Below is the first paragraph to an article I wrote about religious freedom. If you would like to read the entire article please send me an email. I hope to have it published soon. If you have read it please post comments.
Democracy is hard. Many in the foreign policy community have correctly noted that democracies are more stable and less likely to start wars with their neighbors. In the Bush Administration democracy promotion was a major focus of American foreign policy and a key element in the fight against religiously inspired violence globally. However, events such as the free election of Hamas by the Palestinians or the growth of “independent” legislators aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt show the dangers and unintended consequences of blanket democracy promotion. This essay will argue that America should promote religious freedom first, thereby setting a firm foundation for further democracy development. It will also discuss how military professionals, as agents of US foreign policy, should promote religious freedom in order to help drain support away from religious radicals in the global counterinsurgency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
For the most part I agree with your article. People should have the freedom to worship God as they believe they should. I had never considered that a government that persecutes some citizens because of a "different" belief in God may inadvertently cause them to develop and refine their clandestine skills in order to worship.
I would have to say that a government must be aware of what is taught or preached in religious services. It would be naive and foolish for the US government to allow a militant anti-American madrasah to operate here in the US just because they did so under the freedom of religion.
I do believe you are on the right path though by promoting religious freedom in order to thwart global insurgents. Once a people have the freedom to worship as they believe they should, they will want that freedom in the rest of their lives.
In my opinion American politicial leadership at times, depending on who holds the White House, forgets the impact religion has had on the past, present and future of world politics and the strings attached to many political figures heads that are being pulled by a religious leader or leaders. America tries to avoid the appearance of religious influence but due to the power of religions hold on those elected leaders or the non religious leaders, American policy is lacking the whole picture of the issues at hand. America was build on religious freedom and must remember religion is what holds America to a standard of morality and human rights. America must never forgat its past, but must not let the past act as a ball and chain toward success in foreign policy, but religion is the archor that holds America stable during the storms that lash out at America from other regions of the world.
I also agree that religious freedom takes away one of the key tools that religioulsy based insurgents use. Of course, you assume that all insurgencies that we may face might be religiously based.
I had a few other comments as well. The main thesis is that a promotion of religious freedom sets a firm foundation for promotion of democracy. You did mention it in your endnotes that Saudi Arabia is a country which is consistently waived from the CPC list. I believe such a shift in approach would be untenable by countries such as this. But what about other Democracies like France, who have recently enacted legislation limiting religious freedoms. Also, while this "makes sense" are "religious freedom" and "democracy" interlinked both forwards and backwards. What I mean here is can you have religious freedom in a non-democratic society? As an example, some might say pre-invasion Iraq had a good bit of religious freedom. This argument seems to follow or parallel the "promote economic freedom and democracy will follow" China is an experiement in this, can they continue to modernize their economy and maintain the level of government they are used to maintaining. The similarity her is once again : promote freedom and democracy will follow.. which sounds sort of like a blinding flash of the obvious.
The last point I wanted to make here is how other governemnts look at our attempts to promote religious freedom. Of course, this promotion of religious freedom is almost completely attempted by privated organiztions working in different countries. Have we even thought to examine it from the other countries point of view? Is this a destablizing effect in the country? Is it a view of a different sort of colonialism?
So at a base look, I agree, religious freedom is essential.. however, is this any better of a road to promote democracy than promoting other freedoms?
I am not sure that I agree with the concept of promoting religious freedom in advance of further democratic development. I personally believe in religious freedom but I do not believe that it is necessary, or in some cases even appropriate, as a precursor to democratic development in societies. You touch on my point with the statement, “religious liberty is the corner stone of American democracy.” American democracy will not work in all societies. Democracy, in order to endure for a given society, needs to be tailored to that society’s specific needs, concerns, and requirements.
To inject religious liberty into a religiously homogeneous society could cause more conflict and potentially undermine counterinsurgency efforts. I agree that tolerance across the spectrum, to include religious tolerance, is required for successful democracy, but there is no catch-all solution to building a successful democracy. What works in our current counterinsurgency operations will most likely need to be modified or even completely rethought in future operations. A good understanding of the operational environment and human terrain lends insight to the appropriate venues to introduce democracy.
Joseph Meyer, Maj, USAF
The opinions stated within this blog are the authors personal opinions and do not reflect those of the United States Air Force or any other organization.
I disagree that America should promote religious freedom first. America should determine the center of gravity first, and then pursue a policy that is compatible with the selected ends by way of the center of gravity. Human rights, to include religious freedom, should always be included in the policy, but unless human rights/religious freedoms are the center of gravity, it would be unwise to make them the dominant part of the strategy.
That America has deep roots in religious freedom should not be confused with neither the source of the revolution nor the mechanism that drove it and saw it to a successful end. It was not religion. It was economic control and power. Had either the Founding Fathers as revolution leaders or the British as the legitimate government had pursued a strategy centered on religious freedom, they would have surely failed. As it turned out, the revolutionaries did win by focusing on the legitimate grievances of the population.
Counterinsurgency is about out- governing the insurgent. It is about being able to administer to the people better than the insurgent can. Whoever can better meet the needs of the people, to include first and foremost security, will win. If the policies most needed happen to be economic, which they usually are, then those better be pursued first. If they happen to be religious, then those should be pursued first. It is not to suggest that religious considerations do not hold a lofty place in policy making. They are to be ignored at the counterinsurgents own peril. They are considered in the Army’s Operational Variables, PMESII-PT, and taken into account in planning. Religious freedom is just not where you begin.
Robert Craig, MAJ, USA
Generally agree with most of the posts in that religious freedom is good, but not sure I raise it to the level of primacy in developing/executing foreign policy as you do. Liberty (economic, religious, ethnic, etc) is important, but you need to tailor your response to the situation. Unfortunately, this whole platform is suspect when we "waive" countries like China and Saudi Arabia on their human rights record.
-S. Pick
Two ideas in the paper seem to be at odds with on another in bringing you thesis to fruition. The healthy tension between church and state is touted as integral to efficient functioning within the US political system. However, the inability, or unwillingness to speak about religion in public makes a healthy tension impossible. Political correctness demands that Americans avoid discussion of religion with respect to any of the D.I.M.E. elements. Why the separation of church and state became the closeting of church is an unanswered question, but if politician do not talk about religion, then this plan cannot be implemented. The first priority has to be bringing religion and religious practices, ideology in general, to the forefront as a legitimate and important topic of discussion. One can argue that religion, or at a minimum spirituality and faith, affect every human's ideology in some way. If the fear of speaking about this ubiquitous aspect of human existence can be overcome, then our nation can progress toward a comprehensive religious freedom.
I quite agree with your thesis, it's obvious that in a state, region or anywhere else on the planet, when a society develop to become very poor, primitive and lag behind, the religion is always the strong and the solid function that can integrate them together around simple ideas and charismatic leaders. From here to turn it to the "dark side", it is very easy and simple. We know from the history that the religion has enormous power over the rest of the functions, and inflamed people would do everything in the name of god. Back then, that was the norm, today when the world become more secular, based on democracy foundations, capitalism, free market and human rights. U.S. as the world leader must continue to protect the world from such a threats as extremists regimes/organizations/groups, which wants to use the democracy system and the pure and divine ideas of religion (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) to conduct an evil way of war.
U.S. must conducts a smart campaign that will alert on time in order to stop it before it develop to something that would cost us in casualties and huge destruction to both sides. We also need to remember that the worst regime in the history that brought the world to the horrible and devastation Second World War was Hitler Nazi regime - that used and won the election by free and democratic system. U.S. also needs to open it eyes on phenomena such as Hitler that has even more dangerous potential to unbalance the free world.
A truly thought provoking article. I agree with many things stated and particularly enjoyed the quote by Peter Berger, "if India is the most religious culture in the world and Sweden the most secular, then America can best be described as a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes”...so true. I fully agree religious freedom is a cornerstone but maybe not the cornerstone to curb insurgent activity, promote peaceful coexistence and foster democracy. I think one can promote religious freedom all day long but if a certain religion as part of its core doctrine teaches aggression toward unlike faiths then peace along with democracy will never take hold. I think in addition to promoting religious freedom one must also address the root which is religious tolerance among various faiths.
I agree with the thesis. America stands at an ironic crossroad. The framers of the Constitution, although mostly christians themselves, wrote provisions for a hard line between church and state. This separation has allowed this great country to grow in a healthy fashion while our European brothers across the pond haven't done so well. It has also grown a recent need for political correctness though that has caused the difficulties described in the article. Our inability to weigh religious beliefs in a decision making process has retarded American approaches to the post 9/11 world.
A new emphasis on religious freedom just could be the solution. The US can still be politically correct and successful with a focus on the ability to worship....not what is worshipped. Then we could really go to work discovering what motivates the local populations we are trying to help.
This is a delicate balance between having the US pormote religious freedom first and agents promote religious freedom. This myay seem viable but, other countries may view thai as a western idealism. How the US is trying to set the precedence for others in their own country.
I agree with Craigr post to focusing on the center of gravity. The religious factor is important, but this leads to the understanding of the culture and may not be the means to promote democracy. The understanding of the culture and religion in that society will assist with the promotion of tolerance.
I appreciate your thesis and I think your article will generate some much needed debate on the subject of protecting religious freedom in other nations.
I do have a few editorial suggestions for you if you intend to submit this for publication. On the last page I would recommend you explain how Roosevelt's four freedoms apply to your article. It is a good example for use, but you did not go the extra step to show how it applies.
As to editing, On page 4 you have an awkward sentence "However, while religion has not diminished in the majority world it has morphed." The sentance after it the word African should be changed to Africa.
On page 5 remove the word "of" in the 5th sentance.
Very interesting article overall and I look forward to discussing it in class tomorrow.
First off, I question whether or not democracy is the answer to stabilization and peace for every nation. Yes, as the article points out, democracies tend to be more peaceful and stable; however, I think we need to be careful not to force this ideal upon other struggling nations without first taking their culture, society, and religion into context. For example, in some countries, the rule of law is inextricably connected to religion. While this does not sound very democratic, many of these countries are perfectly peaceful and stable. While I do agree that we need to encourage religious freedom as a starting point, I do not agree that we must impose democracy after religious freedom is achieved. There may be alternate forms of government that promote peace and stability and function in the context of that specific culture, society, and religion.
I agree that religious freedom is a helpful attribute of a free society, but I am doubtful about whether emphasizing religious freedom as an initial means of promoting democracy will be an effective method in U.S. foreign policy. It should certainly be a component of U.S. policy, and we certainly need to remove the political oversensitivity of the discussion of Islam as an extremist recruiting tool, but overall, I believe religious freedom should play a back seat to basic human rights in foreign policy. In addition, in certain areas of the world where the vast majority of individuals are already of one faith, and that faith is so intertwined with politics, promotion of religious freedom will have little impact on them. It will certainly not bring about a change to democracy.
In reading your article, I could not clearly discern the relationship between promotion of religious freedom and decreased support to extremist organizations. In my view, it is not a stifling of freedom of religion that promotes insurgency in today’s age. Countries with the best records on religious freedom, the U.S. for example, are often the targets of such extremist individuals. The paper argues that by not allowing religious freedom, groups are driven underground, where they develop networks that are later used in insurgency. If Al Qaeda was allowed to freely and openly practice their own interpretation of Islam instead of meeting covertly, I believe that they would actually be stronger and gain a larger following. There is a limit on religious freedom when the religion itself espouses violent tactics.
I enjoyed the article and agree with the premise that religious freedom is something that Americans should encourage. However, there is a difference between recognizing that religious freedom is a positive factor which strengthens the fabric of a society and actively encouraging it amongst a society which considers it an anathema to their own faith. Particularly where Islamic extremists are perpetuating a narrative that teaches that Americans hate Muslims, we must recognize that trying to promote freedom of religion can be portrayed and construed as yet another American attack on the Muslim faith. Therefore, I believe we must engage in this course carefully, with full awareness of how are actions may be perceived. Additionally, as one of the other comments pointed out, our own friends and allies, such as France, take actions which are counter to the idea of religious freedom and, particularly when those actions impact the Muslim faith, we must be prepared to apply the same standard.
Terri Erisman, MAJ, USA
Post a Comment