Parsons/irfa Paper

PARSONS/IRFA PAPER

INTRODUCTION

After sparking Congressional hearings and prompting the Clinton Administration to take legislative action by signing the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, a religious revolution blossomed. This Act was implemented on behalf of persecuted Christians and other religious minorities.

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) can best be thought of as a policy tool, created as a response to changes in the religious environment of societies, that fits the framework of societal change created by Talcott-Parsons.

Using Talcott Parsons as a sociological lens amidst the ever-changing social system, I examined the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), its advantages, and its criticisms in regards to the global community. IRFA attempts the stop the religious persecution of minority faiths, forcible conversion, desecration of religious sites, the proscribing of beliefs, pervasive discrimination, killings and torture (Hertzke and Philpott, 74). These atrocities were daily occurrences at the end of the twentieth century and remain prevalent in a society riddled with violence and crime. It is my contention that IRFA serves as a unique policy tool created from a society whose values were changing positively; in turn, IRFA prompts even greater transformation through economic sanctions and thus fits into Talcott Parsons’ evolutionary model of change.

The IRFA legislation brings to mind Thomas Jefferson’s notion that religious freedom is the First Freedom. Wherever religious freedom is found so too is the freedom of association, the freedom of speech, and the freedom to believe.

Theory

It should be noted that Talcott Parsons is a staunch structural functionalist, interested primarily in its structural components and unable to focus on any other element of social systems other than their strict structure. The Social System is based on the conviction that there are two essential reference points for this type of systemic analysis; the first is the classification of the functional requirements of the system and the second is the arrangement of such a system in reference to processes of control. Parsons posits that the most empirically significant sociological theories must be concerned with complex systems.

In general, Parsons is interested in making a fundamental distinction between the morphological analysis of the chameleonic structure of systems and the so-called dynamic analysis of process (Parsons, The Social System, 6). Parson’s theory is one of social action, which goes beyond the old reductionist theories of social theory. With Parsons, the old battle of theory versus empiricism may be considered to be over. There is no longer a question as to the study of human endeavor as a scientific endeavor.

FINDINGS

Throughout time, man has used a sociological lens composed of philosophy and anthropology in order that he can relate in some intelligible way to the universe that he belongs to, especially those aspects of which he feels like he has no control.

Although the development of these sciences are entirely separated from religious institutions, they must not be used as rubrics that cannot measure religious changes in the social system since religion has transformed many aspects of society.

BACKGROUND

The IRFA Symposium: Linking IRFA To Talcott Parsons

On February 25, 2008, the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University had a one-day symposium to discuss religious freedom. The agenda was IRFA and U.S. foreign policy in the sector of global religious rights. Various angles of the act were discussed, from a debate over religious rights to the social, economic, and political impact of religious liberty worldwide. International perspectives were addressed, and there was a sense of an emerging global denominationalism in many of the speakers’ addresses.

Specifically in regards to IRFA, Jose Casanova, PhD, addressed the value of the globalization of human rights. His talk placed IRFA into the function of goal attainment, because the needs of the social system to change with religious freedom as a universal aspiration was stressed. Although Dr. Casanova claimed that religious freedom may mean different things to people in various countries, he stressed that there is a growing trend of “mutual cultures” to obtain religious rights. During the last fifteen years, he believes that a global movement to expand religious freedoms has occurred. These goals tie into Parsons’ plurality of goals schema, and emphasizes that IRFA is necessary