic toward religion. Such discrimination would mean the unjust privileging of the convictions of some citizens over others.
These two pillars of equitable treatment of faith seem to be reaffirmed in the words of Marcus Aurelius: “There is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life.” In an era of extreme political polarization, the performance of public policy among those with differing worldviews should still be carried out with a dignity that is proper and proportional. In the public square, collaboration is preferable to coexistence. After all, a memorial to a statesman, author, and diplomat who collaborated within a sundry of worldviews is more desirable to that of one who simply pedaled coexistence.
- Jeremy Taylor is pursuing a PhD in organizational leadership and currently serves as a senior consultant to the federal government.
“To respond to the author of this Commentary please email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Capital Commentary is a weekly current-affairs publication of the Center for Public Justice. Published since 1996, it is written to encourage the pursuit of justice. Commentaries do not necessarily represent an official position of the Center for Public Justice but are intended to help advance discussion. Articles, with attribution, may be republished according to our publishing guidelines.”