Michael Cromartie, Chair of the US Commission on International Freedom (USCIRF), has just written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rize urging her to advocate a strong mandate for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate is currently under consideration by the UN Human Rights Council.

USCIRF is gravely concerned that the Human Rights Council is shifting its focus from promoting freedom of religion or belief to the prevention of what is being termed as “defamation of religion”. Mr Cromartie’s letter explains:

The supporters of this concept—typically governments that prohibit religious pluralism at home—claim that their aim is to promote religious tolerance. In practice, however, this approach seeks to suppress what these governments deem, often capriciously, to be “offensive” or “unacceptable” speech about a particular, favored religion, and even to justify violent reactions to this purportedly offensive speech.

Prohibitions on defamation of religion violate the principles outlined in international human rights instruments, which guarantee the right of everyone to freedom of expression as well as to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. They also improperly seek to protect groups at the expense of the rights of the individual. The Commission is deeply concerned by the growing campaign to internationalize these prohibitions, and we strongly urge the U.S. government to take the lead in opposing such measures, including by opposing attempts to include a focus on defamation of religion in the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

Asma Jahangir, the current religious freedom Special Rapporteur, has commented that

…the protection of the rights of religious minorities is central to the mandate on freedom of religion or belief. It should not be compromised even if other members of the community engage in intolerant acts, including defamation of other religions.

She has also pointed out that…

…international human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion and not religions per se.

Furthermore, the right to freedom of religion or belief…

…does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.

Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily bestows a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment.

Criminalizing defamation of religion could have a seriously deleterious impact on freedom of expression, a human right that is as essential to human freedom and development as is freedom of religion or belief. In fact, without freedom of expression we cannot fully claim our right to freedom of religion or belief, since that right also includes the freedom to tell other people about our religion or belief and to try to persuade them of the truth of what we believe.

Technorati Tags: human rights, religious freedom, defamation of religion, UN

Ahmadinejad meets Christian leaders in New York. Photo ©New York Times

According to this story in the New York Times, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held

a friendly, even warm, exchange yesterday with Christian leaders from the United States and Canada convinced that dialogue is the only way to prevent war.

The meeting on 26 September was organized by the Mennonites and the Quakers and took place in the Church Center for the United Nations. Questioners included a Quaker, a Catholic, an Anglican, a Baptist and a representative of the interfaith World Council of Churches. About 140 other religious leaders also attended, but no Jewish leader would agree to take part.

As the NYT reported:

“My heart was broken that there was so little support from other religions to be here,” said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that helped sponsor the event. “If we don’t walk down this path of dialogue, we’re going to end up in conflagration.

However, one faith group couldn’t take part in the meeting. The Baha’is had been invited to the prior meetings, according to the NYT, but the Iranians had refused to attend if the Baha’is were there.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Christians, dialogue

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

A Voice of America journalist questioned President Ahmadinejad of Iran about his country’s persecution of the Baha’is at a recent press conference at the UN headquarters in New York.

In his question the journalist refers to the respect that Ahmadinejad shows to the divine prophets in his speeches and then says: “one of the Divine Prophets who has the largest religious minority of followers after the Muslims are the Baha’is”. He refers to the documents presented to the UN that show that Iran has a policy of preventing the social progress of the Baha’is. He asks Ahmadinejad why he does not use his powers under the Iranian constitution to ensure that Baha’is receive the same justice as other Iranian citizens.

Ahmadinejad gives the most extraordinary reply. He says that the Jews have Moses, Christians Christ, and Muslims the Prophet of Islam. But, he asks the journalist, “can you tell me who the divine prophet of the religion you mention is? He was revealed exactly when? Did he have a name? Good luck, thank you.”

You can watch this interchange here. It starts at minute 46, very close to the end of the video.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Baha, Iran, Ahmadinejad, religion, UN, human rights

So there we were, standing around our dining table, Mary, Bev, Lindsay, Valerie, Erica and I, laughing and relaxed. On the table, a large sheet of paper, covered in scribbles. Our scribbles. Each of us had picked up a coloured marker pen, made a mark at the edge of the paper and then we’d taken our pens for a walk, filling up as much of the paper as we could, but all the time aiming to get to a spot in the middle of the paper.

We walked our pens twice. The first time, Erica had instructed us not to cross anyone else’s line. The second time, Erica turned the paper over and we were free to cross as many lines as we liked. The only condition was that we should fill up as much of the paper as possible while we aimed for the centre.

Most of us felt that the first exercise held us within limits. We had to be careful, we had to take time, we were not as free as we might want to be to go anywhere on the paper. The second exercise, on the other hand, freed us to explore and not to worry about other people’s explorations. It was something of a metaphor for the freedom we need to feel in Baha’i consultation if consultation is to be fruitful and is not to be constrained by fear of how others may react to what we say.

And that’s how we began our study of the Baha’i Faith on 12 September. We’d come together to go through Book 1 (Reflections on the Life of the Spirit) of the courses of the Ruhi Institute:

The Ruhi Institute is an educational institution, operating under the guidance of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Colombia, which dedicates its efforts to the development of human resources for the spiritual, social, and cultural development of the Colombian people. Although its center is in the town of Puerto Tejada in the department of Cauca, its area of influence includes the majority of the rural areas of Colombia and is being gradually extended to several other countries in Latin America.

Like any other institution involved in the process of education for development, the Ruhi Institute has formulated its strategies within a special framework and a philosophy of social change, development and education. In this case, that understanding has emerged from a consistent effort to apply Bahá’í principles to the analysis of social conditions.

Baha’is and their friends all over the world now follow these courses of spiritual development and learn skills that will help them share the Baha’i teachings with others in a systematic way.

Last night was our group’s third session with Ruhi Book 1. Erica and I are co-tutoring. Erica has quite a bit of experience in tutoring the Ruhi courses, but I’m a novice, despite having finished the courses up to Book 7 in 2004.

Our group is an interesting one. Bev, Lindsay, Mary and Val are not Baha’is. Fariba, an Iranian Baha’i married to a Brit, co-ordinates the Ruhi courses and tutors across our part of the world. Erica and I are both very long-standing Baha’is. Bev, Lindsay, Mary and Fariba all work in the Lister Hospital in Stevenage, where Fariba runs an active programmge of Tranquillity Zones. Bev and Mary both attended the CALM meditation course that the Welwyn Baha’i community ran before the summer, so we got to know them quite well. Val responded to a notice that Fariba had put in the library in Stevenage inviting people to a Tranquillity Zone, but she is not part of the group that works in the hospital. We hadn’t met either Val or Lindsay before our Book 1 course started.

Mary is a committed Roman Catholic, Bev is very attracted by the opportunity to study spirituality and would probably describe herself as Church of England. Lindsay is very much her own person, independent minded and acts according to her conscience. Val is more difficult to read. She doesn’t say a great deal during the sessions and she isn’t part of what can at times seem like an “in-group” of those working in the NHS.

One thing that has become apparent to Erica and me is that Book 1 assumes that participants know a certain amount about the Baha’i Faith before they start. We’ve found that we have to explain to our group (albeit briefly) concepts, language and terminology that Baha’is are familiar with. I wonder if that places something of an obstacle in the way of those who aren’t Baha’is. I worry that it sets up an in-group/out-group dynamic between those who are and those who are not Baha’is - perhaps not an overt dynamic, but a subtle suggestion of “us and them” is there.

Mary, Bev and Lindsay have certainly commented about the answers to some of the questions that they apply to Baha’is. Lindsay didn’t answer question 3 in Section 6 last night because, she said, it referred to Baha’is (and she isn’t a Baha’i). And, of course, these ladies don’t necessarily accept the extracts from the Baha’i sacred texts as authoritative in the way that Baha’is would. There’s a real sense in which they are consciously studying the course as outsiders.

There’s nothing wrong with this, of course. Baha’is unequivocally promote freedom of conscience, thought and religion. But it does raise questions in my mind about the suitability of Ruhi Book 1 as a universal entry point for those who aren’t Baha’is and don’t know a great deal about what the Baha’i Faith teaches.

Of course, we don’t know how Bev, Lindsay, Mary and Val will respond as the course goes on. They are clearly getting value out of it and enjoying it at the moment.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Ruhi Institute