Religious Freedom Policy

From: "James F. Lewis" <j-lewis@bethel.edu
To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:29 AM
Subject: Religious Freedom Policy

I would be interested to hear from anyone who is studying the upcoming "Ordinance on Religion" (Phap Lenh) to become effective November 15, 2004. How does this change, modify, or extend previous official statements on the exercise of religion?

Jim Lewis

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:49:08 -0700
From: Peter Hansen <johnev@netspace.net.au>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Religious Freedom Policy

Jim,

Do you have a website reference where the text can be read?

Thanks,

Peter Hansen

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:45:47 -0500
From: James F. Lewis <j-lewis@bethel.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy

A follow up to my request to network with others on the topic of religious freedom in contemporary Vietnam.

Those interested in reading Vietnam's soon to be enacted "Ordinance on Religion and the Religions" (Phap Lenh) in English translation may do so at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/vietnam/Ordinance

Jim Lewis

Professor of Religious Studies

Bethel University

3900 Bethel Dr.

St. Paul, MN 55112

USA

From: Andrew Wells-Dang <andrew@ffrd.org
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu
Date: 10/13/2004 7:04:44 PM
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy

We have recently posted a draft paper on Foreign Religious Organizations in Vietnam on our website (www.ffrd.org) which may be of interest to VSGers; we welcome comments and iscussion. Also on the site is the text of a letter sent by 20 NGOs and individuals to Secretary of State Powell last month in advance of Vietnam's (unjustified, in our view) designation by the US as a "Country of Particular Concern" for religious freedom.

I gave a presentation today to the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi about CPC status and its potential effects on US-VN relations; if anyone is interested in a copy of the presentation, let me know.

Andrew Wells-Dang

Regional Representative
Fund for Reconciliation & Development
25 Truong Han Sieu, #302
Hanoi, Vietnam
tel. (+84-4) 943-8061
mobile (+84-90) 424-5461

From: "Shawn McHale" <mchale@gwu.edu
To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy

Dear list:

I found the letter drafted to Colin Powell on religious freedom in Vietnam to be reasonable *in general*, and think the same about the longer presentation by Andrew Wells-Dang as well. But two points:

The following statement in the letter to Colin Powell on religious freedom made me grit my teeth: "Public condemnation by the United States would be equally counterproductive,given the historical roles of missionaries and foreign-funded religious groups in the establishment of French colonialism and in U.S. intervention after 1954."

This is odd. The United States should not comment because French missionaries were in upposed cahoots with the French state in the nineteenth century? Explain that logic to me. It should not comment because anti-communist Catholics in the US opposed the DRV and supported Diem? Once again, explain the exact logic to me. This seems to me to be argument by insinuation.

Even more troubling to me is the idea that the US should not comment on, say, Buddhists or Cao Dai, because of what Christians did thirty years ago or more!. This makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, this kind of logic has absolutely no chance of swaying the State Department.

The key issue is not what sins allegedly committed decades ago, but what the SRV is doing today. On that score, it seems clear to me that Vietnam is, in general, a more hospitable place to religious groups than fifteen years ago. Thank goodness.

The major reason that the US might not want to comment too loudly on human rights abuses, including issues of religion, is that its credibility on such issues around the world is shot. I think the word "Guantanamo" about sums my position up. Seriously, while George Bush never tires of saying that "freedom is on the march in the world," he has been reaching out to dicators in central Asia who are happy to crush religious movements they don't like. He seems charmed by that thug Putin. One could go on. And on.

One could perhaps suggest to Colin Powell that if that egregious violator of religious and human rights Uzbekistan is off the list of "countries of particular concern," then the list is a travesty of common sense.

Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
Associate Director, Sigur Center for Asian Studies
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA

Return to top of page




	« Return to discusion archieves 2004 Religious Freedom Policy From: "James F. Lewis" <j-lewis@bethel.edu To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:29 AM Subject: Religious Freedom Policy I would be interested to hear from anyone who is studying the upcoming "Ordinance on Religion" (Phap Lenh) to become effective November 15, 2004. How does this change, modify, or extend previous official statements on the exercise of religion? Jim Lewis Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:49:08 -0700 From: Peter Hansen <johnev@netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu> Subject: RE: Religious Freedom Policy Jim, Do you have a website reference where the text can be read? Thanks, Peter Hansen Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:45:47 -0500 From: James F. Lewis <j-lewis@bethel.edu> Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy A follow up to my request to network with others on the topic of religious freedom in contemporary Vietnam. Those interested in reading Vietnam's soon to be enacted "Ordinance on Religion and the Religions" (Phap Lenh) in English translation may do so at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/vietnam/Ordinance Jim Lewis Professor of Religious Studies Bethel University 3900 Bethel Dr. St. Paul, MN 55112 USA From: Andrew Wells-Dang <andrew@ffrd.org To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu Date: 10/13/2004 7:04:44 PM Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy We have recently posted a draft paper on Foreign Religious Organizations in Vietnam on our website (www.ffrd.org) which may be of interest to VSGers; we welcome comments and iscussion. Also on the site is the text of a letter sent by 20 NGOs and individuals to Secretary of State Powell last month in advance of Vietnam's (unjustified, in our view) designation by the US as a "Country of Particular Concern" for religious freedom. I gave a presentation today to the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi about CPC status and its potential effects on US-VN relations; if anyone is interested in a copy of the presentation, let me know. Andrew Wells-Dang Regional Representative Fund for Reconciliation & Development 25 Truong Han Sieu, #302 Hanoi, Vietnam tel. (+84-4) 943-8061 mobile (+84-90) 424-5461 From: "Shawn McHale" <mchale@gwu.edu To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Policy Dear list: I found the letter drafted to Colin Powell on religious freedom in Vietnam to be reasonable in general, and think the same about the longer presentation by Andrew Wells-Dang as well. But two points: The following statement in the letter to Colin Powell on religious freedom made me grit my teeth: "Public condemnation by the United States would be equally counterproductive,given the historical roles of missionaries and foreign-funded religious groups in the establishment of French colonialism and in U.S. intervention after 1954." This is odd. The United States should not comment because French missionaries were in upposed cahoots with the French state in the nineteenth century? Explain that logic to me. It should not comment because anti-communist Catholics in the US opposed the DRV and supported Diem? Once again, explain the exact logic to me. This seems to me to be argument by insinuation. Even more troubling to me is the idea that the US should not comment on, say, Buddhists or Cao Dai, because of what Christians did thirty years ago or more!. This makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, this kind of logic has absolutely no chance of swaying the State Department. The key issue is not what sins allegedly committed decades ago, but what the SRV is doing today. On that score, it seems clear to me that Vietnam is, in general, a more hospitable place to religious groups than fifteen years ago. Thank goodness. The major reason that the US might not want to comment too loudly on human rights abuses, including issues of religion, is that its credibility on such issues around the world is shot. I think the word "Guantanamo" about sums my position up. Seriously, while George Bush never tires of saying that "freedom is on the march in the world," he has been reaching out to dicators in central Asia who are happy to crush religious movements they don't like. He seems charmed by that thug Putin. One could go on. And on. One could perhaps suggest to Colin Powell that if that egregious violator of religious and human rights Uzbekistan is off the list of "countries of particular concern," then the list is a travesty of common sense. Shawn McHale Associate Professor of History and International Affairs Associate Director, Sigur Center for Asian Studies George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 USA Return to top of page