http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/
Through the annals of time there has existed an inseparable link
between religion and liberty. Those who have claimed liberty in the
name of their God have, of course, used religion to legitimate their
struggle to be free.
The alliance between religion and liberty, however, runs deeper than
a powerful source of legitimacy for overturning the status quo in
human relationships. Social contracts, whether they be based on
egalitarian principles or tyranny, are arrangements between human
beings. Covenants are sacred arrangements between God and God's
people. Covenants transcend social contracts, and they endure for all
time. Tyrants, or man-made institutions, may deny the promise of a
covenant, but that does not alter the Truth of believers' arrangement
with God.
Freedoms attained by social contract are always precarious because
not only may contracts be breached, they may be torn up and rewritten
to the advantage of one group over another. Martin Luther King Jr's
brilliant Letter From a Birmingham Jail acknowledges the legality of
unjust laws which imprisoned him for civil disobedience. While
accepting the consequences of his violation of the law, he appeals to
a higher law and authority for deliverance from unjust laws and
social milieu that continued to suppress Blacks a century after the
Civil War that was fought to emancipate them.
This appeal to the authority of the Almighty has been invoked
repeated throughout the ages. Moses appeal to Pharaoh to free the
Israelites was in the name of God. The Truths identified as
self-evident by the North American colonists who sought to loose
themselves from England are found anchored in "unalienable Rights"
endowed by their Creator. Thomas Jefferson's celebrated Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom concludes by acknowledging that the
General Assembly of Virginia that passed the legislated could not
bind future legislators. But he then went on to counsel future
legislators that if they did elect to repeal or narrow its operation,
"such an act would be an infringement of natural right."
However conceived, as the God of the Israelites, or the Enlightenment
concept of Nature's God, religion is a powerful motivator. To be
sure, through the ages people have also been motivated, in the name
of God, to commit heinous acts beyond imagination. And, regrettably,
this remains among the most troubling of human activities today. But
this fact cannot take away the inextricable link that binds religion
to the human quest for freedom.
In the twenty-some years I have taught courses in religious
movements, I have argued that we should "tolerate" deviant, and often
troublesome, new religions because how we respond to them is the real
test of our commitment religious freedom. Further, I tried to argue
that even if one does not believe in, or like any religion, it is
essential that we understand that religion is the final line of
defense against every form of tyranny.
I have long felt that there was never adequate time in the context of
a sociology course to adequately explore the importance and
implications of these two propositions. This Religious Freedom Page
is a step toward making good on my long time objective of providing a
broader spectrum of information for students to consider my
argument.
Most explicit objectives will be identified in the Mission Statement
of this page. Let me conclude this introduction with a brief comment
about the relationship between religious freedom, the broader
spectrum of human rights, religious tolerance, and religious
pluralism.
Democracy has emerged as the dominant form of government in the
twentieth century. This, with the parallel expansion of individual
liberty, is among the greatest of human achievements in any
century.
It has now been a half-a-century since the United Nations set forth a
resolution declaring a broad array of "universal human rights." If we
have made some gigantic strides toward the achievement of democracy,
freedom, and universal human rights during this century, the goals
are yet far from being universal in fact. And, there is no certainty
that the twenty-first century will see the achievement of these lofty
goals.
The creator of this page views religious freedom as the first
liberty, and as a safeguard against the world regressing toward
restricted freedom. The focus of the page is on the dual objectives
of (1) analyzing the roots and (2) assessing the status of religious
freedom. The goal of the page is to develop a genuine global
perspective for understanding religious freedom. We will develop
significant resources for the United States, but serious attention
will also be devoted to broadening understanding of religious freedom
around the globe. To this end, we will be grateful to those who call
our attention to resources that will help achieve this goal.
Our personal hope is see a world in which human rights become de
facto real, a world that sees an expansion of religious tolerance and
the acceptance of religious pluralism as not only natural, but a
desirable condition for human communities. During the initial
development of this page, we will focus on religious freedom, but as
the page begins to mature, we will vigorously address broader issues
of human rights, religious tolerance, and religious pluralism.
This page is being developed as a companion to the Religious
Movements Page, which was initiated in 1996, and the Religious
Broadcasting Page, now being developed in tandem with this page. We
invite you to visit all three sites. We welcome feedback, especially
constructive criticism and suggestions for additional resources. Like
the Religious Movement page, these two new pages would not be
possible without the volunteer efforts of students. A word of special
thanks is extended to Young Woo and Jonathan Kwon respectively, for
their dedication and creative talents in creating the infrastructure
of the Religious Freedom and Religious Broadcasting pages. Grateful
acknowledgement also to Craig Hirsh, my webmaster from the onset of
the Religious Movements Page. His creative hand is also present on
these new pages.
Jeffrey K. Hadden 06/12/98
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/const/Willburg.html
The Williamsburg Charter, 1988 A Reaffirmation of the First
Amendment
Introduction
Keenly aware of the high national purpose of commemorating the
bicentennial of the United States Constitution, we who sign this
Charter seek to celebrate the Constitution's greatness, and to call
for a bold reaffirmation and reappraisal of its vision and guiding
principles. In particular, we call for a fresh consideration of
religious liberty in our time, and of the place of the First
Amendment Religious Liberty clauses in our national life.
We gratefully acknowledge that the Constitution has been hailed as
America's "chief export" and "the most wonderful work ever struck off
at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." Today, two hundred
years after its signing, the Constitution is not only the world's
oldest, still-effective written constitution, but the admired pattern
of ordered liberty for countless people in many lands.
In spite of its enduring and universal qualities, however, some
provisions of the Constitution are now the subject of widespread
controversy in the United States. One area of intense controversy
concerns the First Amendment Religious Liberty clauses, whose
mutually reinforcing provisions act as a double guarantee of
religious liberty, one part barring the making of any law "respecting
an establishment of religion" and the other barring any law
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions epitomize the
Constitution's visionary realism. They were, as James Madison said,
the "true remedy" to the predicament of religious conflict they
originally addressed, and they well express the responsibilities and
limits of the state with respect to liberty and justice.
Our commemoration of the Constitution's bicentennial must therefore
go beyond celebration to rededication. Unless this is done, an
irreplaceable part of national life will be endangered, and a
remarkable opportunity for the expansion of liberty will be lost.
For we judge that the present controversies over religion in public
life pose both a danger and an opportunity. There is evident danger
in the fact that certain forms of politically reassertive religion in
parts of the world are, in principle, enemies of democratic freedom
and a source of deep social antagonism. There is also evident
opportunity in the growing philosophical and cultural awareness that
all people live by commitments and ideals, that value-neutrality is
impossible in the ordering of society, and that we are on the edge of
a promising moment for a fresh assessment of pluralism and liberty.
It is with an eye to both the promise and the peril that we publish
this Charter and pledge ourselves to its principles.
We readily acknowledge our continuing differences. Signing this
Charter implies no pretense that we believe the same things or that
our differences over policy proposals, legal interpretations and
philosophical groundings do not ultimately matter. The truth is not
even that what unites us is deeper than what divides us, for
differences over belief are the deepest and least easily negotiated
of all.
The Charter sets forth a renewed national compact, in the sense of a
solemn mutual agreement between parties, on how we view the place of
religion in American life and how we should contend with each other's
deepest differences in the public sphere. It is a call to a vision of
public life that will allow conflict to lead to consensus, religious
commitment to reinforce political civility. In this way, diversity is
not a point of weakness but a source of strength.
A Time for Reaffirmation
We believe, in the first place, that the nature of the Religious
Liberty clauses must be understood before the problems surrounding
them can be resolved. We therefore affirm both their cardinal
assumptions and the reasons for their crucial national
importance.
With regard to the assumptions of the First Amendment Religious
Liberty clauses, we hold three to be chief:
The Inalienable Right:
Nothing is more characteristic of humankind than the natural and
inescapable drive toward meaning and belonging, toward making sense
of life and finding community in the world. As fundamental and
precious as life itself, this "will to meaning" finds expression in
ultimate beliefs, whether theistic or non-theistic, transcendent or
naturalistic, and these beliefs are most our own when a matter of
conviction rather than coercion. They are most our own when, in the
words of George Mason, the principal author of the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, they are "directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence."
As James Madison expressed it in his Memorial and Remonstrance, "The
Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and
conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable
right."
Two hundred years later, despite dramatic changes in life and a
marked increase of naturalistic philosophies in some parts of the
world and in certain sectors of our society, this right to religious
liberty based upon freedom of conscience remains fundamental and
inalienable. While particular beliefs may be true or false, better or
worse, the right to reach, hold, exercise them freely, or change
them, is basic and non-negotiable.
Religious liberty finally depends on neither the favors of the state
and its officials nor the vagaries of tyrants or majorities.
Religious liberty in a democracy is a right that may not be submitted
to vote and depends on the outcome of no election. A society is only
as just and free as it is respectful of this right, especially toward
the beliefs of its smallest minorities and least popular
communities.
The right to freedom of conscience is premised not upon science, nor
upon social utility, nor upon pride of species. Rather, it is
premised upon the inviolable dignity of the human person. It is the
foundation of, and is integrally related to, all other rights and
freedoms secured by the Constitution. This basic civil liberty is
clearly acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and is
ineradicable from the long tradition of rights and liberties from
which the Revolution sprang.
The Ever Present Danger
No threat to freedom of conscience and religious liberty has
historically been greater than the coercions of both Church and
State. These two institutions--the one religious, the other
political--have through the centuries succumbed to the temptation of
coercion in their claims over minds and souls. When these
institutions and their claims have been combined, it has too often
resulted in terrible violations of human liberty and dignity. They
are so combined when the sword and purse of the State are in the
hands of the Church, or when the State usurps the mantle of the
Church so as to coerce the conscience and compel belief. These and
other such confusions of religion and state authority represent the
misordering of religion and government which it is the purpose of the
Religious Liberty provisions to prevent.
Authorities and orthodoxies have changed, kingdoms and empires have
come and gone, yet as John Milton once warned, "new Presbyter is but
old priest writ large." Similarly, the modern persecutor of religion
is but ancient tyrant with more refined instruments of control.
Moreover, many of the greatest crimes against conscience of this
century have been committed, not by religious authorities, but by
ideologues virulently opposed to traditional religion.
Yet whether ancient or modern, issuing from religion or ideology, the
result is the same: religious and ideological orthodoxies, when
politically established, lead only too naturally toward what Roger
Williams called a "spiritual rape" that coerces the conscience and
produces "rivers of civil blood" that stain the record of human
history.
Less dramatic but also lethal to freedom and the chief menace to
religious liberty today is the expanding power of government control
over personal behavior and the institutions of society, when the
government acts not so much in deliberate hostility to, but in
reckless disregard of, communal belief and personal conscience.
Thanks principally to the wisdom of the First Amendment, the American
experience is different. But even in America where state-established
orthodoxies are unlawful and the state is constitutionally limited,
religious liberty can never be taken for granted. It is a rare
achievement that requires constant protection.
The Most Nearly Perfect Solution
Knowing well that "nothing human can be perfect" (James Madison) and
that the Constitution was not "a faultless work" (Gouverneur Morris),
the Framers nevertheless saw the First Amendment as a "true remedy"
and the most nearly perfect solution yet devised for properly
ordering the relationship of religion and the state in a free
society.
There have been occasions when the protections of the First Amendment
have been overridden or imperfectly applied. Nonetheless, the First
Amendment is a momentous decision for religious liberty, the most
important political decision for religious liberty and public justice
in the history of humankind. Limitation upon religious liberty is
allowable only where the State has borne a heavy burden of proof that
the limitation is justified--not by any ordinary public interest, but
by a supreme public necessity--and that no less restrictive
alternative to limitation exists.
The Religious Liberty clauses are a brilliant construct in which both
No establishment and Free exercise serve the ends of religious
liberty and freedom of conscience. No longer can sword, purse and
sacred mantle be equated. Now, the government is barred from using
religion's mantle to become a confessional State, and from allowing
religion to use the government's sword and purse to become a coercing
Church. In this new order, the freedom of the government from
religious control and the freedom of religion from government control
are a double guarantee of the protection of rights. No faith is
preferred or prohibited, for where there is no state-definable
orthodoxy, there can be no state-punishable heresy.
With regard to the reasons why the First Amendment Religious Liberty
clauses are important for the nation today, we hold five to be
pre-eminent:
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions have both a logical
and historical priority in the Bill of Rights. They have logical
priority because the security of all rights rests upon the
recognition that they are neither given by the state, nor can they be
taken away by the state. Such rights are inherent in the
inviolability of the human person. History demonstrates that unless
these rights are protected our society's slow, painful progress
toward freedom would not have been possible.
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions lie close to the
heart of the distinctiveness of the American experiment. The
uniqueness of the American way of disestablishment and its
consequences have often been more obvious to foreign observers such
as Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord James Bryce, who wrote that "of all
the differences between the Old world and the New, this is perhaps
the most salient." In particular, the Religious Liberty clauses are
vital to harnessing otherwise centrifugal forces such as personal
liberty and social diversity, thus sustaining republican vitality
while making possible a necessary measure of national concord.
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions are the democratic
world's most salient alternative to the totalitarian repression of
human rights and provide a corrective to unbridled nationalism and
religious warfare around the world.
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions provide the United
States' most distinctive answer to one of the world's most pressing
questions in the late-twentieth century. They address the problem:
How do we live with each other's deepest differences? How do
religious convictions and political freedom complement rather than
threaten each other on a small planet in a pluralistic age? In a
world in which bigotry, fanaticism, terrorism and the state control
of religion are all too common responses to these questions,
sustaining the justice and liberty of the American arrangement is an
urgent moral task.
The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions give American
society a unique position in relation to both the First and Third
worlds. Highly modernized like the rest of the First World, yet not
so secularized, this society--largely because of religious
freedom--remains, like most of the Third World, deeply religious.
This fact, which is critical for possibilities of better human
understanding, has not been sufficiently appreciated in American
self-understanding, or drawn upon in American diplomacy and
communication throughout the world.
In sum, as much if not more than any other single provision in the
entire Constitution, the Religious Liberty provisions hold the key to
American distinctiveness and American destiny. Far from being settled
by the interpretations of judges and historians, the last word on the
First Amendment likely rests in a chapter yet to be written,
documenting the unfolding drama of America. If religious liberty is
neglected, all civil liberties will suffer. If it is guarded and
sustained, the American experiment will be the more secure.
A Time for Reappraisal
Much of the current controversy about religion and politics neither
reflects the highest wisdom of the First Amendment nor serves the
best interests of the disputants or the nation. We therefore call for
a critical reappraisal of the course and consequences of such
controversy. Four widespread errors have exacerbated the controversy
needlessly.
The Issue Is Not Only What We Debate, but How
The debate about religion in public life is too often misconstrued as
a clash of ideologies alone, pitting "secularists" against the
"sectarians" or vice versa. Though competing and even contrary
worldviews are involved, the controversy is not solely ideological.
It also flows from a breakdown in understanding of how personal and
communal beliefs should be related to public life.
The American republic depends upon the answers to two questions. By
what ultimate truths ought we to live? And how should these be
related to public life? The first question is personal, but has a
public dimension because of the connection between beliefs and public
virtue. The American answer to the first question is that the
government is excluded from giving an answer. The second question,
however, is thoroughly public in character, and a public answer is
appropriate and necessary to the well-being of this society.
This second question was central to the idea of the First Amendment.
The Religious Liberty provisions are not "articles of faith"
concerned with the substance of particular doctrines or of policy
issues. They are "articles of peace" concerned with the
constitutional constraints and the shared prior understanding within
which the American people can engage their differences in a civil
manner and thus provide for both religious liberty and stable public
government.
Conflicts over the relationship between deeply held beliefs and
public policy will remain a continuing feature of democratic life.
They do not discredit the First Amendment, but confirm its wisdom and
point to the need to distinguish the Religious Liberty clauses from
the particular controversies they address. The clauses can never be
divorced from the controversies they address, but should always be
held distinct. In the public discussion, an open commitment to the
constraints and standards of the clauses should precede and accompany
debate over the controversies.
The Issue Is Not Sectarian, But National
The role of religion in American public life is too often devalued or
dismissed in public debate, as though the American people's
historically vital religious traditions were at best a purely private
matter and at worst essentially sectarian and divisive.
Such a position betrays a failure of civil respect for the
convictions of others. It also underestimates the degree to which the
Framers relied on the American people's religious convictions to be
what Tocqueville described as "the first of their political
institutions." In America, this crucial public role has been played
by diverse beliefs, not so much despite disestablishment as because
of disestablishment.
The Founders knew well that the republic they established represented
an audacious gamble against long historical odds. This form of
government depends upon ultimate beliefs, for otherwise we have no
right to the rights by which it thrives, yet rejects any official
formulation of them. The republic will therefore always remain an
"undecided experiment" that stands or falls by the dynamism of its
non-established faiths.
The Issue Is Larger Than the Disputants
Recent controversies over religion and public life have too often
become a form of warfare in which individuals, motives and
reputations have been impugned. The intensity of the debate is
commensurate with the importance of the issues debated, but to those
engaged in this warfare we present two arguments for reappraisal and
restraint.
The lesser argument is one of expediency and is based on the ironic
fact that each side has become the best argument for the other. One
side's excesses have become the other side's arguments; one side's
extremists the other side's recruiters. The danger is that, as the
ideological warfare becomes self-perpetuating, more serious issues
and broader national interests will be forgotten and the bitterness
deepened.
The more important argument is one of principle and is based on the
fact that the several sides have pursued their objectives in ways
which contradict their own best ideals. Too often, for example,
religious believers have been uncharitable, liberals have been
illiberal, conservatives have been insensitive to tradition,
champions of tolerance have been intolerant, defenders of free speech
have been censorious, and citizens of a republic based on democratic
accommodation have succumbed to a habit of relentless
confrontation.
The Issue Is Understandably Threatening
The First Amendment's meaning is too often debated in ways that
ignore the genuine grievances or justifiable fears of opposing points
of view. This happens when the logic of opposing arguments favors
either an unwarranted intrusion of religion into public life or an
unwarranted exclusion of religion from it. History plainly shows that
with religious control over government, political freedom dies; with
political control over religion, religious freedom dies.
The First Amendment has contributed to avoiding both these perils,
but this happy experience is no cause for complacency. Though the
United States has escaped the worst excesses experienced elsewhere in
the world, the republic has shown two distinct tendencies of its own,
one in the past and one today.
In earlier times, though lasting well into the twentieth century,
there was a de facto semi-establishment of one religion in the United
States: a generalized Protestantism given dominant status in national
institutions, especially in the public schools. This development was
largely approved by Protestants, but widely opposed by
non-Protestants, including Catholics and Jews.
In more recent times, and partly in reaction, constitutional
jurisprudence has tended, in the view of many, to move toward the de
facto semi-establishment of a wholly secular understanding of the
origin, nature and destiny of humankind and of the American nation.
During this period, the exclusion of teaching about the role of
religion in society, based partly upon a misunderstanding of First
Amendment decisions, has ironically resulted in giving a dominant
status to such wholly secular understandings in many national
institutions. Many secularists appear as unconcerned over the
consequences of this development as were Protestants unconcerned
about their de facto establishment earlier.
Such de facto establishments, though seldom extreme, usually benign
and often unwitting, are the source of grievances and fears among the
several parties in current controversies. Together with the
encroachments of the expanding modern state, such de facto
establishments, as much as any official establishment, are likely to
remain a threat to freedom and justice for all.
Justifiable fears are raised by those who advocate theocracy or the
coercive power of law to establish a "Christian America." While this
advocacy is and should be legally protected, such proposals
contradict freedom of conscience and the genius of the Religious
Liberty provisions.
At the same time there are others who raise justifiable fears of an
unwarranted exclusion of religion from public life. The assertion of
moral judgments as though they were morally neutral, and
interpretations of the "wall of separation" that would exclude
religious expression and argument from public life, also contradict
freedom of conscience and the genius of the provisions.
Civility obliges citizens in a pluralistic society to take great care
in using words and casting issues. The communications media have a
primary role, and thus a special responsibility, in shaping public
opinion and debate. Words such as public, secular and religious
should be free from discriminatory bias. "Secular purpose," for
example, should not mean "non-religious purpose" but "general public
purpose." Otherwise, the impression is gained that "public is
equivalent to secular; religion is equivalent to private." Such
equations are neither accurate nor just. Similarly, it is false to
equate "public" and "governmental." In a society that sets store by
the necessary limits on government, there are many spheres of life
that are public but non-governmental.
Two important conclusions follow from a reappraisal of the present
controversies over religion in public life. First, the process of
adjustment and readjustment to the constraints and standards of the
Religious Liberty provisions is an ongoing requirement of American
democracy. The Constitution is not a self-interpreting,
self-executing document; and the prescriptions of the Religious
Liberty provisions cannot by themselves resolve the myriad confusions
and ambiguities surrounding the right ordering of the relationship
between religion and government in a free society. The Framers
clearly understood that the Religious Liberty provisions provide the
legal construct for what must be an ongoing process of adjustment and
mutual give-and-take in a democracy.
We are keenly aware that, especially over state-supported education,
we as a people must continue to wrestle with the complex connections
between religion and the transmission of moral values in a
pluralistic society. Thus, we cannot have, and should not seek, a
definitive, once for all solution to the questions that will continue
to surround the Religious Liberty provisions.
Second, the need for such a readjustment today can best be addressed
by remembering that the two clauses are essentially one provision for
preserving religious liberty. Both parts, No establishment and Free
exercise, are to be comprehensively understood as being in the
service of religious liberty as a positive good. At the heart of the
Establishment clause is the prohibition of state sponsorship of
religion and at the heart of Free Exercise clause is the prohibition
of state interference with religious liberty.
No sponsorship means that the state must leave to the free citizenry
the public expression of ultimate beliefs, religious or otherwise,
providing only that no expression is excluded from, and none
governmentally favored, in the continuing democratic discourse.
No interference means the assurance of voluntary religious expression
free from governmental intervention. This includes placing religious
expression on an equal footing with all other forms of expression in
genuinely public forums.
No sponsorship and no interference together mean fair opportunity.
That is to say, all faiths are free to enter vigorously into public
life and to exercise such influence as their followers and ideas
engender. Such democratic exercise of influence is in the best
tradition of American voluntarism and is not an unwarranted
"imposition" or "establishment."
A Time for Reconstitution
We believe, finally, that the time is ripe for a genuine expansion of
democratic liberty, and that this goal may be attained through a new
engagement of citizens in a debate that is reordered in accord with
constitutional first principles and considerations of the common
good. This amounts to no less than the reconstitution of a free
republican people in our day. Careful consideration of three precepts
would advance this possibility:
The Criteria Must Be Multiple
Reconstitution requires the recognition that the great dangers in
interpreting the Constitution today are either to release
interpretation from any demanding criteria or to narrow the criteria
excessively. The first relaxes the necessary restraining force of the
Constitution, while the second overlooks the insights that have
arisen from the Constitution in two centuries of national
experience.
Religious liberty is the only freedom in the First Amendment to be
given two provisions. Together the clauses form a strong bulwark
against suppression of religious liberty, yet they emerge from a
series of dynamic tensions which cannot ultimately be relaxed. The
Religious Liberty provisions grow out of an understanding not only of
rights and a due recognition of faiths but of realism and a due
recognition of factions. They themselves reflect both faith and
skepticism. They raise questions of equality and liberty, majority
rule and minority rights, individual convictions and communal
tradition.
The Religious Liberty provisions must be understood both in terms of
the Framers' intentions and history's sometimes surprising results.
Interpreting and applying them today requires not only historical
research but moral and political reflection.
The intention of the Framers is therefore a necessary but
insufficient criterion for interpreting and applying the
Constitution. But applied by itself, without any consideration of
immutable principles of justice, the intention can easily be wielded
as a weapon for governmental or sectarian causes, some quoting
Jefferson and brandishing No establishment and others citing Madison
and brandishing Free exercise. Rather, we must take the purpose and
text of the Constitution seriously, sustain the principles behind the
words and add an appreciation of the many-sided genius of the First
Amendment and its complex development over time.
The Consensus Must Be Dynamic
Reconstitution requires a shared understanding of the relationship
between the Constitution and the society it is to serve. The Framers
understood that the Constitution is more than parchment and ink. The
principles embodied in the document must be affirmed in practice by a
free people since these principles reflect everything that
constitutes the essential forms and substance of their society--the
institutions, customs and ideals as well as the laws. Civic vitality
and the effectiveness of law can be undermined when they overlook
this broader cultural context of the Constitution.
Notable, in this connection is the striking absence today of any
national consensus about religious liberty as a positive good. Yet
religious liberty is indisputably what the Framers intended and what
the First Amendment has preserved. Far from being a matter of
exemption, exception or even toleration, religious liberty is an
inalienable right. Far from being a sub-category of free speech or a
constitutional redundancy, religious liberty is distinct and
foundational. Far from being simply an individual right, religious
liberty is a positive social good. Far from denigrating religion as a
social or political "problem," the separation of Church and State is
both the saving of religion from the temptation of political power
and an achievement inspired in large part by religion itself. Far
from weakening religion, disestablishment has, as an historical fact,
enabled it to flourish.
In light of the First Amendment, the government should stand in
relation to the churches, synagogues and other communities of faith
as the guarantor of freedom. In light of the First Amendment, the
churches, synagogues and other communities of faith stand in relation
to the government as generators of faith, and therefore contribute to
the spiritual and moral foundations of democracy. Thus, the
government acts as a safeguard, but not the source, of freedom for
faiths, whereas the churches and synagogues act as a source, but not
the safeguard, of faiths for freedom.
The Religious Liberty provisions work for each other and for the
federal idea as a whole. Neither established nor excluded, neither
preferred nor proscribed, each faith (whether transcendent or
naturalistic) is brought into a relationship with the government so
that each is separated from the state in terms of its institutions,
but democratically related to the state in terms of individuals and
its ideas.
The result is neither a naked public square where all religion is
excluded, nor a sacred public square with any religion established or
semi-established. The result, rather, is a civil public square in
which citizens of all religious faiths, or none, engage one another
in the continuing democratic discourse.
The Compact Must Be Mutual
Reconstitution of a free republican people requires the recognition
that religious liberty is a universal right joined to a universal
duty to respect that right.
In the turns and twists of history, victims of religious
discrimination have often later become perpetrators. In the famous
image of Roger Williams, those at the helm of the Ship of State
forget they were once under the hatches. They have, he said, "One
weight for themselves when they are under the hatches, and another
for others when they come to the helm." They show themselves, said
James Madison, "as ready to set up an establishment which is to take
them in as they were to pull down that which shut them out." Thus,
benignly or otherwise, Protestants have treated Catholics as they
were once treated, and secularists have done likewise with both.
Such inconsistencies are the natural seedbed for the growth of a de
facto establishment. Against such inconsistencies we affirm that a
right for one is a right for another and a responsibility for all. A
right for a Protestant is a right for an Orthodox is a right for a
Catholic is a right for a Jew is a right for a Humanist is a right
for a Mormon is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Buddhist--and
for the followers of any other faith within the wide bounds of the
republic.
That rights are universal and responsibilities mutual is both the
premise and the promise of democratic pluralism. The First Amendment,
in this sense, is the epitome of public justice and serves as the
Golden Rule for civic life. Rights are best guarded and
responsibilities best exercised when each person and group guards for
all others those rights they wish guarded for themselves. Whereas the
wearer of the English crown is officially the Defender of the Faith,
all who uphold the American Constitution are defenders of the rights
of all faiths.
From this axiom, that rights are universal and responsibilities
mutual, derives guidelines for conducting public debates involving
religion in a manner that is democratic and civil. These guidelines
are not, and must not be, mandated by law. But they are, we believe,
necessary to reconstitute and revitalize the American understanding
of the role of religion in a free society.
First, those who claim the right to dissent should assume the
responsibility to debate: Commitment to democratic pluralism assumes
the coexistence within one political community of groups whose
ultimate faith commitments may be incompatible, yet whose common
commitment to social unity and diversity does justice to both the
requirements of individual conscience and the wider community. A
general consent to the obligations of citizenship is therefore
inherent in the American experiment, both as a founding principle
("We the people") and as a matter of daily practice.
There must always be room for those who do not wish to participate in
the public ordering of our common life, who desire to pursue their
own religious witness separately as conscience dictates. But at the
same time, for those who do wish to participate, it should be
understood that those claiming the right to dissent should assume the
responsibility to debate. As this responsibility is exercised, the
characteristic American formula of individual liberty complemented by
respect for the opinions of others permits differences to be
asserted, yet a broad, active community of understanding to be
sustained.
Second, those who claim the right to criticize should assume the
responsibility to comprehend: One of the ironies of democratic life
is that freedom of conscience is jeopardized by false tolerance as
well as by outright intolerance. Genuine tolerance considers contrary
views fairly and judges them on merit. Debased tolerance so refrains
from making any judgment that it refuses to listen at all. Genuine
tolerance honestly weighs honest differences and promotes both
impartiality and pluralism. Debased tolerance results in indifference
to the differences that vitalize a pluralistic democracy.
Central to the difference between genuine and debased tolerance is
the recognition that peace and truth must be held in tension.
Pluralism must not be confused with, and is in fact endangered by,
philosophical and ethical indifference. Commitment to strong, clear
philosophical and ethical ideas need not imply either intolerance or
opposition to democratic pluralism. On the contrary, democratic
pluralism requires an agreement to be locked in public argument over
disagreements of consequence within the bonds of civility.
The right to argue for any public policy is a fundamental right for
every citizen; respecting that right is a fundamental responsibility
for all other citizens. When any view is expressed, all must uphold
as constitutionally protected its advocate's right to express it. But
others are free to challenge that view as politically pernicious,
philosophically false, ethically evil, theologically idolatrous, or
simply absurd, as the case may be seen to be.
Unless this tension between peace and truth is respected, civility
cannot be sustained. In that event, tolerance degenerates into either
apathetic relativism or a dogmatism as uncritical of itself as it is
uncomprehending of others. The result is a general corruption of
principled public debate.
Third, those who claim the right to influence should accept the
responsibility not to inflame: Too often in recent disputes over
religion and public affairs, some have insisted that any evidence of
religious influence on public policy represents an establishment of
religion and is therefore precluded as an improper "imposition." Such
exclusion of religion from public life is historically unwarranted,
philosophically inconsistent and profoundly undemocratic. The
Framers' intention is indisputably ignored when public policy debates
can appeal to the theses of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, or Charles
Darwin and Sigmund Freud but not to the Western religious tradition
in general and the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures in particular.
Many of the most dynamic social movements in American history,
including that of civil rights, were legitimately inspired and shaped
by religious motivation.
Freedom of conscience and the right to influence public policy on the
basis of religiously informed ideas are inseverably linked. In short,
a key to democratic renewal is the fullest possible participation in
the most open possible debate.
Religious liberty and democratic civility are also threatened,
however, from another quarter. Overreacting to an improper veto on
religion in public life, many have used religious language and images
not for the legitimate influencing of policies but to inflame
politics. Politics is indeed an extension of ethics and therefore
engages religious principles; but some err by refusing to recognize
that there is a distinction, though not a separation, between
religion and politics. As a result, they bring to politics a
misplaced absoluteness that idolizes politics, "Satanizes" their
enemies and politicizes their own faith.
Even the most morally informed policy positions involve prudential
judgments as well as pure principle. Therefore, to make an absolute
equation of principles and policies inflates politics and does
violence to reason, civil life and faith itself. Politics has
recently been inflamed by a number of confusions: the confusion of
personal religious affiliation with qualification or disqualification
for public office; the confusion of claims to divine guidance with
claims to divine endorsement; and the confusion of government
neutrality among faiths with government indifference or hostility to
religion.
Fourth, those who claim the right to participate should accept the
responsibility to persuade: Central to the American experience is the
power of political persuasion. Growing partly from principle and
partly from the pressures of democratic pluralism, commitment to
persuasion is the corollary of the belief that conscience is
inviolable, coercion of conscience is evil, and the public interest
is best served by consent hard won from vigorous debate. Those who
believe themselves privy to the will of history brook no argument and
need never tarry for consent. But to those who subscribe to the idea
of government by the consent of the governed, compelled beliefs are a
violation of first principles. The natural logic of the Religious
Liberty provisions is to foster a political culture of persuasion
which admits the challenge of opinions from all sources.
Arguments for public policy should be more than private convictions
shouted out loud. For persuasion to be principled, private
convictions should be translated into publicly accessible claims.
Such public claims should be made publicly accessible for two
reasons: first, because they must engage those who do not share the
same private convictions, and second, because they should be directed
toward the common good.
Renewal of First Principles
We who live in the third century of the American republic can learn
well from the past as we look to the future. Our Founders were both
idealists and realists. Their confidence in human abilities was
tempered by their skepticism about human nature. Aware of what was
new in their times, they also knew the need for renewal in times
after theirs. "No free government, or the blessings of liberty,"
wrote George Mason in 1776, "can be preserved to any people, but by a
firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and
virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
True to the ideals and realism of that vision, we who sign this
Charter, people of many and various beliefs, pledge ourselves to the
enduring precepts of the First Amendment as the cornerstone of the
American experiment in liberty under law.
We address ourselves to our fellow citizens, daring to hope that the
strongest desire of the greatest number is for the common good. We
are firmly persuaded that the principles asserted here require a
fresh consideration, and that the renewal of religious liberty is
crucial to sustain a free people that would remain free. We therefore
commit ourselves to speak, write and act according to this vision and
these principles. We urge our fellow citizens to do the same.
To agree on such guiding principles and to achieve such a compact
will not be easy. Whereas a law is a command directed to us, a
compact is a promise that must proceed freely from us. To achieve it
demands a measure of the vision, sacrifice and perseverance shown by
our Founders. Their task was to defy the past, seeing and securing
religious liberty against the terrible precedents of history. Ours is
to challenge the future, sustaining vigilance and broadening
protections against every new menace, including that of our own
complacency. Knowing the unquenchable desire for freedom, they lit a
beacon. It is for us who know its blessings to keep it burning
brightly.
Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constpix.html pics of constitution
http://www.religiousfreedom.com/
ICRF Conference
"Religious Freedom and the New Millennium"
April 17-19, 1999, Washington DC
(View list of presentations by author ) (View this page outside of
frames )
Friday April 17
Welcoming Remarks Dr. Joseph P. Paige Shaw Divinity School
Religious Freedom: An Ecumenical Perspective Dr. Leonard Swidler
Saturday, April 18
Opening Session: Introduction of Committee Chairmen
The Importance of Religious Freedom Mr. Dong Moon Joo President, The
Washington Times Foundation
Religious Freedom: History & Crisis Franklin Littell, Temple
University
The Present State of Religious Freedom
Europe: Christian Brunner, University of Graz, Austria CIS: Peter
Juviler, Barnard College North America and the Caribbean: Brad Dacus,
Pacific Justice Institute Middle East: Nina Shea, Freedom House
Africa: Mark Sigmon, Christian Mission Network Asia: Michael Young,
Columbia University Latin America: Rev. Julio Millan,
Interdenominational Evangelical Federation, Venezuela
Guest Speaker: The Present State of Religious Freedom In China Rev.
Don Argue, National Association of Evangelicals
Session I: Religious Freedom, Past, Present and Future
Committee A: The History of Religious Freedom
The Historical Development of Religious Freedom: Ben P. Vermeulen,
Catholic University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Modern Traditions in Religious Freedom: Antonio Stango, Italian
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
Contemporary Trends in Religious Freedom: Lee Boothby, International
Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief
Committee B: The Future of Religious Freedom
Religion and the State in the New Millennium: Jonathan Gallagher,
International Religious Liberty Association
Religious Freedom and International Law: Michael Horowitz, Hudson
Institute
Religious Wars and World Peace: Frank Kaufman, Inter-Religious
Federation for World Peace
Session II: The Character of Religious Freedom
Committee A: Constitutions and International Accords
Constitutional Guarantees and Practical Realities: Bruce Casino,
International Coalition for Religious Freedom
The Role of International Accords in Securing Religious Freedom:
Jurgen Warnke, International Academy of Religious Freedom and Belief,
Germany
Legislative Challenges to Constitutions: Galina Krylova, Russia
Committee B: Religious Freedom and Human Nature
Religious Freedom a Fundamental Human Right: Dr. Victor Kagan,
Independent Psychiatric Association, Russia
How Liberals Stifle Religious Expression By Opposing School Choice
Don Feder, The Boston Herald
Tolerating Religious Untruth: Winston L. Frost, Trinity Law
School
Committee C: The Benefits of Religious Freedom
Religious Freedom and the Moral Society: Thomas Walsh, Intl.
Religious Foundation
Religious Freedom and Democracy: Adrian Karanycky, Freedom House
Religious Freedom and Civic Education: J. Paul Martin, Center for the
Study of Human Rights
Religious Freedom and World Unity: Fr. Vikenty Mis'kov, Ukrainian
Orthodox Church
Forum on Religious Freedom Concerns
Tibet Rinshan Darlow
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Timothy Flannagan
ISKCON Anuttama Dasa
Seventh Day Adventist Church Jonathan Gallagher
Freedom for Religions in Germany Matt Bratschi
Unification Church Jesus Gonzales Lesorda
Persecution of Churches and Believers under the Communist Regime in
Slovakia Zuzana Kusá
Sunday, April 19
Session III: The Battle for Religious Freedom
Committee A: Who Opposes Religious Freedom and Why
Forces of Oppression in Europe and the CIS: Tim Jensen, Odense
Universitet, Denmark
Catholics, Protestants and Others: Brigido Barrios, Committee for the
Defense of Religious Freedom,Venezuela
The Cult Threat: Real or Imagined?: Gordon Melton, Institute For
Study of American Religion
Committee B: The Methodology of Religious Intolerance
Manipulating the Media Against Small Religions: Larry Witham, The
Washington Times
The Rise of Irreligious Thought in Europe: Dr. Jaques Hostetter, Free
University of Belgium
Government Committees, Reports, Lists, Oversight Committees: Massimo
Introvigne, "guest speaker," CESNUR, Italy
Committee C: Practical Means to Promote Religious Freedom
Using and Changing the Law to Fight for Religious Freedom: David E.
Birenbaum, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Reform
and Management
Media as a Religious Freedom Resource: Ira Rifkin, Religious News
Service
The Internet as a Religious Freedom Resource: Jeffrey Hadden,
University of Virginia
Cooperative Efforts for Religious Freedom: Chris Gersten, Institute
for Religious Values
Closing Plenary
Closing Remarks Bruce Casino, ICRF Unificationists
Mark Brann, Unification Movement of Europe
delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom
Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millenium" Berlin,
Germany, May 29-31, 1998
I will attempt to summarize what is quite a large subject. I have to
say, from the beginning, that my focus will be mainly in the areas in
which I have been involved, North America and Europe, with passing
references only, to places further afield such as Japan and the
Philippines.
For ease of presentation, I am going to divide the worldwide
Unification experience, in relationship to religious freedom, into
the following categories: 1) the violation of religious freedom by
governmental action or inaction; 2) the attitude or actions of
dominant or majority religious groups; 3) media coverage; 4) the
activities of pressure focus groups, collectively known as the
anti-cult movement, and 5) the prevailing cultural and social trends,
prejudices, and attitudes.
The first category, the violation of religious freedom by
governmental action or inaction, has taken diverse forms. The first
concerns those countries where religious activity is made impossible,
or forced to be done at the risk of severe sanctions. This is the
case in most of the Muslim countries, where severe penalties are
applied for activities such as proselytizing. A number of
Unificationist missionaries have expelled from, or imprisoned, in
Muslim countries.
Second, there are countries in which the Unification movement is
explicitly banned, as in the case of Singapore, where this occurred
as a result of newspaper reports emanating from the United Kingdom.
In the 1980s, tabloids in the United Kingdom published some
sensational accounts about the Unification Church. On the basis of
these articles alone, the Singapore government actually banned, or
proscribed, the Unification movement.
Third, in some situations there has been an outright refusal to
register the Unification movement as a religious organization and, in
some cases, as any kind of legal organization, thereby denying legal
personality all together, or at least appropriate legal personality.
This often means that the movement in those countries can have no
bank account, own no property and, if it is slandered in the media,
cannot respond because it has no legal personality. In Austria in the
1970s, for example, Unificationists applied for status as a religion,
or religious organization, and were denied. They then appealed to the
European Court of Human Rights, where they were denied on procedural
grounds. Although they have been very active since, in terms of
missionary and other activities, they have had to bear the
disadvantages of a legal disembodiment, such as not being able to own
property or answer media attacks. Other examples are Bulgaria,
Romania, and Albania. All three countries have thus far denied the
Unification movements application for registration as a
religious organization.
Fourth, there are countries where there has been no outright refusal
to register, but laws have been framed in such a way as to make it
virtually impossible for registration of a relatively small
organization like the Unification movement. For example, in the Czech
Republic and Slovakia, thresholds have been imposed whereby religions
can only register if they have 10,000 members or, in the case of
Slovakia, 20,000. This, of course, is not something that can easily
be done, certainly not overnight.
Fifth, there are countries where the Unification movements
status as a religious organization has not been challenged, but the
normal benefits, such as charitable status or tax-exempt status,
which would normally flow from that status, have been denied. In
Britain, in a case that I was responsible for as a lawyer in 1984,
the attorney general of the United Kingdom moved to remove charitable
statusin other words tax-exempt statusfrom trusts
supporting the Unification movement. A judge later described that
proceeding as having many of the hallmarks of a Middle Ages heresy
trial. The case was withdrawn for lack of evidence in 1988, and the
government was charged to pay the Unification movement the
equivalent, in todays prices, of $7.5 million for costs.
In Ireland, charitable status was at one time withdrawn by
administrative action. It was restored some years later, but the
reasons why it was withdrawn, or restored, have never been clear. In
Germany, charitable status has been denied on a technicality,
resulting in a heavy annual tax burden for the German Unification
movement.
Furthermore, there is the whole area of immigration. Governments
around the world have consistently used immigration laws to try to
block the Unification movement from developing. The founder, Rev.
Moon, is unable to enter Japan at this moment. In France, Germany,
Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Luxembourg, a misapplication of the
Schengen Treaty prevents Rev. Moon, or Mrs. Moon, from entering those
countries.
In Britain, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have, on four separate
occasions over the last 18 years, overturned attempts by the British
Home Office, the interior ministry, to bar Rev. Moons entry.
Most recently, in 1995 the British High Court overturned a decision
by then Conservative government Home Secretary Michael Howard, which
denied Rev. Moon entry on the basis that it was illegal by procedural
reasons, and not facts. In other words, it was a denial of natural
justice. It is interesting to note that, in his evidence to the
court, the home secretary explicitly stated that his purpose in
seeking to bar Rev. Moon from entering Britain was to stop the
development of the Unification movement in the country.
There is also the whole area of government use of tax investigations
as a form of harassment. In France, in the early 1980s over
20...	(tape ends) ... raided by French police. All documents,
including financial records, were confiscated on the basis that there
had been financial impropriety or tax evasion. Very serious charges
were leveled against the leadership. A few years later, these were
quietly dropped, and no further action was taken. In the meantime, of
course, an enormous expenditure had been incurred by the movement,
and a lot of time and energy had been bound up with defending against
these kinds of allegations.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, in an action I was involved in, the
British Inland Revenue alleged that there had been a failure to pay
over a quarter of a million dollars in taxes. Enormous pressure was
applied to get various documents and records, and to answer a great
variety of questions, thus consuming a lot of time and legal costs.
Once again, the case was quietly dropped after a number of years, and
no further action was taken.
Then, there is the whole area of government connivance, and actions
by groups hostile to Unification movement. This includes the turning
of a blind eye by police forces in various countries to the practice
of forcibly kidnapping and deprogramming of members of Unification
movement.
Next, I will quickly comment on the generally arrogant attitude of
dominant, or majority religious groups. I have to say, especially in
the presence of Rev. Fenton Bennett, that in this area, our
experience has been very mixed. On the one hand, we have had some
very good experiences, notably when Rev. Bennett was responsible for
a certain committee of the British Council of Churches, and the
attitude of mainstream Christianity in Britain was to protect and
defend the religious freedom of minorities like the Unification
movement. Rev. Bennett himself did a lot in that direction.
On the other hand unfortunately, in many other countries, the
attitude of the main or dominant religionsChristian churches
for the mainhas led governments to feel that they can take
punitive action against the Unification movement. Often there is some
degree of tacit approval, or connivance, by mainstream denominations.
The most obvious examples in recent times is the action by the
Orthodox Church in Russia to implement the law on recognition of
religions, which excludes not only very small groups in Russia like
the Unification movement, but also the Catholic Church and various
other mainstream denominations.
In the third area, the media has perhaps played the major role in
fomenting hostility to new religions like the Unification movement.
Theyve created a climate of fear, mistrust, prejudice, and
intolerance through the use of pejorative buzzwords like "cult" and
"Moonie." They have failed to cover, in most cases, the Unification
side of a story, either adequately or at all. They have relied on
unrepresentative and unqualified spokesman from pressure groups, like
the anti-cult movement, for their information rather than objective
academic sources. They have failed to mention objective scientific
studies by leading academics, governments, parliamentarian inquiries,
or court decisions, that show that pervasive stereotypes such as
"brainwashing" and "family break-up" are false. Finally, one can say
that they have been helped by inadequate right of reply laws,
inadequate libel laws, and inadequate provisions for maintaining
journalistic ethics and standards in many western countries.
In the fourth category, individuals and groups known collectively as
the anti-cult movement, have been very instrumental in lobbying
governments to take actions such as losing charitable status,
initiating hostile parliamentary inquiries, and approaching parents
to turn them against the movements that their children have
joined.
Finally, in the area of prevailing cultural trends and attitudes,
Unificationists are always battling against the secularization
process, and the use of pervasive stereotypes such as the word
"cult," whereby there is a lumping together of all religious groups.
I believe that this latter issue is, perhaps, now being tackled in
Germany. The irresponsible grouping of all new religious movements as
"cults" results in the Unification movementwhich abhors things
like murder, suicide, and prostitutionbeing tarred with the
same brush as other groups, which are likewise small, and have the
name of religions, but have nothing else in common with the
Unification movement. This is a prevailing prejudicial trend in
society that we struggle against.
ICRF Conference Proceedings
The Role of the Anti-Cult Movement
Irving Hexham, University of Calgary, Canada
delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom
Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millenium" Berlin,
Germany, May 29-31, 1998
In the first part of my paper, I deal with the formation of the
anticult movement in the English-speaking world, and the way in which
it is supported by private organizations and institutions, which
attempt to influence the media in creating pressure on the public,
and in turn create pressure on legislatures for action against cults
or new religions. The way that this pressure is created, is largely
through the use of atrocity stories about the dangers of cults and
things like Jonestown, and through claims that members of new
religious movements are in fact brainwashed.
This has been well recorded by people like David Bromley and Anson
Schupe, in their books on new religious movements, and particularly
in their book The New Vigilantes. What is not understood very well in
the English-speaking world, is the difference between the German
situation and the situation in the English-speaking world.
In Germany, there are really a number of anticult groups. The main
anticult movement is strongly supported by the Protestant Church.
Within the Protestant Church grouping, there is the Archiev für
Religion und Weltanschaungsfragen and the Evangelische Zentrostowar
für Weltanschaungsfragen, two different groups, which are now
both based in Berlin. One was formerly in Stuttgart, but it has moved
to Berlin recently. The other has been in Berlin all along.
In addition, there are over 190 Sektenbeauftragter, or cult experts,
scattered throughout the various federal states of Germany. These are
Catholic and Protestant, but I think it is significant to note that,
on the whole, Catholic cult experts deal with theology, and simply
point out the dangers, or the differences between Catholic Theology
and Protestant Theology, whereas the Protestants point out the
dangers of the cults. The Catholics talk about the theological
differences, the Protestants talk about the dangers of the cults in
terms of their being thessassiansfindlik. This term is a key one,
that comes up again and again in the German situation, and I will
discuss its meaning in a few moments.
In addition to the church cult experts, there is a whole network of
people working in various government organizations, from the local
council right up to the federal government, and the sogenannte or the
Enquette Kommission über sogenannte Sekten, which is the inquiry
into cults at the federal government level. Most of these deal with
family issues: questions of family law, and questions of divorce.
When there is a divorce case on, of course, the accusation is made
that one of the parents is involved in a dangerous cult. Therefore,
the other parent ought to get custody of that child. This type of
argument goes on, and it works itself through the system.
So, while you have official church cult experts, they work very
closely with people who are supposed to be civil servants, but in
actual fact are involved with religious issues all the time, and draw
their information from the religious cult experts.
All of these groups produce publications. In fact, many of the
federal states, plus the federal government itself, produce booklets
on new religious movements, or Sektentum, in Germany, and these
booklets are distributed for free. If you go to the Berlin Senate,
you can get a fairly substantial book about the dangerous cults which
are in existence in Berlin, including Scientology, the Unification
Church, and various charismatic churches and other groups. All of
these are given away freely by the government, but when you look
through the bibliographies of these publications, the experts that
they rely on are almost exclusively theologians.
So, there is this very close interweaving between the church and the
state, which is very hard to describe, because the German churches
are not state churches in the sense that the Church of England is a
state church. Yet, they have a far closer working relationship with
various levels of government than the English state church does, so
it is tricky. Also, church taxes and such come into this.
At the center of the storm about church and sect, or cult, in
Germany, is the Church of Scientology. Scientology has been put under
considerable pressure by different agencies of government at
different levels. This is important to emphasize because very often
people outside of Germany do not recognize the decentralized nature
of German society.
As a result of the Second World War, the allies imposed various
constitutional constraints on Germany, which were supposed to prevent
the rise of a fascist-type movement that could take over the country
again. They did this through decentralization. Therefore, you have
level upon level of government that can do all sorts of things, which
somehow work together, and yet are all somehow separate. Even in
areas other than religious freedom, it becomes very difficult to take
action.
To give an example, the University of Heidelberg discovered a number
of years ago, that they had a lot of perpetual students, who signed
up for courses each year without any intention of taking them. People
signed up because you can get cheap travel passes, and various other
benefits by being a student. One particular student had been there
for 32 years, and they couldnt get rid of the guy. As a result
of this dilemma, the university senate passed a law saying that
youve got to take your exam, and cease to be a student within
so many years. A group of students took them to court and the case
went up to the highest court in Germany, which found in favor of the
students. The university couldnt get rid of all their perpetual
students. Because they have these perpetual students, there are
places in lecture halls that are empty, which other people would like
to take, but they cant solve the problem. It is quite a mess in
many respects. This decentralization influences the whole dealings of
the state with the churches, or the sects and the cults in Germany,
confusing the situation very considerably.
In response to much of what goes on in Germany, people, particularly
the Church of Scientology, have responded by saying that it is a
deep-seated fascist ideology in government leaderspeople like
Helmut Kohl and Norbert Blumwhich causes all of their problems.
In support of this, they have produced some very interesting
booklets, such as one which compares cartoons from "Der Sturm," a
Nazi magazine that had cartoons about Jews, with cartoons about
Scientologists.
These are very telling images, and there is no doubt that the German
press does draw upon this historic usage of symbolismwhich the
Nazis also usedto characterize Scientology. However, when
ordinary Germans see this sort of thing, they become outraged.
Chancellor Kohl and Norbert Blum are not Nazis, and they have put in
a lot of effort into opposing anything that appears to be Nazi.
Therefore, Germans see these attacks upon them as very tasteless
attacks upon respected politicians, who have proven their worth over
the years.
Even members of other minority religious groups dislike this sort of
approach taken by Scientology, because they see this as simply a slur
upon the German character. They look back on the last 50 years of
democracy and say, "Has it been for nothing? Everyone jumps on us and
pulls out this image of the Nazi. We dont like it!" They object
to it.
This comes about, I think, in the Scientologists point of view,
from an inability to really understand the inner dynamics of German
society, and an imposition of American views on a foreign society.
So, they get into all sorts of confusion.
There is no doubt that there are a few politicians, like Renate
Rennebach, who do make a career out of attacking new religious
movements, but the majority of German politicians, like politicians
everywhere, simply respond to pressure from the media, and try to
keep their constituents happy. Most of them are not out to get new
religions, and arent particularly bothered with new
religions.
There are, however, a few vocal ones and, from time to time attacks
on new religions occur, as for example when the German academic
journal, Spiriter, published an article about Scientology which was
extremely critical, but nevertheless said that Scientology was a
religion. Some politicians in Hessen tried to get the journal banned,
or at least to get the state funding to it withdrawn.
The other thing which one seesthis has been very noticeable
over the last seven yearsis an incredible growth of books in
bookstores saying how bad the cults are. There are lots of anticult
books appearing. Seven years ago, it was hard to find a single book
on new religions or cults in German. Nevertheless, today, if you go
into a bookstorea major academic bookstore sayyou will
find a couple of shelves of books, all dealing with cults. Some are
written by ex-members and others by the Sektenbeauftragte.
When you turn to the academics, and talk to them about what is going
on in Germany, one would expect there would be a great deal of
academic research into new religions. In fact, there is virtually no
empirical research being done in Germany, and many academics that
Ive talked to openly admit that they wouldnt touch the
sekten issue with a barge pole, because they fear the response of
people within the established churches. At the same time, having said
this, they rely in a very uncritical way on things written by
theologians.
People, who in North America would be given no credence because they
are clearly playing a theological tune and have vested interests in
attacking new religions, are seen as good academics by German
academics, even though they are clergymen. These people take an
approach which mixesor which confusestheology and
theological attacks upon new religions, which in some ways may be
legitimate, with sociological comment. This is where a lot of the
problem comes in.
Another problem, which makes the situation in Germany particular
difficult, is the problem of the Nazis. German politicians react to
many things in light of the German past. In fact, I think it is true
to say that all Germans react to history, and to the history of
Germany, and to the present situation, because of the Nazis and
through the Nazis. I want us to realize that, beginning in the late
19th century, one had a number of new religious movements which
prepared the way for the Nazi dictatorship.
These were precursors of the Nazis; some of them were even persecuted
by the Nazis; but what they did was play a key role in destroying the
Weimar Republic. I am thinking of things like the Ludendorf Bowedon,
the Bowedon der Frei Religiosen and the Deutch Christian. Now, some
of these were very small, and some of them were very large. Their
numbers ranged from about 600 to 600,000 members. They were very
active in the 1920s and 1930s in tearing down democracy in Germany.
Therefore, since the new federal governmentWest Germany
originally, but now incorporated into the greater Germany, new
Germanywas established, the preservation of the constitution
has been a key issue.
As we have seen from the recent elections in Saxony-Anhalt, there is
a real danger from a new right. What one has to recognize in the
German situation is that some of these new right political parties
have close ties with new religious movements. If you go to the web
pages of these parties, you will find that there are articles about
the Neues Heidentum, the New Heathendom or New Pagans. These parties
and these groups merge withor some of the people associated
with them are associated withsome religious groups.
The churches try to act as a watchdog against these dangerous groups.
The government listens to the churches, because there are dangerous
groups that are playing to the political right, attempting to revive
fascism, and using religion to revive fascism quite explicitly. They
say this in their own literature. They say that they are using
religion, and the rebirth of paganism, to revive a political system
that has been discredited for 50 years. This is there. The government
sees this, and then applies it to all new religious movements in
Germany.
What I would like to say is that, in pointing out that the Germans
are very heavy-handed in their treatment of groups like the
Unification Church, Scientology and many other groups, one has also
to be very careful, because, if the German government were not
interested at all in new religions, we would also be blaming them for
not looking at these fascist groups. Therefore, they tread a thin
line.
They are far too reactive; they see all new religions as bad; but,
there is good reason, in Germany, for seeing some new religions as
bad. This needs to be remembered, and taken into account, when we try
to assess what is happening in Germany. Anyone who wants to persuade
the Germans that they ought to treat Scientology, the Unification
Church, or any other group better than they do, has got to remember
the past. In pleading for tolerance, it is important to make very
clear that the groups for which one is pleading are not genuine
enemies of the constitution, who are trying to destroy the
constitution, because these people do exist.
ICRF Conference Proceedings
Presentations by Author
Books by Irving Hexham:
Buy it today!
New Religions As Global Cultures : The Sacralization of the Human
(Explorations. Contemporary Perspectives on Religion) by Irving
Hexham, Karla O. Poewe Buy it today!
Afro-Christian Religion at the Grassroots in Southern Africa (African
Studies, Vol 19) by G.C. Oosthuizen, Irving Hexham (Editor) Buy it
today!
Empirical Studies of African Independent/Indigenous Churches by G.C.
Oosthuizen, Irving Hexham (Editor) Buy it today!
Irony of Apartheid : The Struggle for National Independence of
Afrikaner Calvinism Against British Imperialism (Texts and Studies in
Religion, Vol 8) by Irving Hexham Buy it today!
The Story of Isaiah Shembe (Volume Two : Early Regional Traditions of
the Acts of the Nazarites (Sacred History and Traditions of the
Amanazoretha Vol by Irving Hexham (Editor), G.C. Oosthuizen (Editor),
Hans-Jurgen Becken Buy it today!
Texts on Zulu Religion : Traditional Zulu Ideas About God (African
Studies, Vol 6) by Irving Hexham Buy it today!
The Scriptures of the Amanazaretha of Ekuphakameni : Selected
Writings of the Zulu Prophets Isaiah and Londa Shembe by Irving
Hexham (Editor), Londa Shembe (Translator), Hans-Jurgen Becken
(Translator) Buy it today!
Understanding Cults and New Religions by Irving Hexham, Karla O.
Poewe Buy it today!