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

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

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

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

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?

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

"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"

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

"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?

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?

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

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'

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?

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."