Censorship, even when self-imposed, at times must be descried. The Interfaith Campus Ministers Association’s code of ethics, which went into effect last Thursday, is such a type of censorship to which this journal must raise its voice.

Specifically, this association’s code of ethics places certain regulations and restrictions upon the act of proselytizing: the active efforts of individuals to convert others to their faith. And though it does not outright ban proselytizing, the code of ethics is a failure in terms of the fact that it censors religious freedom by its very purpose, and secondly by the fact that many of its signers genuinely do not believe in the document.

First, the code of ethics itself is an affront to religious freedom in that it tries to place restrictions upon fundamental aspects of certain religious faiths, specifically those such as Christianity in which conversion of non-believers is an important part.

In terms of the actual restrictions, the code of ethics states that the staff workers of those organizations that are a part of the Interfaith Campus Ministers Association may not actively target members of other organizations for conversion. Essentially, what this means is that at a meeting for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), for example, the staff workers may not direct its members to go out one week and specifically try to convert Jews to Christianity.

On a campus such as Washington University, there should be fewer restrictions placed upon religious freedom than there are outside the campus. The code of ethics does exactly the opposite. In the community, for example, religious organizations such as churches organize mass attempts to proselytize, sometimes targeting specific groups and even races for conversion. Therefore, in an institution where more freedoms should exist, the members of the Interfaith Campus Ministry and its code of ethics actually impose more restrictions on the exercise of particular faiths than in the greater community.

Through such a code of ethics, the members of this association aim to enhance the relationship between the various religious groups on this campus. By creating this code and by agreeing not to specifically target one another’s members for conversion, the combative aspect of these organization’s relationships seems to be mitigated. Bum Young Kim, the area director for IVCF and a signer of the code, for example, had this to say about the code of ethics: “In general, I like the code of ethics in terms of the fact that we are working with other religious groups and opening up a dialogue.”

This is where the second problem arises. Although the many signers of this code have agreed to follow its stipulations, they would not do so if they could carry out their faith to their fullest extent. When Mr. Kim was asked about whether or not he supports restriction-free proselytizing in general and not specifically on this university campus, for example, he stated, “I am all for it.”

Religious groups such as IVCF are putting restrictions upon themselves simply because other religious organizations do not like a fundamental aspect of their faith, proselytizing. And although members of these organizations signed the code of ethics voluntarily, it seems as though they did so more out of wanting to appease others than out of their own beliefs. As Mr. Kim states, “The code of ethics is primarily for the relationship of the staffs of the Interfaith Campus Ministry.”

The code of ethics in general is a bad idea, for it tries to limit the beliefs and actions of members of this community. Even if it is done voluntarily, self-censorship in this case must be labeled as a mistake. And furthermore, the fact that many of the signatures affixed to the code do not have the sincere backing of their scribes is unsettling. Hopefully the code will not live long on its own, but if it does, we must seriously question whether such a restriction on freedom of religion will become the norm.

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 24th, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.