Robert Traer

Prepared for the IARF 1999 Congress: Study Group on Religious Freedom

How are we to resist intolerance? Or, to use the more positive language of the United Nations, how are we to create a "culture of tolerance"? Promoting religious freedom through law is central to a strategy that has secular roots in the Enlightenment and spiritual roots in the Protestant Reformation. Promoting interfaith cooperation through inter-religious voluntary associations is a strategy that has been initiated more recently in increasingly secularized societies. These may be parallel efforts - the one concerned with law and government, the other with civil society and, in particular, non-governmental organizations. But the way of thinking employed in each strategy is very different.

Religious freedom, as a fundamental human right, requires respect for the human dignity of each person, whereas interfaith cooperation (at least in some of its forms) urges respect for the religions of other people. The difference is significant and deserves careful analysis

Religious Freedom

For Americans, religious freedom is symbolized by the phrase "separation of church and state." This phrase is not part of the constitution of the United States, and thus is not strictly a legal principle. But it is the way that most Americans think about religious freedom. In the United States religious freedom is defined by the First Amendment of the constitution, which proscribes "the establishment of religion" by the federal government and ensures "the free exercise of religion" for all the citizens of the republic. Court rulings and the 14th amendment have applied the proscription of the establishment of religion to the states as well as the federal government. For Americans, therefore, religious freedom means that government is to stay out of religion, so that citizens are free to form whatever religious organizations they may choose.

In other countries, the history and laws are very different and diverse. In 1948, however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and in Article 18 it asserts that freedom of "religion or belief" is a fundamental human right. In the mid 1960's the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, as a multi-national treaty, and in Article 18 it reiterates that the right to freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right. In international law, however, there is no proscription against the establishment of religion. In other words, "religious freedom" under international law is not the same as under American law. International law proscribes discrimination based on religion or belief, but not establishment by the state of a religion or a belief.

Practical considerations in 1948 made this position necessary. There were many nations with established religions, and most certainly believed that their way of permitting religious freedom did not violate the rights of their citizens. Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, and Germany all had (and continue to have) established churches, but each country claims to protect its citizens and minority religious communities against religious discrimination. Other countries with dominant Buddhist or Muslim traditions make similar claims. Americans are skeptical about such claims, but it is clear that the development of international law in the past half-century has helped promote religious freedom (in the sense of non-discrimination) throughout the world.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines religious freedom in the following way: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The emphasis is on the individual, and the right explicitly includes conversion. In this sense, the right is both very Western and Protestant. It reflects an understanding of religion, as a voluntary association of individuals who share the same beliefs, and the right to leave a religion for reasons of individual conscience, in the way that Protestants left the Catholic Church during the time subsequently known as the Reformation.

Most of the peoples of the world for most of history have not thought of religion in this way. Religion has often been indistinguishable from culture; where there have been different religious traditions these have usually been practiced by ethnic or national communities rather than by associations of individuals. Conversion throughout the centuries has generally come with the conquest of kingdoms, whose subjects were incorporated (to some extent) into the religious and cultural practices of their conquerors. Major exceptions to this, at least initially and at times, are the Buddhist and Christian traditions, for each began with individuals leaving a religious tradition (Hindu/Jewish) to join a new community of faith and practice (sangha/church). Moreover, Buddhist practice and Christian faith were spread by individual teachers who founded new communities of followers in other cultures.

It may not be surprising, therefore, that Buddhists and Christians have for the most part embraced religious freedom in our contemporary context, although the Orthodox churches in many countries are strongly opposed to the exercise of this freedom by Protestant churches (and other "sects") in the form of proselytism. It seems that wherever a religious tradition is identified with a culture or national community, as in most Orthodox countries and also in India and many Muslim nations, there is strong criticism of missionary attempts (by Christians or others) to convert members from their historic religious traditions to new communities of faith.

Under international law, restrictions by a government on proselytism violate the right of freedom of religion or belief. The Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, however, distinguish witnessing to Christian faith from proselytism by defining the latter as a coercive form of propagating the gospel that should be renounced. Catholics and Protestants have been influenced by protests from Orthodox churches, but both have also reflected critically on their missionary activities because of dialogue with leaders of other religious traditions.

Interfaith Cooperation

The idea that religious groups should work together to promote tolerance goes beyond support for laws protecting religious freedom and encourages an understanding of religion that is quite new. Those who have struggled for religious freedom in the past five centuries have generally asserted that the right of conscience was a matter of salvation and thus transcended the authority of government. They have demanded the right to live out the truth revealed to them. They have not argued for tolerance concerning "religion," and thus they have often been intolerant of religious beliefs they believe to be false. They have asserted their right to religious freedom on the grounds that no one has the right to decide for them what is true.

Inherent in the idea of interfaith cooperation, however, is a relativistic assumption that religious communities have only a partial view of the truth. Those who support interfaith dialogue affirm that sharing views of the truth is a way of coming closer to it, just as the testimony of different witnesses at a trial helps to establish what actually happened. Those who promote interfaith cooperation argue as well that differences in beliefs need not prevent religious people of goodwill from taking constructive action, based on "shared values," to address problems in their societies. Interfaith cooperation, therefore, has very little to do with religious claims about truth. Organizers of interfaith activities do not support tolerance because it is a means of protecting the right of individuals to pursue salvation in the way they believe is true, but because tolerance promotes respect for religious diversity.

The distinction is subtle but significant. Those who champion interfaith cooperation do not do so in order to protect the right of people to seek salvation, as they believe best, but to encourage mutual respect among diverse religious communities. The stated purposes of interfaith activities are to promote understanding and appreciation of different religious traditions (for "different religions," interfaith participants usually claim). Historically, those who supported religious freedom promoted tolerance as a means of protecting that freedom. More recently, those who support interfaith cooperation see religious freedom as less important than creating a culture of tolerance. In fact, promoters of interfaith cooperation usually do not recommend "tolerance," because they feel the word has the negative connotation of "putting up with what you don't think is good." The goal of interfaith cooperation, we are told by its proponents, is mutual respect among religious communities based on an understanding and an appreciation of their different beliefs and practices.

We might say, therefore, that in both instances religious freedom is conceived as a means to reaching an important end or goal. Those who emphasize religious freedom are concerned with protecting their absolute right of conscience, whereas those who promote interfaith cooperation are attempting to foster a relative understanding of religion and also appreciation of the different beliefs and practices of religious traditions. Those who struggle for religious freedom believe their eternal salvation is at stake. For those who organize interfaith activities, however, the goal is peace in the temporal world among the religions.

This difference becomes clear when we examine how missionary activity is understood from each perspective. Those who promote religious freedom see missionary activity as a protected fundamental human right, whereas those who promote interfaith cooperation think of missionary activity as undermining the mutual respect that ought to exist among religious communities. Advocates of religious freedom emphasize the right to conversion, whereas interfaith organizers prohibit proselytism in the programs sponsored by their voluntary associations. Those who assert the right of freedom of religion or belief argue that missionary activities are not only protected under international law but are an integral part of many religious traditions (including, generally, their own). Those who argue for interfaith cooperation suggest that missionary activity is a form of intolerance and thus a cause of religious conflict.

This distinction is not merely abstract but very real, as anyone who works in one or the other of these fields can attest. Many of the most active advocates for religious freedom today do not come from religious communities that promote interfaith cooperation. Instead, human rights lawyers and activists, who focus their energies on religious freedom, are often members of religious communities that strongly support missionary activities. These include Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, members of the Unification Church, Bahai's, Seventh Day Adventists, Hari Krishnas, Pentecostals, and others. Of course, Catholics and Protestants from "mainline" denominations also support religious freedom, but their focus today is more on civil society and increasingly on inter-religious strategies for strengthening good government, promoting just and sustainable development, preserving the environment and pursuing other social goals.

Affirming Both

Given these differences, what might it mean to affirm both religious freedom and interfaith cooperation? The World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church have each taken a major step in this direction by rejecting proselytism, even as both continue to affirm the importance of witnessing to Christian faith. This position is now reflected in Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World, which defines proselytism as "a manner of behaving contrary to the spirit of the gospel" and making "use of dishonest methods to attract" others "by exploiting their ignorance or poverty."

This critique of proselytism, however, does not go far enough for many advocates of interfaith cooperation, who think that missionary activities are inherently intolerant or, at least in practice, are perceived as intolerant and foster resentment and religious conflict. At best, most interfaith organizers seem to believe that a change in religious convictions ought to come, if at all, only through interfaith dialogue, where (at least in theory) the participants do not intend to convert anyone but only seek to share their religious beliefs and practices.

In practical terms, therefore, interfaith organizations tend to support religious freedom as a matter of law but to restrict the exercise of the right of religious freedom, in interfaith programs, to a sharing of religious beliefs, practices and concerns that is neither proselytizing nor witnessing, as these activities are understood by the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church. It is no wonder then that members of churches in the WCC and Catholics are now a distinct minority in many of the interfaith activities being convened around the world in the pursuit of tolerance and religious cooperation.

Of course, as interfaith activities proliferate they become more diverse and less easily characterized. Nonetheless, from my experience in international interfaith work I suggest that a major division in the interfaith movement is beginning to be clear. The Catholic Church, the World Council of Churches, and what we might describe as other mainstream religious organizations within the historic "world religions" are supporting interfaith cooperation among their constituencies, particularly to address community issues at a local or national level. These organizations generally endorse the idea of expanding ecumenical councils of churches in local communities and countries into interfaith or inter-religious councils, as long as participation in these councils is limited to the major religious communities in a city or nation. These religious organizations, however, are wary of interfaith groups and events that seem to be urging respect for all religious communities, no matter what their beliefs or practices may be.

At the same time "more inclusive" activities have come to constitute an alternative stream of interfaith cooperation. Such activities attract those who want to mingle with people from other religious traditions, are less concerned about institutional "hang-ups" concerning doctrine, enjoy sharing and experimenting with interfaith worship, see their approach as representing the fundamental "shared values" of all the religious traditions, and take pride in being non-judgmental about other religious beliefs. Organizations and programs that pursue this approach to interfaith cooperation support religious freedom, because their activities require a society that allows its citizens to express their religious faith without state intervention. But organizations that sponsor interfaith activities for "all religions" (at least in principle, if not in practice) do not generally put much emphasis on supporting religious freedom. Perhaps these interfaith organizations do not want to be identified with more parochial advocates for religious freedom, who seek to protect their right to convert individuals from one religious tradition to another.

In my own work, I have tried to articulate and advance an interfaith strategy for religious freedom. At first I naively thought this simply meant religious groups working together for freedom of religion or belief. I quickly discovered, however, that many human rights advocates emphasizing this fundamental human right were humanists, concerned with promoting their non-religious belief, or were from religious groups heavily invested in proselytism. The latter always made it clear that they supported religious freedom for everyone, but they were unsympathetic to criticism of proselytism by the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. Instead, they stood firmly on international law, which does not use the word "proselytism" but clearly affirms the right of individuals and groups to engage in missionary activities that might well include behaviors critiqued and renounced by the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches.

It took longer for me to understand the dynamics of interfaith activity, but I have come to see that many interfaith organizations do not merely provide opportunities for individuals and groups from different religious traditions to dialogue and cooperate together. In addition, whether intended or not, interfaith organizations and activities enable new religious movements to communicate their beliefs to more diverse audiences and to attain greater credibility. Individual and group members of interfaith organizations use the names of these organizations to verify that they are legitimate and recognized religious constituencies.

Some of the religious groups that take part in interfaith organizations even claim to be new "religions" and not merely new religious movements. It is hard not to see this as a strategy to gain equal status to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism despite the obvious differences between a new religious movement of even several million persons operating as a single organization and the historic traditions with not only centuries of faith and practice but hundreds if not thousands of organizational structures.

In practice, therefore, interfaith groups, which seek to distance themselves from religious organizations supporting missionary activities, may create opportunities for a more subtle form of missionary activity. Many of the new religious movements (as well as some members of established religious traditions) take advantage of interfaith activities to promote very effectively their teachings and the good works of their organizations.

Some of the religious groups that are active in interfaith programs even claim not to be "religious" but only to be teaching new methods of spiritual transformation or consciousness raising. The members of such groups may, however, wear what most observers would consider religious clothing, which helps them stand out in an interfaith context, where they appear acceptable but nonetheless exotic. Members of these groups participate in interfaith activities in order to promote the special life and teaching that requires no conversion, they say, from one religion to another, but simply understanding and special training, which is only available from their organization. Interfaith programs are easily exploited by these "spiritual" missionaries.

I do affirm both advocacy for religious freedom and support for interfaith cooperation, but I make several distinctions in doing so. I support international law that asserts the right to freedom of religion or belief, because I believe the right of conscience ought to be protected everywhere. I acknowledge with sadness and deep regret that missionary activities have often preyed on the uneducated and the poor, but I believe that religious convictions concern truth and salvation. I endorse the distinction between witnessing and proselytism, and I abhor the latter. But I affirm the right to witness humbly to what I believe to be true, and I support the right of others to do the same. (How can we not witness to what we believe to be true?)

Therefore, I believe that new religious movements as well as historic religious communities should be able to promote their beliefs and practices without discrimination or persecution. I also believe that we come closer to the truth through dialogue, and to facilitate that quest I am committed to interfaith dialogue and religious cooperation in combating social problems. I do not, however, endorse interfaith cooperation that reinforces prejudice against religious communities supporting missionary activities, especially when such interfaith cooperation uncritically enables other religious (or "spiritual") groups to promote their beliefs.

Respect and Tolerance

Advocacy for religious freedom as a fundamental human right and initiatives promoting interfaith cooperation both seek to create a culture of tolerance. There is, however, a significant choice to be made in pursuing these strategies. What sort of respect are we urging? Respect for the human dignity of each person, regardless of their religious tradition, race, color, or other distinguishing characteristics? Or respect for religion, or the "religions of the world" (whatever may be meant by that phrase), or anything that is presented as a religious or spiritual teaching or practice?

Recognizing fundamental human rights requires that we respect the human dignity of each person and that we tolerate the religious activities of others that we do not understand, or do not appreciate, or do not believe are worthy of our respect. Supporting interfaith cooperation encourages us and others to be open to other religious teachings and traditions, to enter into dialogue with persons from other cultures and communities of faith, and to seek greater truth through an honest sharing of experience, insight and questioning. But a commitment to interfaith cooperation need not mean urging an uncritical respect for all religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, as though religion or spirituality is somehow exempt from the failings so obvious in other human activities.

Therefore, I suggest we seek a culture of tolerance by supporting religious freedom through a strategy of interfaith cooperation that requires respect for human rights and critical reflection on the religious beliefs and spiritual practices of our time.

28 May 1999 - The ideas in this paper are the author's and are not to be attributed to the International Association for Religious Freedom or any of its members.