Argument: Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict

Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]

Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.

[1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)

[2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

Candidate 1: "That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations."
Candidate 2: "Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]

It is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]

Finally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.

[1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001

[2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006

[3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9"
Candidate 3: "It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say "The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved." [1]

[1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012"
Candidate 4: "It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.

If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.

This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?

[1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011"
Candidate 5: "An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics."
Candidate 6: "These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.

[1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011"

An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.
