Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 26, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2009 > April (Web-only)Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2009  |   |  
Books
'We're Not Actually Advancing Religious Freedom'
Thomas Farr says it's time for policies that actually improve liberty around the world.




ADVERTISEMENT

To get to the point you were making, I think the commission should criticize the State Department strenuously for its failure to be on time with its CPCs.

However, they should also be pointing out that [the annual CPC announcement] is the only attention this policy gets. The content of our policy needs to have far more depth than this annual list and the discussion of what that means. The commission has by-and-large not done that.

Why should evangelicals pay attention to this discussion over religious freedom policy?

One, because they are interested in justice. Two, because they are interested in the fundamental interests of their country, especially national security. For me, the two come together in religious freedom.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was a terrible religious persecutor. When we threw them out by force, of course religious freedom went down. But now it's creeping back up. We have all these problems because we never actually advanced religious freedom in Afghanistan.

What should we be watching for?

I'd invite your attention to whom the Secretary of State is going to name as her ambassador at large. I think this is terribly important. If it's someone who's brilliant and devoted to religious liberty but who doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy or the State Department, it would be very difficult to make a way in that building, let alone in the foreign policy establishment.

Secretary Clinton has named an ambassador at large for women's issues. I have no doubt she will work directly under Sen. Clinton. This ambassador at large for religious freedom has never been that elevated. From the very beginning, it was put under an assistant secretary [for human rights]. It's kind of like a general working for a colonel.

The premise of the [IRFA] bill back in 1998 is that this issue is not getting enough attention. Sticking [the ambassador at large] under that situation is a continuation of the problem that international religious freedom is bureaucratically and functionally buried.



Related Elsewhere:

Farr's World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security is available from Christianbook.com and other retailers.

Other articles on religious freedom are collected on our site.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Dan   Posted: April 15, 2009 10:24 AM
Frankly, I'm against the idea of religious ambassadors as part of government institutions. It seems to me that when religion and government get into bed together, it's usually a bad thing for somebody - and that "somebody" is usually the believers. Let's face it. There's hardly a consensus among Christians in general regarding God's word. A lot of it is NOT "God's Word." It is "God's Word As Interpreted by Men." There are "you shalls" and "you shall nots" proffered by Christian leaders that I don't find in the Bible anywhere. And a lot of biblical interpretations by those same leaders that are still a point of debate among Christians. Once religion and government team up, you may find that the "you shalls" and "you shall nots" gradually begin to reek of government influence and not devine inspiration (as has happened in every similar case in recorded history) and biblical "interpretations" that your church disagrees with suddenly become "law" that you must follow.

caveatBettor   Posted: April 13, 2009 2:21 PM
Let's also hope the church rises to meet both of the challenges mentioned by C.C., better than we have so far.

C.C.   Posted: April 13, 2009 11:30 AM
Let's hope this administration makes up (a little) for its atrocious stance on life issues by taking international religious freedom diplomacy seriously. Great article.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com