Search

Search
- Search

Religious Freedom Day LIII A.S. by Reverend Campbell

Published January 16, 2018

On this Religious Freedom Day^[1], I would like to remind everyone that—though we live in perhaps the best time in history for safely practicing any religion we choose and are generally free from political condemnation—there are still areas of the world where this basic freedom is denied or actively suppressed.

On October 27th 1998, president Bill Clinton signed the International Religious Freedom Act^[2] into law. This was passed as an effort to promote religious freedom as a foreign policy of the United States, and to advocate on the behalf of the individuals persecuted in foreign countries due to their religion.

It allowed the United States government to monitor and impose mandatory sanctions on the countries supporting religious persecution. It was amended to allow the president to waiver the sanction if it would further the goal of the bill or promote the interests of U.S. national security. We always leave ourselves an out.

A few examples were cited in the proposal of this act:

The civil war ensuing in Sudan due to the ruling party’s intolerance of opposing religions.
The Chinese Catholics and Protestant groups battling government repression, and the Chinese government regulating religious practices in Tibet and Xinjiang
Members of the Rohingya Muslim minority being forced to take refuge in neighboring Bangladesh.
There were suspect cases of oppression in Europe as well.
Russia’s recent religious laws sought to create restraints and inhibit new religious communities’ ability to own property, publish literature or operate schools.

The act created the Commission on International Religious Freedom, to advise the President in the National security Council. Every year since, it has designated governments that infringe upon individuals’ ability to adopt, change, or renounce their religion or belief, worship in accordance with their religion or beliefs, or be free from coercion to practice a particular religion or belief.

On January 4th, 2018^[3], Heather Nauert, the Department Spokesperson declared the following:

“In accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the Secretary of State annually designates governments that have engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom as “Countries of Particular Concern.’ Today, the Department of State announces that the Secretary of State re-designated Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan as Countries of Particular Concern on December 22, 2017. The Secretary also placed Pakistan on a Special Watch List for severe violations of religious freedom.”

USCIRF’s Chairman Daniel Mark said^[4] that Secretary Tillerson should have also designated the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and Vietnam.” He continued by stating that “Pakistan continues to harass its religious minorities, has state-sanctioned discrimination against groups such as the Ahmadis, and tolerates extrajudicial violence in the guise of opposing blasphemy. As USCIRF has said for many years, Pakistan should be designated by the State Department as a CPC. Given the strong stance that President Trump has taken on Pakistan recently, the failure to designate Pakistan as a CPC this year comes as a surprise and disappointment.”

In April 2017, USCIRF recommended that the Administration designate the following entities as Entities of Particular Concern: the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria; the Taliban in Afghanistan; and al-Shabaab in Somalia.

We are truly fortunate; but our good fortune comes from the chaotic chance of being born in the more progressive and tolerant geographic regions of our planet. The recognition of this fact should encourage reflection upon and exercise of our freedoms. Like all “rights,” this contemporary liberty is a privilege that could be withdrawn, despite the original intention meant to promote similar liberties abroad as well. And we note that many religions—while generally domesticated to “live and let live”—tend to want to return to earlier times when they proselytize with force, their beliefs a state-enforced mandate. Satanism itself is still actively opposed by virtually every other religious and non-religious group. So our beliefs could, in the shifting balances of power, become outlawed should less tolerant legislations be enacted.

But today we celebrate our current sovereignty and proudly embrace our philosophy, an alternative for the creative few who earn their position among the alien elite. Not content to follow the herd, we challenge ourselves to evolve into outstanding, independent individuals, exemplars of Satanism to anyone bold enough to see for themselves the truths we’ve discovered in our study of the human animal.

References