Related articles and links |  1 of 2

The case of Abdul Rahman—the Afghan Christian convert who was arrested for apostasy before being released and given asylum in Italy—has been long expected by religious freedom observers. Despite few guarantees of religious freedom, evangelicals have largely supported democratization in the Middle East. But, some evangelical leaders say, that support may not last if more Christians are sentenced to death.

In his BreakPoint commentary, Chuck Colson said, "I have supported the Bush administration's foreign policy because I came to believe that the best way to stop Islamo-fascism was by promoting democracy. But if we can't guarantee fundamental religious freedoms in the countries where we establish democratic reforms, then the whole credibility of our foreign policy is thrown into serious question."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? … Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs."

Despite the initial outrage, evangelicals still largely support democratization efforts in the Middle East. "I don't think this vitiates support for Bush's foreign policy," says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. A higher percentage of evangelicals support democracy-building than the general population, Land says. That won't dissipate because of the Rahman case.

Yet, Land says, if Americans continue to die and continue to send billions of dollars to countries that don't protect basic human rights, more evangelicals will begin to protest. "If indeed it turns out that there is suppression of religious freedom in countries that are receiving American aid, American taxpayers will demand that violations cease or aid will cease."

"If the administration doesn't pay attention to this, they will lose support," says Bill Saunders, human rights counsel at the Family Research Council. "Americans are getting killed; billions are being spent. And even when we design the constitution it doesn't protect religious freedom."

Afghan law still allows for the execution of Muslims who convert to another religion. Rahman was released on a technicality. "The problem," Saunders says, "is the career state department officials. They don't see the role religious freedom plays in democracy. I'm not sure it's the Bush administration's fault."

However, Saunders says, attempts to make those officials aware of religious freedom issues while writing the Iraqi constitution were unsuccessful. The State Department leaned too heavily on the American Bar Association, he says. "They don't get religious freedom. They don't understand how fundamental it is."

It was wrong for some Christian leaders to turn a human rights issue into a matter of satisfying a political base, says Robert Seiple, former ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom and president/CEO of Council for America's First Freedom, a secular religious freedom education institute.

"Relative to what's at stake, it's trivial," Seiple says. "What was at stake was a violation of the core principle of the universality of the human right of religious liberty."

"This is the most distinctive gift that America has to give. We've been working this for 200 years, and we've earned the right to export it, but we also have international covenants," says Seiple. "When something happens, we have the right to speak out on the highest of principles."

next page... |  1 of 2

April (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50