|
A Times Editorial Reject religious persecution bill
© St. Petersburg Times, published May 8, 1998 Its approach to the problem, however, as President Clinton told religious conservatives last week, could greatly complicate the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. The latest version of the legislation would create a government office in charge of deciding if foreign governments are guilty of engaging in, supporting or allowing religious persecution to occur within their borders. If the office finds evidence of persecution, the United States would be obligated to impose sanctions. These would include a ban on non-humanitarian aid, as well as imports and exports, and a requirement that the United States oppose all loans from the International Monetary Fund and other international lending institutions. The legislation would also guarantee that victims of religious persecution receive special treatment if they choose to seek asylum in the United States. The asylum provision is troubling because it discriminates against refugees fleeing political, ethnic or other repression in their homelands. By giving only religious refugees a guaranteed hearing on their asylum claims, the legislation grants them due process rights that are denied to other groups under current immigration laws. There are other problems with the bill. While the amended legislation gives the president considerably more power to waive sanctions if national security is stake, Congress is already carving out exceptions to the measure that would make its application, at best, inconsistent. American businesseses, for instance, would still be allowed to do business with the Sudan, which has brutally repressed Christians and other non-Muslims, merely because it is the world's major supplier of gum arabic, a substance used in food and medicine. Other exceptions are sure to follow for Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia and other nations the United States decides are too valuable as trading partners or allies to offend. Such exceptions, while necessary from a foreign policy standpoint, would weaken the measure its moral force would be meaningless. The United States has a duty to condemn religious persecution and other human rights violations when they occur elsewhere in the world, but the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act clumsily attempts to do too much. The bill deserves to be laid to rest.
Business |
Citrus |
Commentary |
Entertainment
|
Home
he Freedom from Religious Persecution Act was introduced last year by congressional Republicans with strong popular support from the Christian Coalition and other religious groups. Intended to protect people around the world from government persecution based on their religious beliefs, the bill's goals are commendable.
