Related articles and links |  1 of 6

In North Korea, Christians meet secretly or else they suffer imprisonment. In northern Nigeria, some Christians have been subjected to Islamic Shari'ah law, which punishes violators with amputation, floggings, and stoning. In countries all over the world, men and women of all manner of religions are victimized because of what they believe. What exactly should we do about it?

Among human-rights advocates, two strikingly divergent opinions have emerged. One side is represented by Robert Seiple, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. In October 2002 he wrote an essay for ChristianityToday.com.

Among other things, he contrasted the approaches of the U.S. State Department and that of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: "One is based on quiet diplomacy; the other, public finger pointing. One works with governments; the other castigates governments from afar. One lights candles, if you will, and the other feels obligated to curse the darkness."

As for himself, Seiple concludes, "I have never been comfortable with the 'punishing' approach. While it may appeal to our public machismo at home, it rarely moves the ball forward abroad. Sanctions, especially unilateral sanctions, have a checkered career at best, sometimes creating a negative blowback on those we are attempting to help."

After some key leaders took exception to Seiple's views, Christianity Today invited two longtime religious-rights advocates to make their cases.

This article, written by T. Jeremy Gunn, is the debate's second essay. Also read Michael Horowitz's piece.

In the mid-1990s, some activists inside the Washington beltway began a campaign against religious persecution abroad. While the motivations of many involved in this campaign are indeed sincere, and although the problems in the world are real and serious, the campaign unfortunately has relied too often on Washington-style attack politics.

Rather than looking for difficult solutions to challenging problems, their approach has often been to lash out reactively at enemies, both real and imagined, and to devise measures to increase pressure on them.

The style of this campaign has included not only criticizing persecutors abroad, but also attacking people at home who are devoting their lives to promoting religious freedom. Michael Horowitz, one of the principal leaders of this campaign, reveals just how extreme their rhetoric can become when he asserts that those in government who do not follow his advice are not simply mistaken, but that they "must bear the moral burden of, and responsibility for, the victimized believers who suffer and die on their watch" (see "Cry Freedom," p. 48).

This polemical approach—which requires us either to agree with Horowitz's recommendations or accept blame for the persecutors' actions—is exactly the wrong way to approach the issue of religious persecution. While the tactic of blaming the world's evils on those who disagree with your recommendations might succeed in Washington-style confrontation politics, it surely will not be effective in promoting freedom of religion or ending persecution outside of the United States.

Lives indeed are at stake—just as Horowitz says—which is why we must be prudent and avoid needlessly antagonizing and threatening governments that hold innocent lives in their hands on the opposite side of the world. It is neither wise nor brave to give bold speeches to American audiences that provoke persecutors abroad.

Before offering some criticisms of the approach taken by this polemical campaign, let me first acknowledge several points of agreement (albeit with some necessary qualifications).

next page... |  1 of 6

March 2003, Vol. 47, No. 3