Can religious freedom advocacy be counterproductive?
Insights and concerns from an international expert
Dennis Petri, international director of the International Institute for Religious Freedom
I urge prayers … for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. —1 Timothy 2:1–2
Religious freedom has been widely recognized as a human right ever since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which addresses religious freedom in Article 18, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with no dissenters and just eight abstentions.
The first Trump administration was the most active presidency on religious freedom issues in US history. Christians around the world hope that the second Trump administration will impact religious freedom positively.
But some experts fear that the increasing politicization of religious freedom issues is having negative consequences.
Last week, I interviewed one of the world’s leading experts on this topic. Dennis Petri has headed the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) since 2021. The IIRF seeks to connect academic research with policymaking so as to advance worldwide religious freedom. Petri, who holds a Ph.D. in political philosophy from the Vrije Universiteit (Free University) of Amsterdam, teaches at a university in Costa Rica.
Here’s a summary of Dennis’s main points. A more extensive Q&A follows below.
The IIRF and other leading global advocates for religious freedom are known for supporting the rights of people of all faiths, or even people of no faith. (Around the UN, this principle is generally referred to as freedom of religion or belief, or FoRB.)
Recently, religious freedom advocacy has become politicized in ways that have endangered the broad support it has previously received in Western democracies. Religious freedom has become associated with Christian nationalism, and some clashes have pitted religious freedom advocates against LGBTQ advocates. As a result, the Western consensus around religious freedom as a good thing is under threat.
Effective religious advocacy should not be limited to the most obvious issues, such as whether people are free to worship, have Bibles, or register churches. We should link religious freedom advocacy to international development aid, ensuring that religious-based humanitarian organizations are free to operate. We should also highlight economic and gender-based forms of religious freedom violations.
Key takeaway: Christians should demonstrate their concern for the religious freedom of all people, not only their own group. Since we believe that Christians can truly follow Jesus only by their own free choice, we should advocate for everyone to have the freedom to choose their faith.
To Dennis’s comments, I would add that the very definition of religious freedom has become contested. For conservatives, religious freedom includes the right for US baker Jack Phillips to decline to decorate a cake with a message celebrating same-sex marriage, or for Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen to express her opposition to homosexual practice without being prosecuted for alleged hate speech. But politically more liberal groups such as the Interfaith Alliance are using the term “religious freedom” as a synonym for protection against right-leaning politics they view as religiously motivated.
(I intend to address the use and politically driven misuse of the term “Christian nationalism” in a future post.)
Click here to subscribe to the IIRF’s newsletter.
Q&A with Dennis Petri
Where are you seeing the problem of politicization in the religious freedom realm?
First, the theme of religious freedom is becoming increasingly associated with Christian nationalism. Regardless of how broadly one defines “Christian nationalism,” it’s not as big within Christianity as some secular voices make it seem. But the perceived association between religious freedom advocacy and Christian nationalism is becoming a problem for me. I have to explain to people that the IIRF promotes religious freedom for people of all faiths (not just Christians), from a balanced academic perspective.
Second, many Christian politicians around the world—I am seeing this especially in Latin America—are endorsing religious freedom for political benefit. They are talking about the issue in a self-serving way, seeking to promote their own religion.
Historically, this “instrumental” approach to religious freedom is not new. The Puritans promoted religious freedom for themselves, not for everybody. In their own communities, people who didn’t share the Puritans’ religious views were asked to leave. But the problem is becoming much more prominent globally today.
The use of religious freedom terminology to defend the conservative agenda on sexual ethics is another dimension of politicization. The clashes between religious freedom supporters and the LGBT community have made it more difficult for politically liberal groups to support religious freedom publicly.
Explain how the IIRF’s work on religious freedom makes an impact.
Our projects include the Violent Incidents Database, which collects documentation on religious freedom violations around the world, and the Global Religious Freedom Index, which will assess all countries over the next three years. These projects are important because they set baselines and provide reliable descriptions of the real situation. When you can get people to agree on a diagnosis of the problem, it becomes easier to move together toward solutions and build consensus. Sometimes the solutions almost come naturally once you have good information.
Our reports and proposals are cited by the US State Department and other key players such as the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. They inform policy because they allow policymakers to identify aspects of religious freedom violations that are less known but still important.
What actions would you like to see that could advance religious freedom more effectively?
Since the US passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, there has been an increase in US government spending on this issue. But during the same time period, there has also been an increase in religious freedom violations globally. This should cause us to ask why religious freedom is deteriorating despite our efforts.
To make our advocacy more effective, religious freedom needs to be a cross-cutting theme, not just a box to check off. It should be embedded in all projects and policies. For example, I worked with the U.S. Institute of Peace on Closing the Gap, a project to shed light on the links between religious freedom and socioeconomic development. Religious freedom concerns should be incorporated in international development aid. When the humanitarian work of religious organizations is hindered, that’s just as much a religious freedom violation as when people don’t have access to a Bible or seminary.
We should also look for economic or gender-based forms of religious freedom restrictions, which often go undetected.
Sanctions are another issue to consider. For instance, the US government has a list of sanctioned countries. The purpose is to pressure authoritarian governments such as Cuba, North Korea, and Iran toward better behavior. Sanctions don’t work very well, but the alternative is military intervention, which no one wants.
The problem is that the sanctions can actually hinder the positive work that many organizations are doing. For example, although there are some exceptions for humanitarian aid, many banks do not authorize financial transactions with Cuba, even if the purpose of the transaction is to support churches or pro-democracy activists.
We also need tailormade solutions for each country or situation. In religious freedom, you can’t push the same things everywhere in the world. We need to develop specific solutions for specific problems.
Christians especially should promote enabling every person to determine their faith, because we believe that following Jesus is a decision that people can make only by their own free choice.