Brief thoughts on the IRFA

This recent article on CNN.com highlights a general problem that a majority of the world's population faces: lack of religious freedom. The article in and of itself isn't all that groundbreaking. It merely reports on a common problem. The interesting part is that the organization behind the study, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (or USCIRF), was created by the government after it passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

Reading about the IRF Act, I understand the concept of the United States promoting religious tolerance and freedom- it is, after all, in line with the Constitution of the United States and it is something that we have enjoyed in America since the Puritans left England. Ideally, this plan of action would lead to more freedom of expression and ideas could be shared and people could be respected.

The practice of said legislation, however, ends up being pure lip service. While the Act allows for sanctions to be made against countries who refuse to "level the playing field" so to speak- and even creates lists of countries that are top offenders- sanctions on the truly egregious offenders are rarely taken. Why?

Money.

China and Saudi Arabia, both notorious religious persecutors are simply ignored. After all, when you import 958,000 barrels of oil into the U.S. everyday (like Saudi Arabia), or when you're the second largest trading partner the U.S. has (i.e. China) - ideals seem to fade in the blinding glow of the dollar.

I'm not one to think that the "American Way" means the best way (or that it means 'God's Way', but that's another blog post), however if this was something that the people of this nation considered important enough to pass into law then two things need to happen:
1) Admit that the report by the USCIRF is correct .
2) Be willing to take a harder stance on those who persecute peaceful religious expression, even if it adversely affects the United States and her allies.
3) Remind countries that receive such sanctions that they are in clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently bar them from the United Nations.

If these things can't be done, why not repeal the bill and simply leave the ideal in the hearts and minds of people instead of committing it to legally binding paper (even though its already there in kernel form in the First Amendment) ? Doing so would eliminate a redundant program and save taxpayers money.