COMMENTARY: Religious persecution often comes from within

c. 1997 Religion News Service (Frances Kissling is president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent group involved in women’s reproductive health issues.) UNDATED _ The concept of religious persecution has recently become a hot topic in U.S. human rights policy discussions, spearheaded primarily by conservatives concerned about the persecution of Christians in such […]

c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Frances Kissling is president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent group involved in women’s reproductive health issues.)

UNDATED _ The concept of religious persecution has recently become a hot topic in U.S. human rights policy discussions, spearheaded primarily by conservatives concerned about the persecution of Christians in such countries as China and Sudan.


On the surface, this appears to be an advance in human rights principles. Why then, do I, a devout human rights advocate and ardent supporter of religious freedom, find myself so troubled by it?

Some things set off warning bells: the emphasis on the persecution of Christians, particularly in Muslim majority countries, and the fact the push for these efforts comes most strongly from conservative groups with a deep interest in blending religion with politics.

But something deeper disturbs me.

For centuries, it has been clear that as often as the state has violated the human rights of religious believers, religious institutions have violated the human rights and personal dignity of their own members _ especially women.

While the ability to express one’s spirituality, moral values, and religious beliefs freely _ without state interference _ has long been understood as a fundamental human right, human rights theory has not yet advanced to the point where discrimination within a religious institution or discrimination in the name of religion is seen as an issue of public justice.

From a human rights perspective, it is especially troubling to see the extent to which secular governments will bend to the will of powerful religious bodies, primarily those holding conservative views of women.

In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban leadership, incorrectly citing Islamic texts, has banned women almost entirely from the public sphere. In some Latin American countries, the Roman Catholic church has prevented the legalization of abortion and put limits on family planning. Orthodox Jewish influence in Israel limits women from getting a secular divorce without their husband’s approval. There are countless other examples.

These same religious institutions are the first to claim their religious laws and disciplines cannot be subject to state review. They are also quick to point out their commitment to human rights while ignoring the violations of human rights within their own”house.” In the 50 years since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was set forth we have dramatically expanded the concepts and understanding of human rights. We have come to understand human rights are not located solely in the public sphere, but also exist in private and family life; much of what was once described as women’s rights is now seen as human rights.


Ten or 15 years ago, spousal abuse was considered a private matter and not a human rights concern. It might well be compared today to the belief that religion is a private and personal matter invisible to state scrutiny and untouchable by state authority.

Disputes within a religion are deemed not the business of the state _ or of human rights advocates _ although those disputes result in religious preferences in secular law.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled religious institutions can require all employees to adhere to the religious beliefs of the employer. Recently, a Roman Catholic nun and theology professor was dismissed from her job at a Catholic university because she signed an advertisement in favor of the ordination of women to the priesthood. This woman has no legal recourse against this injustice.

I suspect the current effort to highlight religious persecution is part of a strategy to deflect claims of discrimination against women within faith groups. It comes at a time when religious women’s claims and plight are gaining public and political support.

For the past 20 years _ and in some cases for centuries _ women of faith in all the world’s major religions have been struggling to apply the principles of human rights to the internal life of their churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.

They have sought to do this by changing the structures of decision making so women are welcomed at all levels of ministry. They are working for changes in religious doctrine related to women’s lives such as reproductive health, marriage and divorce, custody of children, and the right to travel without the permission of a husband, father, or son. Finally, they are working to ensure secular law is based not on religious positions but rather on democratic principles.


The human rights community must recognize the need to treat the question of religious persecution more broadly. This means addressing not only the legal dimension of human rights, but also lifting up the moral principles forming the foundation of human rights theory. It means standing with women of faith in their work to ensure human rights are honored within religions as well as in the secular world.

DEA END KISSLING

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!