“This focus on diagnosing complex issues narrowly as religious freedom issues may distract us from addressing salient economic and political drivers. After all, if we diagnose a problem as solely a problem of religious freedom then our prescription will be limited to that. It may treat the symptoms but not the underlying disease, allowing it to grow.”
On July 18, 2023, Susan Hayward, Senior Advisor for Religion and Public Policy at Harvard Divinity School’s Religion and Public Life Program, stated these words before the Committee of Foreign Affairs's Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
In the hearing titled “The Dire State of Religious Freedom Around the World,” Hayward brought light to minority groups that have been historically disadvantaged and left out by how we choose to define “religion” and “religious freedom.” She gave pertinent examples from events around the world, such as Indigenous traditions, while specifically presenting three recommendations to the Committee in its consideration of US policy options to advance religious freedom. In her witness statement, she explains,
“First, US policy on religious freedom must be contextualized in a conflict-sensitive manner so as not to render already vulnerable communities more vulnerable nor exacerbate religious dimensions of conflict. Second, approaches to religious freedom are strengthened through an approach that reinforces overlapping human rights and governance concerns. And finally, the US government must do a better job ensuring that its approach to religious freedom is as inclusive as possible, particularly of those who have historically not benefited from the resources marshaled to address this right such as Indigenous communities.”
Historically, the right to religious freedom has been unnaturally separated from all other rights (human rights, civil liberties, etc.). Hayward explains that this is counterintuitive, as most cultures do not separate their religious lives from the other aspects of their lives as the US attempts to do with a separation of church and state. Worldwide, religious freedoms and personal freedoms are woven together, an idea that the Harvard Divinity School Religion and Public Life program echoes through its education on religious literacy.
Following the hearing, Hayward, in conversation with RPL communications graduate assistant Scarlett Rose Ford, MTS ’25, expanded upon her witness and shared how she believes her points can best be put into action.
Scarlett Rose Ford: Why do you think you were specifically asked to testify at this hearing? What were the strengths and shortcomings of the witness panel selection?
Susie Hayward: This hearing was in response to the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom report published in May 2023. One witness was the head commissioner (chair) of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is a quasi-governmental body established by Congress in 1998 with the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). Its commissioners are appointed by Congress and USCIRF publishes its own annual report on countries where religious freedom is under attack. This report often has more countries of concern identified than the State Department report as the latter has to take into account other policy priorities and diplomacy. USCIRF therefore acts as a galvanizer of the State Department, pushing it to be more responsive to religious freedom violations overseas.
The other speaker was the head of the Religious Freedom Institute, which tends to be more aligned with the conservative political and social commitments resonant with Republican Party positions in regard to religious freedom policy. I was invited by the Democratic Party staff of the committee to speak. I suspect they sought to ensure a balance to, or different perspectives from, the Religious Freedom Institute representative. In 2021, I testified at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing titled “The State of Religious Freedom Around the Globe.” Perhaps they heard points or positions in that testimony that they hoped could be brought into this hearing.
SRF: You explained in your witness statement that elevating religious freedom/ rights above other human freedoms/rights can be harmful, and that the way religious freedom has been understood historically has privileged some groups over others. How receptive do you think the representatives were to these ideas?
SH: The US separation of church and state is rooted in how the modern state understands “religion” and the “secular.” These understandings of religion by the ostensibly secular modern state were formed within the historical context of Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with particular understandings of what constitutes religion.
Meanwhile, religious freedom as a human right has been prioritized within US foreign policy before this millennium, but it has been especially emphasized after the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) in 1998. There are particular and powerful funding and diplomatic tools that are at one’s disposal to address issues defined as religious freedom concerns, so that can create an incentive to define a complex issue as a religious freedom issue. Doing so triggers the resources of the IRFA: the ability to use sanctions, And the office of the IRF ambassador.
I did feel that the representatives understood that these issues are complex. I’m also sympathetic that there are atrocious acts of persecution happening around the world – consider the Uighurs -- and a desire to respond to these atrocities effectively and quickly. Again, mobilizing the resources that are available aby calling it a religious freedom issue can allow for a more forceful and immediate response to horrific situations of violence.
The challenge is that when you elevate religious freedom to define the issue, then your solution has to be about religion. This creates two problems.
First, this elevation reinforces the misconception that religion itself is a driver of violence and oppression. In turn, this can reinforce the idea of religion as a problem for security and so on. Religion doesn’t do things, people do things. What’s driving violence and persecution is often about so much more than just religion. It’s about economic and political power, access, and resources.
Second, the elevation oversimplifies complex issues, which can lead one to think that the policy solution here is sanctions and enforcement of religious freedom protections in a way that can “invisibilize” the economic and political interests that are driving the actors enacting these violent policies. The challenge for policymakers is to navigate employment of the resources available through IRFA while avoiding these pitfalls in order to develop holistic and sustainable policy solutions.
SRF: How would you suggest Congress avoid these pitfalls and ensure it is operating with an inclusive definition of “religion”?
SH: In my witness, I was trying to translate into policy speak some of the tools of religious studies/literacy in regard to the intersection of religion and foreign policy. I attempted to introduce some of these critical approaches to understanding and destabilizing what our legal and political systems understand as religion, how they define the term, how these definitions sometimes privilege particular forms of religion over others, and how these definitions can also really harm some communities by either leaving them out of the equation or forcing them to manipulate themselves to fit into the defined “religion” box.
For example, the focus on “beliefs”in definitions of religion in religious freedom policy, or the legal requirement to point to religious texts to prove the importance of certain practices, comes out of a Protestant Christian understanding of what’s primary for a given religious tradition. There are generally no written texts in Indigenous traditions, and the role of faith or belief is not necessarily primary; traditions and ceremonies may be. Having to fit within this defined mold can even, in some ways, be harmful. To use a Christian term, it can be sacrilegious for Indigenous traditions to textualize stories because they are considered too sacred to be written down.
So how can Congress do a better job of not applying our American definition of what is religious to other cultures? This is where religious literacy is really critical. Whatever issues a policymaker is looking at, but especially those who are looking at explicitly “religious” issues like religious freedom policy, religious literacy allows them to think in a more nuanced and critical way about how to ensure they’re advancing religious freedom without causing unintentional harms, reinforcing problematic divides, or privileging some groups over others.
Ideally, I would love to see approaches to thinking about religious literacy in public policy schools that could help policymakers understand how religious worldviews and assumptions—both ontological and epistemological—are functioning in embedded ways within the US government, legal systems, and policy-making institutions, and then be cognizant of that across a range of policy issues.
There are ways in which our HDS alumnx and Religion and Public Life students who are on the government track, for example, are doing this work of being introduced to religious literacy methods and considerations as they apply to governance and policymaking. They’re going out to serve in internships in Congress, or different government offices and departments on the city, state, and federal levels. Once there, they are able to bring religious literacy into conversation throughout those processes.
In the future, Religion and Public Life will be creating professional lifelong learning opportunities for policymakers to be introduced to religious literacy concepts and methods that they can bring into their own work and thinking. In engaging with these policymakers as religious studies scholars, we can ensure that we understand the realities and constraints of their work while tailoring the religious literacy approaches to be useful to them. Those are a few steps, but it’s a long process.
SRF: There was a lot of discussion in the subcommittee on what political leaders and the American government can do in regard to protecting and advancing religious freedom, but what can/should the average American person do? How can we advocate for religious freedom in our day-to-day lives?
SH: There are a lot of people who have good intentions and incredible passion and service commitments to protect diversity in all of its forms (including religion, race, gender, etc.) in this country right now, where respect for diversity is under assault. Religious freedom—rhetorically, legislatively, and judicially—can continue to be a key element of this battle that’s taking place within our country about national identity at large as well as at a more fundamental level. Questions like, Who is American? What are the essential values of America? Who gets to be in what spaces? Religious freedom is going to continue to be the foundation for that battleground within legislation, within the courts, and within different government offices.
It’s important that those with good intentions who want to address this issue take time to enhance their own religious literacy. They need to understand how to engage in that space in ways that don’t unintentionally recreate structures where religious freedom rhetoric has reinforced a particular understanding of religion or reproduced binaries between the secular and the religious.
SRF: What, if anything, about the hearing left you feeling optimistic or caused you concern? How are you feeling now, a few months after the fact?
SH: I’m glad there was this intervention, although it’s a very small intervention. There is a lot more work that’s being done in D.C. to advance religious literacy than sometimes gets acknowledged or is understood. I feel motivated to continue to engage and support the work that is being done by folks within all levels of government to advance justice and protect democracy and human rights both inside and outside the country. Going into an election year, these issues are going to be central, and they’re going to be critical. I feel the critical importance of connecting the conversations we’re having at HDS and the work that is being done with the folks on the front lines, in government spaces, who are trying to advance justice in a really urgent, complex, and difficult time.
You can watch the full recording of the subcommittee hearing here. Hayward elaborates on her statement and answers questions from the representatives at minutes 38:23, 1:10:04, 1:25:16, 1:31:23, 1:39:45, 2:00:55, and 2:02:27.
—by Scarlett Rose Ford, MTS ’25, RPL Communications Graduate Assistant