At the Christianity and National Security Conference in Washington, DC, in October 2021, Jennifer Patterson talked about the social dimensions of religious freedom and public diplomacy. She made the case that “the character of our culture determines our capacity to lead on the world stage.” Patterson also discussed soft power elements of US foreign power as well as how the US communicates with foreign governments and publics. She said, “There should be a coherence between US foreign policy and the principles, institutions, ideals, and constitutional order that that foreign policy exists to defend.” Then she talked about two principles and their intersection with US foreign policy, particularly public diplomacy: religious freedom and respect for life. The following is a transcript of the lecture.
Mark Tooley: Thank you all, you’ve been an excellent audience. We have three more excellent speakers before the afternoon is over, the next of whom is Jennifer Marshall Patterson, who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary and is also a fellow at the Heritage Foundation here in D.C. I cannot help but boast that Providence is claiming credit for her marriage to Dr. Patterson in that they were both speakers at our first Christianity and National Security conference and both went to dinner with us afterwards (Marc LiVecche: With my prompting!). Yes, Marc LiVecche wants his share of the credit, but we are collectively claiming at least some credit. So thank you Jennifer for joining us.
Jennifer Patterson: Thank you, Mark, and thank you all for being here. You never know what will happen at a Providence conference, so you’re glad you came. I’ll continue in the cultural vein Paul Marshall led us on in the last session, but I’ll turn the focus domestically to the United States. I’ve always been interested in the intersection between domestic and foreign policy because I argue that the character of our culture determines our capacity to lead on the world stage. We need more people who understand that intersection. I hope some of the themes I raise today will inspire you to consider career tracks that engage with these critical issues.
Scholars typically discuss four instruments of national power, known by the acronym “DIME”: diplomacy, information, military, and economics. My talk will focus on the first two, diplomacy and information, with some attention to economics. We’ll address the soft power elements: how the U.S. communicates with foreign governments and publics and how we use resources abroad.
There are many debates about foreign policy and international theory, and you’ll hear some over the next 24 hours. I want to start with something foundational and uncontroversial: U.S. foreign policy defends the United States, its institutions, and its ideals. This suggests another basic idea: there should be coherence between U.S. foreign policy and the principles, institutions, and constitutional order it defends. By raising these simple points, I signal that I see a lack of coherence in this area.
We live in a world of conflicting ideas and values, meaning those representing the U.S. must be clear about its political order and ideals. Leaders must know what this country stands for. The challenge—and blessing—for the U.S. in the global battle of ideas is that we live in a free society. Here, we the people are the keepers of our ideas and institutions. Maintaining our founding principles and constitutional order requires ongoing effort by the American people and the government they authorize. This contrasts sharply with authoritarian regimes, where national purpose is enforced. It was clear this summer what a Taliban-led Afghanistan would stand for. In a free society, the burden is different. Our ideas and institutions are constantly debated and more vulnerable to erosion. It takes effort from both domestic and foreign policy leaders to sustain them. Increasingly, we need leadership that bridges domestic and foreign policy, addressing their intersections.
Today, I’ll focus on two principles and their intersection with specific areas of foreign policy: religious freedom and respect for life. I’ll explore religious freedom’s role in classic and public diplomacy and how respect for life is addressed in foreign aid and multilateral institutions like the UN.
First, religious freedom and foreign policy. Regrettably, the role of religion and religious freedom in the American order is poorly understood, especially by policymakers and foreign policy leaders. One reason is the prevalence of a strict separation of church and state, promoting the idea that government has nothing to do with religion. This outlook suggests religion is personal, private, irrelevant to public policy, and should remain out of the public square. A second reason is the assumption that political and social progress would marginalize religion. But data do not support this assumption, whether in the U.S. or abroad. Policymakers who fail to grasp religion’s relevance domestically will likely overlook its significance globally. A purely materialistic view of foreign affairs, detached from a religious framework, leaves policymakers ill-equipped to engage with highly religious populations.
Recognizing these issues, policymakers acted 23 years ago. On October 28, 1998, President Clinton signed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRF Act), passed by overwhelming congressional majorities. The IRF Act established a strategic framework for advancing religious freedom globally. It did five things:
It created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent body of citizens tasked with making recommendations to the President and Congress on global religious freedom.
Secondly, it established the Office of International Religious Freedom at the State Department, led by an Ambassador At-Large for Religious Freedom, to integrate religious freedom into national security and foreign policy priorities.
Third, it mandated an annual report by the State Department on religious freedom in every country.
Fourth, it provided Congress and U.S. agencies with options to address religious freedom violations, including designating Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs), such as Iran and North Korea.
And fifth, it required training for U.S. diplomats on religious freedom.
By 2016, progress was insufficient, prompting a reauthorization of the IRF Act, which introduced key updates. For one thing, the Ambassador At-Large was now to report directly to the Secretary of State, raising the profile of religious freedom within the State Department. Second, it mandated international religious freedom training for all foreign service officers. Third, it added a new category: Entities of Particular Concern, covering non-state actors that violate religious freedom.
The need for this framework remains urgent. Eighty percent of the world’s population lives in countries where religious freedom is severely restricted, facing persecution from two directions: government restrictions and social hostilities. The latter involves religious majorities oppressing minorities, often with governments turning a blind eye.
The IRF Act has had an impact. U.S. leadership has inspired other countries like the UK, Canada, and the EU to create special envoys for religious freedom. There have been minor successes, mainly due to high-level presidential pressure for specific prisoners of conscience. Examples include President Obama’s efforts for Pastor Saeed Abedini in Iran and President Trump’s for Pastor Andrew Brunson in Turkey. However, 20 years on, we need better integration of religious freedom into broader foreign policy. The Ambassador and Office should be more central to policymaking and better connected to public diplomacy efforts.
Public diplomacy is defined as helping foreign audiences understand and appreciate American ideals, principles, and policies. To be effective, it must be grounded in these ideals, including religious liberty. Religious freedom and practice are defining attributes of America, as important as our democratic system or free-market economy. Religion has shaped U.S. history, from early settlements to major social justice movements. Today, most Americans say religion is at least somewhat important. Faith-based organizations lead in disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. Religious liberty is an American success story that should be shared globally.
Public diplomacy must focus on content over tools. In a tech-driven age, we risk prioritizing modes of communication over the message. While pop culture has sometimes served as a soft power tool—like rock and roll during the Cold War—it cannot adequately convey American ideals in the face of potent, misguided ideologies. The war of ideas requires a clear, compelling articulation of American principles and institutions. For religious communities, U.S. public diplomacy must show that religious freedom supports, not opposes, the public role of religion. Our model contrasts with France’s laïcité, which marginalizes religion. Instead, we assume religious believers and institutions will actively engage in society and politics. Public diplomacy should highlight how religion and traditional values remain central to American life, resonating with highly religious populations globally.
Turning to foreign aid, U.S. assistance must respect life. Domestically, the Hyde Amendment bars taxpayer funding of abortion. Internationally, the Mexico City Policy, introduced by President Reagan in 1984, requires foreign NGOs receiving U.S. funds to certify they won’t perform or promote abortion. Every Republican president since Reagan has upheld it; every Democrat has reversed it. President Trump expanded it to all U.S. foreign aid. President Biden reversed these policies. Similarly, the Trump administration defunded the UNFPA for its ties to China’s coercive population control policies, but the Biden administration restored funding. U.S. foreign aid should promote global health while affirming life.
Finally, multilateral institutions, particularly the UN, present challenges. While the UN addresses security, it also pushes progressive social policies. Under Democratic administrations, the U.S. has supported these efforts, pressing a liberal agenda on conservative and developing countries. UN treaty-monitoring bodies, intended to oversee treaty compliance, often overreach, promoting controversial policies like abortion as customary international law. Even the U.S. has faced criticism for its pro-life state laws. U.S. leaders must advocate for fundamental human rights and push for UN reform to curb bureaucratic overreach.
These examples show how domestic policy issues intersect with foreign policy, public diplomacy, and multilateral engagement. We need leaders who understand these connections. For students considering policy careers, developing the skills to navigate complex bureaucratic systems is essential. These areas require a sound philosophy rooted in our constitutional principles and the ability to engage with detailed policy work.
With that, I’ll take two or three questions.
Q&A
Question: This question has a couple of assumptions, and if they’re wrong or you disagree, go ahead and say that. Eboo Patel, an interfaith leader I’ve been listening to recently, talks about how religion is simply a conglomeration of your ultimate concerns. How do you have optimism that as a nation of religious liberty, where people have and frequently elect others who have conflicting ultimate concerns, we can exert enough political—or influence might be a better word—on the international stage? Especially when facing people with a theology, whether political or structured religion, that’s more cohesive or coherent under an authoritarian state. How do we have hope of influence if we are conflicted internally by our values of religious liberty?
Answer: The question is, how can we hope to influence the world for good on religious freedom if we are conflicted within our own context, while authoritarian regimes are confident and opposed to religious freedom? I appreciate the question because it highlights significant domestic debates on religious freedom. These debates are crucial because we are articulating that religious freedom is a right for all humanity, for all people under the sun. To communicate this abroad, we must secure and maintain religious freedom here.
One issue is that in the U.S., as Paul Marshall pointed out, we don’t know our history well. Knowing our history and the principles on which our society was formed is essential to prize and maintain religious freedom. Too few young people are learning about this today. I hope you all are considering this and gain exposure to it beyond this talk, perhaps here at this conference.
I’ll point to the work of the Religious Freedom Institute, my husband’s organization, Eric Patterson. They’ve developed curriculum to teach religious freedom with this concern in mind—teaching the next generation to embrace and maintain the heritage we’ve been handed down. It’s not a given, and we cannot assume it.
Question: When we try to export religious freedom, how do we avoid making pariahs of the people we reach? You mentioned they face religious persecution, not only from the government but also from their communities. How do we promote not only the decriminalization of religious freedom but also its acceptance within other cultures?
Answer: The question is, when advocating for religious freedom globally, those who ally with us may face social hostilities from religious majorities that oppose religious freedom. Important work has been done, including by Brian Grim and others at the Religious Freedom Institute. They’ve documented evidence, particularly social science evidence on human flourishing, to demonstrate that embracing religious freedom is in the interest of highly religious countries and even religious majorities.
The social harmony religious freedom fosters is the surest way to secure the standing of beliefs, rather than through hostility. I’d point to that body of work, which addresses how to engage in public diplomacy with religious majorities hostile to religious freedom.
