Religious Intolerance Today

“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.” Article 18, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948.

DO YOU enjoy religious freedom in your country? Most countries in the world ostensibly subscribe to this noble principle, which has been included many times in international declarations. It is estimated, however, that in numerous countries where intolerance and discrimination are hard realities, countless millions of people today do not enjoy religious freedom. On the other hand, many people live in multiracial, multiethnic, or multireligious societies where freedom is guaranteed by law and tolerance is seemingly enshrined in the nations’ culture.

Yet, even in these places, some people are affected by threats to religious freedom. “Discrimination based upon religion or conviction exists in almost all economic, social, and ideological systems and in all parts of the world,” noted Angelo d’Almeida Ribeiro, former Special Rapporteur appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights. In their book Freedom of Religion and Belief—A World Report, published in 1997, editors Kevin Boyle and Juliet Sheen state: “Religious persecution of minority faiths [and] the proscribing of beliefs and pervasive discrimination . . . are daily occurrences at the end of the twentieth century.”

Religious discrimination, however, does not affect just religious minorities. Professor Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, of the UN Commission on Human Rights, considers that “no religion is safe from violation.” It is quite likely, then, that intolerance and prejudice are commonly faced by some religions where you live.

Varied Forms of Discrimination

Religious discrimination can take many forms. Some countries simply exclude all but one religion, making it, in effect, the State religion. In other countries, laws are passed restricting the activity of certain religions. Some lands have enacted laws that have been interpreted in an arbitrary way. Consider the scope for abuse of a proposed law in Israel to punish the importation, printing, distribution, or possession of brochures or material “in which there is an inducement to religious conversion.” Not surprisingly, the International Herald Tribune newspaper reports: “In Israel, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been harassed and attacked.” A Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lod was broken into three times and trashed twice by fanatic ultraorthodox zealots. The police declined to interfere.

The book Freedom of Religion and Belief cites other examples of intolerance: “Heresy and heretics are not only an image from the past. . . . Rejection, persecution and discrimination towards those who have taken a different path remain a major cause of intolerance. The Ahmadis in Pakistan and the [Baha’is] in Egypt, Iran, and Malaysia are some examples as are the Jehovah’s Witnesses in several countries of Eastern Europe, in Greece and Singapore.” Clearly, religious freedom is under threat in many parts of the world.

In the face of this, Federico Mayor, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, declared that the emerging world of the near future “does not inspire whole-hearted enthusiasm. . . . The winds of freedom have rekindled the embers of hatred.” Confirming these fears, the director of the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex, United Kingdom, observed: “All evidence points to the conclusion that religious intolerance . . . is increasing rather than decreasing in the modern world.” Such increasing intolerance threatens religious freedom, perhaps your religious freedom. Why, though, is religious freedom so important?

What Is at Stake?

“Religious freedom is a fundamental requirement before any society can be described as free. . . . Without freedom of religion and the right to disseminate one’s faith there can be no rights of conscience and no genuine democracy,” observed sociologist Bryan Wilson in his book Human Values in a Changing World. And, as a French court recently recognized, “freedom of belief is one of the fundamental elements of public freedoms.” Thus, whether you are religious or not, you should be interested in the protection of religious freedom.

A country’s attitude toward religious freedom also greatly affects its reputation and international credibility. A report presented in 1997 to a meeting of the 54-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe stated: “Religious Freedom is one of the highest values in the constellation of human rights, going to the very core of human dignity. No system that violates, or allows the systematic violation of, such rights can lay legitimate claim to membership in the community of just and democratic states that respect fundamental human rights.”

Freedom of religion is like part of the foundation of a building. Other freedoms—civil, political, cultural, and economic—are built upon it. If the foundation is undermined, the whole edifice suffers. Professor Francesco Margiotta-Broglio succinctly puts it this way: “Whenever [religious] freedom is violated, other freedoms are the next to suffer.” If other freedoms are to be protected, religious freedom needs to be safeguarded first.

In order to discern how best to protect something, it is essential to understand it. What are the roots of religious freedom? How was it established, and at what price?

Religious Freedom—Blessing or Curse?

The birth of the notion of religious freedom was accompanied by great labor pains in Christendom. It was a struggle against dogmatism, prejudice, and intolerance. It cost countless thousands of lives in bloody religious conflicts. What does this painful history teach us?

“PERSECUTION has been an enduring fact of Christian history,” writes Robin Lane Fox in the book Pagans and Christians. Early Christians were called a sect and were accused of threatening public order. (Acts 16:20, 21; 24:5, 14; 28:22) As a result, some endured torture and were killed by wild beasts in Roman arenas. In the face of such bitter persecution, some, such as the theologian Tertullian (see picture on page 8), pleaded for religious freedom. In 212 C.E., he wrote: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions.”

In 313 C.E., persecution of Christians by the Roman world came to an end under Constantine, with the Edict of Milan, which granted freedom of religion to Christians and pagans alike. The legalization of “Christianity” in the Roman Empire turned the tide. However, about 340 C.E., a professed Christian writer called for the persecution of pagans. Finally, in 392 C.E., by means of the Edict of Constantinople, Emperor Theodosius I banned paganism within the empire, and religious freedom died a premature death. With Roman “Christianity” as the State religion, Church and State embarked on a campaign of persecution that lasted for centuries, reaching its zenith in the bloody Crusades of the 11th to the 13th centuries and in the cruelty of the Inquisitions, which began in the 12th century. Those daring to question the established orthodoxy, the monopoly of dogma, were branded as heretics and tracked down in the witch-hunt climate of the time. What was behind such moves?

Religious intolerance was excused on the grounds that religious unity formed the most solid foundation for the State and that religious differences threatened public order. In England, in 1602, one of Queen Elizabeth’s ministers argued: “The State is never safe when it tolerates two religions.” In reality, it was much easier to ban religious dissidents than to find out whether they really posed a threat to the State or to the established religion. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “Neither the secular nor the ecclesiastical authorities drew the slightest distinction between dangerous and harmless heretics.” However, change was soon to come.

The Painful Birth of Tolerance

The catalyst for change in Europe was the upheaval caused by Protestantism, a sectarian movement that refused to go away. With astonishing rapidity, the Protestant Reformation split Europe along religious lines, bringing to the fore the idea of freedom of conscience. The famous Reformer Martin Luther, for example, justified his opinions in 1521, saying: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Division also ignited the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), a series of cruel religious wars that ravaged Europe.

In the midst of war, though, many came to realize that conflict was not the way forward. Thus, a series of edicts, such as the Edict of Nantes in France (1598), sought unsuccessfully to establish peace in war-torn Europe. It was out of these edicts that the modern-day notion of tolerance gradually evolved. At first, “tolerance” had negative connotations. “If under certain circumstances we were to tolerate the sects . . . , it would, without doubt, be an evil—indeed, a serious evil—but not as bad as war,” wrote the famous humanist Erasmus in 1530. Because of this negative sense, some, like Frenchman Paul de Foix in 1561, preferred to talk about “religious freedom” rather than “tolerance.”

With time, though, tolerance came to be seen, not as the lesser of two evils, but as the protector of liberties. It was no longer viewed as a concession to weakness but as a guarantee. When plurality of belief and the right to think differently began to be cherished as the basis of modern society, fanaticism was forced to retreat.

At the end of the 18th century, tolerance became linked with freedom and equality. This was expressed in the form of laws and declarations, such as the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), in France, or the Bill of Rights (1791), in the United States. As these documents came to influence liberal thinking from the 19th century onward, tolerance and hence freedom were viewed no longer as a curse but as a blessing.

Relative Freedom

Precious as it is, freedom is only relative. In the name of greater freedom for all, the State passes laws that limit some individual liberties. The following are some of the issues related to freedom that are currently being debated in many European countries: To what extent should governmental legislation operate in private life? How effective is it? How does it affect freedom?

The debate over public and private liberties has been thrust to the fore by the media. Allegations of brainwashing, financial extortion, child abuse, and a host of other serious crimes have been directed against some religious groups, often without any substantial proof. News stories involving minority religious groups have received widespread coverage by the press. Disparaging labels such as “cult” or “sect” have now become a part of everyday usage. Under pressure from public opinion, governments have even produced lists of so-called dangerous cults.

France is a country proud of its tradition of tolerance and separation of religion and the State. It proudly proclaims itself the land of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Yet, according to the book Freedom of Religion and Belief—A World Report, “an education campaign in schools to foster rejection of new religious movements” has been recommended in that country. Many people think, however, that this type of action poses a threat to religious freedom. How so?

Threats to Religious Freedom

True religious freedom exists only when all religious groups that respect and obey the law are given equal treatment by the State. This ceases to be the case when the State arbitrarily decides which among the religious groups is not a religion, thus denying it the advantages that the State grants to religions. “The sacred idea of religious freedom rings hollow when the state arrogates unto itself the right to certify religions the way it hands out licenses to drivers,” noted Time magazine in 1997. One French appeal court recently declared that doing so “leads, consciously or not, to totalitarianism.”

Basic freedoms are also threatened when one group has a monopoly on the media. Unfortunately, this is increasingly the case in many countries. For example, in an attempt to define what is religiously correct, anticult organizations have set themselves up as prosecutor, judge, and jury and have then tried to impose their biased view on the public through the media. However, as the French newspaper Le Monde said, in so doing, these organizations sometimes show “the same sectarianism that they are supposedly fighting and risk creating a ‘witch-hunt’ climate.” The newspaper asked: “Does not the social stigmatization of minority religious groups . . . threaten essential freedoms?” Martin Kriele, quoted in Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie (Magazine for Psychology of Religion), stated: “The witch-hunt for sects gives more cause for concern than the vast majority of the ‘so-called sects and psychogroups.’ Simply put: Citizens who do not overstep the law should be left in peace. Religion and ideology should be free and remain free, also in Germany.” Let us consider one example.

“Model Citizens”—Branded as Dangerous

Which religious group was said to be “the most dangerous of all sects” in the opinion of Catholic authorities quoted in Spain’s popular ABC newspaper? You may be surprised to learn that ABC was talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do the accusations made against them have an impartial, objective basis? Note the following declarations from other sources:

“The Witnesses teach people to pay their taxes honestly, not to participate in wars or preparations for war, not to steal and, in general, to follow a life-style that if it were adopted by others would lead to an improvement in the standards of civil cohabitation.”—Sergio Albesano, Talento, November-December 1996.

“Contrary to the insinuations circulated on certain occasions, [Jehovah’s Witnesses] do not appear to me to represent the slightest danger to the State’s institutions. They are citizens who are peace-loving, conscientious, and respectful toward the authorities.”—A Belgian parliamentary deputy.

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognizably the most honest people in the Federal Republic.”—German newspaper Sindelfinger Zeitung.

“You might regard [Jehovah’s Witnesses] as model citizens. They pay taxes diligently, tend the sick, battle illiteracy.”—U.S. newspaper San Francisco Examiner.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses experience greater success than members of other denominations in maintaining stable marital unions.”—American Ethnologist.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most upright and diligent of the citizenry of African countries.”—Dr. Bryan Wilson, Oxford University.

“Members of that faith have contributed greatly through the decades toward expanding liberty of conscience.”—Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee.

“They have . . . made a definite contribution to the preservation of some of the most precious things in our democracy.”—Professor C. S. Braden, These Also Believe.

As the above quotations indicate, Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognized throughout the world as exemplary citizens. In addition, they are known for their free Bible education work and for the promotion of family values. Their literacy classes have helped hundreds of thousands, while their humanitarian works over the decades have helped thousands, especially in Africa.

The Importance of Objectivity

Society is rife with unscrupulous people preying on innocent victims. Consequently, there is a definite need to be vigilant when it comes to claims about religion. But just how objective and how conducive to religious freedom is it when some journalists, instead of consulting objective experts, rely on information from churches who see their numbers dwindling or from antisect organizations whose objectivity is open to serious question? The newspaper that called Jehovah’s Witnesses “the most dangerous of all sects” admitted, for instance, that its definitions came from “the experts of the [Catholic] Church.” In addition, one French magazine noted that the majority of articles dealing with supposed sects originated with antisect organizations. Does this sound to you like the most impartial way of getting objective information?

International courts and organizations concerned with basic human rights, such as the UN, say that “the distinction between a religion and a sect is too contrived to be acceptable.” Then why do some persist in the use of the pejorative word “sect”? It is further evidence that religious freedom is threatened. How, then, can this essential freedom be protected?

[Box/Pictures on page 8]

Defenders of Religious Freedom

Eloquent cries for religious freedom arose from the bloodbath of religious conflict in Europe in the 16th century. These appeals are still relevant to the discussion of religious freedom.

Sébastien Chateillon (1515-63): “What is a heretic? I do not find anything else except that we consider heretics all those that do not agree with our opinion. . . . If in this city or region you are considered a true believer, in the next you will be considered a heretic.” Famous French Bible translator and energetic defender of tolerance, Chateillon touched on one of the key elements in the debate on religious freedom: Who defines who is a heretic?

Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert (1522-90): “We read that in the past . . . even Christ himself in Jerusalem and then many martyrs in Europe . . . disturbed [society] with their words of truth. . . . The meaning of the word ‘disturbed’ needs to be defined accurately and clearly.” Coornhert argued that religious difference should not be equated with disturbing public order. He asked: Are those who scrupulously obey and respect the law really a threat to public order?

Pierre de Belloy (1540-1611): It is “ignorant to believe that diversity of religion brings about and nurtures tumult in the State.” Belloy, a French lawyer writing at the time of the Wars of Religion (1562-98), argued that the harmony of the State is not based upon religious uniformity unless, of course, the government is subservient to religious pressures.

Thomas Helwys (c. 1550–c. 1616): “If his [the king’s] people are obedient and faithful subjects to all human laws, he has nothing more to ask from them.” Helwys, one of the founders of the English Baptists, wrote in favor of the separation of Church and State, urging the king to grant religious freedom to all churches and sects and to be content with civil power over people and possessions. His writings underlined a current question: How far should the State control the spiritual?

Anonymous writer (1564): “In order to introduce freedom of conscience, it is not sufficient to allow an individual to abstain from practicing a religion of which he disapproves if, by the same token, the free practice of the one he approves is not allowed.”

Protecting Freedoms—How?

IN THE small town of Rengasdengklok, Indonesia, ethnic groups lived together in peace for years. Apparent tolerance, however, came to an end on January 30, 1997. Violence erupted when a little before three o’clock in the morning on a religious feast day, a believer started beating his drum. Responding to the noise, a man of another religion showered insults on his neighbor. Shouts were exchanged, and stones started to fly. Day broke, and rioting increased as others joined the fray. By the end of the day, two Buddhist temples and four of Christendom’s churches had been destroyed. The International Herald Tribune newspaper reported this incident under the title “Spark of Intolerance Lights Fires of Ethnic Rioting.”

In many countries, ethnic minorities who have their rights protected by law often find themselves the object of intolerance. Guaranteeing freedom by law clearly does not get to the roots of intolerance. The fact that intolerance is hidden below the surface does not mean that it does not exist. If at some future time circumstances change and perhaps lead to an atmosphere of prejudice, latent intolerance can easily come to the fore. Even if people are not directly persecuted, they may be the object of animosity or their ideas may be suffocated. How can this be prevented?

Getting to the Roots of Intolerance

We naturally tend to reject or suspect that which is different or unusual, especially views that differ from our own. Does this mean that tolerance is impossible? The UN publication Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief lists ignorance and lack of understanding as being “among the most important root causes of intolerance and discrimination in the matter of religion and belief.” However, ignorance, the root of intolerance, can be fought. How? By balanced education. “Education may be the prime means of combating discrimination and intolerance,” states a report of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

What should be the aim of this education? The magazine UNESCO Courier suggests that instead of fostering rejection of religious movements, “education for tolerance should aim at countering influences that lead to fear and exclusion of others, and should help young people to develop capacities for independent judgement, critical thinking and ethical reasoning.”

Obviously, the media can play an important part in promoting “critical thinking and ethical reasoning.” Many international organizations recognize the power of the media to shape minds and to encourage mutual understanding. If the media, though, are to foster tolerance rather than promote intolerance as some do, responsible, objective journalism is required. On occasion, journalists must go against popular accepted opinion. They must bring to bear objective analysis and impartial observations. But is that enough?

The Best Way to Fight Intolerance

Tolerance does not mean that everyone should have the same ideas. People might disagree with one another. Some may feel strongly that the beliefs of another person are very wrong. They may even speak publicly of their disagreements. However, as long as they do not spread lies to try to incite prejudice, this is not intolerance. Intolerance is seen when a group is persecuted, targeted by special laws, marginalized, banned, or in some other way hindered from following their beliefs. In the most extreme form of intolerance, some kill and others have to die for their beliefs.

How can intolerance be fought? It can be exposed publicly, as the apostle Paul exposed the intolerance of religious leaders of his day. (Acts 24:10-13) When possible, though, the best way to fight intolerance is to work proactively—to promote tolerance, that is, to educate people to understand others better. The UN report on the elimination of intolerance referred to earlier says: “As all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief have their birth in the human mind, so it is at human minds that action should initially be directed.” Such education may even lead individuals to examine their own beliefs.

Federico Mayor, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, wrote: “Tolerance is the virtue of the person who has conviction.” Writing in the magazine Réforme, Dominican priest Claude Geffré said: “Real tolerance rests on strong conviction.” A person who is comfortable with his own beliefs is quite likely not to feel threatened by the beliefs of others.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have found that an excellent way to promote tolerance is to talk with others of different beliefs. The Witnesses take seriously Jesus’ prophecy that “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations,” and they are well-known for their public evangelizing ministry. (Matthew 24:14) In this work, they have the opportunity to hear people of many different religions—as well as atheists—explain their beliefs. In turn, the Witnesses are prepared to explain their own beliefs to those who wish to listen. Thus they promote growth in knowledge and understanding. Such knowledge and understanding make it easier for tolerance to flourish.

Tolerance and Beyond

Despite the best intentions of many and the concerted efforts of some, religious intolerance clearly remains a problem today. For there to be a real change, something more is necessary. The French newspaper Le Monde des débats highlighted the problem: “Modern society suffers too often from an emotional and spiritual void. The law can guarantee freedom against those who threaten it. It can and should guarantee equality before the law, without arbitrary discrimination.” The book Democracy and Tolerance admits: “We have a long way to go to reach the goal of making mutual understanding and respect a universal standard of behaviour.”

The Bible promises that soon mankind will be united in pure worship of the one true God. This unity will result in a true worldwide fraternity, or brotherhood, where respect for others will prevail. Humans will no longer be plagued by ignorance, as God’s Kingdom will teach people Jehovah’s ways, thus satisfying their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs. (Isaiah 11:9; 30:21; 54:13) Real equality and liberty will cover the earth. (2 Corinthians 3:17) By acquiring an accurate understanding of God’s purposes for mankind, you can counter ignorance and intolerance.

[Box/Picture on page 11]

Religion Threatened

In recent years authorities have tried to stifle Jehovah’s Witnesses in France by not granting them the same advantages as other religions. Recently, the donations received in support of the Witnesses’ religious activities were heavily taxed. French authorities unjustly imposed a tax burden of $50 million (tax and penalties), with the evident aim of crippling this group of 200,000 Christians and sympathizers in France. This is a blatant action of religious prejudice that goes against all the principles of liberty, brotherhood, and equality.