OK, so I was just kidding. There is no nomination of an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom as mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act. What do you expect after only 265 days? There is an Ambassador-at Large for Global Women's Issues, another to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, another to Coordinate Counterterrorism, another as Global AIDS Coordinator, another for War Crimes. You get the idea that this ambassador is not even an after thought but is more of an annoyance. And if no one makes a fuss, just leave it open.
The Office of International Religious Freedom is still relegated to a subordinate role deep down in the bureaucracy. The Ambassador reports to the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Assistant Secretary falls under the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs. Are there other ambassadors at large who are so far down the food chain? The Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, if one is ever appointed, is unlikely to hardly ever to even see the Secretary of State.
In the International Religious Freedom Act, Congress required that within the Department of State there would be an Office on International Religious Freedom that is headed by the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, appointed by the president. This person is to be a principal advisor to the president and secretary of state regarding religious freedom abroad and is to represent the government in contacts with foreign governments, organizations, and agencies. So much for being or even having a principal advisor. Bury this deep. After all, international religious freedom has no impact on world affairs, it has no impact on encouraging or strengthening democracy or on U.S. relations, it has no impact on human rights, it has no impact on wars and other conflicts, it has no relationship to terrorism. Right? And why would there be a need to develop knowledge and understanding of international religious freedom within diplomatic ranks? It's just the realm of the religious fanatics, right?
265 days and counting.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Obama and Clinton announce nomination of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and push for enhanced role. Just kidding.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Egypt refuses to recognize conversion by Muslim: El Gohary's quest for rights as a Christian convert
I'm back, after a bit of a hiatus. I'll try to throw in a few sesquipedalian words just for the fun of it, for those who are not sesquipedaliphobic. (That's for my son, who tries to impress me with his big words, and for my dad, who just throws out random words just because.)
What caught my eye today was the story about Maher El Gohary. El Gohary, an Egyptian, converted to Christianity in 1973, although his official government identification still says he is Muslim. Technically, freedom of religion is 'guaranteed' by the constitution, but judges generally ignore that annoying detail, and clerics openly disavow it, encouraging severe recriminations, including death, against those who dare to follow their conscience and convert to another religion other than Islam.
Children of a Muslim father must be raised Muslim. That means that even if a father converts to Christianity, he will still be considered officially as a Muslim and cannot raise his children as Christians. And when the child grows up, that child cannot have a wedding in the new religion unless his or her status is changed on the government identity card, which is virtually impossible.
After all these years, El Gohary sought to change his identity card to acknowledge his conversion to Christianity. An Egyptian court held in June that his documents proving his conversion were invalid, and so his status as a 'Muslim' would not be changed. He has appealed, but the notoriety of his case has led to further persecution and harassment, causing concern for his and his daughter's safety.
Forced adherence to a religion is antithetical to the whole idea of religion, since religion implies that a person, through his or her search for truth, must necessarily have the ability to choose which way to go. How is it even possible to force one to believe a certain way? Neither government nor the majority religion can force an individual to believe a certain way, no matter how hard they try; the court cannot tell you what you believe. I admire El Gohary for his courage to stand up for his beliefs, knowing that he would further be discriminated against and that he could face severe punishment, even death. There is something very enervating about having the courage of your convictions in the midst of adversity and persecution. As for Egypt, it's time to start enforcing their existing laws regarding freedom of religion, including the right to convert to Christianity or any other non-Islam religion. Otherwise, the principle of freedom is a mockery.
A Christian on the run in Egypt, by Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times.
Egypt rejects 2nd convert's request to be legally Christian, The Christian Post.
EGYPT: A Christian denied identity by court, Los Angeles Times.
What caught my eye today was the story about Maher El Gohary. El Gohary, an Egyptian, converted to Christianity in 1973, although his official government identification still says he is Muslim. Technically, freedom of religion is 'guaranteed' by the constitution, but judges generally ignore that annoying detail, and clerics openly disavow it, encouraging severe recriminations, including death, against those who dare to follow their conscience and convert to another religion other than Islam.
Children of a Muslim father must be raised Muslim. That means that even if a father converts to Christianity, he will still be considered officially as a Muslim and cannot raise his children as Christians. And when the child grows up, that child cannot have a wedding in the new religion unless his or her status is changed on the government identity card, which is virtually impossible.
After all these years, El Gohary sought to change his identity card to acknowledge his conversion to Christianity. An Egyptian court held in June that his documents proving his conversion were invalid, and so his status as a 'Muslim' would not be changed. He has appealed, but the notoriety of his case has led to further persecution and harassment, causing concern for his and his daughter's safety.
Forced adherence to a religion is antithetical to the whole idea of religion, since religion implies that a person, through his or her search for truth, must necessarily have the ability to choose which way to go. How is it even possible to force one to believe a certain way? Neither government nor the majority religion can force an individual to believe a certain way, no matter how hard they try; the court cannot tell you what you believe. I admire El Gohary for his courage to stand up for his beliefs, knowing that he would further be discriminated against and that he could face severe punishment, even death. There is something very enervating about having the courage of your convictions in the midst of adversity and persecution. As for Egypt, it's time to start enforcing their existing laws regarding freedom of religion, including the right to convert to Christianity or any other non-Islam religion. Otherwise, the principle of freedom is a mockery.
A Christian on the run in Egypt, by Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times.
Egypt rejects 2nd convert's request to be legally Christian, The Christian Post.
EGYPT: A Christian denied identity by court, Los Angeles Times.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Religious Cleansing in Iran, by J.K. Choksy and Nina Shea, National Review Online
"Every aspect of a non-Muslim is unclean,” proclaimed Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. He explained that non-Muslims rank between “feces” and “the sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Other prominent ayatollahs, including Ahmad Jannati, the current chairman of the Guardian Council, have made similar utterances.
"Thus Iran’s Zoroastrians, Jews, Mandeans, Christians, and Bahais are subordinated and indeed treated as a fifth column by the revolutionary Islamic Republic. No matter that most of these religious groups were established in Iran before Islam arrived there; none are accepted by Iran’s Shiite rulers as fully Iranian. With the recent controversial presidential election, the scapegoating of non-Muslims as agents of the United States, Israel, Britain, and the deposed monarchy reached new heights. Seven Bahai leaders and two Christian converts are in prison and will soon be put on trial for their lives, while other non-Muslims are suffering intensified government repression."
Read the rest here.
"Thus Iran’s Zoroastrians, Jews, Mandeans, Christians, and Bahais are subordinated and indeed treated as a fifth column by the revolutionary Islamic Republic. No matter that most of these religious groups were established in Iran before Islam arrived there; none are accepted by Iran’s Shiite rulers as fully Iranian. With the recent controversial presidential election, the scapegoating of non-Muslims as agents of the United States, Israel, Britain, and the deposed monarchy reached new heights. Seven Bahai leaders and two Christian converts are in prison and will soon be put on trial for their lives, while other non-Muslims are suffering intensified government repression."
Read the rest here.
Russia and Medvedev moving in the right direction on religious freedom?
Are Russia and Medvedev moving in the right direction on religious freedom? Russia has struggled to define its religious direction, particularly as the Russian Orthodox Church has grappled with trying to protect its turf while watching disappointingly as the number of active members languishes and the civil society declines. The Church exerts its substantial political power, nurturing ties to players at all levels, and in the course of its journey it has not been a close friend of religious freedom.
Seeking to reinvigorate the Russian religious community, the Russian Orthodox Church, with President Medvedev's backing has supported the introduction of a religious culture and history course in Russian schools.
According to Medvedev: "Students and their parents should independently choose the subjects. It may be the foundations of Orthodox culture or the foundations of Muslim culture, Judaism, or Buddhism. Many people are likely to want to study all religious life in Russia in its entirety. For such students, a general course in the history of major traditional religions represented in our country may be developed." Those not interested in studying religion may opt to study the foundations of secular ethics.
At least there is some element of choice, although instead of offering a study of Christianity and traditions within Christianity, only the Orthodox tradition will be presented. I suppose the Church views this as a way to reach more youth and to build a foundation for the Church since it is likely that most students would elect the study of Orthodoxy as their choice. And given the close political connection of the Church and state, it wouldn't do to lessen the visibility of the Church as part of this curriculum. The Moscow Catholic Archbishop isn't complaining, however, apparently grateful just to see steps towards a more religious people. I would be curious to see how other Christian traditions are portrayed.
Patriarch Kirill and President Medvedev are saying the right things:
Medvedev: “Any coercion, pressure will be absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive.”
"Our crucial joint task is to spread the ideas of tolerance toward people of other faiths and tolerance in general and to carefully treat the spiritual values and traditions, as well as the cultural diversity, of all peoples living in our multiethnic country."
Kirill: "Forced worship is no worship."
"Today interreligious dialogue should become an important part of the joint efforts taken to build up peaceful and just relations between nations, people of various nationalities, religious and political views."
We'll see. They could demonstrate their good faith in this effort by getting rid of the Ministry of Justice's Expert Council and its chair Alexander Dvorkin, whose main tasks apparently are to protect the Russian Orthodox Church at the expense of minority religions and religious freedom.
Seeking to reinvigorate the Russian religious community, the Russian Orthodox Church, with President Medvedev's backing has supported the introduction of a religious culture and history course in Russian schools.
According to Medvedev: "Students and their parents should independently choose the subjects. It may be the foundations of Orthodox culture or the foundations of Muslim culture, Judaism, or Buddhism. Many people are likely to want to study all religious life in Russia in its entirety. For such students, a general course in the history of major traditional religions represented in our country may be developed." Those not interested in studying religion may opt to study the foundations of secular ethics.
At least there is some element of choice, although instead of offering a study of Christianity and traditions within Christianity, only the Orthodox tradition will be presented. I suppose the Church views this as a way to reach more youth and to build a foundation for the Church since it is likely that most students would elect the study of Orthodoxy as their choice. And given the close political connection of the Church and state, it wouldn't do to lessen the visibility of the Church as part of this curriculum. The Moscow Catholic Archbishop isn't complaining, however, apparently grateful just to see steps towards a more religious people. I would be curious to see how other Christian traditions are portrayed.
Patriarch Kirill and President Medvedev are saying the right things:
Medvedev: “Any coercion, pressure will be absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive.”
"Our crucial joint task is to spread the ideas of tolerance toward people of other faiths and tolerance in general and to carefully treat the spiritual values and traditions, as well as the cultural diversity, of all peoples living in our multiethnic country."
Kirill: "Forced worship is no worship."
"Today interreligious dialogue should become an important part of the joint efforts taken to build up peaceful and just relations between nations, people of various nationalities, religious and political views."
We'll see. They could demonstrate their good faith in this effort by getting rid of the Ministry of Justice's Expert Council and its chair Alexander Dvorkin, whose main tasks apparently are to protect the Russian Orthodox Church at the expense of minority religions and religious freedom.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
OK kids. Here's today's quiz on India.
OK, kids. Here's today's quiz. It's about India.
1. Name the Prime Minister.
2. What is India's population?
3. What are the untouchables and how many are there?
4. What religion in India has the third most number of adherents in the world? Which countries are second and fourth?
5. What is Hindutva?
6. Which three major religions are considered to be sects of Hinduism under the constitution?
7. What happened this week regarding the Mumbai attacks?
8. What is the status of anti-conversion laws?
9. Name the countries that border India.
10. What year did India become independent? What year was Pakistan partitioned from India?
Bonus question: What is one of the most important but currently somewhat neglected countries with which the U.S. and the West should be extending significant efforts to develop closer ties?
If you don't follow India much, I'll bet you didn't get very many of these questions right.
Answers:
1. Current Prime Minister: Manmohan Singh, an economist by trade, the first Sikh PM, recently reelected after serving a five-year term. Admit it. Unless you follow India closely, you had no idea who this was.
2. Population: About 1.15 billion.
3. The untouchables, also called Dalit or, officially, Scheduled Caste, are the lowest caste, constituting about 200 million people, suffering widespread discrimination and ignored as the lowest social and working class.
4. Religion with the third most adherents in the world? Islam. Indonesia is first, Pakistan is second, and Bangladesh is third. The combined Muslim population of these three (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) countries that had been at one time part of the same country: about 450 million.
5. Hindutva is "an ideology that espouses the inculcation of Hindu religious and cultural norms above other religious norms." (State Department Country Report.) Although officially rejected by the National Government, it continues to have an influence more locally, which hinders religious freedom and other freedoms.
6. Three major religions considered constitutionally as sects of Hindu? Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, although these religions consider themselves as separate from Hinduism.
7. The surviving attacker at Mumbai, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, admitted his guilt, thus precluding a trial. Over the past months, India had exerted substantial pressure on Pakistan to provide information about the attackers and plotters and to bring them to justice. Qasab is a Muslim from the Punjab Province of Pakistan, trained by Lakshar-e-Taiba militants and picked for the Mumbai terrorist attack where 166 people were murdered.
8. The National Government does not have an anti-conversion law, but a number of states do. This has significantly restricted religious freedom in these states, resulting in persecution, discrimination, intimidation, imprisonment, torture, and killing of those who have converted to another religion or who have proselytized or otherwise taught about their religion. These laws have the backing of the Hindu nationalist BJP. The newly elected National Government is now, however, taking a more active role to eliminate these laws by seeking to repeal the anti-conversion laws of the various states. This would be a big step in the right direction for religious freedom and other freedoms.
9. The countries that border India: Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar (Burma). Of these, Pakistan, China, and Myanmar (Burma) are among the worst violators of religions freedom in the world, with India right in the middle.
10. India became independent and Pakistan was partitioned off in 1947.
Answer to bonus question: India is, in my view, too often neglected by the public and by U.S. and Western governments as a significant potential force in the world. Very few people in the U.S. have much of any idea about India and its people--the average person on the street knows virtually nothing about India. Its significant and growing economic power, its geographic position in the world, its position as a nuclear power, its growing immigrant population in the U.S., the fact that it is the largest democracy in the world, and the fact that it is open to more positive relations, render it an essential partner to the U.S. Although Hillary Clinton visited India this week, about all that was reported was that she pressed for compliance with emissions caps and that she was rebuffed. There is more to be done.
1. Name the Prime Minister.
2. What is India's population?
3. What are the untouchables and how many are there?
4. What religion in India has the third most number of adherents in the world? Which countries are second and fourth?
5. What is Hindutva?
6. Which three major religions are considered to be sects of Hinduism under the constitution?
7. What happened this week regarding the Mumbai attacks?
8. What is the status of anti-conversion laws?
9. Name the countries that border India.
10. What year did India become independent? What year was Pakistan partitioned from India?
Bonus question: What is one of the most important but currently somewhat neglected countries with which the U.S. and the West should be extending significant efforts to develop closer ties?
If you don't follow India much, I'll bet you didn't get very many of these questions right.
Answers:
1. Current Prime Minister: Manmohan Singh, an economist by trade, the first Sikh PM, recently reelected after serving a five-year term. Admit it. Unless you follow India closely, you had no idea who this was.
2. Population: About 1.15 billion.
3. The untouchables, also called Dalit or, officially, Scheduled Caste, are the lowest caste, constituting about 200 million people, suffering widespread discrimination and ignored as the lowest social and working class.
4. Religion with the third most adherents in the world? Islam. Indonesia is first, Pakistan is second, and Bangladesh is third. The combined Muslim population of these three (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) countries that had been at one time part of the same country: about 450 million.
5. Hindutva is "an ideology that espouses the inculcation of Hindu religious and cultural norms above other religious norms." (State Department Country Report.) Although officially rejected by the National Government, it continues to have an influence more locally, which hinders religious freedom and other freedoms.
6. Three major religions considered constitutionally as sects of Hindu? Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, although these religions consider themselves as separate from Hinduism.
7. The surviving attacker at Mumbai, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, admitted his guilt, thus precluding a trial. Over the past months, India had exerted substantial pressure on Pakistan to provide information about the attackers and plotters and to bring them to justice. Qasab is a Muslim from the Punjab Province of Pakistan, trained by Lakshar-e-Taiba militants and picked for the Mumbai terrorist attack where 166 people were murdered.
8. The National Government does not have an anti-conversion law, but a number of states do. This has significantly restricted religious freedom in these states, resulting in persecution, discrimination, intimidation, imprisonment, torture, and killing of those who have converted to another religion or who have proselytized or otherwise taught about their religion. These laws have the backing of the Hindu nationalist BJP. The newly elected National Government is now, however, taking a more active role to eliminate these laws by seeking to repeal the anti-conversion laws of the various states. This would be a big step in the right direction for religious freedom and other freedoms.
9. The countries that border India: Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar (Burma). Of these, Pakistan, China, and Myanmar (Burma) are among the worst violators of religions freedom in the world, with India right in the middle.
10. India became independent and Pakistan was partitioned off in 1947.
Answer to bonus question: India is, in my view, too often neglected by the public and by U.S. and Western governments as a significant potential force in the world. Very few people in the U.S. have much of any idea about India and its people--the average person on the street knows virtually nothing about India. Its significant and growing economic power, its geographic position in the world, its position as a nuclear power, its growing immigrant population in the U.S., the fact that it is the largest democracy in the world, and the fact that it is open to more positive relations, render it an essential partner to the U.S. Although Hillary Clinton visited India this week, about all that was reported was that she pressed for compliance with emissions caps and that she was rebuffed. There is more to be done.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Al-Shabab Islamists 'cleanse' Somalia of Christians
The Al-Shabab militants in Somalia are using brutal force to impose their Wahabi version of Islam, recently beheading seven Christians (Al-Shabab Militants in Somalia Behead 7 in Mass Execution, by Alisha Ryu Nairobi, VOA News) and Tuesday morning hunting down and killing a Christian convert from Islam (Somalia: Convert from Islam Shot Dead, Compass Direct News h/t The Institute on Religion and Public Policy). In those areas of Somalia controlled by Al-Shabab, they are imposing their strict version of Islam on the people. Al-Shabab is considered to be a proxy army for al-Qaida and is fighting to overthrow the more moderate Islamist president, Sharif Sheik Ahmed. They now control substantial portions of southern Somalia.
They announced today: ""As of July 20, 2009, a number of NGOs and foreign agencies currently operating in Somalia will be completely closed down and considered enemies of Islam and Muslims," militant group Al Shabab said in a statement."
The Somaliland Press has this to say:
Al-Shabab’s most striking aspect of terrorizing, comparing with its previous counterparts, is that the group utilizes erroneously and hijacked our superb and superior religion, Islam. They misinterpreted the Holly Quran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH), in order to achieve their selfish motives. They claim to be the only Muslims in the region while every other person is kafir, meaning unbeliever. Anyone who does not belong to their terror group or opposes their terrorist ideology is unbeliever and, as such, is subject to be humiliated, if not killed, tortured, beheaded or amputated. In order to terrorize the population beyond belief, they borrow new horrendous tactics from afar, either Afghanistan or Iraq, which are alien and shocking to our people: suicide bombings, public beheadings, public amputations, molestation, force marriage, and more. In addition, they brainwash our young boys daily to the extent that they made them a human bomb. They erroneously inform these young men that blowing themselves up for the sake of Islam (which not true) is one of the surest ways to enter paradise. These young men, having no formal education or religious education, believe these lies and kill tens of innocent people every day.
Somalia has been an astounding chaotic mess for a long time, providing an outpost for Islamic radical terrorists. The current UN-backed government is reaching out for help, seeking support from the international community and the African Union. A Somalia overrun by Al-Shabab is not only bad for the people of Somalia, but it will also destabilize the region, and even beyond. Any semblance of freedom, religious or otherwise, will evaporate.
They announced today: ""As of July 20, 2009, a number of NGOs and foreign agencies currently operating in Somalia will be completely closed down and considered enemies of Islam and Muslims," militant group Al Shabab said in a statement."
The Somaliland Press has this to say:
Al-Shabab’s most striking aspect of terrorizing, comparing with its previous counterparts, is that the group utilizes erroneously and hijacked our superb and superior religion, Islam. They misinterpreted the Holly Quran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH), in order to achieve their selfish motives. They claim to be the only Muslims in the region while every other person is kafir, meaning unbeliever. Anyone who does not belong to their terror group or opposes their terrorist ideology is unbeliever and, as such, is subject to be humiliated, if not killed, tortured, beheaded or amputated. In order to terrorize the population beyond belief, they borrow new horrendous tactics from afar, either Afghanistan or Iraq, which are alien and shocking to our people: suicide bombings, public beheadings, public amputations, molestation, force marriage, and more. In addition, they brainwash our young boys daily to the extent that they made them a human bomb. They erroneously inform these young men that blowing themselves up for the sake of Islam (which not true) is one of the surest ways to enter paradise. These young men, having no formal education or religious education, believe these lies and kill tens of innocent people every day.
Somalia has been an astounding chaotic mess for a long time, providing an outpost for Islamic radical terrorists. The current UN-backed government is reaching out for help, seeking support from the international community and the African Union. A Somalia overrun by Al-Shabab is not only bad for the people of Somalia, but it will also destabilize the region, and even beyond. Any semblance of freedom, religious or otherwise, will evaporate.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Pluralism Project at Harvard University
I spent some time today checking out the web site for The Pluralism Project at Harvard University. It's worth spending some time there.
"Our mission is to help Americans engage with the realities of religious diversity through research, outreach, and the active dissemination of resources."
"Our mission is to help Americans engage with the realities of religious diversity through research, outreach, and the active dissemination of resources."
Ireland needs a Mulligan: New anti-blasphemy law defames the Irish
Ireland's legislature recently passed a new Defamation Bill which includes the following anti-blasphemy provision:
The Organization of the Islamic Conference must be happy.
According to Michael Nugent writing in the Irish Times:
"Here’s the background. The Constitution says that blasphemy is an offence that shall be punishable by law. That law currently resides in the 1961 Defamation Act. Because he was repealing this Act, [Justice Minister] Ahern said he had to pass a new blasphemy law to avoid leaving “a void”. But this “void” was already there. In 1999, the Supreme Court found that the 1961 law was unenforceable because it did not define blasphemy. In effect, we have never had an enforceable blasphemy law under the 1937 Constitution. After several retreats, Ahern claimed both that he had to propose this law in order to respect the Constitution, and also that he was amending it to “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution”. How is that respecting the Constitution?"
At least President Mary McAleese seems to get it: She has sent the law to the 22-member Council of State for a review of its constitutionality and then may decide to send it to the Supreme Court for its review. "More than 130 lawyers wrote a public letter last week demanding the legislation be withdrawn, claiming Ireland would be shamed by it in the eyes of the international community." Controversial laws facing presidential challenge, Irish Examiner.
In golf, a 'do over' is a Mulligan. The Irish legislature and Justice Minister Ahern need a Mulligan.
(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty ofAll I can say is, What on earth were they thinking? I'd like to see the government try to enforce this one. These types of laws are so completely misguided--restricting free speech in an attempt to cut off religiously insulting utterances. So, who decides if a statement is abusive or insulting? At what point is outrage achieved? How do you define outrage? Is the freedom from outrage a protected right? What is a substantial number of adherents? Five? Millions?
an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not
exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters
blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly
abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby
causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion,
and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter
concerned, to cause such outrage.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference must be happy.
According to Michael Nugent writing in the Irish Times:
"Here’s the background. The Constitution says that blasphemy is an offence that shall be punishable by law. That law currently resides in the 1961 Defamation Act. Because he was repealing this Act, [Justice Minister] Ahern said he had to pass a new blasphemy law to avoid leaving “a void”. But this “void” was already there. In 1999, the Supreme Court found that the 1961 law was unenforceable because it did not define blasphemy. In effect, we have never had an enforceable blasphemy law under the 1937 Constitution. After several retreats, Ahern claimed both that he had to propose this law in order to respect the Constitution, and also that he was amending it to “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution”. How is that respecting the Constitution?"
At least President Mary McAleese seems to get it: She has sent the law to the 22-member Council of State for a review of its constitutionality and then may decide to send it to the Supreme Court for its review. "More than 130 lawyers wrote a public letter last week demanding the legislation be withdrawn, claiming Ireland would be shamed by it in the eyes of the international community." Controversial laws facing presidential challenge, Irish Examiner.
In golf, a 'do over' is a Mulligan. The Irish legislature and Justice Minister Ahern need a Mulligan.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Zero. . .
. . .is the number of times the word 'religion' appears in the index of Diplomacy, "Henry Kissinger's nine-hundred-page masterpiece on statesmanship, published in 1994."
(Courtesy of John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World.)
(Courtesy of John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World.)
More on Iraq and the ongoing violence against Christians and other minority religions
The bombings and killing in Iraq of Christians and their places of worship are part of ongoing efforts to intimidate and force the exodus of minority religions from Iraq, hardly a good sign for freedom and democracy. I don't hold out for long-term success in Iraq unless and until this is addressed since this is a leading indicator of the establishment and protection of other rights for women, minorities, children, the press, and pluralism, which in turn provide for a more robust society and economy and a greater likelihood of friendly relations with the U.S. and the West.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom today issued a statement drawing attention to the renewed violence, urging the Iraqi government to "apprehend and punish the perpetrators of this violence and . . .ensure that civilian property and lives, particularly of its most vulnerable citizens, are protected. The U.S. government should insist that the Iraqi government protect all of its citizens. Christians are one of Iraq’s ancient, indigenous peoples, and their continued presence there is essential to Iraq’s future as a democratic, pluralistic, and rule of law society.”
The USCIRF, in its excellent 2009 report on Iraq, offers up a long list of suggested actions that should be taken by the Iraqi government, the U.S., and other actors to positively influence Iraq in its protection of religious minorities. The advice is good. But ultimately, what do the Iraqi people want? Do they care enough? Will they insist that their leaders do all that they can to protect the unprotected? Today's USCIRF statement noted that the minority religious groups do not have the tribal and militia protections that the Muslim groups have, so who will step in and protect them? The people have to demand that the leaders stand strong and work closely with the police and the Iraqi military to defend all of its citizens.
Although Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi "urged Iraq's Christian minority not to flee and called on the international community to help protect it from extremists," the beaten down minorities are hard-pressed to remain if they live in fear. While the international community needs to stop ignoring this story and do more to support Iraq in its efforts, Iraq will have to depend more on its own will rather than the international community as it emerges as an independent country.
Iraq boosts security in Christian areas after attacks, by Prashant Rao.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom today issued a statement drawing attention to the renewed violence, urging the Iraqi government to "apprehend and punish the perpetrators of this violence and . . .ensure that civilian property and lives, particularly of its most vulnerable citizens, are protected. The U.S. government should insist that the Iraqi government protect all of its citizens. Christians are one of Iraq’s ancient, indigenous peoples, and their continued presence there is essential to Iraq’s future as a democratic, pluralistic, and rule of law society.”
The USCIRF, in its excellent 2009 report on Iraq, offers up a long list of suggested actions that should be taken by the Iraqi government, the U.S., and other actors to positively influence Iraq in its protection of religious minorities. The advice is good. But ultimately, what do the Iraqi people want? Do they care enough? Will they insist that their leaders do all that they can to protect the unprotected? Today's USCIRF statement noted that the minority religious groups do not have the tribal and militia protections that the Muslim groups have, so who will step in and protect them? The people have to demand that the leaders stand strong and work closely with the police and the Iraqi military to defend all of its citizens.
Although Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi "urged Iraq's Christian minority not to flee and called on the international community to help protect it from extremists," the beaten down minorities are hard-pressed to remain if they live in fear. While the international community needs to stop ignoring this story and do more to support Iraq in its efforts, Iraq will have to depend more on its own will rather than the international community as it emerges as an independent country.
Iraq boosts security in Christian areas after attacks, by Prashant Rao.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Elimination of religious plurality in Iraq: We ignore the exodus of minority religions at our and their peril
What is happening to minority religions in Iraq is a travesty and is unacceptable. As many as two-thirds of Christians have left Iraq since 2003, leaving somewhere around 500,000. Virtually all Jews are gone. Nearly all Mandaeans are gone. They are being forced out, leaving to avoid terror that is directed at them, whether by kidnappings, bombings, persecution, and otherwise. Since 2003, Muslim militancy has directed its wrath at minority religions, leaving Iraq mostly with Sunni and Shiite Muslims and few other religious groups. The marginalization of all other religions, the failure to protect other religious people, and the elimination of religious plurality does not bode well for Iraq and democracy or anything approaching democracy, nor does it bode well for long-term diplomatic relations with the U.S. and the West. I believe that the lack of protection for basic freedoms including religious freedom in Iraq is a strong indicator of future instability and hostility. If people do not have the basic right to worship in peace without the threat of intimidation, then I cannot see how freedom and democracy can ever succeed.
The latest act of intimidation occurred Sunday afternoon when bombs exploded outside several Christian churches, killing four and wounding many others. According to the LA Times: ""This is going to make the Christians scared," said Bishop Shlemon Warduni, who was in his office at the back of the church when the bomb went off. "They will be scared to come to services, and maybe more will leave the country." That attack came shortly after five smaller bombs exploded outside four other churches in the Karada and Dora neighborhoods, both of which once had sizable Christian communities. . . Sunday's attacks came after one church was bombed late Saturday, pointing to a renewed campaign of violence against one of Iraq's oldest, smallest and most persecuted communities less than two weeks after U.S. forces completed their pullback, leaving Iraqi forces in charge of security in the cities. . . Others feared that the attacks may mark a resurgence of anti-Christian violence. They were reminiscent of a wave of bloody bombings against five churches in Baghdad and Mosul five years ago. "Definitely we are the most vulnerable members of this society and we don't have any political forces to protect us," [Abdullah Nufaili] said. "We were expecting this, and we expect it to get worse. . . . Their goal is to drive the Christians out of Iraq.""
We should not abandon the religious minorities in Iraq. The failure of the U.S., the Iraqi government, and others to protect religious freedom in Iraq is a critical predictor of how successful the Iraqi transformation will be. When we start seeing strong Christian and Mandaean and other religious communities in Iraq, along with Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, then we will be able to gauge a greater likelihood of success. We ignore this at our peril. This is not only a human rights matter but it is a matter of political and economic stability.
Churches in Iraq targeted in bombings; 4 killed, by Liz Sly, LA Times. 7/13/09
In Iraq, an exodus of Christians, by Paul Schemm, AP. 5/14/09
Exodus of Christians as killers step up religious cleansing in Iraq, by Deborah Haynes and Tim Albone, The Times. 10/14/08
Ancient Iraqi Religion In Danger, by Rudi Stettner, Rant.
The latest act of intimidation occurred Sunday afternoon when bombs exploded outside several Christian churches, killing four and wounding many others. According to the LA Times: ""This is going to make the Christians scared," said Bishop Shlemon Warduni, who was in his office at the back of the church when the bomb went off. "They will be scared to come to services, and maybe more will leave the country." That attack came shortly after five smaller bombs exploded outside four other churches in the Karada and Dora neighborhoods, both of which once had sizable Christian communities. . . Sunday's attacks came after one church was bombed late Saturday, pointing to a renewed campaign of violence against one of Iraq's oldest, smallest and most persecuted communities less than two weeks after U.S. forces completed their pullback, leaving Iraqi forces in charge of security in the cities. . . Others feared that the attacks may mark a resurgence of anti-Christian violence. They were reminiscent of a wave of bloody bombings against five churches in Baghdad and Mosul five years ago. "Definitely we are the most vulnerable members of this society and we don't have any political forces to protect us," [Abdullah Nufaili] said. "We were expecting this, and we expect it to get worse. . . . Their goal is to drive the Christians out of Iraq.""
We should not abandon the religious minorities in Iraq. The failure of the U.S., the Iraqi government, and others to protect religious freedom in Iraq is a critical predictor of how successful the Iraqi transformation will be. When we start seeing strong Christian and Mandaean and other religious communities in Iraq, along with Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, then we will be able to gauge a greater likelihood of success. We ignore this at our peril. This is not only a human rights matter but it is a matter of political and economic stability.
Churches in Iraq targeted in bombings; 4 killed, by Liz Sly, LA Times. 7/13/09
In Iraq, an exodus of Christians, by Paul Schemm, AP. 5/14/09
Exodus of Christians as killers step up religious cleansing in Iraq, by Deborah Haynes and Tim Albone, The Times. 10/14/08
Ancient Iraqi Religion In Danger, by Rudi Stettner, Rant.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Summer Book List--International Religious Freedom, Foreign Cultures, Struggle for Freedom
I've acquired a large stack of books that are calling out to me. There's nowhere else to put them, so they just kind of pile up. Fortunately, my wife is a good sport. After all, there are a lot worse vices than buying and collecting books. I think she uses my book-buying urge as a cover for her DVD-buying addiction. As long as I keep buying lots of books, I can't complain about her frequent acquisition of the last season of Burn Notice, Psych, NCIS, and so forth.
Anyway, here are the books that I've read so far this summer. (I started my summer in early May.) I have focused on books that relate somehow to international religious freedom, although in some instances it is only tangential. I am particularly interested in learning about different cultures and the experiences of people struggling for freedom, religious and otherwise. As I learn about other cultures and people, I hope that I will be able to better understand them and interact with them.
Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I couldn't put it down. Hirsi Ali, who was raised a Muslim in Somalia and Kenya, tells a remarkable story about her life there, about what it meant to be female and Muslim, and about her running away to the Netherlands (escaping an arranged marriage and leaving the Muslim faith) to a new life where she became famous for speaking about Muslim women's struggle for basic rights and freedom. She spoke out at the risk of her life, having received death threats from Muslims who consider her to be an apostate worthy of death.
Liberty: Rethinking an Imperiled Ideal, by Glenn Tinder. Tinder presents a Christian perspective of liberty, demonstrating that liberty calls for a life of moral inquiry where we seek light and truth. And when we discover truth, we choose wisely and share with others. Without liberty, we cannot fully realize our destiny. It is incumbent upon society to protect liberty so as to allow all people the ability to seek, to discuss, to choose, and to share.
The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story of the Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked the Mysteries of the Middle Kingdom, by Simon Winchester. Joseph Needham adopts the Chinese culture, and opens Western eyes to the previously hidden depths of Chinese discoveries and knowledge extending back more than 2,000 years. Winchester presents a fascinating account of Needham's devotion to inquiry and to sharing his findings with the world.
A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, by Charles Freeman. Freeman is also the author of The Closing of the Western Mind. In this work, Freeman focuses on the year A.D. 381 as a turning point in the direction of the Christian Church and in the suppression of free expression. For the first several centuries after Christ, there had been a healthy debate about doctrine and the Church, influenced by the Greek tradition of free expression. But in A.D. 381, Roman Emperor Thoedosius determined to use his political power to enforce orthodoxy within the Church and to stop the debate. This was followed by Ambrose and Augustine and others who determined that there should not and could not be debate on doctrine and church practices. As a result, the suppression of religious freedom and freedom of expression continued for over a thousand years, finally seeing some light during the Reformation, but still dealing with the lingering effects even into the 20th Century.
People of the Book, by Geraldine Brooks. My only work of fiction on the list. People of the Book is based on the "true story of the Hebrew codex known as the Sarajevo Haggadah." This Jewish book faced destruction at the hands of anti-Semites and those seeking to repress non-approved publications over the centuries. Brooks weaves stories from small details, exposing the history of the book as it passed through the hands of various people over the years. The story illustrates in real terms the fragility of freedom of religion and expression.
The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died, by Philip Jenkins. Jenkins concludes that the focus on the Christian Church in Europe misses a significant portion of the real history of Christianity as it developed, thrived, and faded in Africa and Asia. He takes the non-orthodox Christianity of Asia and Africa and separates it from the orthodoxy imposed by Theodosius and others in Europe (as related by Freeman in A.D. 381) and demonstrates that for many centuries Christian churches in Asia and Africa continued to thrive, even among the newly established Muslim people. But eventually the Christian Church faded into oblivion in many areas, taken over by Islam. Surprising remnants still exist in some areas, but they still continue to fade. See, for example, Iraq, where Christians continue their exodus.
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran, by Hooman Majd. I appreciated the attempt to offer an inside view of modern Iran and enjoyed the depictions of the Iranian society and people generally. Majd, however, glosses over or minimizes important issues like freedom of expression (hey, they can say whatever they want behind the walls of their homes), women's rights (sure, there are problems, but it's not that bad), religious freedom, terrorism, and prisoners of conscience and expression. Current events show that these things matter to the Iranian people more than Majd may have thought.
A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. Wow. What a horrendous account of war in Sierra Leone in the 90s, the cruelty and inhumanity of it. And then to add that many of the warriors were young boys and teenagers who had little choice but to join the battle and who during the course of their time as soldiers did unspeakable things. Beah sounds like a remarkable individual who, with the help of some dedicated and kind-hearted souls, was able to overcome these awful circumstances, emigrating to the U.S., acquiring an education, and becoming a writer and speaker, advancing important humanitarian causes. I cannot imagine experiencing the things that Beah experienced.
Templeton Lectures on Religion and World Affairs, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Summer 2009. OK, so technically this isn't a book. But it is an interesting and enlightening collection of lectures based on the annual Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs, starting in 1996. I haven't finished all of the lectures yet, but I am struck by the prescience of some of the authors in light of the current events of the world.
Next, I'll list the remaining books in my summer stack that are waiting to be read.
Anyway, here are the books that I've read so far this summer. (I started my summer in early May.) I have focused on books that relate somehow to international religious freedom, although in some instances it is only tangential. I am particularly interested in learning about different cultures and the experiences of people struggling for freedom, religious and otherwise. As I learn about other cultures and people, I hope that I will be able to better understand them and interact with them.
Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I couldn't put it down. Hirsi Ali, who was raised a Muslim in Somalia and Kenya, tells a remarkable story about her life there, about what it meant to be female and Muslim, and about her running away to the Netherlands (escaping an arranged marriage and leaving the Muslim faith) to a new life where she became famous for speaking about Muslim women's struggle for basic rights and freedom. She spoke out at the risk of her life, having received death threats from Muslims who consider her to be an apostate worthy of death.
Liberty: Rethinking an Imperiled Ideal, by Glenn Tinder. Tinder presents a Christian perspective of liberty, demonstrating that liberty calls for a life of moral inquiry where we seek light and truth. And when we discover truth, we choose wisely and share with others. Without liberty, we cannot fully realize our destiny. It is incumbent upon society to protect liberty so as to allow all people the ability to seek, to discuss, to choose, and to share.
The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story of the Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked the Mysteries of the Middle Kingdom, by Simon Winchester. Joseph Needham adopts the Chinese culture, and opens Western eyes to the previously hidden depths of Chinese discoveries and knowledge extending back more than 2,000 years. Winchester presents a fascinating account of Needham's devotion to inquiry and to sharing his findings with the world.
A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, by Charles Freeman. Freeman is also the author of The Closing of the Western Mind. In this work, Freeman focuses on the year A.D. 381 as a turning point in the direction of the Christian Church and in the suppression of free expression. For the first several centuries after Christ, there had been a healthy debate about doctrine and the Church, influenced by the Greek tradition of free expression. But in A.D. 381, Roman Emperor Thoedosius determined to use his political power to enforce orthodoxy within the Church and to stop the debate. This was followed by Ambrose and Augustine and others who determined that there should not and could not be debate on doctrine and church practices. As a result, the suppression of religious freedom and freedom of expression continued for over a thousand years, finally seeing some light during the Reformation, but still dealing with the lingering effects even into the 20th Century.
People of the Book, by Geraldine Brooks. My only work of fiction on the list. People of the Book is based on the "true story of the Hebrew codex known as the Sarajevo Haggadah." This Jewish book faced destruction at the hands of anti-Semites and those seeking to repress non-approved publications over the centuries. Brooks weaves stories from small details, exposing the history of the book as it passed through the hands of various people over the years. The story illustrates in real terms the fragility of freedom of religion and expression.
The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died, by Philip Jenkins. Jenkins concludes that the focus on the Christian Church in Europe misses a significant portion of the real history of Christianity as it developed, thrived, and faded in Africa and Asia. He takes the non-orthodox Christianity of Asia and Africa and separates it from the orthodoxy imposed by Theodosius and others in Europe (as related by Freeman in A.D. 381) and demonstrates that for many centuries Christian churches in Asia and Africa continued to thrive, even among the newly established Muslim people. But eventually the Christian Church faded into oblivion in many areas, taken over by Islam. Surprising remnants still exist in some areas, but they still continue to fade. See, for example, Iraq, where Christians continue their exodus.
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran, by Hooman Majd. I appreciated the attempt to offer an inside view of modern Iran and enjoyed the depictions of the Iranian society and people generally. Majd, however, glosses over or minimizes important issues like freedom of expression (hey, they can say whatever they want behind the walls of their homes), women's rights (sure, there are problems, but it's not that bad), religious freedom, terrorism, and prisoners of conscience and expression. Current events show that these things matter to the Iranian people more than Majd may have thought.
A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. Wow. What a horrendous account of war in Sierra Leone in the 90s, the cruelty and inhumanity of it. And then to add that many of the warriors were young boys and teenagers who had little choice but to join the battle and who during the course of their time as soldiers did unspeakable things. Beah sounds like a remarkable individual who, with the help of some dedicated and kind-hearted souls, was able to overcome these awful circumstances, emigrating to the U.S., acquiring an education, and becoming a writer and speaker, advancing important humanitarian causes. I cannot imagine experiencing the things that Beah experienced.
Templeton Lectures on Religion and World Affairs, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Summer 2009. OK, so technically this isn't a book. But it is an interesting and enlightening collection of lectures based on the annual Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs, starting in 1996. I haven't finished all of the lectures yet, but I am struck by the prescience of some of the authors in light of the current events of the world.
Next, I'll list the remaining books in my summer stack that are waiting to be read.
The "butcher of the press" appointed to interrogate the reformists in Iran
In the interest of justice, the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring peace and tranquility, the Iranian powers that be have brought in the big gun, Saeed Mortazavi, also known as the "butcher of the press," to "interrogate" the reformists in Iran.
He is well versed in shutting down journalists, newspapers, websites, and anyone else who publicly challenges the government, not to mention that he appears intimately familiar with torture and coercion to get what he wants.
"As prosecutor-general of Tehran since 2003 and as a judge before that, he ordered the closure of more than 100 newspapers, journals and websites deemed hostile to the Establishment. In 2004 he was behind the detention of more than 20 bloggers and journalists, who were held for long periods of solitary confinement in secret prisons, where they were allegedly coerced into signing false confessions.
"Earlier this year he oversaw the arrest and trial of Roxana Saberi, the American-Iranian journalist sentenced to eight years for spying, and his name has appeared on the arrest warrants of prominent reformists rounded up since the unrest started, such as Saeed Hajarian, a close aide of Mohammad Khatami, the reformist former President. With more than 600 people now having been arrested, including dozens of journalists, many fear the worst."
Saeed Mortazavi: butcher of the press - and torturer of Tehran? By Jenny Booth and James Hider, The Times.
Oh, and he was part of the Iranian delegation to attend the UN's Human Rights Council in 2006.
He is well versed in shutting down journalists, newspapers, websites, and anyone else who publicly challenges the government, not to mention that he appears intimately familiar with torture and coercion to get what he wants.
"As prosecutor-general of Tehran since 2003 and as a judge before that, he ordered the closure of more than 100 newspapers, journals and websites deemed hostile to the Establishment. In 2004 he was behind the detention of more than 20 bloggers and journalists, who were held for long periods of solitary confinement in secret prisons, where they were allegedly coerced into signing false confessions.
"Earlier this year he oversaw the arrest and trial of Roxana Saberi, the American-Iranian journalist sentenced to eight years for spying, and his name has appeared on the arrest warrants of prominent reformists rounded up since the unrest started, such as Saeed Hajarian, a close aide of Mohammad Khatami, the reformist former President. With more than 600 people now having been arrested, including dozens of journalists, many fear the worst."
Saeed Mortazavi: butcher of the press - and torturer of Tehran? By Jenny Booth and James Hider, The Times.
Oh, and he was part of the Iranian delegation to attend the UN's Human Rights Council in 2006.
The potential huge impact of change in Iran
A movement away from tyranny to more democratic ideals in Iran would have a huge positive impact on the Middle East and, therefore, on the rest of the world. Robert Kaplan sets the stage in his column, "Iran's Struggle, and Ours: How a Movement Could Transform the Region," The Washington Post.
India can show better than this: It denies visas to members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
India touts itself as a democracy. As such, it should not be afraid of freedom of expression or of a discussion on religious freedom, including by those who visit India. Nevertheless, it has denied visas to the members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom because some conservative voices do not wish to have the USCIRF "meddling" in India's affairs. The USCIRF has visited a whole host of countries throughout the world to review and discuss different elements of religious freedom; it had only been denied entry by Cuba.
Maybe it is annoying to have the USCIRF come and look at some sensitive issues. Maybe it is a pain in the neck to have to deal with. But that does not mean that the best solution is to shut them out. Bring them in, show them around, engage in discussion, educate them, and if all is well, then they can go home with a better picture in their minds about religious freedom in India. A democracy should not seek to stop discussion or dialogue on sensitive topics. Rather, engaging in the discussion is what strengthens a democracy and fundamental freedoms. If India wishes, it should send a panel to the U.S. to engage in a discussion on religious freedom there. The dialogue is welcome.
I've read opinion pieces by some sensitive Indians on the subject who throw out that the USCIRF is just a front for Christian evangelism. This is a red herring. The USCIRF does not focus on one religion and has representatives from a number of different religions. In fact, a former head of the USCIRF is Preeta Bansal, a Hindu born in India who is now the general counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget. She, as well as the current and other former members of the USCIRF pursued religious freedom throughout the world for the benefit of all religions and religious pluralism. Religious freedom is not about favoring one religion over another.
I have great respect for India and its rich traditions and freedoms. So, come on India. You are bigger than this.
(And by the way, it wouldn't have hurt the U.S. State Department to put in a good word for the USCIRF. "According to the national daily, Obama administration too did not press for the visit as US Undersecretary of State William Burns was in New Delhi, preparing ground for the visit to India by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July." US religious commission denied entry to India, by Rahul Benjamin, Christian Today.)
U.S. panel on religious freedom refused visas, The Hindu.
US body should not interfere in religious affairs: Shankaracharya, Sakaal Times.
Orissa Archbishop Welcomes Upcoming Visit by U.S. Commission, by Dibin Samuel, The Christian Post.
India: USCIRF Regrets Absence of Visas for Visit to India , USCIRF Press Release.
Maybe it is annoying to have the USCIRF come and look at some sensitive issues. Maybe it is a pain in the neck to have to deal with. But that does not mean that the best solution is to shut them out. Bring them in, show them around, engage in discussion, educate them, and if all is well, then they can go home with a better picture in their minds about religious freedom in India. A democracy should not seek to stop discussion or dialogue on sensitive topics. Rather, engaging in the discussion is what strengthens a democracy and fundamental freedoms. If India wishes, it should send a panel to the U.S. to engage in a discussion on religious freedom there. The dialogue is welcome.
I've read opinion pieces by some sensitive Indians on the subject who throw out that the USCIRF is just a front for Christian evangelism. This is a red herring. The USCIRF does not focus on one religion and has representatives from a number of different religions. In fact, a former head of the USCIRF is Preeta Bansal, a Hindu born in India who is now the general counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget. She, as well as the current and other former members of the USCIRF pursued religious freedom throughout the world for the benefit of all religions and religious pluralism. Religious freedom is not about favoring one religion over another.
I have great respect for India and its rich traditions and freedoms. So, come on India. You are bigger than this.
(And by the way, it wouldn't have hurt the U.S. State Department to put in a good word for the USCIRF. "According to the national daily, Obama administration too did not press for the visit as US Undersecretary of State William Burns was in New Delhi, preparing ground for the visit to India by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July." US religious commission denied entry to India, by Rahul Benjamin, Christian Today.)
U.S. panel on religious freedom refused visas, The Hindu.
US body should not interfere in religious affairs: Shankaracharya, Sakaal Times.
Orissa Archbishop Welcomes Upcoming Visit by U.S. Commission, by Dibin Samuel, The Christian Post.
India: USCIRF Regrets Absence of Visas for Visit to India , USCIRF Press Release.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The U.S. and Western support for the people of Iran: If not now, when?
The events in Iran have been mesmerizing, the potential consequences are enormous. It's time for democratic countries of the world to raise up their voices in unison to condemn the tyranny and to support those who strive for freedom. There are no formal invitations to be extended. I understand the principle of not wanting to be a foil for the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but the U.S., Israel, and the West in general will always be foils until there is a fundamental change in Iran. Even Ban Ki-moon is a foil. Why should this be any different from the past 30 years? Do we care if we hurt Khamenei's or Ahmadinejad's feelings in this? What is it that the U.S. and the West stand for? If we don't show our strong support for freedom, democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the rule of law, and freedom of religion under these circumstances, when will we? The window of opportunity will not stay open forever.
I sense that Obama is more interested in pursuing his agenda of being The Guy who solves all of the problems in the Middle East and that this interlude mucks up The Plan. Maybe he can't solve all of the problems and maybe the political events of the day require nimbleness and a change of plan. Where does this leave The Plan if the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are only able to put down the people through arrests, violence, killing, threats, and intimidation, without any respect for rule of law or for basic rights? Can the U.S. in good conscience sit down with Iranian leaders in a spirit of compromise? I'm struggling to understand.
I was reading an essay today by Dale Eickelman, Professor of Anthropology and Human Relations at Dartmouth College, who wrote "The Coming Transformation of the Muslim-Majority World" (Faith & International Affairs, Summer 2009). Eickelman discussed the fact that in today's world, with more modes of communication and sources of information, "government officials, traditional religious scholars, and officially sanctioned preachers are finding it very hard to monopolize the tools of literate culture. The days have gone when governments and religious authorities can control what their people know, and what they think." There is no longer only one course. New methods of communication and additional educational opportunities for men, and especially for women, are changing the landscape where there is more information, more discussion, and less control by the powers that be. The expanding role of the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, satellites, and other means of gathering and sharing information means that no matter how hard the government tries, it cannot stop the tidlewave. We need to help make sure that these new ways of gathering and sharing information are encouraged and enhanced.
Eickelman also had this to say: [S]ome Iranians argue that the major transformation of the Iranian revolution occurred not in 1978-79 but with the coming of age of a new generation of Iranians who were not even born at the time of the revolution. These transformations include a greater sense of autonomy for both women and men and the emergence of a public sphere in which politics and religion are subtly intertwined, and not always in ways anticipated by Iran's formal religious leaders."
Eickelman's essay was based on a lecture he gave in 1999.
He could see it then. Can we see it now? If not now, when?
I sense that Obama is more interested in pursuing his agenda of being The Guy who solves all of the problems in the Middle East and that this interlude mucks up The Plan. Maybe he can't solve all of the problems and maybe the political events of the day require nimbleness and a change of plan. Where does this leave The Plan if the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are only able to put down the people through arrests, violence, killing, threats, and intimidation, without any respect for rule of law or for basic rights? Can the U.S. in good conscience sit down with Iranian leaders in a spirit of compromise? I'm struggling to understand.
I was reading an essay today by Dale Eickelman, Professor of Anthropology and Human Relations at Dartmouth College, who wrote "The Coming Transformation of the Muslim-Majority World" (Faith & International Affairs, Summer 2009). Eickelman discussed the fact that in today's world, with more modes of communication and sources of information, "government officials, traditional religious scholars, and officially sanctioned preachers are finding it very hard to monopolize the tools of literate culture. The days have gone when governments and religious authorities can control what their people know, and what they think." There is no longer only one course. New methods of communication and additional educational opportunities for men, and especially for women, are changing the landscape where there is more information, more discussion, and less control by the powers that be. The expanding role of the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, satellites, and other means of gathering and sharing information means that no matter how hard the government tries, it cannot stop the tidlewave. We need to help make sure that these new ways of gathering and sharing information are encouraged and enhanced.
Eickelman also had this to say: [S]ome Iranians argue that the major transformation of the Iranian revolution occurred not in 1978-79 but with the coming of age of a new generation of Iranians who were not even born at the time of the revolution. These transformations include a greater sense of autonomy for both women and men and the emergence of a public sphere in which politics and religion are subtly intertwined, and not always in ways anticipated by Iran's formal religious leaders."
Eickelman's essay was based on a lecture he gave in 1999.
He could see it then. Can we see it now? If not now, when?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
