The linkage of security and religious freedom is really not that new. In the United States the connection was first made in the 1663 Rhode Island Colonial Charter from England. “They have ffreely declared, that it is much on their hearts . . . to hold forth a livlie experiment, that a most flourishing civill state may stand and best bee maintained . . . with a full libertie in religious concernements; and that true pietye rightly grounded upon gospell principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyaltye.” v It is obvious, in the words of the American forebears that “true pietye rightly grounded” and “greatest security” were absolutely critical to a “flourishing civill state.” Religious freedom became the cornerstone of a civil society. That awareness is coming back to us today. Note the words of the International Crisis Group in their March 2001 report on Central Asia: “Treat religious freedom as a security issue, not just a human rights issue, and advocate unequivocally that regional security can only be assured if religious freedom is guaranteed and the legitimate activities of groups and individuals are not suppressed.” But then came the events of September 11, 2001, a new historical reality that immediately produced the cliché “and the world would never be the same again” (certainly not the American understanding of that world!). At the very least it was time to look at the issue of religious freedom again, albeit in a much more complicated context. What is the status of this issue in the world today? What is its relevance? What will happen to all those single-issue advocates who, in times past, were able to mouth lofty principles without ever considering the realistic process of implementation? Will those of us who tend to view life through the lens of the moral imperative be able to relate to the hard-line, security-conscious realists?

Security has jumped to the top of America’s, and I dare say the world’s, hierarchy of values. Any organization that seeks to be relevant, to have a seat at the table—public or private—needs to be conversant in national and global security. For the foreseeable future everything else will pale in comparison.

Unfortunately, for most of the human rights community, that nexus point between religious freedom and security has yet to be made. The most troubling and the most legitimate human rights concern is: Will the need for security provide authoritarian leaders the rationale desired for an additional crackdown on the opposition in their country?

Many countries in the world today have legitimate security concerns. Russia is fighting a war in Chechnya. Uzbekistan has seen its own governmental buildings blown up by terrorists. The Chinese are always concerned about security issues on their borders, from Tibet to the northwest Autonomous Region. But now the world is being framed in large categories: “good and evil,” “us and them,” “those who are for us and those who are against.” The world is at war with terrorists and terrorism, and nuance is the first casualty of war!

Would anyone care about Chechnya? Would the world take notice of the numbers of moderate Muslims who are being radicalized by the harsh overreach of Karimov? And the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetan Buddhists, would they be relegated in our collective consciousness to a form of benign neglect? Let’s be honest, without the events of September 11 would we ever have experienced the blunt-edged boldness of the Israeli military, as a conflict is allowed to escalate out of control and rational thought?

This is an issue of grave concern. Especially so, if the addressing of this issue from only one side, religious freedom, without any understanding of the legitimate concerns for national security, leaves the human rights activist without an audience.

The second issue that produced an outcry from the human rights establishment was the treatment of Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Raising the voice of principle here was, at the very least, a tactical mistake. Once again, the world was not listening. When it did, it heard the unintended and unfortunate comparison between the cramped quarters for terrorists and the loss of 3,000 innocent lives. Any tendency toward a moral equivalency, regardless of intention, was offensive to all.

A third issue emerged directly from the United States and its October 2001 passage of the Patriot Act. This act gave sweeping power to law enforcement agencies in the United States. The tapping of phones, surveillance of individuals, and prolonged detention for others, even if their terrorist intentions were not easily proven—all allowed under the act—challenged both the letter and the spirit of the American Constitution.

Concerns were voiced immediately from the human rights community. The act, however, was overwhelmingly passed by both the House and Senate. Once again, the pragmatists won out. Security was the issue, and a one-sided presentation of human rights had no chance of carrying the day.

Let’s look at a different approach, a strategy that assumes what the Rhode Island Charter of 1663 clearly stated, namely the clear, unambiguous relationship between religious freedom and the security and stability of a nation. First, and most pragmatically, we need to understand that war was declared on 9/11, a war with an enemy that claimed to be working from a religious base. At the very least we need to know that enemy! We need to know the values of that enemy in order to gain victory, to understand that enemy’s motivation, and, most important, what the enemy might be planning next. Our security is at stake!

Second, we are still living in a period of “identity conflicts,” conflicts begun for a whole host of reasons but ultimately implemented along the lines of a people’s primary identity, which in many cases is religion. Such wars suggest that we have to do a much better job of living with our deepest differences. Our inability to do so has been, in times past, one of the major causes of religious persecution around the world.

Third, religious freedom has to be present in order to create a values-based civil society. We can literally locate and track a country on a continuum of human dignity and compassion by how that country deals with religious freedom. When this freedom is at risk, many of the other freedoms—such as speech, association, press, and certainly belief—are also at risk. This cornerstone freedom, especially the treatment of minority faiths, will tell us much about how a country treats its people and, by extension, how secure that country really is.

Fourth, on an individual level, nothing enhances security more than knowing our own faith at its richest and deepest best and, at the same time, knowing enough about our neighbor’s faith to show it respect. This is not “easy ecumenism,” but rather a deep and thoughtful reflection on why we believe the way we do, while respecting the earnestly held beliefs of our neighbors. The challenge is to know our faith at its deepest point, to know the eternal verities of that faith, the heroes of that faith, to know why, in the words of Pascal, “good men believe it to be true.” And then we need to know enough about our neighbor’s faith to be truly respectful.

On September 11 we saw the ultimate perversion of religion. A misunderstood faith, an inappropriately applied faith, a truncated or redacted faith—in the hands of a zealot—is very scary indeed. Our global security is put at risk.

Finally, what we now know for sure in the world today is that there are people who are willing to die for their faith, and, unfortunately, there are people who are willing to kill for their religion. We neglect this issue of religious freedom in the context of national and global security at our considerable peril.

In the early 1990s I was president of World Vision, a faith-based relief and development organization. Along with most of the humanitarian world, we were working in Somalia, desperately trying to save the 75 percent of all children under the age of 5 who were in real danger of starving to death. Starvation deaths were mounting as the fighting intensified. In the intervening days before the U.S. military made its way to Baidoa, we needed to do something to protect our staff and continue the humanitarian aid that was so desperately needed in that part of the country. I spent most of a day on the phone with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, working on a plan to protect the aid workers in Baidoa until our military made an on-the-ground appearance there. The plan was so simple: two or three times every day, the Navy would launch F-14 Tomcats from their carriers to fly at supersonic speed low over the city of Baidoa. The mission was eminently successful! The “bad guys” remained totally out of sight!

There are also formalized alliances, the models of which would be useful as we attempt to cement the nexus point between religious freedom and security. In the United States, for example, we are attempting to build a Homeland Security culture. This involves, once again, disparate agencies that are not used to working with one another. One should not underestimate the challenges at hand as this culture evolves into a new reality.

Another model that already exists is the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies in Newport, Rhode Island. This institute teaches courses on the military, civil society, and legal issues. It would not be much of a reach to include religious freedom as a part of this curriculum. Additionally, it would be a major contribution to the rest of the world if such a composite would then be taken to those parts of the world that are having the most difficulty in seeing the wisdom and connecting the relevance of religious freedom and security.

However this is done, the key to such an alliance is the creation of a new culture. The security-conscious realist and those who continue to look at life through the lens of a moral imperative need to be in a room together, beginning to understand each other, reducing the stereotypes of both people and institutions that have precluded such an alliance in the past. Education and training are going to have to happen quickly, on all sides. But that exercise does not have any chance until this new culture is developed. Such development, for example, is one of the desired outcomes for the Institute for Global Engagement’s new online distance-learning master’s degree in Global Engagement, a training and education program designed to embrace these new global realities.

On the security side, there will need to be individuals that represent law enforcement and the military, as well as diplomatic personnel—all of whom have accountability, responsibility, and a shared understanding on this issue of security. The real question is this: Who will represent religious freedom? What institutions, nongovernmental organizations, individuals, are prepared to make the case that was so easily assumed back in 1663: that religious freedom, tolerance, respect for human rights, and the dignity of all people are just as much a security force as a tank, a rifle, or a soldier? Who might contribute to the culture of security, of stability, of realistic expectations for every human being? Who can effectively articulate our most precious possessions—our beliefs, our faith, our best instincts, and our highest values? Who will dedicate themselves to a cause that is now bigger than the ability of a single-issue advocate to comprehend? Who might convene such a group?

For starters, let’s return to the human rights community, and this time let’s include the church. The faith community has produced a body of individuals who have been called out, educated, and trained, who are passionate in their beliefs and certainly dedicated to the common good. Leadership has to emerge from this community, a community that includes the church and all those who believe in human dignity. It is enormously counterproductive to drive a wedge between religious freedom and security. The human rights community, led by the church, is capable of so much more!