REP. BENJAMIN
GILMAN (R-NY):
The committee
will come to order. The Committee on International Relations meets
in open session today to take testimony on a topic of the treatment
of religious minorities in Western Europe. We do so as part of the
full committee's geographic responsibility for Europe. Today's hearing
allows us to turn our attention to a problem that has troubled many
Americans who respect and value the nations of Western Europe -- countries
who are now friends with the United States and places where, in general,
freedom flourishes.
The blind spot
that some of those countries seek to have is their attitude towards
religious minorities. As Ambassador Felix Rohatyn has written, with
respect to France, and I quote, "Recent actions by its government
raise questions about its tolerance towards religious minorities.
It contravenes France's international human rights commitments, although
it's a country with a long tradition of religious freedom and the
rule of law." That was an April 12, 1999 letter to Congressman Smith
of New Jersey.
I'd like to point
out that the purpose of this hearing is not to support the religious
doctrines or other activities of religious minorities active in Western
Europe. But we're called on not only to protect the rights of those
we like, but of those with whom we may disagree with as well. I've
put on the record repeatedly, for example, my concern over the use
of Nazi imagery by supporters of Scientology in their effort to make
their points about German policy.
But I'm also
here to say that I must defend their human rights. Of course, holding
or expressing a religious belief or worshipping in public and private
as one may please is not, as such, forbidden by law in Western Europe.
In practice however, expressing a minority religious belief often
leads to discrimination. The loss of a job, of educational opportunities,
of the right to gain custody of one's own child, or to be a foster
parent, which seriously burdens one's exercise of freedom of religion.
Some European
governments discriminate among religions, giving some favors, such
as financial aid, or simply the right of the clergy of that religion
to visit sick parishioners, while withholding those privileges from
others. Moreover, religious discrimination by private parties is far
from universally discouraged. It's encouraged in some cases, for example,
by the compilation of publications, by governments, of lists of sects,
although encouraging religious tolerance in an international human
rights obligation.
Such problems
are complained of especially, and frequently, and vociferously with
respect to Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany. It's frankly difficult
to understand how our friends in those countries can say that they
have freedom of religion, given the burdens on the free exercise of
religion I've mentioned, which will be described a little later on
today. The committee's attention has been drawn to this issue for
several reasons: the practices to be discussed appear to be in contravention
of internationally accepted human rights standards, and seem to be
leading to an atmosphere of religious intolerance.
Secondly, Americans
abroad who wish to evangelize or merely to practice their religion,
professions or businesses face discriminatory treatment on the basis
of their religions. Emerging democracies in Eastern Europe may copy
the bad examples of these set by some Western European countries.
And China uses Western Europe to justify its brutal crackdown on the
Falun Gong. And lastly, the growth of political extremism on the left
and on the right, in some of the nations where religious discrimination
appears to be on the rise, questions whether there are links between
such discrimination and those political trends.
Today our committee
will first take testimony from our Ambassador at Large for Religious
Freedom, Robert Seiple. In a second panel, we will hear from an experienced
writer and observer of religious freedom issues who has worked in
government, Mr. Jeremy Gunn; from a Methodist minister in Queens,
New York who has been active in the religious liberties committee
of the National Council of Churches and from members of religious
minorities who work in Europe or who are involved in helping co-religionists
there: Philip Brumley, General Council of Jehovah's Witnesses and
Reverend Robert A. Hunt of the English Speaking Methodist Congregation
in Vienna, Austria.
From an American
businessman who is a Scientologist, who will testify that his business
is being threatened by religiously based boycotts. And Ms. Catherine
Bell, star of the television show Jag, also a Scientologist who will
discuss the special problems faced by members of her church in Europe,
particularly in Germany. I regret to announce that Mr. Chick Corea,
who was invited to testify, is unable to be with us today due to a
prior engagement.
This is not a
hearing about the merit or lack of merit of one or another religious
group; it's about the practices of certain nations, with respect to
some of those groups. Accordingly, the ambassadors of Austria, Germany,
and France have been invited to appear as well. The German ambassador
and the Austrian ambassador have each submitted a useful and interesting
statement. I've asked that my colleagues pay close attention to those
statements. I regret that the French Embassy has chosen not to participate
in this hearing in any manner.
Without objection,
the submissions of the German and Austrian ambassadors, along with
the prepared remarks of today's witnesses, as well as those of Mr.
Chorea, at the discretion of the chair, will be entered into the record
without objection. I now call on the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.
REP. SAM GEJDENSON
(DD-CT):
Thank you Mr.
Chairman. You know, one thing comes to mind as I look at the years
that we've had hearings on this issue, is that maybe part of the solution
would be if our European colleagues followed our model of separation
of church and state.
Because what
seems to be, if not explicitly discussed, it seems to have, at least,
a strong undercurrent that the populace of these countries are uneasy
about subsidizing, providing economic support and other benefits to
religions that they're simply not accustomed to or that don't represent
a large portion of their population. And that may be an important
lesson for people in this country who have consistently tried to gray
and remove the separation of church and state -- that we would find
ourselves in a similar position. Populations there often find it difficult
to accept new philosophies and new religions, and it becomes particularly
problematic when the general taxpayers then have to subsidize the
new religions by funding religious schools, by funding other activities
that direct payments to these new religions.
So, maybe our
European brethren could remove some of their problems with the various
religions that they seem to have a difficulty with if they look to
our model more of establishing a separation between the elected government
and the beliefs that people choose. I think it's important that we
don't simply confuse newer religions and newer philosophies and thereby
put them in a separate category. It should be the standards of behavior
that we judge, not the newness of the religion. And obviously, governments
that take newer religions and newer beliefs and label them as sects
and cults, I think, undermines an attempt to have a society that respects
daring beliefs.
I believe these
countries ought to open up a fair dialogue; they need to announce
and enunciate principles of tolerance for their society. And they
could go a long way to do away with some of the problems that they
are faced with; and some of the finest democracies of the world, then,
are our closest allies. For me, it is important to give every belief
an opportunity to express itself, and to make sure that a dominant
religion doesn't in some way try to prevent other religions from competing
for parishioners. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
REP. GILMAN:
Any other members
seeking recognition? Mr. Salmon.
REP. MATT SALMON
(R-AZ):
Thank you very
much Mr. Chairman. It's interesting, just a couple of weeks ago we
had a debate on the House floor about NCR for China. And numerous
members arose to denounce the practices in China of the impingement
on religious freedom. But yet, a lot of their same members express
hesitance about denouncing the suppressing of religious freedom in
some of the allied countries that we've worked closely with since
World War II.
I find that quite
interesting; I have a different belief. I think that we ought to be
able to be even more candid with those who are considered to be our
allies. And I, frankly, am very, very concerned, because I see a pattern.
I have been working on the Helsinki Commission for the last six years
that I've been in Congress, that I have been able to go to those annual
OFCE meeting. And every year these issues come up. And I find the
response, particularly from the European union, very, very troubling
when we bring these issues up.
Last year we
brought up a resolution to denounce some of the practices in Europe
towards religious minorities. And the creation of these sect-monitoring
offices in several countries in Europe -- we basically got poured
in a bottle. I think that we need to be a little bit more vocal. I
think that the Congress needs to take definitive action to declare
that here in this country we value the right to be able to believe
according to the dictates of one's own conscience.
It is a problem;
it's been a problem in Russia. You might recall, just a couple of
years ago, the Duma had a vote honoring and sustaining only certain
religions. I want to remind everybody here on this committee that
every religion started out as a religious minority, even the Christian
religion to which I belong. You might recall, when they started out
they had their bumps in the road. A few of them got fed to lions --
(laughter) -- and they had problems as well, and problems being understood
by those who believed in a different way.
But this religious
intolerance in Europe is very, very troubling. In some of the countries
that are really the worst actors, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria,
we need to take, I think, a definitive stance here in these halls
to tell them that that is not acceptable.And to have a good and solid
relationship with the United States they need to value the same things
that we value, and that is the freedom of religious expression, the
freedom of belief. I'd like to site some examples because this isn't
just a lot of empty rhetoric. The most recent international Helsinki
Federation report mentions that religious minorities in Belgium have
been subjected to various forms of harassment and other human rights
violations such as slander, anonymous threats, loss of jobs, bomb
threats, and denial of room rental for religious ceremonies.
Patrick Valtin
(ph), a business man in France, runs a company that offers training
and management advice. When government officials learned that he was
a scientologist, they accused him of transmitting client files to
his church. Consequently, he lost several contracts, with an estimated
loss of several million French francs. In 1999, the U.S. Department
of State's annual report on international religious freedom stated
that the conservative Austrian People's Party formally accepted the
decision that party membership is incompatible with membership in
a sect. And they decide what's a sect and what's a religion.
This policy led
to the resignation of a local party official. I really believe that
this hearing is timely. I thank the Chairman for inviting the various
people to testify before us. But after all is said and done and we
hear the testimony, what are we prepared to do? Are we going to just
sit and listen or are we going to stand up and be counted. I think
we have an opportunity to make a difference, and to stand for the
most basic value that we hold dearly in America, and really, the fundamental
that began this country over 200 years ago, and that's the right to
believe according to the dictates of one's conscience without interference
from government. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of
my time.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you. I'd
like to note to the audience that we don't permit demonstrations during
the hearings. Thank you Mr. Salmon. Judge Hastings.
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS
(R-FL):
Thank you very
much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing,
and my apologies to you, our colleagues, and to the witnesses for
the fact that I, as I'm sure other members do, have very serious conflicts
and will not be able to stay for the entirety of the proceedings.
Toward that end Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with
your remarks, the remarks of Mr. Gejdenson, and my dear friend and
colleague who I will miss when he leaves Congress and goes back to
his religious freedom in Arizona, Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon serves
on the Helsinki Commission, and he and I, along with other members,
have traveled to Europe frequently. And I, Mr. Chairman, am an officer
in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. My point
is, what Matt just got through saying, I think, is the proper segue
for me at this point to suggest to the committee that today's hearing,
particularly, is placed in a manner whereby it can be spread widely
among our European colleagues.
And I will take
it upon myself to take these proceedings to the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe at its July meeting. And Mr. Salmon and
I can attest to the fact that the subject of religious freedom arises
frequently. I'll end by saying, Mr. Chairman, there is a spiritual
that says "a charge to keep have I." All of us come from different
faiths in this great country of ours. To promote our religion and
religious freedoms, or to promote religious freedoms, is the charge
that all of us should keep.
And the sooner
that our European allies recognize this, the more likely we are to
be able to influence others in the world. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Judge
Hastings. Any other members seeking recognition? Mr. Sherman.
REP. BRAD SHERMAN
(D-CA):
Just briefly
Mr. Chairman. I know that we've had testimony in prior hearings about
the treatment of those who practice Scientology in Germany. I would
hope that Germany would show respect for that religious minority and
others. And it was with great regret that I noticed Germany pressing
for a world bank loan to the government of Iran at a time when that
country has 13 Jews being charged on trumped up charges.
And so, respect
for religious minorities includes not only religious minorities within
a country's borders, but also respect for the importance of human
rights and religious minorities in foreign policy decisions. And I
know that there was one German citizen who was released from Iranian
jails, and I appreciate that decision. But I would have been far more
impressed if the German government had respected the importance of
religious liberty in Iran..
REP. GILMAN:
Thank you Mr.
Sherman. Any other members seeking recognition? If not, we'll now
proceed with our first witness who's Ambassador Robert Seiple. Ambassador
Seiple's position as Ambassador at Large for International Religious
Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998, which originated in our committee. Ambassador Seiple is a highly
decorated veteran of the Marine Corps, having flown 300 combat missions
in Vietnam. He has served in administrative and development positions
at his alma mater, Brown - as president of Eastern College and Eastern
Baptist Theological Seminary. He took up his present position in May
of 1999. We welcome Ambassador Seiple. Your statement had been made
part of the record; you may summarize as you see fit. Please proceed.
AMBASSADOR ROBERT
SEIPLE:
Thank you very
much Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm honored to appear
before you today to testify on the treatment of religious minorities
in Western Europe. Let me begin by thanking the Chairman and the committee
for their strong and continuing contributions toward our goal of promoting
religious freedom.
Each of us here
today shares a commitment to protecting the dignity of all human beings.
We hold in common the belief that at the heart of human dignity lies
the right to pursue the truth about the mystery of faith, the truth
about our place in the universe, about how we ought to order our lives.
Together, we seek to speed the day when every human being is free
to pursue that truth as he or she sees fit, not only unhindered by
others, but protected by the state itself.
Freedom of religion
and conscience is also foundational for democracy, as recognized in
the international covenants. A government which fails to honor religious
freedom and freedom of conscience is a government which does not recognize
the priority of the individual over the state, and that the state
exists to serve society, not vice versa. By the same token, a government
which nurtures religious freedom may be more likely to honor other
fundamental human rights.
So Mr. Chairman,
the promotion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience makes
sense from the standpoint of freedom in general, but also from the
standpoint of all human rights, and from the standpoint of promoting
healthy, vibrant democracies. Against that background Mr. Chairman,
let me turn to our subject this morning, the treatment of religious
minorities in Western Europe.
Overall, it must
be said that religious minorities are treated better there than in
most other regions of the world. Indeed, in relative terms, the citizens
of Western Europe enjoy a measure of freedom that is the envy of aspiring
democracies around the globe. Persecution on the basis of religion,
in the form of brutal activities by governments, such as prolonged
detentions without charge, torture, slavery, simply does not exist
there as it so tragically does elsewhere in the world.
But it also must
be said that discrimination on the basis of religion does exist in
the four countries on which we are focusing this morning: Germany,
France, Austria, and Belgium. Let me give you a brief overview of
the problems that we see in each. Before I do however, I want to emphasize
that the standard applied to these countries by the United States
is a standard that they have accepted. All of them embrace the international
instruments that protect freedom of religion and conscience, including
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention
on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
In applying these
standards, we see ourselves as citizens of the world community putting
our national shoulder to the international wheel. But our willingness
to speak of discrimination elsewhere should not be taken to imply
that we are free of it ourselves. When it comes to religious minorities,
the United States falls far short of a perfect record. One need only
recall discrimination against the Catholic minority or the Mormons
in the 19th Century.
However, we believe
that one sign of a mature democracy is the willingness to accept criticism,
so long as it is based on international standards of human rights.
Let me begin with Germany, where our primary disagreement involves
the treatment of the countries, roughly, 8,000 Scientologists. The
problem is that many in the German government believe that Scientology
is more a money making scheme than a religion. This view is shared
by officials in certain states where responsibility for religious
questions are usually handled.
At the same time,
German officials say they are concerned that Scientology has, "anti-democratic
tendencies." The Offices for the Protection of the Constitution at
both the state and federal level have been monitoring Scientology
since 1997 for evidence of activities that would constitute a threat
against the state. Although initial reports concluded that it did
not, the monitoring continues to this day.
In 1998, a commission
on so-called sects and psycho groups presented a report to the parliament
that criticized Scientology for, "misinformation and intimidation,"
of its critics. Accusing it of being a political extremist group with,
"totalitarian tendencies." Following this, the states of Bavaria and
Hamburg published brochures warning the public of the purported dangers
Scientology poses. For their part, many of the country's Scientologists
have reported both governmental and societal discrimination in their
daily lives.
Some employers,
for example, use the so-called sect filter, screening applicants for
Scientology membership. The federal government also screens companies
bidding on some consulting and training contracts for Scientologists,
as do some state governments. That these and other forms of discrimination
are occurring was documented in a 1998 UN report. Although it rejected
the outrageous claim that Scientologists treatment was similar to
that suffered by the Jews during the Nazi era.
Scientologists
continue to take their grievances to the German court system. Some
who have charged their employers with unfair dismissal, for example,
have won out of court settlements. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed
these issues at some length with German officials, both in Germany
and in the United States. We have stressed in particular the risk
associated with governments deciding what does and does not constitute
a religion. We have made clear our concerns with sect filters.
To prevent an
individual from practicing a profession solely on account of his or
her religious beliefs is an abuse of religious freedom, as well as
a discriminatory business practice. We have expressed our concern
that the continued official observation of Scientology by the German
government, without any legal action being initiated as a result,
creates an environment that encourages discrimination. We have urged
our German colleagues to begin a dialogue with the scientologists,
and we have raised our concerns multilaterally at meetings of the
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Let me now turn
to France. There have been recent reports by the National Assembly
which cast Scientology in a negative light, expressing concern that
they may use excessive or dishonest means to obtain donations. However,
the government has taken no action against them. Indeed, Interior
Minister Chevin Monte (sp) and others, including Foreign Minister
Ladrine (sp), have assumed a very positive and public posture in support
of freedom of conscience and religion, a fact which has helped diffuse
tensions considerably.
But it is also
true that France has been at the vanguard of the troubling practice
of creating so-called sect lists. These lists are created by government
agencies. In France, the list was part of a parliamentary report.
It typically contained the names of scores of religious groups which
may not be recognized by the government. Some of the groups are clearly
dangerous, such as the Solar Temple, which led to suicides in France
and Switzerland. But others are merely unfamiliar or unpopular.
By grouping them
together under the negative word sect, governments encourage societal
discrimination. Some groups that appear on France's list continue
to report acts of discrimination. One of those groups is the Institute
of Theology in Neimes, a private bible college founded in 1989 by
Louis Demeau (sp) who is head pastor at an associated church there.
Others have been
subjected to long audits of their finances. For example, tax claims
against the Church of Scientology forced several churches into bankruptcy
in the mid 1990s.
The Jehovah's
Witnesses have also been heavily audited. According to the International
Helsinki Federation, this audit, which began in January of '96, continues
to this day, has been done in a manner which suggests harassment.
In France too, the U.S. has been engaged actively in promoting a dialogue
with French authorities. U.S. Embassy representatives have met several
times with the inter- ministerial mission to battle against sects.
President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, the assistant secretary
of state, and myself have each raised these issues of religious discrimination
with French officials during the past year. And we will continue to
do so.
Our goal is to
develop a common understanding with the French government on what
actions are and are not in accord with international agreements on
religious freedom.
Mr. Chairman,
the pattern in Austria is not unlike that in France. The government
has long waged an information campaign against religious groups that
it considers harmful to the interests of individuals in society. A
brochure issued last September by the Ministry for Social Security
and Generations describes several non- recognized religious groups,
including the Jehovah's Witnesses, in decidedly negative terms that
many found offensive. With the recent arrival of a new minister from
the Freedom Party, it appears that the government may intensify its
campaign against religions that lack official recognition. We have
raised these issues with the Austrian government and will continue
to press our view that such practices contravene Austria's commitments
to religious freedom.
Let me conclude
with Belgium. In 1998, the Belgium parliament adopted several recommendations
from the Commission Report on Government Policy towards sects, including
the creation of a center for information advice on harmful sectarian
organizations. The commission had also appended a list of sects in
Belgium, divided into those considered harmful and all others, and
recommended a special police unit to deal with the harmful groups.
The government has not yet taken any action on this proposal.
Our concern here,
Mr. Chairman, is not when the government attempts to deal with illegal
activities on the part of any religious groups, whether recognized
or unrecognized, new or old. Our fear is that Belgium, like France
and Austria, is painting with too broad a brush. In its very use of
the pejorative term sect to characterize unrecognized religious groups,
it casts dispersions on those groups, creating, even inadvertently,
the suspicion that there is something wrong with them.
But every religion
began as something new and unpopular. We have discussed these issues
with Belgian officials and we will continue to urge all of our European
friends to recognize that the religious quest must be nurtured not
discouraged for true religious freedom to exist. Before concluding,
I want to note that Muslims continue to experience some discrimination
in Western Europe, even though Islam is the second largest religion
in France and Belgium, and the third in Austria and Germany.
In some cases,
this discrimination has more to do with race culture and immigrant
status than religious beliefs. Indeed, Muslims are free to worship
and form cultural organizations in each of these countries. Islam
is recognized as an established organized religion, thus enabling
it to claim certain tax exemptions, and receive some subsidies from
the state.
The most persistent
and controversial religious issue facing Muslims in Western Europe
is the question of head scarves and whether girls should be permitted
to wear them in public schools. The question has caused considerable
debate. But Muslim society is well established in these countries
and many organizations have defended the rights of Muslims. If some
jurisdictions remain opposed to students wearing religious clothing,
others are becoming more accepting of the practice.
Our review is
that the international covenants are quite clear. Freedom of religion
includes the right to manifest religious beliefs. Surely, democracies
can find the flexibility to tolerate such an expression of piety as
the religious head scarf.
Let me conclude
where I began Mr. Chairman. We share a great deal in common with our
allies and friends in Europe, including common religious traditions.
Together we have done much to make the world a safer, more humane
place, a place where human rights like democracy might take root and
flourish. We offer these thoughts about religious freedom to our friends
out of a sense of shared responsibility for what we have done and
what we might do together.
We will continue
to discuss these matters with them. Our plea is that they consider
our argument that freedom of religion, while sometimes tragically
exploited by those who would manipulate faith for their own ends,
is inherently good because it supports the dignity of the human person
as well as democracy itself. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for you
leadership and that of this committee on the matter of promoting religious
freedom abroad, and I'd be happy to take any or all of your questions.
