Subject: HR2431 - Christian Coalition Supports the Bill
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:48:36 +0000
To: "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
From: Eddie Chumney
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: HR2431 - Christian Coalition Supports the Bill
I will be including a point - counterpoint of HR2431 in several
articles. The article below is from the Christian Coalition. They
support HR2431.
**********************************************************************
CHRISTIAN COALITION SUPPORTS HR2431
An analysis of certain claims relating to
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act
(http://www.cc.org/legislation/frpa.html)
Recently, disturbing claims have been made about the Freedom From
Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431). Some claims have been made
concerning the creation of a bureau within the United States
government that will monitor religion in America. It is certainly the
duty of every concerned American to be concerned about increasing
government interference with religion in American life, but this
assertion is tilting at a windmill.
Other wildly inaccurate claims have been made about the bill and its
effects, as even a cursory reading of the bill itself would reveal. In
order to respond to these claims we have organized comments into four
broad allegations: that the bill would create an agency to monitor
religion in America, that it's sanction provisions are overly broad
and unfocused, that it would increase the dictatorial powers of the
executive branch, and that it promotes one world government. In the
following pages we will evaluate the accuracy of these claims in some
detail.
Allegation No. 1: Monitoring religion in America
Some critics claims that the bill would establish an office to monitor
religion in America. Some even go as far as to say the position will
join the President's cabinet and hold power equal to cabinet
secretaries.
This is a serious and, if correct, damning accusation. Such an agency
would clearly be unconstitutional and every religious person in
America would oppose it. This assertion is, however, wrong on two
points. First, the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring (ORPM)
that the bill would create is not a "Cabinet level equivalent agency."
It is an office within the executive branch that has a very limited
scope of action. Second, critics completely misrepresent the powers
granted to the ORPM under the bill. The bill empowers the ORPM to
monitor the actions of governments that persecute people of faith; it
does not empower the office to monitor religion or to judge the faith
of either religious groups or individuals.
Specifically, the director of the ORPM is charged with the following
responsibilities:
Consider the facts and circumstances of violations of religious
freedom presented in the annual reports of the Department of
State on human rights [Section 5 (e)(1)]; Consider the facts and
circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented by
independent human rights groups and non-governmental
organizations [Section 5 (e)(2)]; In consultation with the
Secretary of State, make policy recommendations to the President
regarding the policies of the United States Government toward
governments which are determined to be engaged in religious
persecution [Section 5 (e)(3)]; Prepare and submit an annual
report including the determination whether a particular country
is engaged in religious persecution, and identify the responsible
entities within such countries [Section 5 (e)(4)]; Maintain the
lists of persecution facilitating products, goods, and services,
and the responsible entities within countries determined to be
engaged in religious persecution [Section 5 (e)(5)]; Coordinate
with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary
of Commerce, and the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that the
provisions of this Act are fully and effectively implemented
[Section 5 (e)(6)].
In short, the bill empowers the director of the office to engage in
fact-finding activities, to prepare reports and lists of goods used to
persecute people of faith, to make policy recommendations, and to
cooperate with other administration officials to carry out the law
which Congress has passed. No other powers, legislative or executive,
are granted to this office or to its director in this legislation. It
does not empower the director or the office determine the course of
U.S. foreign policy.
More importantly, nothing in the bill empowers to the director or the
office to monitor religion either abroad or in America. The
fact-finding responsibilities described above do not empower the
director to judge religions, they require him to determine where
governments are taking actions to suppress with violent force the
faith of individuals and groups. It is instructive in this regard to
examine the definitions used in the bill. As shown above, the only
thing that the ORPM is empowered to monitor is religious persecution
as defined within the bill:
The term 'religious persecution' means widespread and ongoing
persecution of persons because of their membership in or
affiliation with a religion or religious denomination, whether
officially recognized or otherwise, when such persecution
includes abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced
mass resettlement, rape, or crucifixion or other forms of torture
[Section 3 (4)(a)].
The bill further distinguishes between situations in which such acts
are performed by the government itself ('Category 1' religious
persecution [Section 3 (4)(b)]) and when the government allows such
widespread and ongoing persecution to occur without taking action to
protect those being persecuted ('Category 2' religious persecution
[Section 3 (4)(c)]).
That the bill does not empower the office to judge religions is
further clear by the bill's definition of 'responsible entities'.
The term 'responsible entities' means the specific government
departments, agencies, or units which directly carry out acts of
religious persecution [Section 3 (5)])
The actions of such government departments, agencies, or units which
directly carry out acts of religious persecution are the only entities
which the ORPM is empowered to evaluate. At no point does the bill
empower the ORPM or its director to evaluate religions.
Critics that claim the bill empowers the ORPM to evaluate religions by
pointing to the section on immigration policy. They claim
Section 9 empowers "The Office" to evaluate and compare religions
and to train government employees within various agencies,
including the Department of Immigration and Naturalization.
Since some critics build their entire case for government oversight of
religion on this section of the bill, it is useful to quote in its
entirety Section 9 (b) to which he refers:
(b) TRAINING FOR CERTAIN IMMIGRATION OFFICERS- Section 235 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) (as amended by
section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996; Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-579) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(d) TRAINING ON RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION- The Attorney General
shall establish and operate a program to provide to
immigration officers performing functions under subsection
(b), or section 207 or 208, training on religious
persecution, including training on--
(1) the fundamental components of the right to freedom
of religion;
(2) the variation in beliefs of religious groups; and
(3) the governmental and nongovernmental methods used
in violation of the right to freedom of religion.'.
First, it important to note that the bill does not empower the ORPM or
its director to do any evaluation or training whatsoever. It requires
the Attorney General to operate a training program for immigration
offices so that they will be able to make competent decisions about
claims to asylum on the basis of religious persecution.
Second, some are disturbed by the language of point (d)(2) on "the
variation in beliefs of religious groups". This clause must be
understood in the light of its context, specifically that "The
Attorney General shall establish and operate a program to provide to
immigration officers ... training on religious persecution...." In
other words, this clause does not empower the government to "evaluate
and compare religions" in general, as Mr. Carlson suggests, but only
to make sure that immigration officials understand the beliefs of
religious groups insofar as necessary to carry out their
responsibility to make determinations in the cases of applicants
seeking asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. In this light
it should be further apparent that since no U.S. citizens will be
applying for admission to the U.S. on the grounds that they are
seeking asylum from religious persecution in other countries, this
clause has nothing whatsoever to do with monitoring or evaluating
religious groups within the United States.
Again critics allege that this legislation would allow the government
to pass judgement on individuals based on their religious beliefs." As
evidence he cites the bill's reference to the distinction between
"radical extremists Muslims" and "moderate Muslims". The distinction
to which he refers is a distinction based on the actions of
governments, not on the beliefs of individuals. The bill does not
condemn "radical extremists Muslims" on the basis of the beliefs, it
condemns governments which because of pressure from radical extremists
Muslims are engaged in "widespread and ongoing" acts of "abduction,
enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, or
crucifixion or other forms of torture" against persons because of
their faith [Section 3 (4)(a)].
At no point does the bill suggest that the ORPM has either a mandate
or the authority to monitor any citizen or group within the United
States. Its clearly-articulated mandate is to engage in fact-finding
activities with regard to the actions of foreign governmental entities
engaged in the most heinous forms of inhuman brutality. From all of
this it should be clear that the Office of Religious Persecution
Monitoring is empowered to monitor government actions, not individual
beliefs.
Allegation No. 2: Sanctions
In describing the sanction provisions of the bill, critics
misrepresent the ORPM as having unrestricted authority to impose a
long list of sanctions against offending countries
this misrepresentation arises because critics confuses two distinct
aspects of the bill: the general sanction provisions that take effect
upon a finding that a country is engaged in widespread and on-going
religious persecution (section seven of the bill) and the specific
sanction provisions aimed only at the government of Sudan (section 12
of the bill). These two are not the same. To understand the sanction
provisions of the bill one must keep these two sections clearly
distinct.
The general sanction provisions of the bill provide a base-line
response on the part of the U.S. government to nations engaging in
widespread and ongoing acts of persecution against individuals and
groups because of their faith. Critics add that the sanction
provisions of the bill are very broad in both their scope (what is
sanctioned) and their application (who is sanctioned). In fact, these
provisions are very limited in the scope and highly targeted in their
application.
Section 7 (a)(1)(A) of the act provides that upon the finding that a
government is engaged in widespread and ongoing acts of religious
persecution from of the bill, the relevant U.S. government agencies
will:
(i) prohibit all exports to the responsible entities listed under
section 6(b)(3) or in any supplemental list of the Director; and
(ii) prohibit the export to such country of the persecution
facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section
6(b)(2) or in any supplemental list of the Director....
Point (i) above deals with the application of the sanction provisions,
that is, who is sanctioned. It is clear from the language of the bill
that only exports (not imports) to 'responsible entities' are
prohibited. As we have seen above, the term 'responsible entities'
refers to "the specific government departments, agencies, or units
which directly carry out acts of religious persecution" [Section
3(5)]. Furthermore, in identifying such 'responsible entities' the
director of the ORPM is required to define such entities "as narrowly
as possible" [Section 6(b)(3)].
These provisions of the act would only limit American companies from
doing business with those agencies or entities engaged in the hands-on
torture, killing, or other forms of persecution of people of faith.
These provisions would not allow for everything from a "selective
targeting of individuals to a complete embargo of the designated,
offending country.²
Point (ii) of the sanction provisions deals with the scope of the
sanctions, that is, what is sanctioned. In addition to prohibiting
exports to those directly responsible for carrying out acts of
religious persecution, the bill also prohibits the export of
"persecution facilitating products, goods, and services" -- items
directly shown to be used for surveillance or to torture, maim, and
kill -- to persecuting countries. As before, the key to understanding
what is meant by the bill lies in its definition of 'persecution
facilitating products, goods, and services'. Section 3(3) of the bill
defines this phrase as follows:
The term 'persecution facilitating products, goods, and services'
means those products, goods, and services which are being used or
determined to be intended for use directly and in significant
measure to facilitate the carrying out of acts of religious
persecution.
>From this it should be clear that the bill does not ban general trade
between the U.S. and countries in which there is widespread and
on-going religious persecution. It merely bans exports to those
government entities directly engaged in persecution and the exports of
such goods or services used "directly and in significant measure" to
carry out such persecution.
Perhaps it is easiest to measure the impact of the bill in a
hypothetical future situation by applying it to a known situation from
the past. How would this law have affected our trade with Nazi Germany
before the U.S. entered the Second World War at the end of 1941? On
the assumption that the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring
established by the act would have identified the internment of Jews in
concentration camps as an act of "widespread and ongoing persecution
of persons because of their membership in or affiliation with a
religion," the act would have prohibited all trade between U.S.
companies and those sub-units of the Gestapo run by Adolf Eichmann. It
would further have banned all sales of barbed wire and poisonous gas
to Germany. It would not have restricted U.S. trade with the Gestapo
generally or with Germany as a whole, nor would it have prevented
American citizens from buying Volkswagens or General Motors from
selling Chevrolets in Germany.
There are many who may think that these limited trade sanctions are
likely to be too small a response, and they may be correct. These
limited sanctions are intended to provide a highly targeted starting
point for a U.S. response that demonstrates America's abhorrence of
religious persecution. The bill leaves open to the Congress and to the
administration a wide range of further options, both for quiet
diplomacy and for overt action.
In addition to misrepresenting the trade sanction provisions of the
bill, critics misrepresent the bill's cut-off of non-humanitarian aid
to persecuting nations. Some even imply that this would cause
starvation of children in the countries effected. Section 3(7)(a) of
the bill specifically allows for the continuance of aid in the form of
food, medical supplies, disaster relief, or for refugee assistance,
despite the fact that such humanitarian assistance is often used by
persecuting countries as a weapon to force people to deny their faith,
as Congress heard in recent testimony before the House International
Relations Committee. The bill would terminate U.S. taxpayer subsidies
of persecuting regimes by elimination non-humanitarian aid such a
military assistance, unless the president deems that the such aid
should continue for reasons involving the national security of the
United States.
Claims have even been made that U.S. citizens would be banned from
doing any business with any sanctioned nation, thus effectively
banning humanitarian aid from American charities.
The absurdity of this claim is once again revealed by the language of
the bill itself. Section 7(a)(2) reads (in its entirety):
(2) PROHIBITIONS ON U.S. PERSONS- (A) With respect to any country
or region thereof in which the Director finds the occurrence of
category 1 religious persecution, no United States person may--
(i) export any item to the responsible entities listed under
section 6(b)(3) or in any supplemental list of the Director;
and
(ii) export to that country any persecution facilitating
products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2)
or in any supplemental list of the Director.
In other words, the only prohibitions placed upon the actions of
individual U.S. citizens are the same as those imposed upon U.S.
companies: they may not export goods or services to those engaged in
hands-on acts of religious persecution, nor may they export goods or
services found to be directly used to carry out such acts. Nothing in
this bill would prohibit American citizens from visiting or engaging
in general trade with a country found to be engaged in widespread and
ongoing acts of religious persecution. Certainly nothing in this bill
would prohibit U.S. citizens from sending humanitarian aid to the
starving populations in an offending country.
Allegation No. 3: Expansion of the executive branch and lack of
Congressional oversight
Some assert that the bill would greatly increase the size of the
Executive Branch of the U.S. government and would create a rogue
agency that operated without Congressional oversight.
Unfortunately, critics fail to cite a single specific aspect of the
bill to justify such wild claims. As we have already seen, the bill
creates a single office (not a cabinet-level department) with a very
limited responsibility to engage in fact-finding. The office has no
legislative powers and its executive power is limited to co-operating
with other agencies to carry out the policies determined by the
Congress and specifically articulated in this bill, which is the
essential function of the executive branch of the U.S. government
under our constitution. The office has no authority to assume powers
or responsibilities not specifically articulated in the bill itself.
Such a circumscribed office hardly changes the constitutional balance
of the American government.
Claims that the office will operate without Congressional oversight
appear to reflect a basic misunderstanding of the way in which the
government of the United States operates. The bill provides for the
following types of Congressional oversight:
First, the director of the office must be approved by the Senate.
No director may serve without such approval. This is a form of
Congressional oversight. Second, the reporting provisions of the
bill require that the office keep the Congress informed of its
fact-finding activities. This is a form of Congressional
oversight. Third, the Congress has the authority to control the
funding for the office through the existing appropriations
process. In this way the Congress has the power to limit the
growth of the office. This is a form of Congressional oversight.
Fourth, just as the Congress created the office, the Congress may
terminate the office at any time. This is a form of Congressional
oversight.
>From all of this it is clear that far from eroding constitutional
government, this bill creates a small office with a limited function
that is responsible to the president as the elected head of the
executive branch of the government and answerable to the Congress as
the elected representatives of the people.
Allegation No. 4: The United Nations and one world government
One of the most absurd claims about the Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act is that it promotes one world government. Critics base
this claim on two points, that the bill cites the resolution of the
United Nations in it findings, and that Nina Shea, author of the book
In the Lion's Den, works for an organization that is supportive of the
United Nations and that in her book she cites several United Nations
resolutions on religious liberty.
The bill does indeed contain a few references to UN documents. They
are quoted within the findings section of the bill. These state:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
...
(2) The right to freedom of religion is recognized by
numerous international agreements and covenants, including
the following:
(A) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that 'Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'.
(B) Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights declares that 'Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion . . .' and
further delineates the privileges under this right.
The purpose of the citation of these documents is clear from the
introductory statement, "Congress makes the following findings." This
section of the bill makes certain findings of fact, among them that
the United States and other nations have long recognized the right of
the individual to believe in God. In citing these documents the bill
illustrates that the U.S. Congress is not here inventing a new right,
it is acting in accordance with a principle long held by our own
government and recognized as well by many others. This is not an
appeal to an authority outside the U.S. Constitution, as some critics
suggest, it is merely a fact that the Congress of the United States
recognizes. At no point does the bill appeal to any authority outside
the Constitution of the United States. It is patently absurd to
suggest that it is a promotion of one world government to recognize
that most of the nations of the world have agreed that freedom to
believe in God is a fundamental human right.
The only other reference to the United Nations in the bill is in the
section dealing with the special sanctions on the Sudan. After
outlining the special sanctions which the United States will impose
against that nation for its genocidal war against non-Muslims.
(6) UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSITION OF SAME MEASURES
AGAINST SUDAN- It is the sense of the Congress that the President
should instruct the Permanent Representative of the United States
to the United Nations to propose that the United Nations Security
Council, pursuant to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter,
impose measures against Sudan of the same type as are imposed by
this section.
The language is quite clear. This is a 'sense of the Congress'
provision stating a request that the U.S. government propose that the
U.N. join the U.S. in imposing sanctions against Sudan, not an appeal
on the part of the Congress to an authority outside the U.S.
Constitution to justify the imposition of sanctions by the U.S.
government.
As we have seen, there is nothing in the bill itself that appeals to
an authority outside the U.S. Constitution or promotes the idea of one
world government. Some justify this claim on the basis that some
members of the board of Freedom House support the work of United
Nations, and that Nina Shea, who works for Freedom House has written a
book on the persecution of Christians around the world.
Conclusion
In the course of this document we have attempted to evaluate the
claims made by critics of the proposed Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act. In doing so we have looked as some length at the
language of the bill itself. Some have claimed that the bill would set
up an agency that would monitor religion in America. We have found
that it does not. Claims have been made that the sanction provisions
of the bill would cause starvation in sanctioned nations and that they
would prevent individuals and religious groups from sending
humanitarian aid to such countries. We have found this to be wrong.
Critics also claim that the bill would expand the dictatorial power of
the executive branch and create a rogue agency free of Congressional
oversight. We have found they are wrong. Claims that the bill
substitutes the authority of the United Nations for the authority of
the U.S. Constitution and that it promotes one world government are
absurd.
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act defines an American policy
for responding to a fundamental human rights issue: widespread and
ongoing acts of brutality, imprisonment, enslavement, and murder of
individuals and groups on the basis of their faith in God. In the near
future the Congress will determine if the policies contained in the
act are good policies or not. Regardless of whether one supports such
polices or not, it is in the vital interests of everyone that such a
determination must be made on the basis of accurate information and a
clear understanding of the bill and its effects. It is our hope that
the preceding analysis will contribute to such an understanding.
***********************************************************************