This week, Kazakhstan's parliament has accepted a new law that would amend the country's current law on religion. The deputies in the Majlis unanimously approved the text. The bill must now be approved by President Nazarbaev. The standard analysis is that since Russia amended its law on religion, the Central Asian countries have been following the same path, i.e. "hastily" making amendments. The concern is that the governments are not fully consulting civil society and legal (human rights) organizations in the process. For example, in Tajikistan, over a year has passed since a draft of the new law on religion has been seen by anyone outside the government decision-making structures. The head of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) in Kazakhstan, as reported in F18News, has said that the President of Kazakhstan should be aiming for a "more transparent and inclusive law-making process." For Tajikistan, the fear is that President Rahmon will now attach his name to the bill for political weight, and it will pass too quickly , by March.

As Patrick Frost, our own blogger on Central Asia pointed out yesterday, "all five of our CA states" have laws in the works that may lead to restrictions on the freedom of religion. The question is to what degree these countries are allowing the draft laws to be made public , specifically the "new" drafts, which will be voted on in their parliaments. In Tajikistan, we have no idea whether the draft that will soon be voted on looks the same as it did one year ago. The F18 article presents the views of various religious leaders on the new law in Kazakhstan. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church "broadly welcomed the law" and some argued that the worst provisions of the law had already been removed.

The general fear throughout Central Asia though is mass conversion of Muslims to Christian sects. This has particularly affected Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses, whose literature has been confiscated in large quantities. Baptist bibles were confiscated in Tajikistan, for example, after authorities claimed they were importing more than was necessary for their official membership. As restrictions on registration grow, therefore, the controls on literature and freedom of speech may suffer. The F18 article also points out that the majority of complaints in the Astana Ombudsperson's Office are coming from Baptists, who have been receiving a lot of fines for their activities. On the other hand, a representative of the Rabbinate has said that the law is necessary. Those in favor of the law say that it protects the safety of citizens and restricts the activities of "totalitarian sects."

What are the political trajectories of Pakistan and Turkey? An article in Middle East Times looks at how analyzing Pakistan and Turkey can "shed light on some of the changing political dynamics within Muslim countries." The article compares and contrasts the experiences in the two countries, where "the role of religion in state affairs" has been critical to political development. With respect to Turkey, the authors write, "the role of Islam in public life is still an extremely polarized debate" and they say about Pakistan that the role of religion was "ill-defined at the time of independence." The main reason for the comparison are recent political evolutions concerning the AKP (Justice and Development Party in Turkey) and the PPP (the Pakistan People's Party).

The observation of the authors: "State efforts in both countries to define the role of Islam in politics and society have not gone uncontested." The conclusion: "The two political parties, no matter how flawed they are, need to engage in the political process uninterrupted."

David Little , a Professor of Religion at Harvard Divinity School , published an article titled "Religion, Conflict, and Peace." This blog has included so far a lot of news analysis about conflicts and wars that apparently have their foundations in religious extremism. For this reason, I have found Professor Little's analysis of religion and conflict quite helpful. The article questions whether religion is only destructive or whether it also has a "constructive side." He sees truth and reconciliation commissions as an example of how religion can help overcome "hostility and antagonism" , specifically referencing South Africa. With respect to religion and conflict, Little breaks sees two claims about current international politics. The first is that "real religion" can never be the cause of conflict. Often the argument is put forward that only corrupted Islam, for example, can be the cause of terrorism based on "Islamist" sentiments. Little refutes that argument and says that even the most enlightened of religious people can often heighten tensions. The other claim he addresses is that religion is not as significant as economic or political conditions. His response to this common conception that religion is less critical is that religion can and does intensify conflict because it:

1) can help legitimate an insurgency,

2) can help recruit insurgents, and

3) can help identify objects of dispute (like sacred sites).

More specifically, Little says, "There are two areas in which religion is particularly important in the generation of violent conflict: one is nationalism, and the other is terrorism." You can read the full article by Professor Little: here.

A two-day meeting at the UN, the "Culture of Peace," was the initiative of the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a large faith-based conference to promote inter-religious dialogue. The result has been a consensus resolution of the UN General Assembly. According to the UN News Centre, the meeting joined the leaders together to "decry the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and terrorist acts." The overall goal: Increase mutual understanding. 14 world leaders went to New York , including President Bush. There are positive reports about the fact that the Saudi king and Shimon Peres were at least in the same room, and Peres said that the initiative of the Saudi king "inspired hope that all countries in the Middle East could live in peace." Unfortunately, at the same time, other reports are discussing the Iranian envoy's accusation that Israel was abusing the conference for political purposes (merely by its presence) and that its participation brought no benefit to the purpose of the meeting: Dialogue.

The Inter Press Service News Agency published last week an article on religion in India, titled "Secular Fabric Under Threat." The author , Praful Bidwai , discusses a Hindu-chauvinist terrorist network, which police are now starting to understand better after two months of investigations. Bidwai writes that there are organizations and individuals "tied together by adherence to the ideology of Hindutva" (Hindu supremicism). In any case, the article is particularly detailed and looks at the various organizations, which are accused of attacks against both Muslims and Christians , particularly in Orissa. The main question , not only in this article , but in a lot of writing on terrorism and extremism in India concerns state sanction and popular support. Bidwai interviews a history professor from Nehru University, who says: "Hidutva-inspired terrorists are no less dangerous and indefensible than terrorists inspired by jehadi Islam. But the difference is that the first kind of terrorism has a wider base because the Hindus are a majority in India. It also enjoys official sanction and state patronage, unlike jihadi militancy." The professor distinguishes between majoritarian and minority extremism and argues that majoritarian forms of extremism are more dangerous when they can be disguised as nationalism. This has been the ongoing debate about religious persecution in India: how much does majoritarian extremism fuel minority extremism, or is the propaganda of the minority leading to misinformation about the intentions of the majority? The Christians in Orissa are being blamed for religious propaganda and trying to convert the local Hindu civilians. India, of course, is considered a secular country , "the world's most populous democracy" , but the number of religious clashes has been increasing dramatically. For example, over 130 churches have been destroyed in recent fighting. India has approximately 1.1 billion people , over 800 million are Hindu. There are more than 150 million Muslims in India and about 24 million Christians.

You have probably seen these images on the news by now. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem erupted in a huge brawl on Sunday when Armenian and Greek orthodox began to fight for space in the church. The worshippers believe that it is the site of the crucifixion and contains the tomb of Jesus. The picture above comes from Al Jazeera, which also explains in more detail why this unbelievable fight broke out. Unfortunately, it is not the first time. Israeli police have arrested monks from each side. See also the interesting picture and news on Middle East Online.

The question of “meeting rebel leaders” (or rogue states) has been at the front of international diplomacy over the past few years - particularly with the public debate in the United States about Obama's potential meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad “without preconditions.” When is it advisable for the diplomatic process to include rebels - or even terrorists? Two days ago, there were news reports about the decision to send Robert Hannigan - the Security Adviser to the British Prime Minister - to meet with the Muslim leaders in southern Philippines (particularly the Moro Islamic Liberation Front). Hannigan draws his experience from the Northern Ireland Office and reaching the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. He says that he is going there to share his experiences and not to negotiate. This might be precisely the right way to approach rebel leaders throughout the world: Listen First, Negotiate Last. The senior adviser said, “I just come to share some of the lessons we learned.” The peace process in the Philippines was officially suspended by the Presdent - Gloria Arroyo.

As Barack Obama makes history by becoming America's first African-American president, the election took other more conservative turns. Same-sex marriage bans were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. Arkansas also passed a measure that would bar homosexual couples from adopting children. (South Dakota did however reject an abortion ban for the second time in two years, 55 to 45.) It was precisely the black and Hispanic voters coming out to vote for Obama, who supported the bans on same-sex marriage. More specifically, the New York Times has reported that 70% of black voters in California supported the ban. California has been marrying couples since June. Now, the marriages will stop, but couples and the city of San Francisco (as well as other cities) have filed lawsuits to challenge the bans (particularly the famous Proposition 8). One of the legal questions is the status of marriages, which have been conducted since June. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that "sponsors of Proposition 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages" but 18,000 couples have been married there already since the June 16 California Court ruling. An interesting question is whether Proposition 8 is an "amendment' or a complete revision of the Constitution and its basic provisions. Bob Egelko wrote for the Chronicle, therefore, that "the plaintiffs argued that the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority , gays and lesbians , while stripping judges of their power to protect that group." In a very expensive election year, it has also been reported that over 73 million was spent on building support for the ban. In fact, the support for the ban has been reported to be based on "deep religious feelings" particularly among ethnic minorities. It was remarkable to see that Proposition 8 had significantly more support than John McCain. In any case, election day turned out to be a victory for both conservatives and liberals. Those people caught in the middle , African-American gay couples (for example) probably don't know quite what to think about the country's direction. In sum, thirty states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Eric Gorski has written a fascinating article about religion in the 2008 elections. The main premise is that this year's politics has unfortunately used religion as a weapon to divide and mock. The country really became obsessed with the ideas of fringe religion and what the mainstream set of religious beliefs ”should” be.

On this election day, it is worth reflecting on how religion has been front and center during the campaign, while substantive political issues and platforms that can be informed by religion have been missing. The American people were clearly preoccupied with the faith of their candidates but not about how religious beliefs would shape their specific policies over the long term. In fact the implications of the debate over Obama's connection to Islam were never honestly revealed as problematic to the whole concept of separation of church and state.

There were two events during the campaign season that allowed the country to inspect the beliefs of the candidates: The Saddleback Civil Forum was the most recent (between McCain and Obama) and the Compassion Forum between Obama and Clinton. After a two year marathon of campaigning, the real questions about religion in United States politics remain unresolved. Abortion may not be one of those “real” issues, but it was nevertheless relatively absent from the debate this year. Today, there is a Newsweek article that looks at why the abortion rhetoric has been missing. The reason given: "Real war abroad and recessionist anxiety at home." 

Gorski says that exit polls will “provide a glimpse into what role religious voters played in electing the next president” but there will probably not be too much post-election consideration or reflection on why Jeremiah Wright's words were so important for people's judgments about Obama and his religious beliefs. Gorski quotes two scholars - both of whom were completely accurate about the results of the campaign - the first was that the ”public have gorged themselves on religious issues of almost complete irrelevance while the country, deeply divided by everything from the Iraq war to how to control the price of gas, has spiraled toward economic downturn.” The second is the idea of Martin Marty (a religion scholar) that “the rancorous campaign has been bad for religion.” Religion became the scapegoat for a country that refuses to look intellectually at its structural and governance problems. Remember when Obama made the mistake of saying that people cling to their guns and religion? Just because people have genuine faith doesn't mean they don't also cling to it when they want to avoid temporal problem solving or nation-wide introspection.

Actually, it seems that the campaign was particularly bad for Muslim Americans, who were somehow targeted by continual insinuations that Obama would be un-American and unqualified for the Office of the President were he actually Muslim. Perhaps the public did focus on the Wright scandal because it would have been too difficult to have simple ‘faith’ in Obama's credentials. McCain, on the other hand, was clever enough to leave his personal faith out of the issues and to not discuss extensively his views on religion. But then again, there were no accusations that he might be a Muslim in disguise. (He did seemingly get less criticism for his endorsements from Hagee and Parsley.) Either way, McCain did a good job of convincing religious issues voters that he was on their side without continually vocalizing his position on tough religious topics like abortion. In sum, Gorski was right: "With a few exceptions, whatever seemed odd or fringe trumped serious discussion about how candidates' religious beliefs shape their approach to governance."