Mr. GORDON. May I respond to that by saying that faith does mark this characteristic of being human. There are various forms of faith.

Faith in God is faith in One who is over and above us and against us. This results in an increase of consciousness and an increase of the will to live. It is their faith which was very noticeable in my prison camp days. I think you will find, for example, in Hungary, that as a consequence of the repression of the people, the suicide rate jumped enormously.

I was doing a study of suicides last year for a book I was writing. It was interesting to note that one of the highest suicide rates in the world had been in Vienna. Over the last 100 years, the norm was almost the same. But after the revolution, Hungary had the highest rate. I think that may be a demonstration of how once the means of faith is repressed, the will to live is repressed as well.

Mr. BONKER. We should conclude on that note, but I have one last question that, perhaps, you can deal with quickly, or perhaps in written form later, after you have had a chance to ponder it.

The subcommittee would like to have your advice as to how we should proceed on this question of religious persecution. We already know about how widespread this problem is in numerous countries-the Falasha Jews in Ethiopia, the Baha'is in Iran, in Latin America the Catholic Church, etc. It is fairly widespread.

I don't know at this point-I will have to consult with my colleagues on the subcommittee-if we should proceed on the basis of this definitional problem, or whether we should look at regions of the country just to see how widespread the practice is in Asia or Africa. Or maybe we ought to look at the most acute problems, many of which I have referred to in my opening statement, or whether we should look at certain sects just to see if various forms of religions practice more oppression than others.

So, if you have suggestions now, I welcome them; if not, maybe you could communicate them at a later date.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might just ask one more question of Father Hehir. I was very much impressed in visiting some of the church agencies on civil rights and human rights, particularly in Latin America, with the good work they have done.

But just as our own administration has had somewhat of a changing policy and taking a quiet diplomacy attitude in human rights, it seemed to me that the church, too, has adopted a new attitude in the past year or two with regard to human rights and trying to deal with these matters in a quieter manner than they have in the past.

Am I correct in that assessment? Has there been some change of method or procedure in approach to the human rights problems by the Catholic Church?

Reverend HEHIR. I don't think, substantially, Congressman, that there has. One of the points that has come under discussion is the church in the political order or a church as a specifically political force. For example, if you take Pope John Paul II's address to the church in Latin America when he went to the Puebla meeting, he made two points there. One point was that he did not think the church ought to act like a specific political institution. So, for example, he takes a position against priests in public office.

In the same speech, he made a very strong push for the church to have as part of its ministry the human rights questions. So, what is at stake here, and this is a very careful line, is how you push the human rights question as both a religiously grounded and civil exercise of human dignity and, at the same time, not become a political party. That is the question.

But if you take the Pope himself, he went into Manila and sat next to the President of the Philippines and, in his opening address, talked about human rights and the state not being able to suppress the rights of the individual, even in the name of state security. Now in a country where martial law has been the fundamental issue for the past 10 years, almost, that is really not a lowprofile approach.

So I don't think that that is the question. I think it really is a question of how the exercise of human rights, as part of the ministry of the church or part of the ministry of any religious organization, can be carried out fully; and at the same time, you remain the church, you don't become a political party. That seems to me to be the crucial question.

Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LEACH. I think, Father, you would probably concur with the conclusion that, based on the fact that in the U.S. Congress, there was one priest at the time who was a Democrat, the Pope espoused being Republican.

Reverend HEHIR. That question has theological roots. I think I will have to answer in writing.

Mr. GILMAN. Then there is somewhat of a sorting-out process going on?

Reverend HEHIR. Sorting out. But that really is not new. Maybe there is more attention to it right now. It is not unlike what is going on in Poland. You will notice very carefully, if you watch the Polish situation, that the church speaks, it speaks aggressively on a whole series of issues. But it is not going to assume the role of a political party. Basically, the church has no particular gift and it hasn't a very good history whenever it tried to be a political party. So there are several reasons for not moving down that road.

But that does not mean that one ought not to deal with these kinds of issues that are before this subcommittee, because there is more than one way to deal with precisely the issue of human rights that are a fundamental part of human life and a necessary part of any organization of society. You need several groups to be able to deal with the question. The political organized parties are one dimension. But you precisely need the other groups. That is the question, how you play that role effectively and actively without simply trying to become something you ought not to be.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONKER. Thank you.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. The subcommittee will look forward to working with you as we continue these hearings into the future. I am informed that our second general hearing will be in late March.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS A VIOLATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

Overview

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1982

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BONKER. The subcommittee will be in order.

This is the second of a series of hearings on religious persecution as a violation of human rights. Today we are continuing with the overview of the problem, looking at the definitional difficulty and the scope of this very important subject. In the next hearing, we will begin to look at the regions of the Middle East and Europe and specific examples of religious persecution in those areas.

Witnesses at the last hearing raised a number of interesting issues. For example, one witness said that the need to consider such a subject is comparatively new, and religious persecution will increase in the years to come because the real issue is the "struggle to maintain the freedom of people everywhere to think for themselves, to witness to God and to obey him, and to act morally according to their dictates of their conscience.

Another witness said that in order to define the parameters of religious freedom, three basic issues need to be addressed.

First, the right of members of religious faiths to practice their religion with a minimum of state interference; second, the prevention of discriminatory treatment by governments or individuals or groups on the ground of their membership in a particular faith; third, some requirement that the state make a good faith effort to suppress the manifestation by private persons or groups, of intolerance for others based on the holding of a different religion or belief.

He went on to say that the newly adopted document by the United Nations-the declaration on religious intolerance-is not a perfect instrument but it does address itself in a forthright way to each of the above matters.

A third witness indicated:

To exercise the right of religious liberty, the person must also be guaranteed the right of freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Therefore, the relationship between religion, liberty, and other rights is a reciprocal relationship. You cannot exercise the right of religious liberty if other human rights are not guaranteed.

As the previous shows, all the witnesses at the last hearing raised important issues for the consideration of the subcommittee. I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. They are the Honorable John Porter, Representative from Illinois; Homer Jack, World Conference on Religion and Peace; and Prof. Dinah Shelton, University of Santa Clara. We will first hear from Representative Porter.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. PORTER. I would like first to commend the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations for holding hearings on religious persecution as a violation of human rights, and second, to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Mr. Leach, the ranking minority member, for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

I request, because of time constraints and a conflicting committee schedule, that my written testimony be submitted for the record.

In my written testimony I have discussed the "Declaration of the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief" recently adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. In addition, I have cited four examples of religious persecution in the world today, the Baha'is in Iran, the Jews in Poland, the Jews in the Soviet Union, and the Pentecostals in the Soviet Union.

I strongly believe we in the United States who are so fortunate as to have religious freedom guaranteed must speak out and fight against religious persecution throughout the world. The American people have long cherished and represent the value of human liberty for all people, and we must work to prevent persecution and discrimination wherever it exists.

I would hope that the subcommittee would consider House Concurrent Resolution 249, legislation which I introduced on January 26, 1982, that has 88 cosponsors, that condemns religious persecution and asks the President to take every possible opportunity to oppose bigotry in the strongest possible terms. And I would like to submit a copy of the resolution for the record together with my written testimony.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to find Homer Jack here today, who served as a minister in my hometown of Evanston for many years at the time I was growing up there.

I have to return to my own Appropriations Committee and am disappointed I will not have an opportunity to hear Reverend Jack's own testimony on this vital matter.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Porter's prepared statement and attachment follow:]