study. Our definition of the practice of religion, applied to all countries, is as follows: Religion is that which one believes and acts upon in obedience to understandings or impulses presumed by a community to be transcendant in origin. The definition makes room for Bahais, Jews and Muslims in their varieties of sects, the thousand "denominations" and religious societies of Christendom, animists of Africa, Indonesia and hill-country India, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, and even-to the extent that history can be viewed as transcendant-those old foes of religion, the Marxists. In this connection, though the Marxists come through on A.D.'s chart as great oppressors of religion everywhere but in Cuba and Nicaragua, A.D. found itself asking what its chart might have looked like if we had treated communism as a reli government-bodes well for the future of religion in that country if too much strain is not put upon church-state relationships by foreign Christians or newly exuberant Chinese believers. The Soviet Union, mistreatment of Jews and Baptist Pentecostals notwithstanding, has in the opinion of experts been slowly mitigating its philosophically based campaign against religion in a process that stretches back to World War II when Stalin, beset by the Nazis, realized he needed the support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Examination of the violence of a state's response to religiously based challenges to law or custom provides a "list" that is quite different in compostion from the 10 rated "most oppressive." The list of the "most violent" looks like this: Argentina's place near the top of the list would doubtless have been shared a few years ago by Chile and Uruguay; their names are not present now because they have slain or otherwise neutralized religious opposition. Ethiopia, building a most radical socialist republic, has been violent, indeed lethal, in its handling of Ethiopian Coptic Church prelates but has been more reasonable in dealings with evangelical churches. Israel finds itself on the "most violent" list not for her super-violent raids against Palestinian activists in Lebanon but because of the intermittently violent treatment police and troops have accorded demonstrating Arab students within Israeli borders. The Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia are rated "violent" because of their penchant for forcing psychiatric treatment upon notable religious dissidents, for the frequency with which police goons, particularly in the provinces, beat up obscure young believers, and for the two nations' psychologically violent practice of tearing the children of evangelicals away from their parents. North Korea is not present on the "most violent" list only because, much earlier, it cowed its religious population in a murderous campaign; South Korea is present because of its current repression of Christian leaders and students seeking a return to democracy. Taiwan, dominated by Chinese of mainland origin, makes the list because it has dealt severely with religious protagonists of the Taiwanese indigenous population; South Africa is ranked because of its violent repression of Christian antiapartheid leaders. There is no escaping the fact that religion itself is often a factor in the repression of religion. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan all make clear that they are nations of Muslims, and that all other inhabitants are guests. Israel sees itself as a Jewish homeland, and reserves the right of election to top offices to Jews. India, more pluralistic, permits Hindu individuals to change their religion, but has moved in recent years to bar certain castes and tribes from moving as groups into Christianity. Indonesia provides freedom of religion, but since 1965 has looked askance at, and actively discriminated against, those who deny the claims of any religion. In general, the worst persecution seems to fall upon religious groups that are schismatic from or adaptations of the religion of the majority community. Yet, if not the most violent, the most pervasive churchstate tensions arise when religionists turn from worship to discussion and action on issues of justice, equity and freedom. It is almost as if states, including so-called "free world" states, would prefer that believing citizens fasten upon the object rather than the content of religion. Such states frequently view the ecumenical relationships of churches as fostering dissent, and therefore take steps, as in South Africa and South Korea, to weaken ecumenical ties through denial of passports and visas. The ten "most free" areas of the world from the standpoint of the exercise of religion are: 1. Scandinavian countries 2. Switzerland 3. United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland) 4. The United States and Canada 5. France and the Benelux nations 10. Mexico Too much should not be made, perhaps, of a country's presence on the "most free" list. Religious freedoms, as noted, have a way of getting clipped when religious people address earthly and societal problems. For the most part however, nations on this list no longer view the protection of religion as a necessary preoccupation of the state. All nations on the list except the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Austria and Italy have polyglot populations-pluralism for them is a fact that must be dealt with and accepted. All nations on the "most free" list have come through major historical confrontations with the forces of religion, and have worked out accommodations that leave room for most varieties of minority religions. Spain's name does not appear on the list, by the way, because her accommodation to minority religious rights is so recent as to be untested. And politicians in all nations on the "most free" list give evidence of consciousness that modern statecraft involves continuing dialogue with religion in courts and legislatures, in the press and literature, and that such dialogue can be creative. Religion is lightly restricted in all countries on the "most free" list. Such restrictions are financial and tax-related for the most part, the so called "14 points" of religious definition used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, for example, and the requirement in Western Europe that a legal entity be created for the holding of property. Yet religious views sometimes have social impact in most such countries and not always in the direction of freedom. Restrictions on abortion, birth control and divorce in Italy, Ireland, and some American states come to mind as examples. Religion in all of the "most free" states receives some governmental support in spite of popular belief in the mythical "separation of church and state" (a separation that does not exist in many countries on the list that remain formally wedded to state churches). "Most free" countries provide tax support for churches, as in Germany, or tax deductions for contributions to churches, as in the United States. Support is given for church-run education enterprises, church-school busing, reduced-rate mail privileges for church publications, and so on. Even in Mexico, where religion operates under considerable restriction in areas of property-holding and operation of schools, the clergy ride public transportation at reduced rates. Finally, in all countries on the "most free" list, religious freedoms are under strain now for two reasons. One is the desire of the people, reflected in acts of legislatures and the behavior of police, for controls over new sects that are often groups whose origins are in societies culturally different from that of the majority. The "Moonies" are such a cult, as are the Hare Krishna people. What's more, Christianity itself may be such a cult in a country such as Japan. Many Japanese hope for the re-establishment of traditional Shinto religious observances as an antidote to what they perceive as foreign "poison." The other strain upon religious freedom in Western countries arises from the sensitivities of states and governments to criticism. Thus when people of religion address failures of states or societies, the old charge of "subversion" is heard, even in most free countries. If people are wise, if they are prudent, they will not seek legislative relief from such religiously imposed strains. Freedom comes hard--witness the struggle of Soviet believers to confess their faiths freely. Religious freedom is easily lost when, as in Uruguay, police and armed services of a once-democratic state are given hunting licenses to bag those of the faithful who are courageous enough to protest social evils. Hard as it may be to avow, nations may be well-advised to overlook a "Jim Jones" or two every century, rather than get into a potentially disastrous policing of religion. AD Mr. CLARK. Some material concerning religious persecution can, of course, be gleaned from the annual Amnesty International report by looking under the entry for each country at what violations took place. Many entries suggest aspects of religious persecution. One can make a similar analysis of the State Department's annual country reports on human rights practices. None of these documents provide a comprehensive study of what is really going on. I have provided for your interest some examples in my written text. By way of conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the adoption of the U.N. declaration will not magically cause such persecution to cease. Yet, it is an important and fairly concrete standard to be applied when public or private appeals are made to governments, when complaints are aired in U.N. forums such as the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The United Nations may now turn its attention to drafting a convention to give treaty form, and perhaps even more detail to the content of the declaration. It may even include in its next product some specific forms of enforcement procedure for dealing with religious persecution, analogous to the procedure in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the optional protocol to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. In the meantime, vigilance is important. Religious persecution will never be eliminated unless bodies like this subcommittee take the time to monitor what is going on, and then speak out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Professor Clark. 1 Article by Mr. Clark, "The United Nations and Religious Freedom," is retained in committee files, and can also be found in vol. 11:197, 1978 issue of the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER S. CLARK, PROFESSOR OF LAW, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY My name is Roger S. Clark. I am a Professor of Law at Rutgers, the State University, School of Law in Camden, New Jersey. Among the subjects I teach are the Law of International Organizations and the International Protection of Human Rights. I have been asked to discuss particularly what the letter from your distinguished Chairman called "the definition, scope and historical aspects of religious persecution." Persecution and freedom are two opposite sides of the coin, and I hope that you will forgive me if I approach the subject from the positive side-from the viewpoint of the development of religious freedom. I. The Declaration on Religious Freedom A positive approach is I think justified because these hearings are taking place at a moment of great symbolic significance in the struggle for the international protection of human rights. After some 19 years of sporadic effort, the United Nations has just completed the drafting of a very important document with the rather cumbersome title of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion of Belief1 (hereinafter "the Declaration"). I have elsewhere described the history of the drafting of this instrument as "a tale punctuated by hypocrisy, procedural jockeying and false starts."2 The Declaration had for several years lain almost dormant, as something of an embarrassment, on the agenda of the United Nations bodies concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights. Within the past couple of years, however, dedicated work by a number of committed and able delegates (including representatives of the United States) prodded by the representatives of numerous Non |