02/13/2024
The questionable safeguarding of religious liberty
Last week, the "International Religious Freedom Summit 2024" was held in Washington D.C. This event, promoted primarily by the Lantos Foundation, brings together important representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States of America to connect resources and advocates interested in religious freedom and highlight the personal testimonies of survivors of religious persecution and restrictions on religious freedom, since they estimate that almost 80 percent of the world's inhabitants live in countries where there are high levels of restrictions or social to religion.
So far, I think that a large part of us would support this initiative. However, there are two reflections to consider in the face of this type of event.
The first one is how the debate on religious freedom cannot be detached from the limits of religious freedom, and the fundamental limit is the security of social cohesion and coexistence. This is reflected in Spanish legislation itself or the exceptions to freedom of movement by the European Union. That is why it is still shocking that the U.S. (where even the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can limit religious freedom when it has a "compelling interest" in doing so to protect the common good and limit people's ability to harm others) in its role as guardian of global freedom tells the rest of the world how to act and when the limits of religious freedom they are well or poorly plotted.
And this is regardless of whether we are talking about Western, Asian, Eastern or African states. If a sovereign state makes the decision to censure or dissolve (even to judicially condemn) a religious group for undermining national security, it is appropriate to listen to all parties before taking sides, to those censored and to those in charge of the administration who make such a decision. it is not advisable to confuse religious freedom with the justification of terrorism (case of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement that affects the Chinese border) or independence movements such as what happened in Hong Kong in 2019 and 2020.
The second one is why, when we talk about Christians in the U.S. and their persecution, we focus on those of the evangelical nature, but there is no mention of the suffering suffered by Catholics in certain parts of the world. In fact, the Vatican and the Catholic world are more open to dialogue and the search for understanding with less like-minded administrations and states (a clear example is the agreement between The Vatican and the People's Republic of China, where, although there are ideological discrepancies, in the last five years a policy of minimum tolerance has been chosen).
To summarize, freedom of religion and religious practice is a conquered right, but only if the idiosyncrasies of the society in which they are exercised must be taken into consideration.
Javier Porras Belarra
PhD in European Studies
Lecturer, Public International Law and International Relations
https://www.abc.es/sociedad/cuestionable-custodia-libertad-religiosa-20240209123104-nt.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.es%2Fsociedad%2Fcuestionable-custodia-libertad-religiosa-20240209123104-nt.html
