Documents | International Religious Liberty Association

The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association
1998 Fides et Libertas

Director

Adventist News Network

Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America

On March 4, 1997, two Seventh-day Adventists were tortured, beaten, and burned to death in the town square of Buinaksk, Dagestan, in the southern Caucasus region of Russia. Hadgimurat Magomedov and his wife Tatyana Dmitrienko were not killed because they were Adventists, but because they were different.

Comes then this question: Were these murders a last example of old intolerance or the presage of a new order? As we look to the future of religion and the role of the state in the coming millennium, we can point out various factors that will impact religious liberty and human rights.

(1) The decline of state control

Wide approval usually follows the decline of state control. The state should not be intrusive in the personal affairs of its citizens. The decline of the influence of the state means greater individual freedom.

Much of this decline is associated with the explosive impact of communication, which leads to global connectivity. What killed communism was not an ideological battle, but the fax machine. What destroyed East Germany was not a specific assault on the Berlin Wall, but the pervasive impact of West German TV. In the new millennium, religious persecution will not be a primary, state-sponsored ideological activity.

But that is a long way from saying it will not occur. In fact, the reverse. Because of the new connectivity, those who are not molded by the world wide web and its value system will be marginalized. Individuals whose religious concepts do not mesh will become the new targets for attack.

Old persecution was state-driven. New intolerance is collective rejection by linked individuals based on a new global identity of humanity. Those who do not fit are rapidly excluded.

I term this “collective individualism”--an agreed personal decision by many that still works like a mob, but is based on appeal to individual values. As a consequence, governments will be forced to act against religious minorities, not out of concern for their own concepts of religion and state, but because of the accumulated wishes of the majority.

(2) The role of faith

In a world experiencing change at an exponential level, religious beliefs will have increased value. They provide confidence and stability in a chaotic global society. Instead of becoming less religious, the new millennium will experience increased religiosity.

This religious expression, however, will not be in the manner of the traditional and institutionalized forms of religion, but through a personalized, individualized blending of “useful” religious components. While mutual toleration will be emphasized, heavy penalties will be imposed on those who refuse to conform.

This in turn impacts both the state’s role and religious freedom. Government will be increasingly intolerant of those who refuse to identify with the generic brand of religiosity--a demand not of state ideology, but rather, “popular public demand.”

One example is the official designation of religious organizations and their classification into “approved” or “unapproved” religions. New laws under discussion in Eastern Europe (and, in some instances, already implemented) demonstrate that the demand comes from religious majorities who wish to impose their societal control on the nation state. Even in Western Europe the official governmental disapproval of certain religions, under the guise of identifying dangerous sects, shows how religious discrimination can easily become a reality in historically liberal and pluralistic nations. Add religious fundamentalism to this mix and the prospects for a religiously tolerant new millennium are increasingly bleak.

(3) The five freedoms

Humanity has always struggled with five basic freedoms: The freedom to be. The freedom to do. The freedom to know. The freedom to go. The freedom to believe and to act on belief.

In the new millennium some of these freedoms will be greatly developed. But this does not automatically mean freedom across the board.

The freedom to know, for example, becomes almost limitless with the accessibility, all over the planet, of knowledge, information, and news. For religious liberty, freedom of communication has meant that local intolerance quickly and easily becomes a world issue. Absent easy communication, governments could--and often did--do what they liked without fear of any outside reaction. The rest of the world simply did not know. Now and in the future, that possibility becomes increasingly remote. Human rights groups are able to share the information so widely, using the new media of communication, that any abuses can be readily publicized. And as these technologies progress, any state’s ability to control information flow will be greatly restricted. The freedom to know generally improves the prospect for religious toleration. But even if everybody knows, what does it matter if nobody cares?

The freedom to go is also much enhanced in a global society. Again, the state’s role diminishes as borders are removed and travel opportunities are enhanced. In the new millennium, the freedom to go will advance globalization--which usually translates to increased toleration. But what happens when there is no place to go to? At least the Mayflower’s pilgrim fathers had a New World to go to when persecution became intolerable back home. As globalization becomes a reality, so do the accepted norms and values. Those choosing not to accept these norms and values will increasingly find they have no place to run to.

With the new millennium comes wider opportunities to be and to do. The traditional role models decline, employment concepts change. Who you are and what you do are open to an increased ability to choose. And yet, in all of this the freedom to be and to do remain under the control of what others are prepared to tolerate. Again, the state in the future is not so much an autocratic control machine, but an expression of the will of the majority of individuals.

This will be most reflected in the freedom to believe and how the freedom to believe impacts the majority. If your beliefs have minimal impact on society, then you will be tolerated but not accepted. If, however, the implications and impacts of your beliefs are strongly rejected by the majority, the power of the state (read, the combined desire of the agreed majority) will be invoked against you. And as religious organizations become more individualized themselves, expect the results of such intolerance of “unapproved religions” to be even more severe.

(4) The future of religion in the global state

Ever-widening globalization results in an apparent paradox. Increasing religiosity accompanies decreasing tolerance. For the ultimate question is not what people are permitted to believe, but to what extent they are allowed to put their beliefs into practice.

With a more uniform society worldwide in which local governments are less important than the concept of “global humanity,” the ideal of toleration may well be presented as a glowing tribute to progress, but its implementation will be strictly limited: “You can believe anything you want as long as your beliefs do not impact others.”

The idea of society tolerating and granting exclusions has been a positive factor in pluralistic societies. As the world becomes more and more connected, and as many freedoms increase, the irony is that the more similar we all become, the less likely we will be to tolerate those who are different. Consider religion. The common value system of a connected world will work against those with strongly held convictions. Discrimination in the future will not be a matter of mutual religious intolerance, but rather a pragmatic approach that says “Society cannot afford to tolerate such individuals.”

Thus the lynching of the Seventh-day Adventists in Dagestan shows that “being different” in the new millennium brings its own penalties. While the new world order says it values pluralism, this tragic event demonstrates the urge to merge into a common society with a common value system.

We may accept as intriguing different cuisines and different languages. But different religions, strongly believed and practiced, are a threat to a society based on common assumptions. And the more the world moves towards a global perspective, the less it will be able to accept those who see things differently. How ironic that as personal freedoms increase around the world and religiosity is on the rise, the forces that propel us together will be the same forces that discriminate and bring intolerance. Any strange bee in the hive of workers will be quickly stung to death in the millennial hive of global human unity.

(5) Millennial conclusions

A half dozen ideas occur:

* Wider individual freedoms may well result in greater intolerance and eventual denial of freedom to those individuals who choose to exercise their religious freedom.

* The rise of globalism that, on the surface, should usher in a new golden age, has the inherent capacity to restrict the freedom of religious expression.

* Religious minorities may well have more to fear from a unified world that is supposedly more free than the world today.

* Faith concepts will be tolerated as they aid individuals and resisted as they impact social, political, and ethical paradigms.

* Religion will be endorsed as an internal concept. Any resulting impacts the state (read, society ) views negatively will be summarily rejected. No exclusions!

* New intolerance will be based on the fear that people of faith are perceived as a threat to the new golden age.

“What is freedom?” wondered Archibald MacLeish, and then went on to answer the question himself:

“Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for yourself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of choice a man is not a man, but a member, an instrument, a thing.”

Only as we recognize this elementary truth will there be hope for religious liberty in the new millennium.

TOP