Faith & Freedom

Not in my experience at least Karin, details of which I have sent you.

All I can say here is that if human rights are abused while missions are placed under threat of obstruction there's going to be a conflict between the need for public disclosure and the financial and emotional investment already made in any project.

Regards,

Jeff

I think you are right that we all make choices when we seek to "do good." The challenge is to know that when people are struggling for their basic rights, it is important to ask ourselves whether our involvement helps or hurts their efforts to change the fundamental environment. Though it may not be easy, I think it is important to at least ask the question after finding out what local human rights defenders are asking for.

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Karin

What a compelling question... I think that it presents a very unique challenge, in that people successfully leading this type of movement need to establish a common bond between their own belief system and a host culture which is often very different.

For example... the work of Christian missionaries in African nations such as Sudan which are predominantly orthodox Muslim. The complexities of such a project include balancing the priorities of the sponsoring organization (often a church or ministry interested in advancing the faith) with a host culture concerned about outsiders replacing it with their own. In this regard, the legitimate work of the NGO could be interpreted as a subversive act, creating backlash or mistrust.

I definitely agree that faith-based communities have historically led the way in advancing the cause of human rights and alleviating suffering worldwide; unfortunately, through the eyes of many recipients, it suggests a paternalistic or condescending attempt to superimpose a foreign culture on the world.

As a result, these efforts have diverged into two distinct groups: those with a detached, idealistic presence (ie. Doctors without Borders) who consciously distance themselves from social/political discord, and those who have a clear agenda to promote a particular worldview (ie. CBN's Operation Blessing). Both can have a significant and world-changing impact, despite the fact that these organizations approach their missions very differently.

The American and European missionary programs of the 1800s and early 1900s have demonstrated both the great successes and disastrous miscalculations that are possible when injecting faith into social activism. It is a factor that brought the developing world modern medical care and schools when successful; as well as forced conversions and racism when it was not.

So, I do believe that faith-based communities can definitely become a catalyst for positive social change, especially when leaders of those movements have an authentic understanding of, and respect for, the host culture.

You have hit the nail on the head. We can be part of something that is respectful of human dignity, and results in real advancement, or we can find ourselves justifying actions that are well-meaning, but that have destructive consequences.

So, maybe we could find the best examples of what has worked and spread the idea that it is possible to bring the best from within any faith tradition.

For example, at our conference is Zainah Anwar, a founder of an organzation called Sisters in Islam, which promotes and protects the rights of women in Malaysia. She is not running from her faith or culture, but challenging them both to rise to the challenge of correcting a flaw in the way ideas from the culture and religiius sources are interpreted and implemented.

I think if we are to find our way out of the current siutation in which not only faith communities, but political power centers are facing off, we have to find the commond ground.

So, if anyone has good examples, please share them.

Thank you!

Hi, Karin:

My guardian after my father died, and mentor through my teen years, was an extraordinarily impressive man named Fr. Trevor Huddleston. I usually think of his "real work" as being done person by person, often very simply and without deliberate intent, as when he raised his hat in the presence of a lady, and the lady's son, the boy Desmond Tutu, couldn't figure out why a white man would raise his hat to his mother. That sort of thing came from his vivid experience of the sacraments, and of a love which his favorite poet, Hopkins, well describes, giving also the key to Trevor's life work:

I say more: the just man justices; Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces; Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is -- Christ. For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his To the Father through the features of men's faces.

That work of "justicing" wasn't accomplished, and apartheid wasn't overthrown, though, without a long political struggle, in which day by day Trevor played his part for many years, from the signing of the ANC charter to his friend Mandela's inauguration in Pretoria. Mandela said of him, "He was one of those rare people, good men and women who make the world the theatre of their operations in pursuit of freedom and justice," and something else, which I think fits in specifically with your comments about faith:

"In Father Huddleston we see exemplified in the most concrete way the contribution that religion has made to our liberation."

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1998/sp980505.html

*

If I had to name the single most powerful action that Fr. Trevor ever took in his crusade for human rights and against apartheid, however, I'd have to say it was the writing of his book, Naught for your Comfort.

And that brings me back to your question, "How can you … support the work ... ?"

I think the single most powerful action in this case might be to publish a book

a powerful, personal, humane, widely researched book, reaching within every faith tradition (humanism included) "to bring forward those teachings that call on believers to stand with the oppressed and protect and honor human dignity".

That's what I would suggest.

Here is probably not the place for me to offer my services, but it's a project for which I possess appropriate qualifications, and which would interest me greatly.

And in my view, regardless of whether I would be personally involved or not, this would be a project which would "serve the necessity".

The power of example is the best way to settle a debate about whether we can really do anything to make a difference. The story of Trevor Huddleston is a moving one. Sometime, it only takes small acts of pure love to overcome ages of hatred and suspicion. The tip of a hat left an impression on a small boy, who later led a multi-racial movment for human dignity that shook the world. Of course the tipping of the hat was a simple sign of a deeper committment, and what was needed was a dedicated life of struggle. We must always be aware of what is next to be done--this was certainly true of Huddleston.

A book is a noteworthy idea--stories of hope and toil. Results are there to be found and shared. You never know when a little boy, or girl, will be moved by a touching testimony to our common humanity.

Karin:

> A book is a noteworthy idea--stories of hope and toil.

I have mailed you within the SocialEdge "system" and copied in an email to "carterweb" with the title "Attention: Karin Ryan".

I have had the privilege of attending The Carter Center’s policy forum these past two days, and I am inspired by the defenders’ stories and the group’s stated commitment to universality of human rights around the world.

But I continue to be frustrated at what I see missing from the discussions and at the assumption that faith-based groups are inherent advocates of human dignity and human rights.

The worldwide experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people ought to be included in any forum on human rights. Sexual orientation – an un-chosen human quality – is not listed in the UNDHR, unlike gender, disability, race, ethnicity and age, which are explicitly mentioned for protection. I am particularly uncomfortable with the fact that abuses – atrocities? – against GLBT people are generally overlooked.

In July, three South African lesbian women were brutally murdered in Meadowlands, Soweto. At a Russian pride parade this summer, police allegedly colluded with anti-gay mobs, permitting attacks on peaceful GLBT participants. In Nigeria, a law has been proposed to imprison anyone who engages in homosexual relationships, public shows of affection, activism or advocacy. And, homosexuality in Uganda carries the penalty of life imprisonment.

These cases and many others around the world cannot be ignored. Universality of human rights? Gays and lesbians exist everywhere around the world, though in many places you might not know it because of such stringent oppression or cultural taboo. In some countries, GLBT persons are explicitly targeted and abused for their orientation – policies which are simply unjust and unacceptable.

The absence of any mention of these people at The Carter Center and at this forum disturbs me. As in much of the rest of the world, there is an implicit reluctance to acknowledge – or even to understand – the concept of sexual orientation and the intolerance it receives. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have programs to advocate on behalf of GLBT persons. It makes me wonder whether the group assembled here is truly genuine about its commitment to the universality of human rights.

The absence of GLBT issues in this forum is also quite ironic. While participants are seeking a way to incorporate faith-based groups into promotion of human rights, these groups are often the most prominent detractors of GLBT rights. The world’s major religions have tended to be promulgators of prejudice and discrimination against GLBT persons – contributing to intolerance.

It is false to assume that religious institutions are capable of defending the human dignity of all people when many outcast gays and lesbians.

Slowly, some international organizations and governments around the world are acting to protect the human rights of GLBT people. But one of the primary inhibitors to progress on this front, in my opinion, is the ignorance and intolerance propagated by major religious institutions today. They are not in a position to effectively protect the human rights of GLBT people – and in my opinion their teachings often do the opposite.

Rights around sexual identity have been increasingly well-articulated and advanced in numerous countries in recent years. When I participated in the Beijing World Conference on Women in 1995, this was a new development, and while some women's organizations were very vocal and effective, other women explained that this issue would have to be approached carefully, with thier organizations taking the lead. In countries where women are treated by the law and male-dominateed societies as second-class citizens to begin with, their strategies for advancing the cause of human rights have to be developed by them. Our forum has always tried to respect that rule--that grass roots human rights defenders should determine how best to move forward within their society. On our website (cartercenter.org/defenders) there is a "handle with care" example on the student page that illustrates how careful we have to be when advocating rights in other countries.

To be clear, this is not an endorsement of "gradualism," but a call to consult first with human rights leaders about their own priorities if we want to be helpful. This is even more true today when US foreign policy and the "War on Terror" has led to a growing suspicion of US influence.

Thanks for the question!

You raise an important point that as outsiders we need to be sensitive to conditions on the ground in individual communities and follow the lead of grassroots defenders themselves. Certainly the issue of human rights for all people - regardless of sexual identity - necessitates that we "handle with care."

My point, more simply, is that we need to put diversity of sexual identity "on the radar screen" of the global human rights movement - we need to include that dimension of the human experience in the UNDHR and in any truly "universal" and so-called "inclusive" forum. There is no harm in acknowledging that this minority population faces persecution much in the same way that others do for their gender, faith, ethnicity, etc.

Also - as we consider the role of faith-based groups as advocates of human rights, I encourage everyone to consider how religious doctrines of intolerance regarding sexual identity have potential to be antithetical to justice and equality.

A puzzle is a whole picture broken up into many pieces. When humanity grows up enough that each, apparently different, faction is willing to share the pieces they were given to make the whole picture we will have earned peace. Religions are loaded with clues to help put the pieces together, so perhaps they may be ahead of the game in starting to do so.

What I think is necessary is a paradigm shift among the people with the most power and resources, a shift to a longer view, often espoused by indigenous peoples.

A blend of seventh generation thinking and treat others as you would be treated.

You have really identified the key, the so-called Golden Rule. It begins with one person looking honestly at one's own actions, or the actions of his/her government (which acts on one's behalf and with one's tax dollars), and asking the question: are these actions how I expect others to act toward me? We are all connected to the consequences of these choices and cannot escape responsibility.

We hope that our faith or belief system, the thread that links us to our creator and to all of humanity will motivate us to reach beyond ourselves, as you say, to right the wrongs that we find. It takes the longer view, that we are all in this together.

During our Forum earlier this month, I listened to new reports from all over the world. I always listen as a US citizen, because I want to know what my personal "moral footprint" amounts to (see Vaclav Havel's piece in today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/opinion/27havel.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin). A few examples:

• In Kenya, there has been a tremendous impact from US "operations" in Somalia. Many new refugees, destabilization, even radicalization. In Kenya itself, the Muslim population is under a cloud of suspicion and arbitrary arrest and detention is becoming a bigger problem--largely because of the US concern about terrorism.
• In the West Bank, US tax dollars support the hardening of a permanent infrastructure (separation wall, settler-only roads, etc.) designed to support the Israeli settlelments, or colonies, built on Palestinian land. If we all support a peace agreement between Israel and her neighbors, how does this policy help?
• In the Congo, there is an unprecedented chance for peace and prosperity in this troubled nation that is so endowed with riches. But remnants of the war rage in the east because of a rogue fighter named Nkunda--he receives funding from Rwanda's government, which the US supports (partly with good reason after the 1994 genocide) despite its connection to this escalating violence.

There are many more examples. I do not suggest there are easy answers to these challenges, but we must start asking these hard questions and not be put off by "experts" who dismiss our questions with statements like "Its complicated."

Of course its complicated, but its also simple. Here's another basic rule, given to us by Newton: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Maybe we can ask: what reactions result from my actions? Maybe the basis of a new posture toward each other, toward the rest of the world? A new paradigm? A new foreign policy?

Thank you so much for the comment!

In my four decades of experience, in numerous areas with human rights abuses, the people being abused do not matter as regards power retention by oligarchies --- or other groups holding the power in nations where they reside. These people seldom matter to the U.S. Government, because they do not have the support of a voting "block" in the U.S. Most communities of faith attempt to find a humanitarian solution when what is needed is a creative political solution.