Q&A: The US Constitution as a roadblock to religious engagement

The United States Constitution’s Establishment Clause — which dates back to 1791 and comes under the First Amendment — has had a “chilling effect on programming” in the development sector as it works to build peaceful and resilient communities, explained Elizabeth Hume, acting president and CEO at the Alliance for Peacebuilding.

The clause prohibits the government from taking any action that would “unduly favor one religion over another.” And this plays out in modern-day U.S. programmatic funding, Hume said.

“There's a hesitancy [within] the U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, [in] not wanting to get in trouble for funding religious groups. That’s been a really big hindrance to this sector.”

This is because, according to Hume, religious organizations and leaders play a key role in building peace and security in many conflict-affected and fragile states.

“Faith actors, in many parts of the world, have a presence, they have trust with communities, they're already working closely in marginalized communities,” she said, adding that new ways of working with faith entities must be found.

“A lot of times that's why private donors are so key, like the GHR Foundation. Without them, this work wouldn't be getting done because government donors are restricted and have more concerns about working with religious organizations,” she said.

Speaking to Devex, Hume explained the role religion and race plays in conflict and peacebuilding, the hesitancy among the development community to harness the power of religion, and the first steps in doing so.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Based on your experience as a conflict expert, how does religion influence peacebuilding work?

Many people, a lot of times, think [religion is] the driver of conflict. You'll see in Bosnia, Croats who are Catholic, Bosniaks who are brought up as Muslim, and Serbs who are Orthodox. You can look at Northern Ireland and [see] Catholics against Protestants. But when you peel it away, religion is oftentimes used as a way to pit people against each other, but it's not the issue. It becomes a symptom of the conflict.

The real issue, when you look at it, is that people are marginalized. You're looking at economic issues; you're looking at corruption.

Whether it's a symptom or a driver of a conflict, you still have to address it, because it becomes part of the greater conflict system … What we also know is that interreligious leaders can be used to address those conflict drivers, calming it down again. In the United States, faith groups have long been a part of many communities from a civil rights perspective, bridging that gap in terms of bringing people together … But oftentimes it takes courage. We've been told by religious leaders in the U.S. that when they talk about these issues, they have parts of their congregation leaving.

In terms of recognizing the potential of faith leaders to help when it comes to peacebuilding, do enough members of the development sector engage with that idea?

No, they don't because of what I was talking about before … because of the Establishment Clause. When some of our members have put forth ideas on this, they haven't been allowed to go forward with them because of the reticence, because of the concerns around the clause … There's a lot more that could be done [to ensure] that the Establishment Clause isn’t being violated, because you're not favoring one religious group over another, you're trying to understand how they’re a key part in the conflict and or how they could be extremely helpful in the prevention, reduction of violence, and building sustainable peace.

Shifting to talking about racial equity, where does that fit into peacebuilding?

Inequity is one of the top drivers of conflict. People feel marginalized. People feel that they don't have a say in their government. You might have a government run by a minority part of the population or a majority part of the population that doesn't provide for what a different community needs, whether it is health, education, [or] security. They're targeted because of their differences. We know there are human rights violations on groups that are seen as different.

You have to look at a conflict-affected country, a fragile country, a country experiencing violence and understand what the grievances are, where the resiliencies are [and] what the triggers are. Race, different ethnicities, religion are all a part of that, but also recognizing that they’re just one part of it, and a lot of times are used by governments and people to inflame or polarize communities.

You have to look at the entire conflict system …That's something that AfP is really pushing hard for people to understand; that there’s this larger complex conflict system.

What advice would you have for development organizations on how to factor in both religion and racial equity into the work they're doing?

A conflict assessment might get done in the beginning when a program is being designed. It's treated a lot as a “one and done” [thing], not recognizing that a conflict system is not linear and not static. It's constantly changing.

Also, recognize that a program can have a backlash and unintended consequences. To give an example, when I was in Ethiopia, there was incredible religious conflict breaking out in Jimma between the Christian and the Muslim communities. People thought that Christian people had torn up the Koran, and Muslims felt like the Christians were being disrespectful by ringing the bells during one of their holy days. You can see how this is ratcheting up. [There was] incredible violence. People videotaped it and they sent it around.

One of the things that we talked about doing was a campaign to show that Muslims and Christians had lived together side-by-side peacefully for hundreds of years, but there were a lot of problems with the campaign. It oversaturated the market; it was on billboards [and] TV commercials. What happened was people asked “wait, is there something going on here that we don't know about? Is there something bigger?” It goes back to this issue where international organizations don't want to be front and center so we didn't brand who it was. It was a USAID-funded program and an international NGO. People were like, “who's behind this? Is it the government?” … So in some ways it actually had a backlash, and the government pulled it off TV. I tell this story because the intention was incredible, but we didn't factor in the backlash.

How do these points tie into the localization agenda?

I think this ties into —  especially religion — the locally-led issue being discussed now. Religious organizations, religious leaders have to be part of the locally led conversation. That is, I think, a really important piece of it because, again, whether you believe in religion or not, they [play] a key part in many conflict-affected and fragile states. They're in the community and may be contributing to the conflicts or being an incredible resource, advocate, and have an incredible ability to reduce [and] prevent violence and conflict, and build sustainable peace. Just ignoring them and not working with them can't be part of the equation.

Devex, with support from our partner GHR Foundation, is exploring the intersection between faith and development. Visit the Focus on: Faith and Development page for more. Disclaimer: The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of GHR Foundation.