Even the British Prime Minister quoted after that treaty in the House of Parliament that the Formosan issue was by no means settled; in fact, it was the first time that the status of Taiwan was undetermined. The decision must be made soon, and on that occasion the wishes of the people in Taiwan must be taken into serious consideration, but this was completely forgotten. We have been treated as a pawn, as a thing to be handed over to whoever is the victor. Now, we, as Taiwanese, face a new situation from that undetermined situation because the U.S. Government acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. We are a people, therefore we have the right to say who we are, who we would like to belong to. Mr. DYMALLY. You see, I think the chairman touched on it. Where do you draw the line between a political discourse and a religious sermon? If I were heading the government, I would have to take some exceptions to your statement here because I would want to construe it as being a political statement, not a religious statement. Mr. COE. Well, this may be. I just feel that there is no pure theological statement; there is no pure political statement. From my point of view that that political statement is already something implied in theological position. I am saying our life today, 90 percent of our life is determined by politics. I know as a Taiwanese, almost 100 percent is determined by politics but not the politics which concerned my rights, but politics. Out of that situation all right, I may be a preacher, I look at it from my faith in Jesus Christ, but I, at the same time, know the political forces influence my life and people's life over my people-90 percent, 99 percent. Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Brouwer, I would like at some subsequent time to have a discussion with Dr. Coe. I don't think we have the time, and this is not the appropriate forum, but I would like to have a brainstorming session, because I suspect if I were in the leadership of the government, I would take strong exception. I am not disagreeing with you, but if I were in the leadership, I would say, look, we have made a determination as your leader that we are going to unite with mainland China as a democratic state, until we finished that battle. Mr. COE. That is precisely our trouble in Taiwan. Just now, every government-even the churches-is much afraid to offend Peking, and now we are going to a certain direction. Before, everyone was not afraid; they have a seat in the U.N., a vote in the Security Council. Your argument is our problem. Mr. DYMALLY. I was only being hypothetical. I was not taking sides. Reverend BROUWER. I would like to comment on that same point: that if it were judged to be a political statement rather than a religious statement-and this might also apply to the Falwell-Kennedy campaign at some distant point in the future. Mr. DYMALLY. That is going to take place someday, I assure you. Reverend BROUWER. Even if that were seen as political, even though it were professed by the people, themselves, to be religious, it becomes a question of human rights. If the person who is making the statement says this is a religious affirmation, he would not be persecuted if there were the religious freedom that we are advocating. But a completely separate comment. I think it is worth saying that the churches in Taiwan and the Reformed Church in America, which I serve as general secretary, and the Presbyterian Church in Korea, which is the dominant church, are all in the Calvinistic or Reformed tradition, and a fundamental part of that faith, held with deep conviction, is that God is sovereign. That is probably the most profound religious statement in that tradition. It is also an inescapably fundamental political statement. There is not any way of avoiding that. And, if anybody is to say to me on any grounds whatsoever that a certain part of my life is outside of God's sovereignty, they are in some way infringing upon my religious freedom, because that is right at the heart of my faith. It might also be mentioned that that faith played a very important part in the establishment of the United States with the appeal of some theologian/politicians in the early days of this country's history to the fact that there is a higher authority, and it was that sort of religious conviction that had a great deal to do with the movement of the revolution in our own country. Mr. DYMALLY. Of course, the other factor one has to take into account is that we have a different set of constitutional guarantees here. Reverend BROUWER. Right. Mr. DYMALLY. Some countries have never had it historically, culturally, or politically. Falwell told me if I did not support the invasion of Israel, God would not bless me. Mr. BONKER. Or perhaps without government-ordained prayer in the school. That is why you can take it to the other extreme. What this subcommittee is attempting to do in the course of these hearings is not to ignore or gloss over human rights violations in the countries which we have referred to today. We work with Pharis Harvey and others in multiple overtures to these governments concerning their human rights practices. In conducting these hearings, we have discovered that the Baha'is, for instance, or the Falashas are very passive people. Yet they have experienced extreme persecution because of their particular faith, much as the Jews have suffered over the centuries. Other religious faiths have also suffered. The Christians in Asia-the missionaries, by and large, experienced, as you know, severe persecutions simply because they were an extension of Western ideals and philosophy. They were judged guilty by association. There is a distinction between that and between Christian leaders or churches under their cloak of religious faith speaking out against a government and then experiencing repression. We are trying to identify the distinctions so that perhaps we can build it into our human rights law. We have pointed out that anybody in these countries can proclaim themselves as a Christian and speak out and criticize the state. When they are repressed it is not strictly a matter of religious persecution, it is something else. It is civil rights, and we believe in the extension of those civil rights, but that is a little different than religious persecution. The subcommittee has been purposefully narrow in its study of this question. We shall continue-I don't think any two Members in Congress are more identified with the human rights cause than Mr. Dymally and myself. We will continue to look closely at religious persecution. Reverend BROUWER. May I comment on that? Mr. BONKER. Briefly, then we have to vote. First, to express appreciation for what you and your subcommittee have done. I have done that in my statement. I am happy to say again, we are very grateful for that. We are pleading that there would be a recognition that the broader sense is also related to religious freedom. If we had time, we could go into the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, which is a fundamental watershed for these decades and for this question, where the religious conviction and the political statement are inseparable, but the political statement is unquestionably rooted in the deepest religious conviction. Mr. BONKER. I am familiar with his works. Mr. COE. Very small comment. I think your sentence about the religious liberty-and these are two dimensions very deeply related. Religious liberty and civil liberty, they are inseparable. Mr. BONKER. I don't question for a moment that they are not inseparable. We were looking narrowly at what constitutes religious persecution. I hate to bring this session to a close, because it is most illuminating. I am going to adjourn the subcommittee and want to thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony, their frank response to the questions, and assure you that we are with you in this human rights cause. [Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The Church in Latin America WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1982 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met in open markup session at 2:30 p.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. BONKER. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations will come to order. President Wilson once noted that Congress in session was Congress in exposition while Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work. There are two resolutions that are pending before the subcommittee, and which we will bring up at this time. The first is consideration and markup of House Concurrent Resolution 428, a resolution condemning all forms of religious persecution and discrimination as a violation of human rights. Without objection, a copy of House Concurrent Resolution 428 will be included in the record at this point. [The information follows:] (685) |