International Religious Freedom Blog

Religious symbols and reminders of religious freedom: My purchase of a menorah

2010-01-05T22:10:00.000-08:00

I announced to my family a few weeks ago that I was going to purchase a menorah. They looked at me kind of funny, wondering why I, being a Christian, would do such a thing. But as I was reading about Hanukkah (or Chanukah), I was struck by the symbolism of the menorah and its relationship to religious freedom. Although it is not a part of my religion, it still bears some sacredness for me.

The story goes like this: In 175 BCE, Antiochus IV, the Syrian king of the Seleucid Empire, invaded Jerusalem and recaptured Jerusalem. His soldiers plundered and looted the temple, putting a stop to further temple worship. The practice of Judaism was outlawed, which prompted the successful Maccabean revolt in 165 BCE and the subsequent rededication of the temple.

According to wikipedia: "The festival of Hanukkah was instituted by Judah Maccabee and his brothers to celebrate this event. After recovering Jerusalem and the Temple, Judah ordered the Temple to be cleansed, a new altar to be built in place of the polluted one and new holy vessels to be made. According to the Talmud, olive oil was needed for the menorah in the Temple, which was required to burn throughout the night every night. But there was only enough oil to burn for one day, yet miraculously, it burned for eight days, the time needed to prepare a fresh supply of oil for the menorah. An eight day festival was declared by the Jewish sages to commemorate this miracle."

The martyrdom of Hannah and her seven sons is also linked to Hanukkah. Antiochus, in his demonstration of control over the Jews and their religious practices, had required her sons to eat pig or to be put to death. Each son, in turn, refused, and was, as promised, killed. Prior to the youngest son's death, Antiochus had appealed to Hannah to convince her youngest to eat pig rather than to die. But Hannah was not swayed and the son refused, and that son, as well, was put to death. Ultimately Hannah, too, suffered death in connection with these events. Her and her sons' courage and strength are commemorated to this day.

I wanted to purchase the menorah so that I would have this symbol as a reminder of these important events and of the strength and courage of these Jews nearly 2200 years ago and so that I could teach my children about these things. The principles that the menorah represent are universal and bear meaning to this non-Jew. And so today I finally received my "traditional pewter menorah" in the mail, having ordered it from Judaica.com, and was pleased to bring this symbol into my home.

By the way, I decided not to purchase the "Multi-color Puzzle Menorah," the "Inflatable Festival Menorah Decoration," the "Clef Note Menorah," the "Woven Garden Wall Menorah," or the "Giant Lawn Decoration Inflatable Menorah." The "traditional pewter menorah" works just fine for me.

Changing Demographics and Its Impact on World Affairs: The New Population Bomb

2010-01-04T21:33:00.000-08:00

In his article, The New Population Bomb: The Four Megatrends That Will Change the World (Foreign Affairs, January/February 2010 (registration required)), Jack Goldstone offers this stark information:

"In 1950, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey had a combined population of 242 million. By 2009, those six countries were the world's most populous Muslim-majority countries and had a combined population of 886 million. Their populations are continuing to grow and indeed are expected to increase by 475 million between now and 2050--during which time, by comparison, the six most populous developed countries are projected to gain only 44 million inhabitants. Worldwide, of the 48 fastest-growing countries today--those with annual population growth of two percent or more--28 are majority Muslim or have Muslim minorities of 33 percent or more."

That ought to get your attention. These population changes will require significant adjustment to foreign policy thinking, international trade, education, immigration, and economic policies. And as to religious freedom and other basic human rights...

Western societies cannot change these population trends, and so they'd better gain a better understanding of how to meet the challenges that will arise. Will the substantial increases in Muslims in these countries result in even less religious freedom? Or will that growth mean that Muslim governments will have a lesser ability to control the people and limit their rights? How does this impact radical Islamists? Will the increasing population of young people have a desire for Western things and ideals? Or will they move along more radical paths? The world is changing quickly, and we'd better be ready for it.

Make sure to read the entire article here.

Quote of the Week: A bit of the Chaplain's day

2010-01-04T21:23:00.000-08:00

A U.S. Marine Corps chaplain, describing his day, includes this little snippet:

0700-1000
Get to the places where worship services are needed and try to utilize the power of the altar to bring a word to the people. One of the 1st Sergeants "gently" suggests to the troops desiring worship services that: "The *#$%&?! chaplain is here. (Excuse me chaplain.)... Get your *#$%&?! in motion and get your *#$%&?! to the *#$%&?! meeting." Surprisingly, the attendance is rather high.

-From An Overview of the U.S. Military Chaplaincy: A Ministry of Presence and Practice, by Pauletta Otis, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Winter 2009.

Brought a smile to my face.

Peace on earth, goodwill toward men--Bless the Iraqi Christians

2009-12-24T14:32:00.000-08:00

This is the season for peace and goodwill. A time for Christians to celebrate the birth of the Savior. A time for family and friends. A time to reflect and remember the things that matter most.

And then there is this:

Amid the carols and decorations, Iraq Christians fear extinction, by Alice Fordham, The Times.

"It could be a scene from a Victorian Christmas card. The young people gather in the church, decorating a tree, while in the background the choir rehearses for Christmas Day — the tune of God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen playing out. In the theatre next to the church two clowns are playing musical chairs with hundreds of children, while a bishop and an inflatable Father Christmas look on.

"The words to the carol are in Iraqi-accented Arabic — Feltestereh qolubikum, ya ayuha al jumoor — “may your hearts take comfort, you who are gathered here”. The church is Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad, and outside is the more familiar Iraqi scene of barbed wire and armed guards. Behind the tinsel and carols lies a fear that Christians in Iraq are a community under threat of extinction. Proportionally more Christians are leaving Iraq than any other group.

"Last week 100 Christian leaders and politicians of all religions held an emergency meeting just before fresh violence broke out in the northern city of Mosul, with attacks on churches and Christian schools. On Tuesday a baby was killed and 40 people, including schoolchildren, were injured in three simultaneous bombings. Two days ago a Christian man was shot dead as he travelled to work."

Iraqi Christians Face Bombs, Attacks in Run-Up to Christmas, Fox News.

""Instead of performing Christmas Mass in this church, we will be busy removing rubble and debris," said Hazim Ragheed, a priest at the Mar Toma Church."

Iraq Christians Face More Bloodshed As Bombings Kill 118 (Dec. 8, 2009) by Worthy News Middle East Service.

"Archbishop Basile Casmoussa of Mosul said that the bombings were clearly part of an intimidation campaign against the Christian minority. Iraqi Christians reportedly described the attacks as "a Mafia warning," and said they were being warned "to get out of the city."

Tuesday's bombings in Baghdad, were another reminder of growing tensions in Iraq."

New Violence Flares in Iraq, With Christians and Shiites as Targets, by John Leland, The New York Times.

"As Muslims in Iraq observe the 10-day holiday of Muharram, and Christians warily prepare for a subdued Christmas, episodes of violence erupted around the country on Wednesday, some of them aimed at worshipers of each faith.

"There were four separate bomb attacks in Baghdad on Shiite pilgrims marching toward Karbala in observance of Muharram, and a fifth attack on people giving food and drinks to the marchers."
...

"In the northern city of Mosul, where sectarian violence has continued to run high, a bomb placed in a handcart opposite the Syrian Orthodox Church of St. Thomas killed two people, both Muslim, and damaged the church, which was built in 770. The attack followed threats to blow up churches at Christmas, and was the sixth attack on Christians in Mosul in less than a month. Threats and attacks against Iraqi Christians typically rise during the Christmas season."

I will never understand.

State Department Training on International Religious Freedom?

2009-12-14T22:47:00.000-08:00

Each year when the State Department issues its International Religious Freedom Report, it includes an appendix in which it lists the training that is provided at the Foreign Service Institute related to the International Religious Freedom Act. I'm not sure how many people actually pulled up Appendix E to the Report this year, but I decided to check it out. I wonder if anyone else bothered.

The Appendix lists a number of courses that are offered, some of which include aspects related to international religious freedom. There are some presentations that cover human rights policy and happen to mention international religious freedom. There are courses on area studies that may include elements associated with religion. And then there is a list at the end of the three-page Appendix that includes a handful of links to pertinent documents.

I haven't taken the courses, so I would be interested in hearing an insider's perspective on the efficacy of the program. As an outsider, it didn't look very impressive. In fact, the Appendix looks to me like the result of an assignment given one afternoon to a clerk who was tasked to come up with a list of things that make it look like the State Department is making a greater effort to train foreign service personnel in international religious freedom as required under the International Religious Freedom Act. And ever since that person came up with this list in 1999, it looks like someone takes about 30 minutes each year to update the Appendix with a few little odds and ends. In other words, it doesn't look like a serious attempt was made to design thorough, specific, and fundamental training on international religious freedom or religion as it impacts international affairs. It doesn't appear to me like this is something that is treated very seriously.

And why would anyone take it seriously? After all, the president cannot find the time nor can he make the effort to even appoint the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, as required by law, to head up the efforts. The office has been vacant for nearly a year already. If it is not important enough to appoint the Ambassador-at-Large, then the function of encouraging or even attempting to understand international religious freedom and the role of religion in international affairs must not be important either. It seems that only lip service is being made, and very little at that, to comply with the International Religious Freedom Act by the State Department.

How about this: How about a thorough evaluation of the State Department's training efforts in this field? What are the training materials? Are they any good? Who are the qualified experts who provide the training? What level of importance is the subject accorded in the training? Is there a career path for those who are experts in international religious freedom and religion as it relates to international affairs? How effective is the training? Is there ongoing training? Who is accountable for ensuring the highest level of quality training in the subject matter? Does anyone care? I would love to see a thorough evaluation of this, because I'm not convinced that those in power really care. And I think that is a huge mistake.

International Religious Freedom Quote of the Week

2009-12-13T22:42:00.000-08:00

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should constrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

"We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

-Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants 134:4, 7, and 9; August 17, 1835.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Well said.

Ridiculously 'funny' articles about the Swiss minaret vote

2009-12-10T23:34:00.000-08:00

The debate about what the Swiss minaret vote means isn't particularly funny, but these articles struck me as pretty darn funny:

Iran slams European states anti-Islamic moves, Islamic Republic News Agency.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that "Bern’s decision to halt building new minarets was “against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights.”

"Mottaki added that the act “will damage Switzerland’s image as a pioneer of respecting human rights among Muslims' public opinion.”

"“Values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others' religious should never be put to referendum,” Mottaki told his Swiss counterpart."

And this:

Saudi scholars slam Swiss minaret ban, gulfnews.com.

"Shaikh Abdul Mohsen Al Shahri, an eminent scholar in Islamic jurisprudence, said that the Swiss referendum was part of a new hostile campaign unleashed against Islam and Muslims in the West. “This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West, especially in a country, which boasts of an exemplary model of democratic ideals,” he said adding that this serves as a severe blow to the so called secular image of Switzerland.

"Meanwhile, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Prof. Ekmeliddin Ihsanoglu voiced disappointment and concern over the Swiss public referendum to ban building of minarets in the mosques in Switzerland.

"The Secretary General of OIC, which groups 57 Muslim countries, qualified the ban as an unfortunate development that would tarnish the image of Switzerland as a country upholding respect for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights.

"He described this as the latest example of growing anti-Islamic incitements in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values.

"The Chief of OIC, which represents about 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, expressed his deep regret that at a time when the Muslim world and Muslim societies around the world have been engaged in a struggle to fight extremism, the Western societies are being hostage to extremists who exploit Islam as a scapegoat and a springboard to develop their own political agenda which in turn contributes to polarization and fragmentation in the societies."

And this from that freedom-loving Kadhafi:

Swiss minaret ban invitation for attacks, Maktoob News.

"Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi said the Swiss referendum banning the building of new minarets was an invitation for Al-Qaeda to launch attacks in Europe, the official news agency JANA reported on Sunday.

""They pretend they are 'fighting Al-Qaeda and terrorism' whereas in fact they have just rendered it the greatest service," he said, referring to Switzerland with disdain as "the mafia of the world."

""Al-Qaeda militants are now saying: 'We warned you that they were our enemies... Look at what they are doing in Europe. Come and join us for a jihad (holy war) against Europe,'" Kadhafi said."

It is interesting, isn't it, that the Iranian foreign minister, Saudi scholars, the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Conference, and Kadhafi are supporting the cause for freedom of religion, human rights, tolerance, democratic rights, respect for diversity, and universal values.

Mormons in India

2009-12-07T05:26:00.000-08:00

India's vast population of over 1.15 billion people claims a rich religious heritage, having been the birthplace of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism and having a long history with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And now, within the Christian population, there is a growing segment of Mormons or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). O.K., so the numbers are small--7,500. If they add another 1,142,500 members, they'll have 1/10th of 1% of the population, so it's not much of a threat to the established religions. Indians are generally unwelcoming of proselyting, thus making it a challenge for those churches that are not firmly established in India. (As for why the picture of the butterfly is here, you'll have to read down to the end.)

The Mormons weren't much of a threat in 1885, either. According to the New York Times on October 4, 1885, two Mormon missionaries had been commissioned to India: "The Indian authorities stated that the harm done by the Mormons had been inappreciable, and that, in the opinion of the Government, no special measures were at present necessary, but that in case of unlawful recruiting of men or women the provisions of the Penal Code would apply." But, alas, they didn't need to worry: "The Mormons made no converts in Calcutta," and reportedly made only two or three converts in the country, "but finally became so much reduced in finances that they were compelled to seek help, and one or more of them left India in a state of destitution."

As an aside, I was helping an Indian friend who was visiting the U.S. find where the Mormon congregation was in Kolkata (Calcutta) near where he lived and noted that it is in the Salt Lake City district of Kolkata. Go figure.

Although it has taken a long time to progress much, the Mormon Church is experiencing some modest growth, as recent news accounts have stated. Mormons expanding in India, by Babu Thomas, Christian Today. (I see that they appear to have taken the article off the internet, so I linked to the cached version.) Church grows as two districts grow to five in India, by Elder Charles W. Kewish and Sister Carol Ann Kewish, Mormon Times. Church in New Delhi moving forward, by Jamshid Askar, LDS Church News.

This article, originally published in The Global Post, shares the conversion experience of an Indian family: Mormons in India, by Sonya Fatah. The comments are rather interesting, demonstrating the resistance that the Mormons face.

Other links: Latter-day Saints make sacrifices to relieve flood victims: Some Mormon volunteers travel four hours to help distribute supplies, by Elder Charles Kewish and Sister Carol Kewish, LDS Church News. Here is the LDS Church's country profile for India. Finally, here is a blog that includes information and experiences about the LDS Church in India, among other places: mormonworld.org.

Oh, and there this is this. I came across a reference to the Blue Mormon butterfly that is indigenous to India and wondered how on earth it got its name. From wikipedia:

The common name is an allusion to the polygamy formerly practiced by members of the Mormon sect according to Harish Gaonkar, of the Natural History Museum in London:

...the origins of giving common English names to organisms, particularly butterflies for tropical species started in India around the mid 19th century ... The naming of Mormons evolved slowly. I think the first to get such a name was the Common Mormon (Papilio polytes), because it had three different females, a fact that could only have been observed in the field, and this they did in India. The name obviously reflected the ... Mormon sect in America, which as we know, practiced polygamy." It should be noted that this butterfly is no longer affilated with the Mormon Church after the Mormon Church disavowed polygamy in the late 19th Century. The butterfly is now to be referred to as the "Blue Mormon-offshoot Butterfly That is No Longer Affiliated with the Mormon Church."

There is also the Blue Mormon Jungle Holiday Resort in Bhimashankar, Pune, India. I'll have to check it out someday.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali weighs in on Swiss vote banning the construction of minarets

2009-12-06T17:50:00.000-08:00

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Christian Science Monitor.

Hirsi Ali considers the societal and political debate that was evident in the Swiss referendum in which the construction of minarets on Muslim mosques was banned. A couple of quotes:

"The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world. There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims. In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects. Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam."

"The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam. "

"And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political order with that of their own."

Hirsi Ali highlights the current conflict and uncertainty about how the Swiss and, indeed, other Europeans, will regard the growing Muslim population in light of Muslim ideology.

Minarets, Muslims, and Religious Freedom in Switzerland

2009-12-02T20:56:00.000-08:00

For the unschooled, a minaret is "a slender tower, typically part of a mosque, with a balcony from which a muezzin calls Muslims to prayer. Recorded from the late 17th century, the word comes from French or Spanish and ultimately, via Turkish, from Arabic manār(a) ‘lighthouse, minaret’, based on nār ‘fire or light’." ELIZABETH KNOWLES. "minaret." The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Oxford University Press. 2006. Encyclopedia.com. 2 Dec. 2009 .

So why should we care about minarets right now? A Swiss referendum on Sunday determined that minarets could no longer be constructed in that country. I guess they thought that minarets were dangerous. According to the New York Times, there are only four minarets in Switzerland with plans for two more, and none conduct the call to prayer. About 400,000 Muslims, mostly from Kosovo and Turkey, live among the 7.5 million people. Various people and organizations are up in arms over the vote, expressing surprise and concern about the results, wondering how Switzerland, with a tradition of tolerance and religious freedom, could see such results from a popular vote.

The vote, of course, runs entirely counter to principles of religious freedom, and I can hardly see how the prohibition against building minarets benefits anyone. Nevertheless, this vote clearly indicates the anxiety of the Swiss and, likely, others in Europe, over the growing Muslim population and some of the creeping Islamization that is occurring. With the dramatic increase of Muslims in Europe, the push for Sharia law, the lack of women's rights, the treatment of women, intimidation and limitations associated with freedom of expression and freedom of religion, anti-western views of many, the failure to assimilate, and the on-going concerns about terrorism, there are many reasons for the anxiety.

This vote demonstrates to me not only that the non-Muslim population needs to come to a clearer understanding of the role and importance of religious freedom in their societies but also that the Muslim leaders and people need to do more to assuage the concerns of the non-Muslim population, which requires reform within the Muslim community.

It also does not help perceptions when non-Muslims look at majority-Muslim nations and see the lack of freedoms and basic rights. One thing that would help improve perceptions of Muslims by non-Muslims would be to see a greater recognition of freedoms and human rights in Muslim countries. But I won't be holding my breath on that one. While I am all in favor of pluralism and allowing each person to worship as he or she chooses, I also understand that there are elements of Islam that are a detriment to these freedoms and that left unchecked in non-Muslim-majority countries can creep into society in a way that hinders rather than helps religious and other freedoms.

In spite of all that, banning minarets is not the way to go. If anything good comes from this, it is that it will spark a necessary and timely debate about the growing Muslim population in Europe on both sides of the equation. How are Muslims and Islam perceived? Are these legitimate perceptions? What must be done to change these perceptions? How will the dramatic Muslim population and immigrant growth affect society? How will it affect freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women's rights, the legal structure? To ignore these things now will only lead to greater conflict later.

Swiss Ban on Minaret Building Meets Widespread Criticism, by Nick Cumming-Bruce, The New York Times.

Swiss minaret ban condemned by Vatican, Telegraph.co.uk.

Swiss minaret ban reflects European fear of Islam: The Swiss vote to ban minarets comes at a time when Muslim populations are growing and Europeans worry about losing traditional Christian culture, by Isabelle de Pommereau, The Christian Science Monitor.

Russian Mufti wants to send 2 million Muslim men to Far East to take Chinese and Korean women as multiple wives

2009-12-01T15:57:00.000-08:00

Mufti Talgat Tajuddin of the Central Muslim Board of Russia figured out how to solve the problem of ensuring the security of the Russian Far East and of solving a demographic problem at the same time.

According this this article in Interfax:

""Chineses will soon captivate all Siberia... I would direct one million of Tatars, one million of Bashkirs to the Far East and would marry them to Chinese and Korean women," Mufti told in an interview published by Bashkirian issue of Komsomolskaya Pravda daily.

"According to him, the first wife of Tatars and Bashkirs, for example, must be a woman of their nation.

""And after that we would secure our country and eastern frontiers at the same time. This is the natural problem decision. And though we speak about it as for fun, it’s still necessary to solve a demographic problem. Therefore - marry, multiply and replenish," Tajuddin appealed.

". . .The more children, the better state," Mufti has declared."

I guess there are too many single Chinese and Korean women on the borders of the Russian Far East and too many Muslim Tatar and Bashkir men who can't find enough women to marry. Hmmm. Good luck with that one.

Muslim Population Worldwide Website

2009-12-01T10:20:00.000-08:00

IslamicPopulation.com is an interesting website that links to articles and databases relating to Muslim population throughout the world. It's worth a look.

Global Muslim Population

2009-11-30T20:59:00.000-08:00

Quick. How many Muslims are in the world today? According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's Report, Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population released in October there are 1.57 billion--23% of the world's population of 6.8 billion. About 80% of Muslims live in countries where Islam is the majority religion. Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims with over 202 million; Pakistan has 174 million; India: 160 million; and Bangladesh: 145 million. It is interesting to me that without the partition of India into Pakistan and Bangladesh, India would be by far the largest Muslim populated country with nearly 500 million Muslims, or nearly one-third of the world's Muslims.

I took a look at the State Department's list of countries where it deemed noteworthy violations of religious freedom to have occurred--there are 29 on the list, and 17 of them are Muslim-majority countries, with most of them nearly entirely Muslim. There is, of course, much to consider in these numbers. Of the remaining 12 on the list, the next largest grouping consists of currently communist/socialist countries (China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Laos, Vietnam) and formerly communist Russia.

62% of Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region, while only 20% live in the Middle East-North Africa region. In the entire of the Americas, there are only 4.6 million Muslims, or about .3% of the world's Muslim population. 87-90% are Sunni while the other 10-13% are Shia, with most of the Shias living in Iran, Pakistan, India, and Iraq.

With the large birth rate in Muslim families and the migration of Muslims to other parts of the world, the demographics of populations throughout the world are changing rapidly. The Pew Forum intends to release a study in 2010 "that will estimate growth rates among Muslim populations worldwide and project Muslim populations into the future." Can we deduce that in light of the significant restrictions placed by Muslims on religious freedom in Muslim-dominated countries, there will be a negative impact on religious freedom from an increasing Muslim population in other countries? These trends will be important to follow.

Obama and Clinton announce nomination of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and push for enhanced role. Just kidding.

2009-10-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Egypt refuses to recognize conversion by Muslim: El Gohary's quest for rights as a Christian convert

2009-08-24T21:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Religious Cleansing in Iran, by J.K. Choksy and Nina Shea, National Review Online

2009-07-23T21:12:00.000-07:00

"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.

Russia and Medvedev moving in the right direction on religious freedom?

2009-07-23T20:02:00.000-07:00

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.

OK kids. Here's today's quiz on India.

2009-07-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Al-Shabab Islamists 'cleanse' Somalia of Christians

2009-07-21T22:29:00.000-07:00

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.

The Pluralism Project at Harvard University

2009-07-19T23:04:00.000-07:00

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."

Ireland needs a Mulligan: New anti-blasphemy law defames the Irish

2009-07-19T21:26:00.000-07:00

Ireland's legislature recently passed a new Defamation Bill which includes the following anti-blasphemy provision:

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of
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.

All 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?

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.

Zero. . .

2009-07-13T21:57:00.000-07:00

. . .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.)

More on Iraq and the ongoing violence against Christians and other minority religions

2009-07-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Elimination of religious plurality in Iraq: We ignore the exodus of minority religions at our and their peril

2009-07-12T23:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Summer Book List--International Religious Freedom, Foreign Cultures, Struggle for Freedom

2009-06-24T21:10:00.000-07:00

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.

The "butcher of the press" appointed to interrogate the reformists in Iran

2009-06-24T19:59:00.000-07:00

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.

The potential huge impact of change in Iran

2009-06-24T11:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

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.

The U.S. and Western support for the people of Iran: If not now, when?

2009-06-23T22:10:00.000-07:00

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?

The American Future by Simon Schama: Excellent quote on religious pluralism and relationship of church and state

2009-05-25T22:20:00.000-07:00

David Shribman in the Wall Street Journal offers his review of Simon Schama's The American Future and includes the following:

"Yet a principal question throughout American history has been (as it will be) how to exert moral force -- and to assure religious freedom, at home and abroad. For that reason, Mr. Schama's reflections on matters of faith are in many ways the most compelling aspect of "The American Future." Our faith, he asserts, has been one of the most powerful vindications of the American idea.

"The main thing . . . was to make a place for [religious] profession of whatever sort, so the pious or the impious would never feel obliged to kill each other on behalf of the victory of their convictions," he writes, adding: "A bet was made with posterity that, by keeping the church from directing the state, or the state from compromising theology, religion might actually flourish rather than wither, since it could depend only on its own intrinsic persuasiveness.""

Schama offers a powerful insight into the impact of religious pluralism, the separation of church and state, and religious freedom.

Russia and Dvorkin's ongoing obsession with the anti-cult business: The recently held Conference on Destructive Cults and Human Rights

2009-05-25T18:28:00.000-07:00

Russia just can't seem to get enough of the anti-sect, anti-cult business. If you want to promote some idea or principle, you just need some willing funding partner, an international conference, and an "expert" or two, and there you have it. Russia and the University of St. Petersburg Law School recently hosted the FECRIS (Federation of European Centers for Research and Information on Sects -- yes, there is actually such an organization) conference on Destructive Cults and Human Rights. Playing a central role in all of this is the ubiquitous Alexander Dvorkin, the recently appointed head of the Ministry of Justice's new Experts Council, an outrageous appointment that removes all subtlety about Russia and religious freedom. The Russian government was only too happy to fund this adventure.

According to an account by Graham Berry (who apparently devotes his life to debunking Scientology) at his blog on grahamberry.com:

"The opening address on “Destructive cults and human rights” was delivered by the eminent Professor Alexander Dvorkin from Moscow where he teaches religious history. The current Russian Minister of Justice is one of Professor Dvorkin’s former students. Professor Dvorkin had played a key role in the organization of the 2009 FECRIS conference which seemed as flawless as it was impressive. During his speech he spoke of the need for more inter governmental response to the cult problem. In doing so he referred to the French governments inter ministerial approach which was more effective than what we American’s might call stove piping within individual agencies."

Berry notes: "The 2009 FECRIS annual conference was focused on “DESTRUCTIVE CULTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS.” The Russian Minister of Justice was scheduled to open the conference but he was delayed and did not appear until later. His speech was read by the Deputy Minister of Justice who attended the entire conference and listened to each speaker. The Deputy Minister of Justice is also responsible for monitoring the activities of dangerous cults." Berry also mentions that the French government helped fund the conference, along with the Russian government, which paid for him to attend.

I remain baffled as to why the Russian government fronts Dvorkin. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in its recently-issued annual report, commented on the Justice Ministry's Expert Religious Studies Council, "which was given extremely wide powers to investigate religious organizations, including their activities and literature, for a broad array of reasons, including extremism. While governments have a duty to combat acts of violent extremism as part of their obligation to protect citizens, there have been expressions of serious concern over the establishment, as well as the composition and expansive mandate, of this new council. The Expert Religious Studies Council‘s powers enable it to investigate religious organizations during the registration procedure; to assess whether the activity of a registered group accords with its charter; to ascertain if an organization, one of its members, or the literature it produces or distributes is extremist; and to conduct investigations in ―other cases requiring specialist knowledge which might arise when the Russian Justice Ministry is monitoring the activity of religious organizations."

"The Expert Religious Studies Council's new chairman, Aleksandr Dvorkin, is Russia‘s most prominent ―anti-cult activist and he lacks academic credentials as a religion specialist. Furthermore, Dvorkin‘s deputy, Roman Silantyev, is noted for intolerant articles on so-called radical Islam. Observers are concerned that under Dvorkin‘s leadership, the council may call for the closure of registered as well as unregistered minority religious communities."

Others also are not enthralled with the direction of religious freedom in Russia and the insertion of Dvorkin as an apparatchik within the government. Paul Goble in Georgian Daily reports on comments made by Inn Zagrebina, "a legal affairs expert at the Moscow Institute of Religion and Law":

"Even though rights activists almost unanimously have denounced his appointment, Aleksandr Dvorkin, the new head of the religious expertise council, retains the support of the justice ministry and some international groups, a situation that leaves Russia “on the brink of a sectarian war,” according to a Moscow attorney. Inna Zagrebina . . . argues that the backing the self-described “anti-Sectarian” is receiving “not only undermines inter-confessional accord in the regions and leads to discrimination, but crudely violates national and international legal norms."
Russia is on the Brink of Sectarian War,’ Moscow Lawyer Warns, Georgian Daily.

These so-called "anti-cult" activities merely mask the real problems and are a diversion. Why else would the Russian government go to this effort to support these things? The original fears that arose with religious freedom at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union have been demonstrably proven false, or at least vastly overstated. And yet, Dvorkin and his followers continue on. As long as he can hide behind the Russian government and the ROC and get paid for it, what does he care?

The UN Human Rights Council Charade: Vaclav Havel Comments on Election Farce

2009-05-11T07:46:00.000-07:00

The UN's Human Rights Council was supposed to repair the fundamental flaws of the former UN Commission on Human Rights. Vaclav Havel is not impressed:

"IMAGINE an election where the results are largely preordained and a number of candidates are widely recognized as unqualified. Any supposedly democratic ballot conducted in this way would be considered a farce. Yet tomorrow the United Nations General Assembly will engage in just such an “election” when it votes to fill the vacancies on the 47-member Human Rights Council. " Read the rest at A Table for Tyrants ,The New York Times.

Global National Happiness: Fledgling Democracy and Freedom in Bhutan

2009-05-06T22:18:00.000-07:00

Bhutan is a small country located at the eastern end of the Himalayas that doesn't hit the radar screen very often. Of note: It contains the highest mountain yet to be climbed by man at nearly 25,000 feet. There are less than 700,000 people there, 75% of whom are Buddhist, 24% Hindu, and the rest, a mish-mash.

What caught my eye were a couple of articles that describe using as the measure of success in Bhutan the Gross National Happiness rather than something like the Gross National Product or some other measure of well being. If you think the GNH is too nebulous to be measured, thing again. They have developed a mathematical formula to ensure objectivity. There is even a Gross National Happiness Commission. Does the Commission have regulations for enforcing happiness? The Bhutanese appear to be reasonably happy, whatever the case.

Bhutan has operated under the idea, at least, of a democracy, instituting democratic parliamentary elections last year. But democracy, apparently, is still being defined. And positive results are slow in coming. "The change is part of attaining gross national happiness, Mr. Dorji [secretary of information and communications] said. “They resonate well, democracy and G.N.H. Both place responsibility on the individual. Happiness is an individual pursuit and democracy is the empowerment of the individual.”"

Despite all that happiness, there is room for improvement:

"People are not entitled to all rights and liberties. The country restricted monks and religious figures along with those in jail from voting. This has to be closely watched if things would get changed during local elections scheduled for this year. Rallies and demonstrations are still daunted. . .The constitution guarantees freedom of assembly but government attempted occasionally to impede criticism and monitor political meetings. Individuals were unable to criticize government publicly. . .The National Assembly approved the government proposal to restrict any form of campaign during the local elections, thus curtailing the political liberties that Bhutan began to see last year only."

Buddhism is considered the state faith, while Christianity is discouraged. Although the law provides for freedom of religion, limitations have been placed on free worship by limiting proselytizing, discouraging non-Buddhist gatherings, limiting the building non-Buddhist churches.

While small steps towards democracy are good, the courage to open up to more democratic principles of freedom will help strengthen the economic, political, and religious foundations of the country, thus enhancing the ever important Gross National Happiness.

Recalculating Happiness in a Himalayan Kingdom, by Seth Mydans, International Herald Tribune.

One Year of Democracy in Bhutan: Big promises, small achievements, by I. P. Adhikari, American Chronicle.

State Department International Religious Freedom Report 2008, Bhutan.

Questions about the Obama Administration's commitment to human rights, international religious freedom, and promoting democracy?

2009-05-06T17:36:00.000-07:00

Where do human rights, international religious freedom, and promoting democracy fit within the Obama Administration? To this point, these principles are taking a back seat to Obama's push for engagement. Burnishing the U.S. image among the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Castro appears to take precedence. Here are a few articles that raise questions about the commitment of the Obama Administration to these principles:

Human Rights Activists Troubled by Administration's Approach, by Glenn Kessler and Michael D. Shear, The Washington Post.

Human rights and democracy sold short, by Will Inboden, ForeignPolicy.com.

The Obama doctrine: Charm enemies, arm-twist friends, by The Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board.

Intimidation and government intrusion into freedom of expression and freedom of religion: Ezra Levant's story

2009-05-05T21:59:00.000-07:00

Ezra Levant tells the fascinating story about how he "beat Canada's 'human rights' censors," in his article, The Internet Saved My Tongue (reason.com). The article is adapted from his recent book, Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. Levant, you see, was the publisher of Western Standard, a Canadian conservative magazine which included a story on pages 15 and 16 of its February 13, 2006, edition about the controversy surrounding the Danish newspaper that published the Muhammad cartoons. The Western Standard article included eight of the cartoons. Levant goes on to tell the story of how an obscure Muslim preacher at a mosque in a Calgary strip mall was able to incite the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Committee to take up his cause of bringing Levant down.

The preacher used the Human Rights Committee to "bully" Levant for his critical reporting on radical Islam, and the Committee was happy to oblige. Levant wrote in his reply to the complaint that was before the Committee:

"This complaint perverts the cause of human rights. If the AHRCC allows itself to be used to attack the publication of a good faith debate on these issues, the AHRCC will become a tool of censorship.…The AHRCC will send a message that the state, with its unlimited resources, will not hesitate to interfere with and harass media that discuss controversial topics.”

Levant continues in the article:

"Unfortunately, I got that part right. A year later, in March 2007, Maclean’s magazine was hauled before three human rights commissions to answer for its discussion of radical Islam, in the form of an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s bestselling book, America Alone. Two years later, the Alberta commission ruled that Rev. Stephen Boissoin, a Christian pastor from Red Deer, may never again preach against gay marriage—or even disparage it in private emails. Needless to say, such gag orders cast a pall over public discussions of these issues."

Levant had the foresight to videotape his interrogation by a Committee officer, which he uploaded to YouTube, and the overwhelming response he received caused the Commission to back down when the public was able to see what was happening. (Here's the YouTube link.) Read the article for a more complete picture.

This story, unfortunately, is just one example of how 'democratic' governments are willingly imposing more limits on freedom of expression, sometimes under the auspices of 'defamation of religion' or of 'public interest.' Liberty is a tricky thing. You may not like what someone else has to say, but that does not eliminate his or her right to say it. Imposing greater restrictions on speech takes us down a very dangerous and slippery slope. Levant's story demonstrates that when speaking about other religions, you run a greater risk of government imposition of certain "correct" viewpoints that depend on who is in power, who is interpreting the speech, and who are the vocal objectors. And as you continue on down this road, you necessarily impose limitations on the free expression and practice of religion. If my religious speech is offensive to another religious group or individual, then should my speech be limited? As I've noted many times before in this blog, my religion is maligned all the time, and I don't like it. But I do not believe that those who malign my religion should be shut down or punished. Furthermore, if someone does not like my religion, I should not thereby be limited in my ability to exercise it freely and to share it with others. Without free speech you cannot have freedom of religion. They go hand in hand.

How does International Religious Freedom fit in with U.S. policy and the State Department?

2009-05-03T22:26:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend I was reviewing the International Religious Freedom Act (it was an exciting weekend) and considering whether the concept of international religious freedom has taken hold as an element of foreign policy over the past decade or whether it is like a picture book that you bring out to show your friends from time to time but isn't really a part of everyday living. I see more evidence of the latter rather than the former.

There is this statement from Thomas Farr and Dennis Hoover in their report, The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy:

"To a large extent, IRF policy is functionally and bureaucratically isolated within the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and labor (DRL), itself considered by diplomats largely outside the mainstream of foreign policy. Within DRL, the IRF Ambassador-at Large is subordinate to a lower-ranking official and, unlike other ambassadors-at-large, does not attend senior staff meetings or senior policy meetings. The bureaucratic and functional isolation of this official and his office communicates--to American diplomats, foreign governments, and religious communities alike--that advancing IRF is not a key element of U.S. foreign policy."

You would have thought that the Bush Administration would have sought a more prominent role for the Office on International Religious Freedom in the State Department. But, apparently, the topic of religion and religious freedom is viewed by many within the bureaucracy as either unnecessary or inappropriate--something that is for the evangelicals or other fringe religious types. I've not seen anything to suggest that the Obama Administration will give any more prominence to international religious freedom, notwithstanding the vital role it has in diplomatic relations and in strengthening democracies. There has, as yet, been no one nominated to the post of Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. The Office 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 (also vacant). 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? I noticed that the new Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom is unlikely to hardly ever to even see the Secretary of State.

In the International Religious Freedom Act, Congress mandated 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. I don't know how you can be a principal advisor if you are buried deep within the bureaucracy and tucked safely away from those who are establishing policy.

Now is the right time to fix this--give some prominence to international religious freedom and accord it and the ambassador at large a more appropriate role more in line with the intent of Congress--demonstrate the importance of international religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy.

(By the way, there is a lot of good stuff in the Farr and Hoover report. I'll mention more about it later.)

Some Post-Durban II Racism Conference Thoughts

2009-05-02T13:01:00.000-07:00

The U.S. boycott of the UN's Durban II Racism Conference, although not particularly courageous, was, nevertheless, the right thing to do. The Obama administration felt a need to participate in the pre-meeting negotiations, perhaps to make a showing, perhaps because it had the illusion that it could make a significant difference. Obama was, after all, beginning a new era of engagement.

Some changes were made to the draft resolutions as a result of the involvement of the U.S. and others, but you can't repair a building that is built on a broken foundation by painting the walls on the fourth floor. The anti-Israel, the anti-freedom, and the pro-Islam rhetoric was too much, and the number of Islamic, Arab, anti-democratic, and anti-Western nations were sufficient to rule the day. Remember - the chair of the drafting committee was Libya, the vice chair: Iran; the rapporteur: Cuba. What should we expect?

Ahmadinejad set the tone for the conference with his rant in which he again denies the holocaust, rips the racist Zionists, attacks Israel as a cruel and repressive regime, denounces the U.S. and the West, and that's just the beginning. This is the guy the U.S. is to engage? This video shows a portion of the rant and the EU members who were in attendance as they walked out.

Here is the entire speech:

The UN will attempt to portray the conference as a success and as a building block for the future. It should only be a building block to begin dismantling a fundamentally flawed process.

Nine Muslim countries among top 13 "egregious" violators of religious freedom

2009-05-02T10:07:00.000-07:00

Nine Muslim countries among top 13 "egregious" violators of religious freedom, Jihad Watch. With six more on the watch list.

Distorting 'freedom of expression and religion': International Islamic Fiqh Academy's conclusions at its Conference on Islamic Jurisprudence

2009-05-02T08:32:00.000-07:00

I give points to the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (IIFA), an off-shoot of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, for its creativity at least. It tries its best to be a master of disguise. At its recently concluded conference on Islamic jurisprudence, it used the principles of 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' to actually encourage the suppression of expression and religion. Generally speaking, most would agree that having freedom of expression and religion is a good thing. So, if you want to use the good PR of that principle while still maintaining control over expression and religion, you distort the meaning to fit your views. Tell the world that you encourage freedom of expression and religion, but add limitations that gives you ultimate power to control.

The final statement issued by the conference encouraged or expounded these things: (1) Muslim countries should enact laws allowing freedom of expression. (2) Freedom of expression is a protected right in Islam to be practiced within certain legal restraints. (3) Religious freedom, an important principle of Shariah, is aimed at securing the dignity of man. (4) Religious freedom is guaranteed to every member of society on the basis of a clear directive of the Holy Qur’an, which says: There is no coercion in religion. Sounds pretty good so far.

But, what are the limitations? (1) You cannot exploit freedom to malign Islam and its sacred symbols or cause chaos in society. (2) The expression of views must be beneficial to society and the person communicating the views. (3) You cannot abuse the dignity of others. (4) You must adhere to truth and objectivity. (5) You must not be irresponsible. (6) The objective of expressing the views should be the welfare of Muslims and the general public. (7) Non-Muslim countries should be encouraged to make laws to protect sacred religious symbols of Islam and stop distorting them (the ol' 'anti-defamation of religion' thing). (8) Watch out for people who spread ideas that endanger the security and stability of the Ummah.

In imposing these freedoms, someone necessarily would have to define and interpret what is 'beneficial to society and to the person communicating the views,' what 'abuses the dignity of others,' what is 'truth and objectivity,' what is 'irresponsible,' whether it 'endangers the security and the stability of the Ummah.' In other words, you have the freedom of expression and religion as long as your expression and religion comport to the views of the ruling leaders.

So, I have these questions: If a Christian shares his religious views in a Muslim country, would that be considered to malign Islam? Would Islamic leaders consider this to be beneficial to society? Would this be considered by Islamic leaders to adhere to truth and objectivity? Would these views be considered by Islamic leaders to benefit the welfare of Muslims? What if a Muslim had different views on the interpretation of Sharia than the ruling Islamic leaders and what if he openly expressed these views in writing, in speeches, and in the mosque? Would those leaders consider these views to malign Islam? What would happen to these people if they expressed their views or practiced their religion as they wished?

You can call it whatever you want, but this is not freedom of expression or freedom of religion. The disguise does not work.

I will grant the IIFA one thing, however. At the conference they did at least have a debate about whether it is okay to behead apostates. No conclusions were reached.

Freedom of expression should not be misused, Arab News.

Scholars hotly debate treatment of apostates, Arab News.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam: Does this advance the cause of human rights and religious freedom?

2009-04-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

These selections from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, approved by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, popped out at me, in light of a long list of news stories over the years that do not corroborate the application of these articles:

ARTICLE I:
(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, color, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.

ARTICLE 2:
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'ah prescribed reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari'ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.

ARTICLE 3:
(a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not permissible to kill non-belligerents such as old man, women and children.

ARTICLE 6:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

ARTICLE 10:Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.

ARTICLE 18:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honor and his property.

ARTICLE 21:Taking hostages under any form or for any purpose is expressly forbidden.

ARTICLE 22:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

ARTICLE 25:The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Some key questions:
-Whose interpretation of Shari'ah applies?

-Does Shari'ah law justify killing, imprisonment, or intimidation for blasphemy, conversion, etc.?

-Is there freedom of expression?

-No discrimination based on religious belief?

-Can't take away life or harm someone except based on Shari'ah? Hmm.

-It is prohibited to compel or exploit a man's ignorance or poverty to convert him to another (non-Islamic) religion? What does compel mean? Ignorance? Poverty? Exploit? Is there the freedom to share on'es beliefs, including proselyting?

-Everyone has the right to live in security for himself and his religion?

-Taking hostages is forbidden?

-You can express your opinions, as long as they comport with Shari'ah? Hmm. If someone interprets your expressed opinions as against Shari'ah, then what?

-You can advocate what is right, as long as you comport with Shari'ah? Hmm. If someone interprets you advocacy as against Shari'ah, then what?

-In light of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and now the Cairo Declaration, which takes precedence?

Tolerant of the intolerant

2009-04-18T10:50:00.000-07:00

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. …

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

-From Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945, as quoted by David Littman at a recent Columbia University School of Law conference Candor or Respect: Talking About the Religion of Others. Popper's quote, written near the end of WWII, applies equally today. The tolerance of the intolerant puts our freedoms at risk.

Amy Madigan, writing for Pajamas Media, provides a summary of the conference in her article, How to Discuss Religion Without Appeasing Tyrants. The speakers addressed the heightened sensitivities to discussing and criticizing religion, with many from the conference referencing the attention placed on discussions of Islam, including the on-going push for the imposition of 'defamation of religion' resolutions before the UN and the Human Rights Council.

Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor who published the so-called Danish cartoons, didn't hold back in his criticism of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) (the proponent of the 'defamation of religion' resolutions) and of others who sought to intimidate him in the aftermath of the publication of the cartoons. "As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, he saw how the Russian government and mafia used intimidation to gain “respect.” In his Washington Post article titled “Why I Published Those Cartoons,” he said: “I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. … The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.”

Censorship and intimidation, in the name of respect for religion, yields an even greater intolerance. Intolerance of this sort leads to lesser freedom and encourages tyranny.

So, to get along, we can just all accept what the OIC offers. After all, we don't want to offend anyone, right? We can just avoid discussions about religion altogether, right? Who wants to deal with those types of discussions anyway?

"Keeping religion out of political discussions would be one solution, but these days that’s not an option. Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School, who arranged the conference, said that before 9/11 there was a brief period in human history in which we could pretend that religion didn’t matter anymore. Then, he said, it “all came crashing down.” Religion matters, so we have to deal with it."

Religion matters a whole lot in the world today and impacts virtually all of the major conflicts and hot spots in the world. To pretend that religion is off-topic or to tolerate the intolerant solves nothing but instead stimulates more conflict.

Two headlines: "Obama Lifts Broad Set of Sanctions Against Cuba;" "Cuba Keeps Out U.S. Religious Freedom Group"

2009-04-14T07:50:00.000-07:00

The two headlines should seem incongruous, but to many, apparently, there is no irony nor is there anything wrong:

Obama Lifts Broad Set Of Sanctions Against Cuba: Barriers for U.S. Relatives And Telecoms Struck Down, by Michael D. Shear and Cecilia Kang, Washington Post.

Cuba keeps out US religious freedom group, by Matthew Lee, AP.

Cuba just couldn't figure out how to issue visas for a fact-finding delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, despite the fact the delegates had applied for the visas weeks earlier. Cuba did not say why the visas were not granted. The Commission delegation had to cancel its planned trip just hours after the announcement regarding the lifting of sanctions.

A war against Islam? Or a war within Islam?

2009-04-12T17:08:00.000-07:00

It is an easy statement to say that the U.S. and the non-Muslim world cannot win a war against Islam, but that isn't even the issue. You don't fight a war against a religion. What is at issue is that there are way too many fundamentalist, nationalistic, fanatical, hardliner Muslims who control a substantial number of Muslim nations, who seek more control, and who seek to wreak havoc in other nations for their own benefit and power, for religious purposes and otherwise.

Jim Hoagland in The War Within Islam (Washington Post), indicates that the key to defeating fanatical Islamists is for the "mainstream" Islamic forces to win the war within Islam. He notes:

"The president is right -- as far as he goes. The struggle against al-Qaeda and its associates is not a war of religions with a monolithic Christianity fighting a unified Islam. But it is a religious war in significance and origin. Fanatical Islamic sects have framed their battle in holy terms and seek to destroy their faith's mainstream values. It is not a war on Islam but a war within Islam. Who wins has enormous consequences for the world."

The fight against terrorism has never been a war against Islam, and those who suggest that it is or that the U.S. has framed it as such are disingenuous at best. But understanding the religious aspects is key to understanding how to fight the fight. You cannot pretend that Islam does not play a role in terrorism and in conflicts throughout the world. And you cannot brush off the role of Islam by saying that it has been hijacked by the really bad guys.

Suggesting that there is a war within Islam, as Hoagland does, may indicate some wishful thinking. It's not much of a war when the hardliners are in control in so many Muslim countries and when they limit freedom of expression and ensure compliance with their interpretation of Islam through coercion and intimidation. It's tough to launch a war if you are imprisoned or killed for expressing even a nuanced view that is deemed anti-regime or blasphemous. It's pretty tough to fight back when a wrong step can mean you lose your family and your life. So, where and how is the war being fought? I'd love to see more evidence of that war.

There are some occasional glimmers of hope. The elections in Indonesia are a good sign. But this is the exception and not the rule.

(Incidentally, I'm noting that some are now suggesting that it is not politically correct to refer to "moderate" Muslims. So I guess you can call them "mainstream" Muslims? By the way, can I call terrorism terrorism? I've forgotten what the new name is.)

Freedom to worship, freedom to choose

2009-04-09T22:02:00.000-07:00

In The Freedom to Choose a New Faith, by Ashley Samelson (The Wall Street Journal), Samelson tells the story of Esther from the Old Testament, how she initially had to hide her Jewish faith in order to survive in Persia and how she later exhibited courage by standing up for her people despite the threat of death. Esther's bravery saved many of her fellow Jews and led others to convert to Judaism. The story of Esther is a wonderful reminder to us today as we consider both those who must hide their faith to protect themselves and their families and those who, in the face of persecution and even death, struggle for the freedom to worship as their conscience dictates.

Sometimes it seems as though we as a people have not progressed so much over the years. Despite Esther's story and the story of many other courageous and faithful believers, there remain significant barriers throughout the world to allowing people the right and freedom to worship. Many countries that have large majorities of one religion continue to repress the minority by outlawing their practice of religion, treating them as second class citizens, forbidding conversion, forbidding the sharing of their beliefs, forbidding or hindering the building of churches, and prohibiting the practice of their faith. There are so many ways that undemocratic governments can do this--forcing compliance through intimidation, imprisonment, death, fines, threats, repressive laws. It all seems so counter-intuitive to the principle of faith and the commandment to love God and one's neighbor. Would God be pleased with these efforts to force his children to comply? Is that not the plan of the great adversary--to eliminate the agency of people and instead force them to follow a certain path as determined by those in power?

Joshua challenged the Israelites to "choose you this day whom ye will serve," which denotes having the agency to actually make the choice rather than to be coerced in the decision. He then announces his choice: "but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." We must stand up for people to have the freedom to choose. If we do not, then we who have the freedom to choose demonstrate that our choice is not all that it should be.

Indonesia's elections today: A good sign for religious freedom

2009-04-09T00:26:00.000-07:00

Today, voters all over Indonesia, the largest predominantly-Muslim country in the world, will vote in parliamentary elections that will point the direction of the country's future. Islamist parties have sought to make inroads and have, at times, sought to impose their views with intimidation and force. Bits of sharia law have crept into some areas, and there was some fear that hard-liners were gaining momentum. But recent evidence indicates that in this democracy, the people are rejecting that path and are choosing a more secular direction. This doesn't mean that Islam will have no impact; the make-up of the country with nearly 90% Muslim means that there will be a significant impact felt from Islam, but not necessarily in the form of Islamic parties or control of hardliners.

Some still believe that religious conservatism remains strong and presents a threat to pluralism and religious freedom in Indonesia. And although perhaps the Islamist parties may not fare so well in the elections today, there is still sufficient reason to guard against the Islamist forces in the country. The power of democracy demonstrates with some clarity that when given a free choice between a repressive, controlling government that restricts freedom and a government that encourages freedom, the people will typically choose freedom. This will help encourage pluralism and religious freedom.

Today's editorial in The Jakarta Post notes with some pride:

"This will be the third truly free and fair election Indonesia has held since it got rid of dictator Soeharto in 1998 and ushered in a new era of democracy. The consensus nationwide since then is that Indonesia should build this nation – in spite of its diversity in race, ethnicity, culture, language and religion – on the basis of democracy.

"For 30 years Soeharto tried ruling the country the authoritarian way but in the end the regime became so corrupt that all the gains made in economic development were virtually wiped out during the 1997/98 Asian economic crisis.

"With the first two elections under its belt, Indonesia has earned the accolade as the third largest democracy in the world after India and the United States."

We'll see if the elections live up to the hope.

Indonesia Holds Fast To Secular Politics: Islamist Groups Expected to Take Back Seat in Vote, by Robin Shulman, The Washington Post:

". . .[M]ost voters here in the world's largest majority-Muslim country are expected to cast their ballots for secular parties. As political Islam gains strength globally, it has achieved little electoral success in Indonesia. Though polls show Indonesians becoming more religiously observant in their private lives, surveys also suggest this shift will not translate into significant support for Islamist politics in parliamentary elections Thursday or in presidential elections scheduled for July."

Indonesia must still protect against anti-freedom and Islamist forces, but if the elections proceed as predicted, this is a step in the right direction.

The latest on the upcoming Durban II anti-racism conference

2009-04-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

Here is Eye on the UN's Anne Bayefsky's most recent take in National Review on the preparations for the upcoming Durban II anti-racism conference. She's none too pleased.

Religious freedom takes a hit in Russia with appointment of Alexander Dvorkin to post

2009-04-05T21:39:00.001-07:00

Religious freedom has been tenuous in Russia and in the former Soviet states, facing the double whammy of a suspicious and paranoid state government together with a suspicious and paranoid Russian Orthodox Church. The recent appointment of Alexander Dvorkin, a "sectologist" of sorts, as head of the Ministry of Justice's new Experts Council eliminates all subtlety on the subject.

The Council includes representation from the Russian Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, "as well as civil specialists on relations between church and state, new religious movements and “pseudo-religious criminal and extremist structures”." Notably absent is any representation from Christian churches other than the Orthodox Church.

According to the article, Kirill’s Restrictive View on Religious Freedom Backed by Russian Justice Ministry, by Paul Goble, GeorgianDaily:

"The council was mandated by a federal law adopted in July 2008 and formed by a decree of the justice ministry in February. Its tasks include, first, it is to provide “a definition of the religious character of organizations on the basis of their constituent documents and reports about their faith and corresponding practice.”

"Second, the council is responsible “checking and assessing the reliability of information contained in documents offered by any religious organization.” And third, it is charged with evaluating whether what the religious group declares to the government that it believes and is doing in fact corresponds to reality.

"That gives this body enormous power, because if its members decide that a group is not in correspondence with its declarations, the Russian government is free to close it down, with few chances that the group will be able to win in a Russian court. . ."

As for Dvorkin, he is in the back pocket of the Orthodox Church and the state, devoting his life to "anti-cult" work. I noted last year how he had misrepresented Mormon missionaries as CIA agents and had stated that the Mormon Church was a rich transnational corporation that was buying up the Russian fishing industry, using "compulsory tithes" from its members. At the time, I questioned how anyone could take Dvorkin seriously. Little did I know. He has also had an on-going feud with the Jehovah's Witnesses for years.

According to Dvorkin, among the 'totalitarian sects' that are dangerous cults are the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), 'neo-Pentecostals,' Church of Scientology, Unification Church, Hare Krishna, Transcendental Meditation, Church of Christ, and a number of other lesser-known (many home-grown in Russia) organizations. Dvorkin lumps these organizations all into the Jim Jones and David Koresh categories of cults and then does his best to frighten everyone away.

These "totalitarian sects," according to Dvorkin, control the consciousness of their members, have Mafia-like structures, enforce iron discipline, are like cancerous tumors, subject their members to constant coercion so that they become slaves, and their members are squeezed like lemons until they are of no further use. By labeling these churches and organizations as dangerous totalitarian cults and describing them as he does, Dvorkin automatically marginalizes them, demonizes them, suggesting that they should not have the same rights for freedom of religion and conscience as other churches.

So, who out there thinks that Dvorkin and the new Experts Council will give any Christian church other than the Orthodox Church a fair shake? How can the Council be counted on to be objective and reasonable? And what role does religious freedom play in any of this? This Council under Dvorkin helps give the local courts cover to hinder or close down non-Orthodox churches. If someone other than Dvorkin were the Council's head, I would have said that we should wait and see how this works out. But with the appointment of Dvorkin, it is clear what the Orthodox Church and the state have in mind. It is not a good day for religious freedom in Russia.

What is the State Department up to? Is international religious freedom on the radar screen?

2009-03-31T21:04:00.000-07:00

Is international religious freedom on the radar screen at the State Department? Maybe it is, but I suspect just barely. I'm sure that the people in the Office of International Religious Freedom continue to do the best that they can under the circumstances and are presumably working on their annual report. But as an outsider who can only observe what is in the public domain, I don't see a lot of evidence that international religious freedom in general, or the Office in particular, plays much of a role in these early days of the new administration.

I mentioned earlier that Don Argue had been mentioned as a possible candidate for the State Department's ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, a position mandated by law, but I can't find anything more about any sort of appointment. I will grant that there are a lot of important issues that are being dealt with, but a relegation of religious freedom to third and fourth tier status does no one any good. It is merely going through the motions. Until there is a recognition that religion and religious freedom are key factors in world affairs, international conflicts, democracy, and human rights, we will not make progress in this arena. We take these things lightly at our peril.

Thus far, I've seen Secretary Clinton "raise the issue" in some discussions with a few foreign leaders. Fine. But this hardly brings about meaningful change. I've seen that right after the inauguration, the State Department stripped down the IRF website to practically nothing and has not, to my eyes, done anything to build it back up or provide new information. I've seen how the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has had to cajole the State Department to even publicly list the Countries of Particular Concern that then-Secretary Condoleezza Rice designated prior to the end of the Bush term (Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan--with Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan receiving waivers). I've seen the USCIRF express disappointment that the State Department under both Rice and Clinton have failed to include Pakistan, Vietnam, Turkmenistan, and Iraq on the list.

I've seen the U.S. send confusing signals regarding the upcoming Durban II conference. I've seen the U.S. decide to rejoin the human rights-challenged, anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council, which is controlled by Middle Eastern, African, and Islamic states, supported by China, Russia, and Cuba. I've seen the Human Rights Council just last week pass the anti-religious freedom 'defamation of religion' resolutions. And I've seen no outward indication in general that international religious freedom matters a whole lot.

Being blind to the importance of international religious freedom is gross negligence. I hope I'm wrong on where this is going and want to be proven wrong. I welcome the evidence that this is so. The first thing that can be done is to appoint right now a strong advocate as the new ambassador-at-large who will have ready access to Secretary Clinton, a substantial budget, and support at the top. This person should not be buried in the depths of Foggy Bottom never to be seen or heard from again.

U.S. State Department Names Religious Violators, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

US names religious freedom violators, by Matthew Lee, Associated Press.

U.S. State Department overlooks ‘especially dire’ religious freedom violations in Iraq, Catholic
News Agency.

US to seek seat on UN Human Rights Council, by Matthew Lee, Associated Press.

UN's Human Rights Council passes resolution against defamation of religion proposed on behalf of the OIC.

Free Advice for Hillary Clinton on Foreign Policy and International Religious Freedom.

Obama administration blows opportunity to strongly denounce anti-Jew, anti-religious freedom Durban II conference.

UN's Human Rights Council passes resolution against defamation of religion proposed on behalf of the OIC: Check out who voted for and against

2009-03-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

As expected, the UN's Human Rights Council, dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), passed the non-binding resolution against defamation of religion last week.

The resolution was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC and was cosponsored by the freedom-loving and democratic Belarus and Venezuela. According to Pakistan's representative, "Defamation of religion led to causes which led to incitement of hatred, which in turn affected the fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals, and it was important to deal with the causes, as well as the effects. This was a serious affront to human dignity and subjected people to hatred, discrimination and violence."

This is a clever way to blame those who make negative statements about religion for the resulting violence and bloodshed by those who choose to be offended. There is no excuse for violence or intimidation against those who make statements that are considered offensive by others. Publishing cartoons or writing commentary that may be offensive to some is no reason to kill, threaten, or harm those who are exercising their right to free expression. People say intolerant and disrespectful things about my religion every day, and I don't like it. But I will also defend their right to say and write what they do. I choose not to commit violence against others and to not threaten and intimidate them for exercising these rights. When you go down that slope, it becomes very slippery indeed.

The result of the vote were as follows: In favour (23): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and South Africa.

Against (11): Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (13): Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, and Zambia.

The more democratic, the more likely to vote against. What about Japan? Latin American can't figure out where it stands, except that the further left, the more likely it is to vote for.

Action on Draft Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1) on combating defamation of religions. (Scroll down towards the bottom of the page.)

U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation, by Laura MacInnis, Reuters.

So since the term "religious freedom" seems to offend some people, what do I call my blog?

2009-03-29T16:46:00.000-07:00

"Religious freedom" as a term apparently offends some people. So says Chris Seiple, the president of the Institute for Global Engagement, in his article, 10 terms not to use with Muslims (The Christian Science Monitor). Seiple points out that terminology matters when engaging with Muslims. O.K. I'll go along with that, to an extent. But I refuse to change my blog name to the International "Promotion of Respect and Reconciliation With the Other at the Intersection of Culture and the Rule of Law – Sensitive to the Former and Consistent With the Latter" Blog. It's not very catchy. I think I'll stick with "International Religious Freedom Blog" at the risk of offending others.

Strengthened Russian state and Orthodox Church ties: "A resumption of Byzantine harmony," but at what cost to religious freedom?

2009-03-28T23:49:00.000-07:00

I found this additional bit last week that caught my attention about the increasing connection between the Orthodox Church and the state. Medvedev steers religions toward young people, but blocks Jehovah's witnesses, AsiaNews.it. Medvedev understands that he needs the support of the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church wants to take advantage of the state's preferential support.

"The head of the Kremlin has affirmed that the young generations must rediscover
their religious roots after the vacuum of values generated by the Soviet era,
and reinforced during the 1990's. For the president, the lack of moral points of
reference especially affects the age group between 14 and 30, which represents
about a fourth of the overall population. In the Year of Youth, which is being
celebrated in 2009, the state wants to develop a more effective youth policy,
taking advantage of the collaboration of religious associations on both the
federal and regional level, and continuing the cooperation already established
in the area of the family.
"For various commentators and experts, Medvedev's statements on the importance of religion in the life of the country and his direct involvement with various representatives of the traditional confessions document the intention of the Kremlin to take a step forward in relations between the state and the Orthodox Church, to confirm the Patriarch of Moscow as a point of reference for all the religions in the Federation, and to attribute a strong political value to his position."

This quote is telling: "Deacon Andrej Kuraev, a famous and very influential theologian, has called the intensification of relations between the state and the Orthodox Church a "resumption of the Byzantine harmony.""

Byzantine harmony apparently does not include harmony with non-Orthodox religions. In February, the Russian attorney general sent a letter to the Jehovah's Witnesses accusing them, among other things, of "social isolation," and behaviors that "evoke negative attitudes on the part of the populace and traditional Russian confessions." Wow. He doesn't have better things to do? Religious freedom in Russia is not a given and remains fragile for many non-Orthodox faiths.

Russia and religious freedom: Orthodox people's patriots?

2009-03-28T23:07:00.000-07:00

There were a few bits and pieces in the news recently about Russia and religious freedom that caught my eye. The first was a reference to the "Orthodox people's patriots" that are starting to patrol the streets in some cities. They have no official status or authority, but that doesn't stop them from patrolling and doing whatever people's patriots do. What is it that an Orthodox people's patriot does, anyway? The idea in and of itself sounds a bit bizarre. Are they performing a police function without police authority? Are they enforcing behavior in line with Orthodox teachings? What about their interactions with members of other faiths? This hearkens back to the Komsomol. Or is it like the religious police in Muslim countries?

I know that the Orthodox leaders are anxious about the Church's role in promoting civil society and engaging the people. But that is not something that can be forced on the people by Orthodox people's patriots. It has to be something that entices--something that people want to be a part of because they see the benefits and the personal and spiritual fulfillment.

Rights group alarmed by emergence of Orthodox people's patrols, Interfax.

I had mentioned plans for these patrols last year. (Russian Orthodox civilian guards?) It sounds like they are actually following through with it.

BYU's Cole Durham's drive for religious freedom

2009-03-28T22:15:00.000-07:00

BYU's Cole Durham has spent the past two decades advancing the cause of religious freedom throughout the world, finding his expertise needed in the nooks and crannies of the globe. He recognizes that freedom to practice one's religion, whether it is the religion that Durham practices or not, is fundamental to advancing general respect and rights for all people. I admire his skill and expertise in reaching out to such a broad spectrum of people and nations. His work has brought him attention in a couple of recent articles:

Love of law fuels fight for freedom: Cole Durham plays vital role in spreading religious liberty , by J.G. Askar, LDS Church News.

"Working on behalf of religious freedom is actually very easy for a member of the Church," he said. "The commitment to religious freedom in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is central. We have the 11th Article of Faith and its recognition of the right to freedom of worship. That's been with us since the beginning. Joseph Smith often spoke about religious freedom and its importance and how he would stand up for people from any other religion in the same way he would stand up for members of his own faith.

"At an even deeper doctrinal level, this goes to the core of doctrines of free agency and the nature of man. There is a very deep commitment to religious freedom within the LDS tradition, which extends not only to protection of members of the LDS faith, but very much to the protection of the rights of others as well." Read the rest here.

Although Durham is devoted to his church, much of his work is on behalf of those from an assortment of other religions.

The right to worship: BYU professor helps nations protect religious freedoms, by Peggy Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune.

"During the last three decades, the soft-spoken scholar has defended the importance of religious freedom in countries across the globe, including Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Thailand, and Ukraine. "

"If we don't achieve respect for religion, the alternative is escalating hostilities and dangers beyond anything we've thought of," Durham says. "On the positive side, there's a strong correlation between religious freedom and [Gross National Product], literacy and women's rights."

"We are not there to impose our American values," he says. "We just want to protect the powerless." Read the rest here.

It is somewhat paradoxical that this article about Durham's selfless efforts on behalf of respect and freedom of religion and expression yields such disrespectful comments from the local Salt Lake newspaper readers, as does any article in that paper that touches in any way on Mormonism. Incidentally, you won't find Durham pushing for any sort of 'defamation of religion' law.

Despite changes to Durban II document, Organization of Islamic Conference relentlessly pursues criminalization of 'defamation of Islam'

2009-03-25T20:42:00.000-07:00

The phrase "defamation of religion" was recently removed from the draft Durban II resolutions, but that by no means is the end of the subject. (Durban II anti-racism conference: Some changes are made but the outcome document remains fundamentally and critically flawed.)

In fact, the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference is right now pursuing 'defamation of religion' at the UN's Human Rights Council, where a resolution on the subject will be voted on in the next day or two. (Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam', by Peter Glover, American Thinker.) The attempt to legislate 'defamation of religion' is a cynical effort to intimidate critics of Islam and to eliminate freedom of expression when it comes to any sort of speech that questions Islam. This is a false terminology intended to hide what is really at stake; i.e., the advancement of Islam. The proponents claim that this is related to anti-Islam actions post 9/11. This is merely an excuse.

And it is a one-way street. What about the Islamic states that do not tolerate open religious worship by non-Muslims? What about charging the jizya poll tax for non-Muslims? Second-class non-Muslim dhimmis? Where is the toleration by Islam of other faiths, of freedom of expression, of freedom to worship according to the dictates of your conscience, of changing religions?

The OIC could certainly pursue more worthy causes, like criminalizing killing of those who leave Islam; criminalizing violent jihad; criminalizing incitement to kill infidels; criminalizing the murder of raped women by Islamic men; criminalizing killing for 'blasphemy'; encouraging freedom of religion; encouraging rights for women; encouraging freedom of expression. It turns out that these violent acts and limitations on freedom, on the one hand, and prohibitions of 'defamation of religion', on the other hand, all fit together: They bring about fear, intimidation, threats, oppression, and violence to coerce others into submission. Prohibiting the 'defamation of religion' is a step in that direction.

Where would Islam be without fear, intimidation, threats, oppression, and violence to coerce people into submission? This is a very important question.

Saudi's King Abdullah's Revolution?

2009-03-23T07:55:00.000-07:00

The Monarch Who Declared His Own Revolution: King Abdullah, 85, is racing to reform Saudi Arabia. How much can he accomplish—and will it last? By Christopher Dickey, NEWSWEEK.

The title of Dickey's article raises the key questions. Is it too little too late? Or can he effect real change during the rest of his days on earth? Perhaps he has the power to make some things happen. Where does he intend to take things? At least there is some movement in the right direction, which is more than could have been said before. I'm not going to expect, however, that tomorrow there will be real freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and equal rights for women.

From the article:

"For years the pace of reform in Saudi Arabia has reflected what seemed to be denial. Change has been almost imperceptibly slow, like a dune moving across the desert, even as the kingdom's festering problems nourished extremism. In the past few weeks, however, things have suddenly accelerated as the king has moved to show the ultraconservative Saudi religious establishment quite literally who's boss. He sacked the head of the feared religious police and the minister of justice, appointed Nora al-Fayez as deputy education minister, making her the highest-ranking female official in the country's history, and moved to equalize the education of women and men under the direction of a favored son-in-law who has been preparing for years to modernize the nation's school system. "Abdullah waited," says Robert Lacey, who wrote "The Kingdom," the classic 1981 study of Saudi Arabia, and is now working on a sequel. "He bided his time until it was appropriate for him to make the changes he wanted." Whatever the reason, the 85-year-old monarch has begun acting like a leader whose vision is becoming clear just as time is running short."

Tibet has absolute religious freedom and observes all human rights: so says Living Buddha Tenzinchodrak on his magical propaganda tour

2009-03-19T21:18:00.000-07:00

All this stuff about lack of religious freedom we've been hearing for all these years, it turns out, is hogwash, according to the "Living Buddha Shingtsa Tenzinchodrak," who is on tour with a five-member Tibetan delegation to the U.S. among other places.

"It's completely the (Chinese) people's choice to believe in religion or not, or for that matter, which religion to follow," he says.

"The 59-year-old living Buddha of the Kagyu sect of Tibetan Buddhism, also said that the region saw serious conflicts between different religious sects before 1959, but "now all religious sects and religions co-exist peacefully"."

China Daily gleefully reports that all is well and has been well in Tibet for a long time. (Living Buddha: Religious freedom respected, China Daily.)

The same article: "Chen Ching-chun, head of a Chinese society in New York, said he visited Tibet in 2007 and was convinced that "there is no such thing like oppression of religion in the region".

""I think the so-called religious oppression was fabricated by the Western media and politicians for their own interests," he said."

I'd like to know more about these guys. What is their background, what is their agenda, who funds them?

Numerous news outlets are reporting on the Living Buddha's statements, including USA Today (Tibetan delegation disputes 'lies', by Ken Dilanian), which offers a different take: "Lobsang Sangay, a native Tibetan and senior research fellow at Harvard Law School, says he is quite familiar with such delegations. "They are paraded to read a script," he said. "It's not surprising that what they say is so out of touch with the reality that credible journalists and scholars have reported. It is kind of a desperate attempt on the Chinese part to whitewash the tragic reality in Tibet.""

Perhaps here is the key reason for the visit and propaganda: "The visit was also geared in part for domestic Chinese consumption: The news conference and the interview with USA TODAY were filmed by CCTV, the Chinese state television network."

This sidelight to the story was amusing and disturbing: "The news conference drew a few non-journalists, including Washington lawyer Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton whose law firm, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, has three offices in China. "I have the greatest respect for the Dalai Lama … but there is another side to the story," Davis said." So Davis is buying this story?

But "Ngawang Sangdrol, a Tibetan activist who says she was tortured and beaten during 11 years in prison for political protests, doesn't see it that way. "If people agreed with their rule, why are people protesting, knowing they risk torture and prison?" asked Sangdrol, who now lives in the U.S. "The Tibetan people have not accepted Chinese rule.""

The real hogwash: The propaganda show by Tenzinchodrak et al.

Durban II anti-racism conference: Some changes are made but the outcome document remains fundamentally and critically flawed

2009-03-18T21:55:00.001-07:00

Getting rid of the defamation of religion language is important. Getting rid of the references to Israel is important. But the recent changes to the Durban II outcome document are not enough. The wishy-washy language leaves too many opportunities to keep the idea of defamation of religion alive and to reaffirm the depiction of Palestinians as victims of Israel's racism. It still reaffirms the horrendous Durban I outcome document, and although it got rid of some objectionable phrases, it still retains the same objectionable general principles. The 17 pages of double-talk, gobbledygook (incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists), diplomat-speak, gibberish starts from the fundamentally flawed Durban I basis. Making these few changes to appease the U.S. and others is like trying to repair a crumbling skyscraper by painting the 43rd floor.

Obama Should Denounce Durban II: The U.N. betrays human rights, and Israel, yet again, by Anne Bayefsky, Forbes.

The Dutch have the right idea. They prepared a short, two-page document that references the key issues, mostly which should receive universal support, while leaving out the more contentious provisions. It is also not an Islam-centric document.

Dutch Draft outcome document to the Durban Review Conference

Among the provisions of the Dutch draft:

"Reconfirms that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our fight against racism;
Calls for better implementation worldwide of existing international legal standards to protect against those who incite violence or hatred;

"Recognizes with deep concern the global rise in the number of incidents of intolerance and violence against members of religious minorities in various parts of the world motivated by different forms of religious intolerance, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia;

"Reiterates that freedom of religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression and non-discrimination are interdependent and stresses the need to strengthen the process of effectively adjudicating cases associated with incitement to national racial and religious hatred in accordance with the permissible limitations under article 20 of the ICCPR and analogous instruments;

"Underlines that racial discrimination condoned by governmental and state agencies, policies and practices violates human rights and may endanger friendly relations between peoples, cooperation among nations, and international peace and security;

"Deplores the numerous occurrences of internal conflicts and inter-ethnic and intra-religious or communal violence, including those that appear to be based on tribal lines, which have lead to casualties and killings, torture, massive displacement, rape and destruction of property and infrastructures, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide;

"Condemns all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at an equal level;

"Acknowledges that there should be no hierarchy among potential victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and that all victims should receive the same attention, protection and treatment in order to ensure the full enjoyment of their human rights."

Real change in Afghanistan cannot be expected until it recognizes freedom of expression and religion: Journalist's conviction for blasphemy upheld

2009-03-11T03:00:00.000-07:00

Parwez Kambakhsh, a young Afghan journalist, was sentenced to death in 2008 for blasphemy for allegedly "writing and distributing an article that criticized the role of women in the Quran. Kambakhsh says he merely downloaded the article from the internet and sent it to friends."

According to Human Rights Watch, "While in detention, Kambakhsh says, he was forced to sign a confession under duress. On January 22, 2008, the Primary Court in Balkh sentenced him to death for blasphemy in a trial that lasted only a few minutes. No evidence was presented, and Kambakhsh was not given access to legal representation. It later emerged that the judges had accepted as evidence against Kambakhsh statements from fellow students and teachers that he asked "difficult questions" in class, a cell phone text message joke he had sent to a friend, and a history book found in his bedroom."

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, commuting his sentence to 20 years in prison; the Supreme Court recently upheld that sentence.

Afghanistan: 20-Year Sentence for Journalist Upheld: Politicized Case Shows Grave Threat to Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Watch.

More mayhem in Afghanistan: Absurdity of Kambakhsh case.

Cold blooded murder of Christian aid worker in Afghanistan brings scrutiny to religious freedom and human rights.

The Kambakhsh case highlights the serious issues in Afghanistan. There is very little freedom of expression, the hardliner Islamists still rule the day, and there is no freedom of religion. As long as this is the case, there is little prospect for any real reform or long-term success in Afghanistan in terms of establishing a more pro-democratic, free people that will cast off terrorism and ally itself with the democratic West.

Free speech for Muslim anti-war protesters who heap abuse on returning British troops, but what about Islam critic Geert Wilders?

2009-03-11T02:32:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with this picture? Muslim anti-war protesters abuse troops: Soldiers at homecoming parade in Luton branded 'butchers of Basra', by Terri Judd, The Independent.

"Islamic protesters brandishing placards hurled abuse at soldiers parading to mark their return home from Iraq yesterday. Around 20 men yelled "terrorists" and held homemade signs denouncing the soldiers as "butchers of Basra" and "baby killers" as they marched through Luton in Bedfordshire. Other signs described the 200 men and women from the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment as "Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists"."

Ahh. Free speech is an interesting thing. The Muslim protesters in England took to the streets to spout hate-filled, inflammatory messages about the government, British soldiers, and their actions. They could claim such a right. But it was just a couple of weeks ago when Geert Wilders, a Dutch critic of Islam, was denied entry into the UK because he was too provocative. Am I missing something? Who decides which voices can or cannot be heard?

Leaflets that were passed out in Luton stated, "We urge the Muslims of Luton not to stay silent against these murderers of Muslim men, women and children and to do what we as Muslims have been obliged to do and speak against an open evil."

Stories like this are now appearing every day in the UK.

Incidentally, is there any Muslim country where the people could have demonstrated so openly against the government, its soldiers, and their actions?

So this is the new order of things in Saudi Arabia?

2009-03-10T22:17:00.000-07:00

Saudi Woman, 75, Sentenced to 40 Lashings, AP via Fox News.

"The sentencing of a 75-year-old widow to 40 lashes and four months in prison for mingling with two young men who were reportedly bringing her bread has sparked new criticism of Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary." One of the men was her late husband's nephew.

The Saudi king had dismissed several high ranking officials recently, promising reform. So much for that.

As long as the religious police are going to pursue these types of activities, there will be no hope for reform, for women's rights, for freedom, including religious freedom. It seems unbelievable that this stuff still happens in the world today. But then I remember, it is Saudi Arabia. There is such a long way to go.

Italy to pull out of UN racism conference

2009-03-08T21:14:00.000-07:00

Italy is the first EU country to join with the U.S. in indicating that it will pull out of the UN's Durban II racism conference unless the defining document is substantially changed. Canada and Israel pulled out previously. It's time for the rest of Europe and other democratic-leaning countries to follow suit. Time is getting short.

Italy pulls out of UN racism conference, AP.

Geert Wilders Interview: Islam and Free Speech

2009-03-08T20:46:00.000-07:00

The Boston Globe today published Jeff Jacoby's interview of Geert Wilders, which is found here. Wilders references the British home secretary who refused Wilders' entry into the UK because "Your statements about Muslims and their beliefs . . . would threaten community harmony, and therefore public security, in the UK." Wilders noted the double standard of prohibiting his expression of his political viewpoints while on the other hand, there are Muslims making outrageous statements that incite violence without any sort of restrictions or recriminations.

Says Wilders, "I have nothing against the people. I don't hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life - economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book - but it's not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values."

Check out the rest of the interview.

Any movement on naming State Department's new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom?

2009-03-02T02:15:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen much out there about the appointment of the State Department's new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, but Timothy Morgan of Christianity Today suggests that Don Argue is on the short list. (Frist, Argue May Join Obama Foreign Policy Team.)

"Meanwhile, religious freedom advocates have been questioning who is on the short list to become the next ambassador for international religious freedom. I keep hearing word that Don Argue (right), the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who has been very close to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, is on the short list of potential nominees.
Of course, the nomination of Argue for this incredibly important post for religious freedom would be a strong break with the way the Bush administration managed religious freedom concerns."

Morgan goes on to get in some digs at the outgoing ambassador John Hanford: "Outgoing ambassador John Hanford, granted did some important work on Vietnam, but honestly, there were many evangelical leaders and policy-makers in Washington who are glad to see him go.
For reasons undisclosed, Hanford was unable or unwilling to make international religious freedom a highly visible and urgent issue. His behind the scenes strategy seems to have accomplished little on the ground. Christians in India, China, Sudan, North Korea, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan are much at risk. The honor roll of modern martyrs is long enough, thank you very much."

I will be curious to see if the new ambassador is given much support or if he or she will be relegated to second or third-tier status. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of urgency in making the appointment.

Obama administration blows opportunity to strongly denounce anti-Jew, anti-religious freedom Durban II conference

2009-03-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

It is at least a start (Durban II, get out now), but a weak one. There is no way that the US should participate in the Durban II conference. It is fraught with problems that cannot be overcome and should be scrapped altogether. Somehow the Obama administration had thought that with its new perspective and skills, it could slip in at the 23rd hour and change the course of the anti-Jew, anti-religious freedom conference. US representatives had participated in some 30 meetings at which the conference document's language was reviewed and revised, but in the end, the document was worse, not better. The announcement on Friday that the US would withdraw unless the final conference document removes references to Israel and to criticism of religion is a small step in the right direction. But instead of coming out and making a forceful statement and being a strong leader, the US equivocated.

US won't participate in racism conference, by Edith M. Lederer, AP. The headline by itself sounds fine. The article recounts that the Obama administration wanted to reassess the negotiations before deciding on participation. I'm not sure what further assessments needed to be made, but I'll give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this. But it has now had plenty of time to reassess and to take a leadership role. Instead, it takes a mushy stand, leaving open the opportunity to join in later.

The Obama Administration Double-Deals On Israel, by Anne Bayefsky, Forbes.com. Bayefsky offers excellent commentary about the Obama administration's "gerrymandering," trying to be all things to all people. The problem is that it shows no clear direction. "After sowing confusion over the phone lines, the State Department chose late Friday night to put the real deal in print. Their release reads: "the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable," and "the United States will not ... participate in a conference based on this text," but we will "re-engage if a document that meets [our] criteria becomes the basis for deliberations." A new version must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict," and "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion." And by the way, it continued, the U.S. will "participate" for the first time in the U.N. Human Rights Council. All of this leaves the American people not knowing whether they're coming or going.
. . .
"In fact, Obama's four deal-breakers do not include many other troubling provisions still on Durban II's negotiating table. These include: questioning the veracity of the Holocaust, a variety of attacks on freedom of expression in addition to "defamation of religion," and incendiary claims of "Islamophobia"--the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims."

I cannot see how the US can believe that there is any real opportunity to make the Durban II document anywhere near acceptable.

The forked US tongue on 'Durban 2', by Melanie Phillips, The Spectator. Phillips picks up Bayefsky's line: "So to keep the Israel-destroyers sweet, Obama has thrown them a bone. A big fat juicy one. The US may not be going back into the 'Durban 2 'process, but it will go one better – it will re-enter the Human Rights Council itself as an observer and will stand for election to it. Until now it was boycotting the council precisely because the connection with ‘human rights’ of a body whose members are overwhelmingly not democracies and which include China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba is a sick joke – and because its overwhelming purpose is to delegitimise Israel and engineer its destruction. Accordingly, it singles out Israel for (unwarranted) vilification while ignoring real human rights abuses elsewhere. "

There remains an opportunity to be a leader on this, but the time is short. Equivocation is not the way to lead.

Durban II: Get out now

2009-02-23T00:03:00.000-08:00

The Durban II Conference, otherwise known as the anti-Israel, anti-religious freedom, anti-free speech, Organization of Islamic Conference conference, is gearing up for the April meetings at the UN in Geneva. The Conference is to implement the anti-racism decisions of the first Durban conference held in September 2001, which decisions include the assertion of Israel as a racist state. The Obama Administration seems to think that it can somehow influence the direction of the Durban II outcome by participating in the preparatory discussions; it has not ruled out participating in the Conference itself. The possibility of changing the anti-Israel and anti-religious freedom direction, however, is just a dream.

Anne Bayefsky writes in Forbes.com (The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel) that the State Department is covering up its role, claiming to push back against anti-Israel pronouncements while in reality it does nothing. When given the opportunity to oppose more anti-Israel rhetoric, it whiffed. On the other hand, Iran jumped all over a provision that would decry attempts to deny the Holocaust, rendering it a disputed item to be debated later rather than adopted now.

Bayefsky writes:

"The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following: the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial, a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets, broad objections to
anything having to do with sexual orientation, vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims), and numerous attacks on free speech.

"This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms. It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction."

Other articles of note:

Obama's Durban Gambit, by Caroline Glick, realclearpolitics.com. "Some could chalk up the US's rejection of Israel's urgent entreaties as an honest difference of opinion. But what lies behind Israel's requests for a US boycott is not a partisan agenda, but a clearheaded acknowledgement that the Durban II conference is inherently devoted to the delegitimization and destruction of the Jewish state. And by joining in the planning sessions, the US has become a full participant in legitimizing and so advancing this overtly anti-Jewish agenda."

Wiesel and other Jewish leaders to protest at 'Durban II' in Geneva, by Raphael Aren, Haaretz.com.

OIC Secretary General Welcomes the US Administration Decision to Participate in the preparatory meeting of the Durban II Review Conference, Isria.info. Imagine that. The OIC thinks it is good for the U.S. to participate.

Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner, signandsight.com. Bruckner describes the hate-filled atmosphere of Durban I that degenerated into anger, bloodlust, insults. His takeaway summarizes the situation best: "In a nutshell: Anti-racism in the UN has become the ideology of totalitarian regimes who use it in their own interests. Dictatorships or notorious half-dictatorships (Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba etc.) co-opt democratic language and instrumentalise legal standards, to position themselves against democracies without ever putting turning the questions on themselves. A new Inquisition is establishing itself, which brandishes "defamation of religion" to quash any impulses of doubt, particularly in Islamic countries. And this at a time when millions of Muslims, particularly in Europe, want to distance themselves from bigotry and fundamentalism. In a reversal of values, anti-racism is being propagated by despots in the service of obscurantism and the suppression of women! It is being used to justify precisely the things which it was formulated to fight: suppression, prejudice, inequality."

The original Declaration from Durban I: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, Declaration, Durban, South Africa, August 31, 2001-September 8, 2001.

My take: The U.S. should take an immediate and forceful stand against any hint of anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-religious freedom, and anti-defamation provisions, and then it has to get out and encourage other like-minded states to follow. Canada had the courage to step away from this farce. The U.S. must also. Otherwise, its participation will do far more damage than good.

Religious Freedom Quote of the Week: We claim the privilige of worshiping . . .

2009-02-22T19:19:00.000-08:00

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

--------------11th Article of Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Freedom of Religion at Risk in Armenia

2009-02-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

Armenia is struggling with religious freedom and other freedoms as are many of the other former Soviet republics. Proposed amendments to Armenian law will significantly restrict minority religious practices, making it nearly impossible to proselytize and to organize religious organizations in Armenia. A leading spokesman for these amendments and other anti-democratic legislation is Armen Ashotian, "considered as the rising star of the pro-Russian wing of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia" which is the home for nationalists, former Soviet officials, and oligarchs. One of Ashotian's more recent acts is to arrange for the Armenian Apostolic Church to build a chapel in the National Assembly premises. In his view, it is entirely appropriate to stack the deck in favor of the Armenian Church, to the detriment of all others. The ideas of pluralism, freedom, and democratic principles remain foreign concepts for many.

Armenian Religious Minorities Complain of Discrimination, Institute for War and Peace Reporting. "Shmavon Ghevondian, a cleric from the Armenian church, told IWPR that any religious group that did not follow its canons counted as a “sect”. “Religion is dividing the nation, and if ethnic differences are added to this, then we have a far from attractive future for our three-million strong nation,” he said. He said he thought the Jehovah’s Witnesses were the most dangerous of the religious groups to appear in post-Soviet Armenia. He added that he thought religious freedom in the country was unnecessary and had been introduced solely to obey the rules of European institutions."

I guess it's clear where the Armenian Apostolic Church stands--get rid of religious freedom.

"Armen Ashotian, chairman of the parliamentary commission on science, education, culture, youth and sport, who presented the draft changes to parliament on February 5, explained the terminology used. “We tried to create a definition of the hunt for souls and came up with the following – in means preaching among a religious population or among people who do not belong to any religious confession, when this is conducted with material incentives, or with the use of physical, moral, psychological or material compulsion, and creating distrust or hate of other religious organisations and their followers,” he said."

This is drafted in such an ambiguous way as to render any person or organization that seeks to proselytize at risk. What does it mean to use moral compulsion? Does one demonstrate distrust of another religious organization merely by the act of suggesting that their church has something more or better or even different to offer?

Armenia Set To Ban ‘Hunt For Souls’, Armenialiberty.org. "Armen Ashotian, chairman of the parliament committee on science, education and culture, denied that the proposed amendments to Armenia’s law on religious organizations are aimed at further strengthening the Armenian Apostolic Church. “This bill is not aimed at strengthening a particular religious organization at the expense of others,” he said. “After all, the strength of a faith is derived not from a law but the tenets and preaching of that organization.”"

"Ashotian insisted, however, that they do not run counter to the European Convention on Human Rights."

Ashotian's assertions are really something. If the strength of a faith is derived not from a law but by the tenets and preaching of that organization, then why not put that principle into practice by allowing religious freedom--allow all to participate on equal footing? His proposed law seeks to strengthen the Armenian Apostolic Church by eliminating any sort of competition, thus allowing that faith's strength to be derived from a law and not by its tenets and preaching. If there is confidence in the tenets and preaching of the Armenian Church, then Ashotian and the Church have nothing to fear.

Ashotian's assertions that the law does not run counter to the European Convention on Human Rights is equally off base. The proposed law limits the ability of one "to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance" as stated in the Convention. Ashotian must be attempting the stretch of thought that the law is necessary for the interests of "public safety" and the "protection of public order and morals." It protects public order like eliminating freedom of the press or freedom of assembly protects public order, much like was done in the old Soviet regime. It's as though there is a fear of plurality and allowing the people to express themselves, religiously and politically.

ARMENIA: Two years' imprisonment for organising sharing of faith? By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service. "Religious minorities have expressed alarm to Forum 18 News Service at proposed amendments to Armenia's Religion Law and Criminal Code which suddenly began passage through the country's parliament on 5 February. In particular, they are worried about proposed punishments of up to two years' imprisonment for those outside the dominant Armenian Apostolic Church who organise campaigns to spread their faith in public and a proposed five-fold increase in the number of members required to register a religious organisation. "If we don't react this Law will be adopted," Rene Leonian, head of the Evangelical Church of Armenia, told Forum 18 from the capital Yerevan on 9 February. "If it is adopted, it would create an intolerant atmosphere in the religious field.""

Religious persecution in Iran

2009-02-20T07:53:00.000-08:00

Again, religious persecution in Iran, by Ethel C. Fenig, American Thinker. Fenig reviews ongoing persecution of Bahais, Sufis, and Jews in Iran. "Most so called human rights groups and others who complain loudly about the U.S.'s and Israel's treatment of minorities, even those who want to destroy them, are relatively silent about Iran's actions."

The UK's complete submissiveness to Muslim protests and intimidation

2009-02-17T21:47:00.000-08:00

It seems that everyday there is something reported in British news that tops the previous day's absurd reaction to some Muslim protest or intimidation. The latest is that librarians in the UK now are directed to place all holy books on the top shelves so that one holy book will not be placed higher than another. This was done in response to complaints by Muslims that the Koran had been placed on lower shelves, which they said was not in keeping with the holy nature of the books.

Libraries put Bible on top shelf in a sop to Muslims, by Steve Doughty, MailOnline:

"The report said the city’s librarians consulted the Federation of Muslim Organisations and were advised that all religious texts should be kept on the top shelf. ‘This meant that no offence is caused, as the scriptures of all the major faiths are given respect in this way, but none is higher than any other,’ the guidance added. Critics said such a move implied religious works should be treated as objects of veneration rather than as books to be read. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: ‘Libraries and museums are not places of worship. They should not be run in accordance with particular religious beliefs. ‘This is violating the principles of librarianship and it is part of an insidious trend.’"

This type of response does not encourage freedom of expression or freedom of religion but rather encourages further protests and intimidation by Muslims. There will always be something more. What will it be tomorrow?

Something is up in Saudi Arabia: Reform by King Abdullah?

2009-02-17T20:40:00.000-08:00

New Hope for Reform in Saudi Arabia? by Nina Shea, National Review Online. "Saudi Arabia has just had its own St. Valentine’s Day Massacre -- a bloodless one that brings hope of much-needed reform. On February 14, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah carried out a sweeping shake up of his cabinet and government. He replaced several of the government’s top Wahhabi ideologues with others thought to be more religiously tolerant, reform-minded, and with close working ties to the king." Check out the rest.

Saudi Arabia: Change We Can Believe In? Eric Etheridge of The New York Times pulls together additional commentary.

The upshot: Saudi Arabia has been mired deep in radical, destructive Wahhabism for such a long time that hope for change has been dim, at best. At last, these moves by King Abdullah open the curtains a little bit and give reason for a touch of optimism, but we'll wait to see what the results are. If these moves are the beginning of real reform, the long-term effect can be substantial not only in Saudi Arabia but also in the Muslim world. It's too early, however, to get overly excited.

Geert Wilders --Some freedom of expression is more free than others, apparently

2009-02-16T20:09:00.000-08:00

Geert Wilders is a controversial guy. Most people can agree on that point, at least. He's said some things about Muslims that have angered Muslims, and he does it in a way to bring attention to Islam and radical Muslims. A member of the Dutch parliament, Wilders was invited by Malcolm Pearson, a member of the House of Lords, and Baroness Caroline Cox, a human rights activist, to come to Britain to screen Wilders' short film, Fitna. Fitna takes verses of the Quran and interposes images of terrorist acts, speeches of radical imams, headlines regarding radical Islam, and violent messages of radical Muslims. It's only about 15 minutes long and anybody can watch it on youtube--just look for Fitna and Geert Wilders.

It was too much to have Wilders on British soil for Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who would not let Wilders out of the airport into the country. Wilders, you see, threatens community harmony and therefore public safety, she says.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech and for Britain.

Here are some commentators on the subject:

UK ban on Islamophobic MP backfires, by David Sapsted, The National (United Arab Emirates). "The UK government’s decision to ban an Islamophobic Dutch MP from entering Britain appeared to have backfired spectacularly yesterday. Not only did Gordon Brown’s government find itself at the centre of a storm over the rights to freedom of speech, but Geert Wilders, an MP who was practically unknown outside his native Holland a week ago, has suddenly found himself a celebrity across Europe."

Labour bares its appeaser’s teeth to unbending Muslims, by Minette Marrin, TimesOnline (UK). "What I think it means was that some British Muslims – enough to cause trouble and bad publicity for the government – would get upset and angry if both Wilders and his film appeared; there were protests worldwide when his film was released in Holland last year and, reportedly, threats of organised protest here. So Wilders was kept away because of tacit threats from some British Muslims who won’t accept criticism of any kind."

England's Muslim Spleen: Brits Ban a Foe of Islamism, by John O'Sullivan, New York Post. "All this reflects an entrenched establishment attitude that the Muslim community is highly combustible and must be appeased. And, because Muslim extremists know this to be the official view, they're likely to keep inventing pretexts for threats and riots. The Brits, asked to choose between multiculturalism and freedom, will choose by degrees to be unfree."

Preserving ‘Harmony’ for Islamic Radicals: Geert Wilders is barred from entering the United Kingdom, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review. "It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster. If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face."

Geert Wilders has just made our leaders look truly idiotic: What were the Labour hierarchy doing giving publicity to an obscure Dutch right wing politician? by Catherine Bennett, The Observer. "Wilders had to be banned, says Huhne, because his film is so anti-Islamic that it might provoke anti-Muslim violence even in those of us who managed to get through The Satanic Verses without acquiring a criminal record. The dreadful images, he cautions, "risk causing serious harm to others". Though not caused by him, of course. Maybe he watched it with his eyes shut."

Kazakhstan gets it right: Constitutional Council rules that anti religious freedom law is unconstitutional

2009-02-11T21:08:00.001-08:00

Kazakhstan's Constitutional Council stepped up and did the right thing when it ruled the new amendments to the country's religion law to be unconstitutional. The parliament had overwhelmingly voted in favor of the amendments, which would have significantly restricted religious freedom and set the country back, hearkening to the old Soviet days. The Central Asian states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union have struggled to maintain a course towards more human rights and freedoms, succumbing to more nationalist and fundamentalist tendencies. Perhaps this action by the Constitutional Council will help push the other Central Asian states back on course. It certainly helps President Nazarbayev and avoids a sticky situation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which Nazarbayev is slated to chair soon. A new anti-religious freedom law in the new chairman's own country is the last thing the OSCE and Nazarbayev need for their credibility.

Kazakhstan's amendments to religion law ruled unconstitutional, Interfax.

For more about events leadingup to the decision, see here.

China called on carpet before the UN Human Rights Council for human rights record

2009-02-10T22:47:00.000-08:00

According to Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong, who addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday, China respects the princple of the universality of human rights; the people in China are free to voice their opinion to the media and the government opposes torture. (The U.S., by the way, does not participate in the Council because it believes the Council has no credibility; there are not enough protections to keep the bad guys off, making the Council a tool for violators, controlled, to a large extent by Islamic countries. The Council has no particular authority other than the ability to make recommendations to the UN General Assembly. See my prior blog entry here. The Obama administration is trying to figure out if it will be willing to participate in the future.)

The Human Rights Council is trying to show some legitimacy by reviewing each UN member's human rights every four years. Some say that we should be grateful just for the fact that China actually submitted a report and participated in the review. Amnesty International was not impressed. But at least there were those Council members who were willing to ask the questions about religious freedom, freedom of expression, torture, and other hot topics. And some NGOs working in China were able to present their views to the Council. So, perhaps it is a slight step forward. Kind of.

China faces unprecedented UN human rights scrutiny, Christian Science Monitor.

China Tells U.N. Panel That It Respects Rights, Washington Post.

Economics 'masking China rights record', BBC News.

Persecution of former Muslims who converted to Christianity in Britain

2009-02-10T22:01:00.000-08:00

Check out this video from the UK show "Dispatches" (9:35 minutes long; courtesy of EuropeNews) which tells about a Muslim man who converted to Christianity and the persecution and intimidation he and his family endured at the hands of other Muslims in the UK. When this man converted to Christianity, the word spread like wildfire among the Muslim community, and other young Muslim men told him that if they had been in Pakistan (where his family was from) or another Muslim country, they would have been first in line to cut off his head. There were threats of killing, his home was vandalized, his family was harassed.

The reporter who interviewed the man visited a local Islamic bookstore to see what the books said about converting from Islam and noted the quotations about apostasy being punishable by death, such as this one: "Anyone who rejects Islam and abandons it, cut off his head." There must be no tolerance for this type of thinking anywhere.

A few years ago here in the U.S. I met a Muslim woman who had converted to Christianity. She was married to a Muslim man who had physically abused her, and she was certain that he would seriously harm her if he found out that she had converted. She was trying to hide from him and ultimately was able to move to safety in another state with other family members that were not as hardline in their views. I don't know where she is now or how things turned out, but I recall the intense fear and terror she felt, wondering if she could ever be safe.

Back to the video: The reporter interviewed a moderate UK sheikh who believes that those who say the Koran requires the death penalty for someone who converts are wrong. He points out the verse which states that there is no compulsion in Islam. He notes that those who wish to support their views on the death penalty for apostasy can find some text and provide their own interpretations to support their views, but they are wrong and lack understanding. More must be done to support this tone and understanding among Muslims throughout the world. Those countries that support punishments for apostasy should be held accountable, and those countries that do not support such punishments must ensure protection of the rights, freedoms, and personal safety of those who exercise their freedom of conscience and convert to another religion.

Another Take on Conversion and Religious Freedom--This Time in London

2009-02-09T23:12:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I wrote about the risks of converting from Islam in Saudi Arabia and about the proposed anti-conversion law in Sri Lanka. And now there is this in London: Foster mother struck off for letting Muslim girl convert to Christianity (Daily Mail). A woman has been a foster mother in London for over 80 children over the past ten years and has an "unblemished" record. A 16-year old (now 17) Muslim girl made an independent decision to convert to Christianity while in the foster mother's care. The foster mother tried to discourage the girl, even offering to take her to Muslim places of worship and to friends and family with whom she could worship, but the girl chose to be baptized as a Christian anyway. The social worker voiced no objections, and there was no history of similar occurrences. Nevertheless, the foster mother, who's sole source of income came from providing foster care, has been stricken from the register of approved foster parents.

Certainly you would expect a foster mother to not exert any undue pressure on children in her care to change religions, but this situation is far removed from any such activity. Is this action a matter of political correctness? Is it a result of fear or intimidation? Can the state mandate that a 16-year-old young man or young woman in the care of a foster parent cannot change religions? The parents do not appear to be in the picture, and so the state becomes the parent by essentially banning any religious conversions while in foster care, or else.

More on Conversion: Sri Lanka's Badly Conceived Bill

2009-02-09T01:06:00.000-08:00

Sri Lanka's parliament is expected to debate and vote on a bill this month that prohibits religious conversion by "force, fraud, or allurement," whatever that means. The bill focuses on the people or organizations that participate in the converting and less on the person who converts. If you "allure" someone to convert to your religion, you can be fined and sent to prison. How does the parliament define what it means to "allure" one to convert? Does teaching about the religion allure one to convert? Does a religious charitable organization, in the course of its charitable services and offerings, provide a gift or thing of value as an inducement to convert? Does living a good life that others want to emulate "allure" one to convert? Before one converts to another religion, something about it must be alluring. The ambiguity and nature of the bill are guaranteed to lead to abuse.

A Buddhist nationalist party (National Heritage Party), led by Buddhist monks, has spearheaded the bill which would criminalize such conversions, even though the definition of the banned conversions is so vague as to invite abuse and heavy-handedness. Buddhists constitute 68% of the population, with 11% Hindu, 9% Muslim, and 7% Christian. By the way, the Sri Lankan constitution states, “Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”

Anti-conversion bill: minorities fear restrictions on religious freedom, AsiaNews.it. "Most Sri Lankan Buddhists welcomed the anti-conversion bill. A young university student told AsiaNews that “this law is as necessary as the government’s destruction of the LTTE (Tamil Tigers rebels). We must rid ourselves of all those who convert (others), priests and pastors who destroy our Buddhist-Sinhalese culture. Christians are living in this land peacefully because of the great Buddhism. . . . Otherwise they would have washed out long ago.”"

U.S. Congress Pressures Sri Lanka on Anti-Conversion Law, The Becket Fund. A group of Congressmen recognizes that the legislation is a move backwards for human rights and religious freedom in Sri Lanka. The letter notes that the law will harm and not protect religious freedom and peaceful religious dialogue, as it is overbroad and targets all religious conversions, not just so-called "unethical conversions." Congressional Letter to Sri Lanka Ambassador. The Congressional Letter notes that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief found no evidence of forced conversions.

Human Rights Activist Letter to Sri Lanka Ambassador. This letter, from various religious human rights organizations and commissioners of the US Commission on International Religion Freedom, notes that any claim to absolute religious truth can constitute "force" because it is a "threat of religious disgrace."

Conversion in Saudi Arabia: A Matter of Life and Death

2009-02-08T22:04:00.000-08:00

It is absolutely insane that one's conversion to another faith could result in imprisonment or even torture and death in some countries. But yet in many Muslim countries, choosing to follow another religion other than the majority religion of one's birth may be the ultimate declaration of faith, knowing that you can lose all that you have in this world as a result. It doesn't matter that these countries have signed the various UN treaties that forbid such actions.

Saudi Arabia is at the top of the list. Saudi Blogger Detained for Recording Conversion to Christianity, by Dibin Samuel, Christianity Today. "A 28-year-old blogger who recorded his conversion from Islam to Christianity has been detained by authorities in Saudi Arabia. Hamoud Bin Saleh was arrested last month, according to International Christian Concern (ICC), and detained at Eleisha political prison in Riyadh for expressing his views on Islam in his blog "Masihi Saudi" at christforsaudi.blogspot.com. . . According to ICC, Bin Saleh, who was arrested in November 2008, was released by the government, during the Saudi-initiated interfaith dialogue held at the United Nations in New York. However, after the conference, the officials chose to re-arrest Bin Saleh." Bin Saleh must have understood the risk that he faced by publishing his conversion; yet, he chose to express his feelings, willing to make a statement about exercising a fundamental right to choose his religion. What will happen to him?

This arrest comes on the heals of a young woman in Saudi Arabia who converted to Christianity, was convicted for it, and her father, to cleanse the family, cut out her tongue and burned her alive last year. Christian Convert Burned Alive in Saudi Arabia, by Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna.

From The Whisperers

2009-02-05T03:09:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I wrote about the impact of intimidation and terror on free expression, particularly in connection with Orlando Figes's book, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. I came across this passage from the book that captured a snippet of what society had devolved into as a result of the intimidation. Figes quotes writer Mikhail Prishvin, who wrote this in 1937:

"Our Russian people, like snow-covered trees, are so overburdened with the problems of survival, and want so much to talk to one another about it, that they simply lack the strength to hold out any more. But as soon as someone gives in, he is overheard by someone else - and he disappears! People know they can get into trouble for a single conversation; and so they enter into a conspiracy of silence with their friends. My dear friend N . . . was delighted to spot me in a crowded [train] compartment, and when at last a seat was free, he sat down next to me. He wanted to say something but was unable to say it in such a crowd. He became so tense that every time he prepared himself to speak he looked around at the people on one side of us, and then at the people on the other side, and all he could bring himself to say was: 'Yes . . .' And I said the same in return to him, and in this way, for two hours, we travelled together from Moscow to Zagorsk:

'Yes, Mikhail Mikhailovich.'

'Yes, Georgii Eduardovich.'"

Stalin seems so far away, but yet there are so many countries today where their people cannot openly express themselves without great risk.

OSCE's legal opinion on proposed anti-religious freedom laws in Kazakhstan sites glaring problems

2009-02-04T22:24:00.000-08:00

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recently released its legal opinion on Kazakhstan's proposed anti-religious freedom laws that are awaiting the review of the Constitutional Council. (The Constitutional Council is not exactly an independent body, as its chair can be fired by President Nazarbayev.) The Council's review is expected to be completed within the next week. Whether the Council addresses the issues raised in the OSCE's opinion is an open question, especally in light of the overwhelming support for the legislation by the parliament.

The OSCE opinion lists these glaring shortcomings of the legislation:

"[M]any improvements have been made in the legislation between the time it was submitted to the Advisory Council for comment in May and the time it was passed in November. However, there are a number of residual problematic issues in the Proposed Religion Law include the following:

(1) a general pattern of structuring provisions in ways that impose impermissible limitations on manifestations of religion, in violation of applicable limitation clauses of international instruments;
(2) failure to fully respect the right of religious communities to acquire legal entity status;
(3) lack of clear standards for ascribing liability for wrongdoing of particular individuals to religious organizations;
(4) vague provisions which fail to comply with fundamental rule of law constraints because they are insufficiently precise and fail to give fair notice of what the law requires;
(5) inappropriate constraints on rights to express and disseminate religious beliefs;
(6) risks of non-neutral evaluation of the substantive content of religious beliefs;
(7) proscription of religious activities carried out by unregistered groups and on some of the religious activities of groups that have only “record registration;”
(8) the requirement of an excessive number of members in order to obtain legal entity status (50 for each local religious organization);
(9) inadequate protection of the right of religious communities to autonomy in structuring their own affairs;
(10) parental consent provisions that are overly rigid and could deprive mature minors of religious freedom rights and could impose liability on religious groups for unpredictable teenage behavior despite good faith efforts to respect parental wishes regarding involvement of their children in religious activities;
(11) excessive penalties for non-compliance with registration rules; transition provisions that fail to adequately protect vested rights of existing religious organizations. Some provision is made for smaller religious groups, but in many key respects, their rights to engage in the full range of religious activities are subjected to inappropriate limitations or restrictions."

That is a long and substantial list of problems. If left unaltered, these provisions pose a significant setback to freedoms in Kazakhstan and make Nazarbayev, as the incoming chair of the OSCE, and the OSCE itself look foolish.

Forum 18 offers more in its article, Kazakhstan: OSCE Legal Opinion seriously criticises draft Law.

The Whisperers: The Intimidated, the Fearful, and the Oppressed

2009-02-04T02:30:00.000-08:00

Intimidation can effectively remove any sort of vocal opposition, when done to the extreme. Stalin proved it. Intimidation was used in its most brutal forms: mass arrests and deportations to the gulags; mass imprisonments; mass killings. And for what? Sometimes because you had the wrong background. Maybe because you were related to someone who had aroused suspicions. Maybe because someone reported you for saying something that could be conceived as contrary to correct Soviet thinking. Stalin believed that it was worth it to kill or deport dozens of people if within those dozens there was one possible bad apple. As a result of the intimidation, the people felt fear; they were reduced to saying nothing at all or whispering their private feelings so that others could not accuse them of anti-Soviet activities or leanings. Parents could not even risk having their children hear them. This led to generations of people who did not know of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience; generations of whisperers.

Orlando Figes presents the stories of these generations in his excellent book, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. Those who were whisperers had no real voice, because if they spoke out, they risked losing their jobs, losing all of their possessions, losing their living quarters, losing their families, losing everything. They felt the ultimate terror. Figes takes you into into the lives of these whisperers, providing insights into how they lived, how they survived, and, indeed, how they died during the years of Stalin.

These days, stories about Stalin's terror are old news. But Figes's descriptions of the personal lives of those who suffered at the machinery's hands presents something very real and tangible that causes the reader to take notice, to feel for those who endured or died during those harsh times. I found myself often trying to put myself into the shoes of these people, to see through their eyes. But I knew that nothing I could do or feel would ever come close to really understanding their plight and their sorrows. If you happened to worship God, even secretly, you risked everything. If you spoke about religion, wore a cross, or prayed, you could lose everything. Although The Whisperers is not specifically about religious freedom, it includes the elimination of religious expression as an important element of the overall limitation and removal of freedoms in the Soviet society.

The brutality was massive and overwhelming, leading one to ask: How could this happen? But yet, it still happens today in varying degrees in many countries. In Russia (witness the many murdered journalists over the past few years), in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, and in other countries intimidation is used to control and destroy.

Regimes that operate on the basis of terror and of limiting freedoms will ultimately fail. Though they may use mechanisms such as laws against blasphemy, laws prohibiting defamation of religion, laws restricting freedom of religion, and laws restricting the freedom of the press or expression, their intimidation cannot keep the whisperers from gaining their voices. The rest of the world needs to step up and help.

Pakistan's uneasy road: Religious freedom's lost course

2009-02-03T21:26:00.000-08:00

Pakistan and religious freedom don't go well together. But that is only the start of some of the issues arising there.

Pakistan Teens Face Death For Religious Graffiti, Ahmmadiyya Muslim Community NZ. Four children between the ages of 14-16 have been accused of blasphemy for allegedly writing the name of Muhammad on the walls of a bathroom, although a spokesman states that the allegations are baseless for which here is no proof. The law provides that "any person found guilty is subject to either the death penalty or life imprisonment." The youths were taken into custody by police after religious extremists pressured the police to take action. This is merely one indicator of a greater problem.

American U.N. Official Is Abducted in Pakistan, by Salman Masood, The New York Times. John Solecki, an American UN refugee official in Pakistan was kidnapped, and his driver killed yesterday. Pakistani security believe the Taliban was responsible. The Taliban has been increasingly bold in attacking any tpe of western presence. Solecki has worked for many years for the plight of refugees, freedoms, and women's rights.

Islam, or else, Worldmag.com. Christians in several Protestant churches in Karachi have been attacked in recent weeks, facing harassment, desecration of churches, and vandalism. Persecuted Christians face ongoing charges for blaspheming Islam; they face demands for forced conversion to Islam; and they face militant threats arising from their religious beliefs and practices. Muslims are not immune to attacks by the Islamic extremists who seek to enforce their militant brand of Islam. Some see the increased threats as a challenge to President Obama and the renewed focus by the U.S. on terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Pakisan, Radio Amplifies Terror of Taliban, by Richard Oppel, Jr and Pir Zubair Shah, The New York Times. In Swat, Pakistan, the local Taliban has taken control, and those who don't listen or follow risk being shot or beheaded. Political leadership has failed to effectively counter the Taliban terror in the area.

When Pakistan Fails, by K Subrahmanyam, The Times of India. "It is abundantly clear that the relationship between India and Pakistan is more akin to a cold war. There is a basic incompatibility between a state which, in spite of having become a victim of the terrorist Frankenstein it nurtured, is reluctant to fight terrorism because of its religious affiliations though the jihadi project is a perversion of Islam and a secular state. As of today, the Pakistani civil society has not yet made up its mind to fight, without any reservation, the jihadi cult.

"As long as the Pakistani civil society does not take a stand on this issue, it cannot be helped either by India or the rest of the world. If this is understood in India, this country has to prepare itself to wage a campaign against jihadi terrorism. Pakistan should be contained by the international community till forces within that country rise to fight against the jihadi cult."

Pakistan calls high-level meeting to discuss Mumbai attacks probe. Pakistan is feeling some heat for pursuing 125 "lower-rung terror suspects but let[ting] the top guns off." India blames Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba for the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan walks a tightrope in trying to deal with India and the international community to show that it is taking deliberate action against the terrorists. But in a country where terrorism is rampant, there is skepticism that Pakistan will do enough.

The issues and the problems are huge. But unless Pakistan changes its approach to dealing with these problems, it risks being completely taken over by the radical, militant Islamists. Can it get a better grip on the Islamists, including the Taliban? Will it ensure more freedoms for its people, which in turn will help protect against the Taliban and other groups? By limiting the freedoms of the people, Pakistan encourages those who gain control by brute force and intimidation.

Burma's forgotten people: The Chin's struggle for protection of human rights and religious freedom

2009-01-29T19:59:00.000-08:00

The Chin people of northwest Burma (Myanmar) have a little corner of the country mostly for themselves. The land is remote and mountainous, making it difficult for others to get there. The world does not usually hear much from or about the Chins, nestled on the border of India and Bangladesh. But the Chins face major challenges dealing with the repressive ruling military council--the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The people are separated from the rest of the country--geographically, economically, politically, and religiously, which makes the SPDC a little nervous. The SPDC, known for its intolerance, violence, and heavy hand, has cultivated a life with "restrictions on fundamental freedoms, forced labor, torture, arbitrary arrests, unlawful and prolonged detention, and attacks on religious freedom."

Human Rights Watch just released a report on the Chins, entitled "We Are Like Forgotten People" The Chin People of Burma: Unsafe in Burma, Unprotected In India, which tells the story to the rest of us, to remind us of these forgotten people. The report includes a brief political history of Chin, discusses the many abuses committed by the Burmese Army against them, and discusses the challenges for the Chin refugees who have settled across the border in Mizoram, India.

Burma has been on the State Department's list of worst offenders of religious freedom since they started making these lists in 1999. The Chins are over 90% Baptist, a result of the efforts of missionaries who introduced Christianity to the area back in 1899. They suffer from religious persecution as the only non-Buddhist majority state in the country. "In Chin State, the military government promotes Buddhism over all other religions through threats and inducements, restricts proselytizing and conversion to Christianity, interferes with worship services, restricts the printing and importing of Christian bibles and literature, destroys churches, crosses, and other religious symbols, restricts renovation and construction of church buildings, and limits Christian conferences, celebrations, and events."

The SPDC seeks to disrupt the Chins' religious practices by imposing impossible requirements and heavy burdens, with threats of arrest, imprisonment, and death. Freedom of religion, for the Chins, is not something that they are likely to experience as long as the SPDC is in control.

I appreciate Human Rights Watch's efforts to put this report together and to make it available to the public. I found it to be helpful and instructive about a people that I did not know before.

Russia and Kirill: Opportunity for change

2009-01-29T07:51:00.000-08:00

Here is the Moscow Times take on Kirill as the new patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Among the more encouraging statements: "One big question concerns his relations with the pope and with the Roman Catholic Church. Kirill will be looking for allies in his effort to move Russian and European society in a religious direction. But he will not strive for a theocratic state. Indeed, it is precisely his acceptance of the need for dialogue with non-Christians in a modern, pluralistic state that has prompted some of the more conservative elements in the Orthodox church to be sharply critical of him as too "progressive.""

And this: "Kirill has his own vision for the future of Europe. In an address to the Third European Ecumenical Assembly in Sibiu in September 2007, Kirill said that in order for Europe to survive the tribulations that have befallen previous civilizations, it must retain its Christian identity. An increasing number of Europeans -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- have come to recognize "Christianity [as] a powerful source of support for European civilization," he said. At the same time, Kirill was careful to explain that this does not imply that "there is no room" in Europe "for people of other religions and with other outlooks on the world.""

The Russia-based TASS: "The Moscow-based Kommersant daily believes, for instance, that Patriarch Cyril may splash cold water on the zeal of his reform-minded associates, as he is obviously unwilling to instigate scandals with the traditionalists or to hear more accusations of affliction with ecumenism (mostly made manifest in a rapprochement with Roman Catholics).
His Beatitude Cyril made a tentative mentioning of the impossibility of a close rapport with the Catholics in a report at the Local Council right on the first day of its sessions, the Gazeta newspaper says. “Any compromises with non-Orthodox denominations on the building blocks of the teachings of faith are ruled out,” he said, adding that it is precisely the firmness of belief and the Orthodoxy’s unbending stance that often attracts people from other denominations to it."

Kirill's prior statements offer a mixed bag on where he will go on issues of religious freedom and toleration of minority religions in Russia. This is an opportunity for positive change and openness.

Intimidation of Muslims by Muslims: Threats against moderate Muslims in Europe

2009-01-28T21:27:00.000-08:00

Western Europe is generally considered to have a basic regard and respect for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience. But the sensitivities raised by Muslims to anything that could be considered by conservative Muslims to be offensive has led to intense intimidation towards the alleged offenders. The cartoons of Mohammed in the Danish newspaper and the murder of Theo van Gogh are among the most visible instances of intimidation and the severe consequences imposed by radical Muslims on those who dare venture into the realm of saying or doing things that some Muslims may find offensive. But radical Muslims shine the light particularly bright on fellow Muslims who urge a more reasoned and less-radical approach to Islam and integration into European society.

The Centre for Social Cohesion just issued a report entitled Victims of Intimidation: Freedom of Speech Within Europe's Muslim Communities, by Douglas Murray and Johan Pieter Verwey. The Report contains a description of 27 prominent Muslims in Europe who have faced the wrath, intimidation, and threats of other Muslims for their expressions of opinions in supposedly free societies. The individuals include politicians, journalists, activists, artists, writers and academics, all strong people who generally will not be bullied, notwithstanding threats against their lives and their families. There is much to be learned from these individuals, including by other politicians, journalists, activists, artists, writers and academics who have allowed themselves to be bullied and who are afraid to publish articles, make speeches, broadcast radio and television shows, or otherwise say or do anything that might incur the wrath of the hardliner Muslims. It is this type of intimidation that will be perpetuated by the defamation of religion resolutions that continue to be pushed by the Muslim nations.

A couple of examples from the Report: Ahmed Aboutaleb is a Dutch politician who was born in Morocco. He encourages secularism, integration and tolerance, which has resulted in various threats from Muslim extremists. "Aboutaleb's sin is precisely his success as a Dutch citizen. To take part in government, to promote integration, to speak out against the violent prejudices of religious zealots, is enough to make him a heretic, an enemy, a traitor."

Deepika Thathaal is a singer, born in Oslo to Sunni Muslim parents. Conservative Muslims call her a disgrace; she was attacked on stage by an angry Muslim man; she has been attacked with pepper spray; she has been warned to tone down her act or she and her family would suffer; she has received death threats and has required the services of bodyguards for her protection. Thathaal's performances and music videos incorporate controversial images, including faces of women who had been victims of Muslim violence. Threats and complaints by some Muslims to a television station caused the station to pull the videos.

Magdi Allam was born in Egypt and is an Italian journalist. He has been a defender of Israel and a critic of Hamas' terror attacks. He has questioned Islamism in Italy and criticizes those who argue that Islamic extremists are not a threat in Italy. As a result, Allam has received numerous death threats and has been put under police protection. Not to be deterred, Allam ultimately converted to Christianity and was baptized a Catholic by Pope Benedict XVI. So now he also faces death threats for apostasy.

The stories of these and the other 24 individuals are striking, both in terms of the strength and toughness of the individuals and in terms of the harsh reality of the violent threats and the intimidation by Muslims in Western European society of other Muslims. The non-Muslim society feels the intimidation, as is demonstrated by the skittishness to publish or broadcast anything that could be called into question. This comes under the umbrella of political correctness and multiculturalism, but these are masks for the reality of intimidation and fear. The problem is this: Yielding to intimidation by hardliner Muslims will only serve to lessen the freedom of speech, expression, and conscience for all, weakening the bedrocks of western society and encouraging more threats and intimidation.

(The Centre has some other interesting reports worth checking out, including Islam on Campus: A Survey of UK Student Opinions.)

Religious freedom in Bolivia: Impact of new constitution?

2009-01-25T22:10:00.000-08:00

There hasn't been much discussion in recent years about religious freedom in Bolivia. In fact, the State Department's Annual International Religious Freedom Report gives Bolivia a clean bill of health, resulting in a fairly short and non-controversial write-up. Its most recent report:

"The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and other laws and policies contributed to the generally free practice of religion. The law at all levels protects this right in full against abuse, either by governmental or private actors. The Government generally respected religious freedom in practice. There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom by the Government during the period covered by this report. There were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice."

About 97% are Christian--78% are Catholic. Other denominations are free to set up churches throughout the country. So why are religion and religious freedom now being discussed in connection with Bolivia?

Bolivians voted on a new constitution today which was expected to pass by a large margin. Promoted by leftist President Evo Morales, the constitution takes a more populist approach, recognizing indigenous peoples and beliefs and property. Morales is the leader of the ruling Movement to Socialism party and counts as among his buddies Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He's following some of the actions of Chavez, pursuing a course of nationalization and anti-Americanism.

The new constitution eliminates reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the established religion, providing for a greater separation of church and state. It retains general rights to freedom of religion. It also elevates the indigenous Andean earth deity Pachamama to the level of Christianity's God in honor. While the elimination of an established church may be a symbol of greater pluralism and acceptance of minority churches, many churches are nervous about the direction that the constitution seems to go in protecting traditional values, leaving openings for new interpretations of ambiguous provisions.

At least, for now, there remains religious freedom and pluralism in Bolivia. Can they be retained? Pursuing a leftist agenda in the manner of Chavez is not a good sign.

For more, see Churches Oppose President in Bolivia Referendum, by Antonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal; Bolivians to decide fate of new constitution, by Annie Murphy, Chronicle Foreign Service.

TV crew expelled from UN meeting on freedom of expression

2009-01-25T18:37:00.000-08:00

Somehow the headline (TV crew expelled from UN meeting on freedom of expression, European Jewish Press) doesn't seem so odd, in light of what often goes on at the UN. The meeting from which the TV crew was expelled was a public meeting at which there was a debate about freedom of expression and 'defamation of religion' in anticipation of the Durban II racism conference in April. The journalists were removed upon the request of the Organization of Islamic Conference. So much for freedom of expression. The OIC recognizes the harm that comes when light is cast upon its quest for adoption of the repressive 'defamation of religion' resolutions.

Religious freedom in early America: A shaky start

2009-01-20T19:32:00.000-08:00

Where and when do you think that the following religious requirements and penalties took place?

Failure to attend worship services twice each Sunday: first offense - lose daily allowance; second offense - a whipping; third offense - placed in galleys at sea for six months.
Failure to observe the Sabbath: first offense - lost provisions for a week; second offense - a whipping; third offense - execution.
Women convicted of sexual misdeeds: wear white gowns, hold white wands, and stand on chairs during public worship.
Blasphemy: sometimes punishable by "having a hot iron plunged through the tongue, and sometimes by execution."

These were the requirements and punishments for settlers in the Virginia Company in the early 1600s. The punishments and crimes conjured up in my mind some Muslim countries where seemingly antiquated laws on religious practices continue today, though it seems unreal that they could actually exist now. Although many early settlers came to America so that they could worship according to the doctrines and practices of their church, the requirements were strict and did not include the right to not worship or the right to change religions or organize other churches. Real religious freedom was still something for future times. Steven Waldman in his book, Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, does an excellent job of laying the groundwork for the development of religious freedom in America. He tells a story that challenges some of the things we learned in school about the early settlers and religious freedom.

Early settlers, according to Waldman, considered church and state as fully commingled, allowing them to shape the state according to their religious beliefs. Thus, each colony established its own approved church, to which all must belong and support. All others: get out and stay away, or the punishments may be severe.

As more immigrants came to America from a variety of religions and as the religiosity of the people changed, it became increasingly difficult to impose one religion. The established churches and their protectorate governments nevertheless sought to protect their turf. To preserve the established churches, the government provided for mandatory taxes to support the church and the ministry. It also placed burdensome and bureaucratic obligations on minority religions as, for example, was the case in implementing licensing requirements for ministers. Some of the following licensing requirements for minority religions in colonial Virginia may sound familiar to those in China, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan or even Russia today:

As noted by Waldman, during the 1700s in Virginia, the Anglican Church was the official established church. Nevertheless, the pesky Baptists sought to preach their brand of Protestantism in this protected arena, and so to put up roadblocks, the law required a Baptist minister "to get a license from Virginia's General Court, which sat twice a year in Williamsburg. Before making the trip, he had much preparation to do. He would pull together a petition signed by twenty people. Two acting justices of the peace had to then certify that the twenty were actually residents. If successful, they proceeded to the General Court, where the [minister] had to pass an examination given by an Anglican clergyman. If he passed, and the General Court approved his certificate, the application then went to several leading Episcopalians...for further inspection. Once granted, the license gave rights to a place, not a person, so the minister of a church could be arrested for preaching outside that particular building." Local authorities could and would arbitrarily deny applications, and those who failed to become licensed were jailed.

(Though these procedures are a method of harassment, providing even this bureaucratic and arbitrary method of licensing would be an improvement in most Muslim countries over the current system where other churches and ministers are, for all intents and purposes, banned.)

The dynamic changes in the immigrant population, the ever shifting populations and institutions in the colonies, and the the establishment of many different churches among the colonies (notwithstanding attempts to forestall this) prompted a movement to more religious freedom. This was encouraged also by the Revolutionary War and resulting independence and by the insights and actions of the founding fathers who recognized the significance of this fundamental freedom as an endowment by the Creator. Waldman reviews the influence of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison as they each, in their own way, pursued and influenced the path to religious freedom.

This remarkable story is one that is instructive to those countries which have not yet learned how to make this transformation. The process was not easy, and the definitions of religious freedom continue to be clarified and debated, but yet the mold was cast, and the example of religious freedom in American stands as a beacon to those countries which wonder if they can change.

The First Inauguration: George Washington's supplication to the Almighty Being

2009-01-19T22:54:00.000-08:00

It was April 30, 1789, when George Washington became the first president of the United States. Following the battles for freedom and the fight for independence, Washington was filled with thanks to God for everything that led to that great day. He was open and effusive in his acknowledgement of that "Almighty Being who rules over the universe." Nowadays, so many are afraid of publicly expressing such sentiments, for fear of ridicule or of offending non-believers or of thinking that it would somehow be improper. But here are Washington's words from his First Inaugural Address, given in New York City:

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

Washington concludes with the following:

"Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."

May that same benediction continue to protect the liberties and freedoms of this nation and to reach out to all nations.

International Religious Freedom Book List: The Orthodox Church and Civil Society in Russia, by Wallace Daniel

2009-01-18T22:12:00.001-08:00

Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church continue to struggle to define their civil society and to understand how to transform the old system to a more democratic, free society. The downfall of the Soviet Union has brought significant change to Russia, but the process has been fraught with bumps and bruises along the way. Many Russians still long for the days of Stalin while others push for greater reforms. Putin has maintained an iron hand, reminiscent of prior times. The Russian Orthodox Church, notwithstanding the lapse of time since 1991, sometimes does not seem to know how to approach the new world before it. Wallace Daniel, in his book, The Orthodox Church and Civil Society in Russia, offers his insights into the Church's struggles to define itself and to progress in the post-Soviet era.

Without question, the Church maintains a major role in the shaping of Russian civil society, and the Russian government seems to understand and even welcome this, often using the Church to support its political ends. The Church, on the other hand, finds that the state serves a useful function by protecting the Church's turf, at the expense of other religious organizations and religious freedom. It seems to encourage the rebuilding of an autocratic state. Thus, there has been a retrenchment from some of the earlier reforms as the laws have protected the Orthodox Church but limited the freedom of people and other churches to freely practice their religions. There is the feeling in the Church that in order to rebuild parish life and community, others should be shut out. This suggests a feeling of insecurity that can only be overcome by coercion.

According to Daniel, notwithstanding the limited view of the Church, much has occurred to prepare the way for the development of a more open religious society. He notes that some of the fears about new sects have not been realized, that there has been substantial growth in Protestant religious organizations, that there has emerged a Protestant intelligentsia, and that not all regions within Russia follow the same course. Daniel believes that the competition among religious organizations actually yields a more energized Orthodox life, encouraging participation by the people and awakening slumbering parishes. Daniel notes: "I do not envision a specifically Orthodox conception of civil society or a uniquely Russian vision, but rather one that is nourished by Orthodox traditions, especially by its principles of freedom and self-determination."

Daniel also states: "The initiatives taken by the parishes and the local communities I examine suggest a movement away from the traditional Russian notion of the state and its central institutions as the primary actors in developing civil society. Such initiatives display great autonomy, individual creativity, and local responsiveness. While the evidence about the progress of civil society over the last decade is mixed, the wellsprings for its development do exist and, with encouragement, have the potential to shape Russia's future evolution."

So, ultimately, Daniel offers a hopeful view of the future for the Orthodox Church and religious freedom. He may be right, but I want to see more evidence.

Religious Liberty in America

2009-01-18T21:47:00.000-08:00

In Religious Liberty in America: An Idea Worth Sharing Through Public Diplomacy, Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation offers her thoughts on how the American experience can be used to further U.S. policy and encourage religious freedom.

According to Marshall:

"U.S. public diplomacy could take practical steps to better highlight the significance of religious liberty and practice. Specifically, U.S. policy should:

Muster the full force of America's founding ideals,

Better integrate the religious freedom agenda with the overall promotion of freedom,

Enlist appropriate mediators to reach target audiences, and

Find common interest in religious liberty between religious groups and state authority."

For more, see her article here.

Hillary Clinton Senate Confirmation Hearing: Any mention of religion or religious freedom?

2009-01-15T22:21:00.000-08:00

The U.S. and the rest of the world face enormous challenges. And the senators from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Hillary Clinton dutifully raised a litany of important issues: terrorism, Iraq, Darfur, nuclear arms, Iran, Afghanistan, energy dependence, climate change, the plight of women, Hamas, Israel, and a few other subjects. All are hot topics. (Senator Feinstein, with only time for a couple of questions, asked about Somalia and about transgender employees and their partners.) I waded through the 89-page transcript found in the New York Times and can't say that I found much to chew on.

Given the subject matter of this blog, I kept my eyes open for any mention of religion and religious freedom. It was hard work.

There were passing references to al Qaeda, the Taliban, violent extremists, Muslims, Israel, and hot spots in the world. But it was as though no one was willing to even raise the subject of religion, until Senator Demint came along. It baffles me why religion is nearly a taboo subject among so many people, especially when you consider that in nearly every topic addressed at the hearing, religion is a key part of the puzzle. Whether the senators or the foreign diplomatic establishment tend to be more secular or not is irrelevant to the necessity of understanding the role of religion and religious freedom in the world.

Senator Demint: "Just as you're concerned about the disadvantage, difficulty, of women and children around the world, much the same can be said for religious persecution. Even in countries like Iraq that we're doing so much to -- so much sacrifice to free, Iraqi Christians can't come home. I would hope you would be sensitive to that. . ."

Hillary Clinton: ". . .But I will remain very conscious of that, Senator, because two issues that you -- you mentioned -- religious persecution -- that's a -- you know, that -- that is anathema to Americans. I mean, we believe in the freedom to worship. And there is a -- an office in the State Department that is committed to religious freedom.

"But I -- I believe that that is an area that we want to talk more about, that we want to raise, because of the significance.

"You point out rightly that, you know, we've given a lot of aid and we've -- we've given a lot of blood on behalf of certain countries that -- that persecute not just Christians but people of other religious beliefs, even interfaith beliefs within the same denomination or particular view of religion."

Well and good. But there is so much more than raising the issue. Addressing persecution by raising the subject in diplomatic meetings touches the surface. Also, there is indeed the Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department, headed by the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. The Office and the Ambassador are seen by many within the State Department as passing thoughts, without any real substance or contribution to the overall foreign policy mission of the U.S. An important first step for Clinton would be to elevate the Office and the Ambassador within the department so that they are not lost in the corridors. A more thorough understanding of religion and religious freedom and of how to encourage and develop religious freedom needs to be an integral part of the U.S. policy.

Demint and Clinton also reviewed the importance of encouraging and enlisting nongovernmental organizations and religious organizations and charities to build relationships with foreign governments and foreign people, for the benefit of all sides.

All in all, everyone went through the motions, but I doubt that anyone felt further enlightened at the end of the day. Next week will be more telling as the pieces fall into place for the new Administration.

For my prior blog entries regarding Clinton, go here and here.

Islam and Religious Pluralism

2009-01-13T21:59:00.000-08:00

Bread and butter. Table and chair. Snow and cold. Islam and religious pluralism. Which ones go well together?

When one thinks of Islamic countries and governments, an image of pluralism, religious freedom, the rights of women, and political freedom does not spring to mind. Encouraging pluralism in Muslim countries must be a key component of a successful strategy for changing the mindset and outlook of these countries as we seek a more stable world; a recognition and respect for rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, are integral to effecting positive change in Muslim countries and in calming the wars and conflicts in the world. Is there any hope?

The Review of Faith & International Affairs from the Center on Faith & International Affairs (http://www.cfia.org) devoted its recent journal issue to the subject of Islam and pluralism, with several articles offering insights into how pluralism could find its way into Islamic countries.

Asma Afsaruddin, Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Notre Dame, in her article, Absolutism vs. Pluralism in Islam Today, poses this question: "Can the collective memory of Muslims retrieve past precedents in support of pluralism and respect for diversity?" The answer: Maybe. There is such a long way to go. But it would be unwise to lump all Muslims into one group of fundamentalists when there is a spectrum of Muslims and ideology, and there is a debate (more muted, to say the least, in many places) within Islam regarding what is the appropriate way to govern.

Absolutists reject the possibility of different interpretations of the religious law--shari'a is "immutable." The Islamic state and the Islamic government is "articulated by the religious law," leaving no room for debate.

Absolutists conclude that the true Islamic state, as defined by Islamic religious law, contains divine governance, with responsibility to God alone, not to the electorate. Thus, this type of Islamic state is opposed to democracy. Says Islamist thinker Abu al-Mawdudi: "Wherever this system [democracy] exists, we do not consider Islam to exist, and wherever Islam exists, there is no room for this system."

Afsaruddin does not give in to the absolutists and notes that there is an on-going struggle within Islam between absolutists and modernists. Modernists, she says, are more flexible and adaptable, asserting three tenets of legitimate government, based on historical Muslim communities: consultation, consent, and consensus, best realized in a democratic system. Modernists, according to Afsaruddin, have history on their side.

"By their own criteria, the absolutists, who claim fidelity to the practices of the earliest Muslims, have fallen dangerously short of providing a credible platform for reform and renewal in Muslim-majority societies.

"Rather than the much-touted clash of civilizations, this internal struggle between the absolutists and the pluralists for “the soul of Islam,” as it has been described, is perhaps the real crisis for Muslims. How this crisis will be resolved in the short term is not easy to predict; for the long term, the revival of religious learning and historical scholarship among Muslims will prove to be the most effective counterweight to the obscurantism of the absolutists.

". . .[R]eligion in our century shows no signs of receding from public view in most areas of the world but is in fact resurgent, including in the United States. Given this context, being able to make a case for diversity, democracy, and human rights in religious terms today should not be considered a setback for modernity but a successful accommodation with it—and a resounding victory for pluralism."

Democratic governments and moderate Muslims must find a way to support and encourage the modernists; they will be the key to overcoming the absolutists.

Ahmadinejad versus Khamenei: Who's calling the shots?

2009-01-13T03:17:00.000-08:00

At around the same time that Ahmadinejad was giving his alternative Christmas Day speech on British television, two men were stoned to death in Iran for adultery.

Ahmadinejad encouraged his television listeners "to direct themselves to the messages of the prophets, and he blamed the complex problems the world is facing on "the indifference of some governments and powers toward the teachings of the divine prophets, especially those of Jesus Christ."" (Ahmadinejad Christmas speech annoys British government, Reuters.)

A few days before the speech, Iran shut down the human rights center of Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi. (Iran closes human rights centre, BBC.) Earlier in the month, Ebadi had spoken at the UN, coming down hard on Muslim countries that rationalize their way out of complying with the Declaration on Human Rights.

I don't know if Ahmadinejad happened to deny the holocaust that week, again.

And we should listen to Ahmadinejad speak to us about teachings of Jesus Christ?

Ahmadinejad is better known for censorship, human rights violations, repression, and corruption. Nevertheless, Akbar Ganji reminds us in his article, The Latter-Day Sultan , Foreign Affairs, not to get too excited over Ahmadinejad. After all, the real power in the country is Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. Khamenei, according to Ganji, has a "complete stranglehold on power in Iran." In fact, the Iranian constitution "grants the supreme leader absolute power." Although Ahmadinejad is the public face of Iran in the world, he does what he does with the blessing and encouragement of Khamenei. Otherwise, he would not survive.

According to Khamenei: "The majority of the people in the state are silent. A selfless group of individuals can make the state endure by using terror." With that kind of backing and control, it would be wrong to assume that any sort of negotiations with Ahmadinejad would go anywhere. And Khamenei is hardly one to lead the way to reform and a more open view to the West.

Yet, there are those groups and individuals who work within Iran to bring reform, freedoms, and even religious freedom. According to Ganji: "In systems such as Iran's, the transition to democracy depends on whether reformists can find enough room to maneuver among the ruler's relationships with state bodies (especially the military), social elites, and foreign powers so as to create various social movements and then use those to inch the country toward democracy." It will be essential to work with and encourage those groups and individuals who are "advocates of human rights and democracy" within Iran if there is to be any hope of any sort of reform.

Promoting religious pluralism in Indonesia: Kyai Maman

2009-01-12T03:00:00.000-08:00

Religious freedom is a hot topic in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Voices from along the spectrum compete for attention and control. There are those, like Kyai Maman, who make the pursuit of religious freedom and pluralism a key objective, seeking to help shape public opinion through the media, grass roots community organizations, political parties, interfaith dialogues, and peaceful protests. He has endured being physically attacked and beaten by the fundamentalist Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) during a peaceful rally for religious freedom, but he doesn't let that slow him down.

The article, Promoting pluralism: Pesantren progressives defend constitutional religious freedoms, by Joanne McMillan in Inside Indonesia, describes his journey:

"Kyai Maman has not always defended the values of pluralism. There was a time when he supported, rather than opposed, violence in the name of religion. Kyai Maman grew up in a puritanical pesantren where he mixed in narrow circles and studied only traditional religious texts. His understanding of the world, he explains, was black and white, and anyone different from himself was a sinner. Just seeing a church or a Christian cross, he confesses, would make his blood boil. He was involved in militant groups that participated in ‘cleansing’ gambling and prostitution dens in the Majalengka area. In 1998, he stood by while members of his congregation destroyed churches, shops and houses belonging to Chinese Indonesians in Jatiwangi. ‘At that time,’ he says, ‘I thought that there was only one truth: only we were right and everyone else was wrong.’

"But the violent events of 1998 proved a turning point in his life. Witnessing the effects of violence perpetrated by Muslims convinced him that there had been something wrong with his readings of religious texts. The texts, he explains, always refer to Islam as a blessing for the whole universe, not just for Muslims. The goal of Islam, he reasoned, could not be to make people afraid of it.

"On this basis, he says, he decided to start listening to the voices of ‘the other’. He began inviting leaders of other religions to his pesantren – priests, pastors and Buddhist monks – for inter-religious dialogue. He also invited them to come along to religious and cultural ceremonies at his pesantren, and even to teach classes to his pupils."

Make sure to read the rest of the article.

Kazakhstan's Constitutional Council to review draft restrictive law on religious freedom

2009-01-11T19:01:00.000-08:00

The Kazakh parliament has been overly intent in pursuing a highly restrictive new law that would put more limits on religious freedom. The law was presented to President Nazarbayev for his signature, but Nazarbayev did the right thing this past week by asking for a review of the law's constitutionality by the Constitutional Council. Nazarbayev, who is slated to become the chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe this year, has a fine line to walk to work with his parliament and the international community.

Nazarbayev has taken some heat for his and the country's failure to ensure religious and other freedoms in recent years, not to mention the failure to implement fair and free elections. (Nazarbayev has been the president since 1991 when the Soviet Union fell.) That he could become the OSCE's chair in light of these issues does not speak well of the OSCE and its standards. At least there may be some hope that as Nazarbayev seeks more international acclaim and acceptance, he may be more willing (or at least feel more pressure) to uphold freedoms.

The parliament in 2002 went through the same exercise of restricting religious freedom, and in that instance, the Constitutional Council held firm in overruling the law as unconstitutional. (Kazakhstan: Constitutional Council rejects new religious restrictions , Christianity Today.) This comment from the foregoing article was prescient: "In time, authorities will launch a new campaign against believers," said human rights activist Ninel Fokina of the Almaty Helsinki Committee in an interview with Keston News Service. "But for now, we have a breathing space."

Incidentally, Nazarbayev has the right to fire the head of the Constitutional Council, which he has done before. Not much of a check and balance.

Numerous organizations have been working behind the scenes to forestall the new legislation, including, for example, the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, which highlights some of its work here.

Freedom House offers its support for the review here.

Forum 18 provides its ongoing reporting on the issue here. I know that there are many others. I have offered my previous comments on the topic: Ignoring religious freedom in Kazakhstan diplomacy? Kazakhstan still hashing out new restrictive laws on religion. One step closer to even more restrictions on religious freedom in Kazakhstan.

In case you were wondering, there will be no reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church

2009-01-06T21:39:00.000-08:00

The interim leader of the Russian Orthodox Church (following the death of Patriarch Alexei II), Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, cleared things up for those who wondered if there would be any reforms within the Church (Metropolitan Kirill opposes church reforms, Interfax) :

""I strongly oppose any church reforms. Besides, I do not think that any of the 145 archbishops that may be nominated for Patriarch have reform aspirations," he said.

"Russia has twice learned "the necessity of careful attitude to traditions, especially church traditions," the Metropolitan said. "The first lesson we learned was the church split by Old Believers. Our second lesson was the notorious innovations of the 1920s. Both processes caused agitation and divided people but neither of them reached the goals set by the reformers," he told.
. . .

"Our Church is strong with its ability to preserve the belief and the flawless moral paradigm and to pass them over from one generation to another," the Metropolitan said. "The Church is conservative by nature, as it maintains the apostolic belief," he added."If we want to pass the belief from one generation to another for centuries, the belief must be intact. Any reform damaging the belief, traditions and values is called heresy," he said.

""Meanwhile, secular reforms that undermine traditions of "theological and moral values" are dangerous for the country, Metropolitan Kirill said. "Life has shown that Russia accepts ideas that do not break its backbone. People rejected everything suggested in the 1990s as kind of an intellectual project," he said."

I'm sure that makes the hardliners feel good, but the rest. . .? Despite Kirill's expressions about encouraging dialogues with other religions, his flat-out rejection of reform and his denunciation of changes in the 1990s do not bode well for religious freedom.

Russia remains a country in search of itself. Consider also the recently completed poll conducted by a Russian television station that found Stalin to be the third most popular Russian in history, notwithstanding the tens of millions of people whose death he caused, notwithstanding the gulags, and notwithstanding his rule of terror and repression. (Russians Vote for Stalin, State Promotes Strident Nationalism, Vision Media.) There is an ongoing attempt to "rehabilitate" Stalin and to cleanse the record of the bad stuff. So, where does this fit in with a more democratic society, a society that respects human rights, and a society with more freedoms, including religious freedom? It's still a tenuous proposition. The Russian Orthodox Church seems to play along.

Russian Orthodox, seeking fair play, ask to build church in Saudi Arabia

2009-01-06T20:30:00.000-08:00

In case you missed it, in November a couple of Russian Orthodox organizations, figuring that turnabout is fair play, sent a letter to the Saudi king asking for permission to build a church in Riyadh. After all, the Saudi Kingdom had recently announced plans to build a mosque in Moscow. Sounds reasonable to me.

According to the letter:

"Moscow Orthodox believers have recently learned that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plans to build one more mosque in our city. Historically, not only Orthodox churches were built in Moscow: our capital have synagogues, though there are enough Orthodox Churches in Israel; we have Catholic churches, but there are several Russian Churches in Italy; even two Shiite mosques are located in our city...

"You often say that Islam is a religion of justice. However, if Saudi Arabia builds mosques in dozens of Christian countries, isn't it just to build a church for Christians living in Your Kingdom! ...It would be just to create the same conditions for Saudi Christians as Muslims have in Russia.

"Today relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia actively develop. You and Your associates urge to strengthen friendship between our countries and develop dialogue between Islam and Christianity. All these initiatives should be appreciated, but only in case, they are mutually useful. Alongside with fighting negative image of Islam among Christians, myths about Christianity should be renounced. If You offer to broadcast the Mecca TV channel in Russia in order to preach "pure Islam" among Russians, then it would be just to give Your subjects a chance to watch Russian Orthodox channel that can simply explain Muslims that Christians do not believe in three gods, do not misquote Bible and do not pray to idols.

"It is the only way to make interreligious dialogue honest and just."

Why not? They make a good point. In democratic countries throughout the world, Muslims have the right to exercise their religion. But in Islamic countries. . .

Russian Orthodox figures ask Saudi King’s permission to build a Christian church in Arabia, Interfax.

Here's more from Daniel Pipes Blog.

Free advice for Hillary Clinton on foreign policy and international religious freedom

2009-01-06T07:30:00.000-08:00

What can Hillary Clinton do to offer a more complete approach to foreign policy? With the backdrop of a State Department and foreign service that considers religion and international religious freedom as a side issue, Thomas Farr, visiting professor at Georgetown and author of World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security, offers these four suggestions:

1. Treat religion as normative in human affairs; don't ignore the impact of religion around the world.
2. Deliver early on a major address "in which she makes it clear that this administration will begin to integrate the issues of religion and religious freedom into three major areas of policy: democracy promotion, counter terrorism strategy, and public diplomacy," and take this up the ladder for President Obama to discuss and address.
3. Train foreign service officers on religion and international religious freedom; include a subspeciality on religion and religious freedom for foreign service career tracks.
4. "Elevate the status and authority of the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom."

(See Dan Rodrick's blog at the Baltimore Sun: Free advice for Hilary Clinton.)

Although attempts have been made this last decade to address some of the weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy as related to religion and religious freedom, there is still a long way to go. It takes more than a small office in the State Department, and it takes more than the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to move this forward. It will take commitment at the very top levels of governments to more completely address these issues, recognizing their impact on foreign relations, democracy, human rights, and economic development. To ignore the impact of these issues is a sure-fire way to miss underlying problems throughout the world.

I had highlighted some remarks made by Hilary Clinton in a previous post. She gets some of the lingo and raises the issue of religious freedom when dealing with foreign governments, but it is unclear if and to what extent she will integrate a greater understanding and use of religion and religious freedom into foreign policy and the bureaucracy of the State Department. Following Farr's suggestions would be a good start.