A/79/182 torturing or killing fellow human beings, they actually perform a service to God”, and those same religious fanatics “may find some admirers and supporters within their broader communities who mistakenly resort to violence as a manifestation of strong religious commitment”. 47 Rejecting this reality would be evading the obligations and responsibilities that arise and the steps that can be taken to address it effectively. States need to fully respect freedom of religion or belief for all while bringing to justice those who are answerable for violations or crimes in the name of religion or belief. Furthermore, “[r]eligious communities and their leaders, including theologians of various denominations, have a responsibility to tackle this problem on the basis of a clear analysis of its various root causes, including narrow-minded and polarizing interpretations of religious messages”. 48 35. Recognizing the currency of religion to the call for 49 and perpetuation of conflict, violence and war in this context is not an endorsement of religion being used to such an end, nor does it suggest that a particular religion or belief is inherently or necessarily violent. It is a mere acknowledgement that “r eligion” has in fact been mobilized in order to seek to justify violence, conflict or war in that particular time and context. 36. In debating “the actual importance of religion to terrorism (versus the instrumental use of religion)”, studies demonstrate we can “neither deny the importance of religion in religious terrorists’ actions nor place the blame for their violence on an entire religious tradition”. 50 Returning to the “ambivalence” of religion or belief, it is worth noting that, while religion can mobilize, and be mobilized, towards violence, conflict and war, it can also mobilize and be mobilized for the opposite. Recognizing when and how religion can be mobilized away from the negative and towards the positive is critical. 37. One may correlate religious and belief diversity with the risk of conflict; however, this is highly misguided. Scholars have observed that it is not diversity, whether cultural or religious, that is at issue but “how it is handled politically”. 51 As has been reiterated by this and other mandate holders, “religious intolerance is not a natural outcome of diverse societies but is all too often manipulated by a few groups or individuals”. 52 In the guiding principles of his Call to Action for Human Rights, the Secretary-General notes that human diversity should be regarded as an asset, not a threat, and religious and cultural diversity needs to be managed with full respect, and not just tolerance. 53 38. By upholding freedom of religion or belief, the State allows freedom of thought, conscience and religion to have its intended “far-reaching and profound” 54 scope and impacts. This freedom liberates persons to remain authentic to their conscience, whether in pursuit of continuing ancestral affiliations 55 or changing their religion or belief. This strong association between conscience and religion or belief means that persons belonging to religious or belief minorities are not just assumed to belong, 56 but are minorities by dint of self-identification and choosing to maintain their characteristics. Their choice can be passive or active, one of resignation or active searching. The nature of the choice rests on the person’s conscience, but an enabling environment must be __________________ 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 24-13239 Ibid. Ibid. For a rich discussion in this regard, see www.toaep.org/ps-pdf/41-bergsmo-manocha. Toft, “Religion, terrorism and civil wars” (see footnote 26 ), p. 141. Nordås, “Religious demography and conflict”, p. 161. A/HRC/13/40, para. 48. #Faith4Rights toolkit, p. 12. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para. 1. A/77/514. General Assembly resolution 47/135, annex. 9/22