The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.<\/p>\n
Charles Habib Malik, a key evangelising figure in the intellectual debate that defined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).When President Truman introduced Point
\nFour \u2018development\u2019 in his 1949 Inaugural Speech, he spawned an American globalist
\nmission with moral and economic dimensions. Point Four believed in an American
\nexceptionalism that linked the idea of \u2018development\u2019 to the salvationist ideals
\ncodified in the budding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though it would
\nbe a decade or two before either \u2018human rights\u2019 or \u2018development\u2019 really gained
\nsteam as a globalist mission. <\/i><\/p>\n
Whatever the motive behind his speech,
\nTruman and the US government\u2019s declared belief in the \u2018good\u2019 of this mission and
\nbelief that international law should be used to accomplish it \u2013 although appealing
\nas a \u2018self-evident good\u2019 \u2013 had little theoretical or empirical justification. It
\nwas simply something that Truman presented as the right thing to do, and as
\nearly as 1955, African and South Asian countries were on board with the \u2018development\u2019
\npart of that equation, as indicated by the documents that emerged from the Bandung Conference. <\/p>\n
President Sukarno Opening Speech at the Bandung Conference, 1955, Indonesia. YouTube.However, \u2018development\u2019 amongst the
\n\u2018developing\u2019 carried different implications than it did amongst the
\n\u2018developed\u2019. For example, in accepting some of the budding globalist doctrines
\nof the west, the Bandung Communiqu\u00e9 repeatedly emphasized this significant
\ncaveat: while Bandung\u2019s participants accepted capitalism and globalization as
\ntools through which so-called \u2018developing\u2019 countries could better their economic
\nsituation relative to western states, western states were not to dictate the
\nterms of how that \u2018development\u2019 occurred. Such an approach, to Bandung\u2019s
\nparticipants, would reek too strongly of colonialism, whose grips even in 1955
\nhad not completely receded from either the African or Asian continents. <\/p>\n
<\/i><\/p>\n
This contrasts sharply both with
\nPresident Truman\u2019s salvationist \u2018development\u2019 mission in Point Four and the
\nuniversalist mission codified in the UDHR. Against this backdrop, this essay
\nanalyzes how US evangelical organizations have tapped into the UDHR and other
\nsecular codifications of debatably religious ideals. It argues that \u2013 armed not
\nonly with the surety of belief in the \u2018responsibility to act\u2019 from Truman\u2019s
\nPoint Four, but also with international legal tools that enable the
\nactualization of that belief \u2013 Christian civil society organizations, gleaning
\nfunding from the US and UN, have used international law to further US Christian
\ngoals internationally. <\/p>\n
Harry Truman delivering his famous inaugural address, in which he announced the US mission to bring the benefits of capitalism to 'peace loving peoples' through the project of 'development'January 20, 1949. YouTube.After analyzing three exemplary cases
\n(among the many that exist), I suggest that evangelical civil society\u2019s use of
\nlaw reveals much more than it perverts the potential of the human rights and
\ndevelopment legal regimes to be used as instruments of international social
\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
<\/i><\/p>\n
The first two short cases deal with concrete
\ncases of conservative US evangelical groups using domestic and international
\nlegal regimes to suppress LGBT rights internationally; the domestic component
\nof this has to do with funding and the international component has to do with
\nhuman rights treaties. The third short case deals with the more abstract case
\nof how international development legal regimes are exploited by conservative
\ncivil society groups as instruments of social control, dealing also with the
\nuse of US law regarding \u2018development\u2019 funding.<\/p>\n
Case
\n1<\/b>: The Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights (\u201cUDHR\u201d) Art. 16 and its varying expressions in
\nother international legal texts have been used most prominently by the Alliance
\nDefending Freedom (\u201cADF\u201d) to repress LGBT rights. <\/p>\n
Founded in 1993 as the \u2018Alliance
\nDefense Fund\u2019, the ADF is a US Conservative evangelical NGO whose mission is to
\nfund litigation that \u2018defends\u2019 \u201creligious freedom, sanctity of life, and
\nmarriage and family\u201d, meaning opposite-sex marriage as traditionally defined.
\nThe ADF is funded predominantly by the National Christian Foundation (\u201cNCF\u201d), which
\nis the largest organization in the US engaged in re-syphoning tax breaks to
\nChristian causes; and to a lesser degree, by the DeVos Foundation and Academi (the
\nformer Blackwater Group, famous for government-funded murders in Iraq). <\/p>\n
While the NCF uses law to channel money
\nthat would otherwise join the public tax pool into special Christian interests,
\nAcademi uses profits supported by government contracts (ultimately supported by
\npublic funds) to pursue those same interests. And although this was not the case
\nwhen it began supporting the ADF, the DeVos Foundation has now narrowed its
\nproximity to the state: Richard and Helen DeVos founded the Foundation, and
\ntheir daughter-in-law, Betsy DeVos, now serves as Secretary of Education in the
\nTrump Administration. <\/p>\n
The ADF supplies grants to lawyers who
\nwish to preserve \u2018traditional\u2019 definitions of marriage; they funded litigation based
\non the now defunct Defense of Marriage Act in the US, which confined the right
\nto marry only to opposite sex couples, and funded amicus briefs in support of
\nthe same Act when it was challenged and ultimately struck down under the
\nscrutiny of the US Supreme Court.[1]
\nInternationally, using the non-binding UDHR Art. 16\u2019s \u201cmen and women\u201d language as
\ninterpretive authority, the ADF has used the binding \u201cfreedom of thought, conscience,
\nand religion\u201d rights \u2013 codified in the European Convention on Human Rights,
\nArticle 9, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article
\n18 \u2013 to defend organizations that suppress LGBT rights by excluding members of
\nthe LGBT community. <\/p>\n
Moreover, using the International
\nCovenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (\u201cICESCR\u201d) Article 13\u2019s \u201cright
\nto education\u201d and the right of parents \u201cto choose for their children schools,
\nother than those established by public authority,\u201d the ADF has successfully
\nargued cases that both suppress the rights of children by empowering parents to
\nchoose how their children will be educated, and protected in some cases the
\nright to indoctrinate children with anti-LGBT ideas.[2]
\nIndeed, ICESCR Art. 15, which enshrines a given public\u2019s right to \u201cculture\u201d,
\nhas been similarly deployed.[3]<\/p>\n
Case
\n2<\/b>: US Federal
\nResearch, Pell Grant, and \u2018development\u2019 funding have also enabled evangelical civil
\nsociety organizations to transcend state and international governments to spread
\nconservative Christian goals. The most egregious example is the World Congress
\nof Families, which promotes anti-LGBT laws internationally on the basis of UDHR
\nArticle 16, using human rights law to fuel anti-gay movements in Russia, the
\nCzech Republic, and other European states. <\/p>\n
UDHR Article 16 states that \u201cMen and
\nwomen of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
\nhave the right to marry and to found a family.\u201d[4]
\nEmploying interpretive methods that are common to western lawyers, and that are
\ninternationally codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
\nTreaties, both the \u2018plain meaning\u2019 and the \u2018object and purpose\u2019 of Article 16
\nin light of the entire UDHR text can be reasonably (if controversially) read to
\nsupport the conclusion that the UDHR protects only the right of opposite sex
\ncouples to marry.[5] Indeed,
\nseveral of the other most basic rights enshrined in the UDHR \u2013 e.g., the right
\nto life \u2013 use the language \u201ceveryone has the right\u201d to delineate once and for
\nall the innate rights of humanity, which supports an intentionalist
\ninterpretation that the phrase \u201cmen and women\u201d describes the relationship
\nbetween the genders and not the collectivist interpretation which would favor
\n\u2018both men and women\u2019. (\u2018Intentionalism\u2019 describes a mode of interpretation that
\nseeks to read treaty texts to mean what the original authors intended them to
\nmean, rather than reading the text in light of contemporary understandings of
\nthe words.) <\/p>\n
Similarly, the fact that the Article
\nspecifies how the right will not be limited (not due to \u201crace, nationality or
\nreligion\u201d), and the fact that this list does not include \u201cgender\u201d, could be
\nread as a deliberate exclusion, so long as one adopts an interpretation of the Art.
\n16 list as exhaustive rather than indicative. <\/p>\n
Therefore, even if such arguments are not
\nentirely convincing given the emphasis on equality in the Preamble of the UDHR,
\nwhich is the most common reference point for international lawyers determining
\n\u2018object and purpose\u2019 of any treaty, the fact that such interpretive methods are
\nwidely accepted in the practice of international law renders the World Congress
\nof Families\u2019 position a reasonable (even if repulsive) use of the UDHR,
\nspeaking strictly from the perspective of an international lawyer. <\/p>\n
Accordingly, these uses of
\ninternational human rights law lend credibility to the World Congress of Families\u2019
\nanti-LGBT activities abroad \u2013 even if only in the eyes of their supporters \u2013 because
\nsuch interpretations of treaty-based rights are difficult for international
\nlawyers to categorically reject:<\/p>\n
Case
\n3<\/b>: Shifting from
\ninternational human rights to international development discourse, two other
\nprominent US evangelical NGOs \u00ad\u2013 Samaritan\u2019s Purse and World Vision \u2013 receive USAID
\nfunding and regularly bid on UN development contracts but have the authority to
\nimpose conditions on communities that receive benefits from those funds and contracts.\n<\/p>\n
Both organizations were founded by evangelical
\nminister Bob Pierce (who believed Christianity was the cure for Communism),[6]
\nboth focus on \u2018international development\u2019, and both receive substantial
\n\u2018development\u2019 and various \u2018humanitarian aid\u2019 contracts. World Vision has
\nconsultative status with UNESCO and partnerships with a number of intergovernmental
\norganizations and evangelical groups around the world. With a stronger
\nmissionary focus, Samaritan\u2019s Purse specializes in emergency relief and
\ninfrastructural projects related to water, sanitation, nutrition, medical care,
\nand public health.[7] It
\nreceives USAID funding and works closely with UN development initiatives around
\nthe globe.[8]<\/p>\n
Any conditions imposed by religious
\norganizations on communities receiving government aid should be suspect to
\nscrutiny, but the prohibition on \u2018proselytism\u2019 keeps many of the most obvious
\nabuses at bay. As a result, religious conditions on aid are rarely if ever
\nexplicit, but Samaritan\u2019s Purse has come under fire for blurring the lines
\nbetween church and state, most notably when members of its staff required
\nvictims of the El Salvador Earthquake to sit through a half-hour prayer
\nmeeting before receiving assistance in 2001. <\/p>\n
Perhaps more blatantly, World Vision\u2019s
\nmission statement declares that it will \u201cserv[e] as a witness to the gospel of
\nJesus Christ\u201d \u2013 the word \u2018witness\u2019 being common evangelical-speak for
\n\u2018proselytize\u2019. As the 36th largest recipient of US government funds for
\ninternational \u2018development\u2019,[9]
\nWorld Vision boasts a long and varied history of conditioning development aid or
\ndisaster relief upon various forms of proselytism, from requiring children in
\ndisaster areas to listen to short religious speeches before USAID-funded meals,
\nto allowing Christian \u2018sponsors\u2019 of poor children to write letters laden with
\nreligious messages to those children, to working with organizations such as the
\nJoshua Project to identify \u201cunreached people groups\u201d \u2013 evangelical slang for
\n\u201cpeople with the least exposure to evangelical Christianity\u201d \u2013 where World
\nVision can increase its presence. <\/p>\n
It is not my aim to label any of these
\nuses \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018bad\u2019 but simply to call attention to them; these are some uses
\nof human rights and development law that are motivated by suppressive or
\ncoercive goals. <\/p>\n
These cases and many others reveal the
\ndegree to which the state, through the auspices of civil society, has engaged human
\nrights and development law for ideological promotion through the proxy of evangelical
\ncivil society organizations. In this way, we might consider the US human rights
\n\/ development agenda and Christian civil society organizations as two
\nexpressions of the same faith: that certain rights are static, intrinsic to
\nhumanity, and universal \u2013 that the validity of these rights for anyone<\/i> depends upon their validity for everyone<\/i>. <\/p>\n
There are many non-religious
\ndevelopment-based NGOs that are engaged in related forms of ideological
\nsuppression through less obvious means, for example, the glorification and
\nglobal proliferation of capitalist and neoliberal goals. Indeed, these examples
\nshould also be cause to examine the justification for leftist ideological
\nsuppression of the right, and perhaps to question whether ideology can ever be
\nviewed as something separate from law in the first place. <\/p>\n
Indeed, it could be that such examples reveal
\nmore to us about the nature of law itself as an expression of belief than they
\ndo about the legal regimes of development or human rights, or about the groups
\nthat use them.<\/p>\n
The first page of the Bandung Communiqu\u00e9.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Notes<\/b><\/p>\n
[1] United States v. Windsor<\/i>, 570 U.S. Docket No. 12-307 (2013).<\/p>\n
[2] For a list of global
\ninvolvement in these cases, see the ADF International
\nwebsite.<\/p>\n
[3] Id.<\/i><\/p>\n
[4] Universal Declaration
\nof Human Rights, art. 16.<\/p>\n
[5] See VCLT, arts.
\n31-32. See also ICJ Statute, art. 38. <\/p>\n
[6] Information derived
\nfrom the websites of these organizations, available at https:\/\/www.samaritanspurse.org, and at http:\/\/www.wvi.org, respectively.<\/p>\n
[7] Information on the
\norganization available at https:\/\/www.samaritanspurse.org.<\/p>\n
[8] See e.g. Kamari
\nClarke, Fictions of Justice<\/i> (CUP
\n2009).<\/p>\n
[9] A list of the top 40
\nrecipients is available on USAID\u2019s website.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
How to cite:<\/b>
Crow K.(2018) How US evangelical organizations deploy \u2018human rights\u2019 and \u2018development\u2019 Open Democracy \/ ISA RC-47: Open Movements, 18 June. https:\/\/opendemocracy.net\/kevin-crow\/how-us-evangelical-organizations-deploy-human-rights-and-development<\/p>\n
<\/b><\/p>\n
;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles. Charles Habib Malik, a key evangelising figure in the intellectual debate that defined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).When President Truman introduced Point Four \u2018development\u2019 in his 1949 Inaugural Speech, he spawned an American globalist mission…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}