The UDHR religious-freedom clause was drafted to protect missionary proselytism

Evidence

Baroody’s interpretation of the UDHR’s right to change religion as a right for missionaries was largely accurate. The freedom of missionary activities was a key concern of those Protestant and Catholic nongovernmental organisations Malik credited for their important role in the formulation of the draft article on religious freedom. The codification of the right to change one’s religion had been a particular concern for the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, and was grounded in concerns about barriers to missionary work, particularly in the Middle East. For the churches, the right to religious freedom necessarily included the right to hear the gospel, and thus required freedom of proselytism, especially in the face of the strictures of Islamic law. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 136

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: what other UDHR ‘rights’ were functionally drafted to serve particular institutional or commercial constituencies rather than universal individual protections?
• XREF: Recalls Samuel Moyn’s argument that human rights discourse carries hidden institutional/geopolitical agendas — the universal right is enacted to serve a specific church’s access. — connects to: Christian churches read religious freedom as a right to proselytise. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 136; Saudi opposition to religious-freedom rights was anti-missionary rather than Islamic — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 133

Broader Connections

• Christian churches read religious freedom as a right to proselytise. #corroborates (0.95) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 136
• Saudi opposition to religious-freedom rights was anti-missionary rather than Islamic #corroborates (0.82) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 133