The Telegraph reported two days ago an absolutely absurd story about the movie actress Julia Roberts and the shooting of the new film, “Eat, Pray, Love.” Apparently, Roberts managed to prevent villagers from celebrating the religious rites of Navratri by closing a local temple to the public and placing 350 guards in front and inside. The temple, Ashram Hari Mandir, is close to Delhi.

Other than a reference to a senior police officer, demanding that orders be followed, and that “no outsider is allowed to enter the ashram,” it is not clear how such an oversight could have happened. There is no apparent political permission for such a violation of the rights of local people, while there is also no mention in the article that the local government had tried to prevent such a violation.

Al Jazeera has published a “breaking news” report about the evangelical Christians serving in the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Of course – as Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, the U.S. Army is not intentionally involved in “promoting religion.” On the other hand, and as the media is now questioning (again), the highly religious servicemen may not be able to separate their fervor for evangelism from proselytizing (which is illegal in Afghanistan). The Al Jazeera article on this news item has emphasized the seriousness of the allegations because of the potential for damage to diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan. However, the main source in the article is arguing that it could damage relations because there cannot be open propaganda of other religions “which have no followers in Afghanistan.”

This same logic has been increasingly dangerous for Central Asia and the Middle East and should be avoided as much as possible.

In Tajikistan, for example, there is a new law on religion (as of this April), which basically says that religions must be indigenous because religious associations can only be founded by persons who have resided in the country for a certain number of years. Regardless of the fact that some Muslim schools of thought do not permit conversion from Islam to any other religion, there are also trends in general to prevent the introduction of minority faiths (in migrants for example). Such restrictions on personal freedom of belief and conscience can lead directly to confrontation between the majorities and minorities and may push a segment of the majority towards more extremist thought. For example, if certain Christian sects cannot practice openly because they cannot comply with the rules and regulations, they will be forced to petition the government and protest openly. Such protestations may lead to less tolerant groups in the majority to become even more hostile.

This vicious cycle should be prevented by prohibiting illegal missionary work but allowing non-indigenous religious groups (i.e. non-Muslims) to practice their beliefs freely and openly.

The Economist has jumped on the debate train: This past week they looked at the resolution on religious defamation, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council. Actually, they asked the question (which shows perfectly the confusion in this debate), “What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw?” The answer to this question is fear. The Council is trying to restrict the defamation of religion with the hope that people of faith will be secure in their ability to practice their religions. According to the International Humanist, however, the resolution is dangerous because it does not distinguish what “hatred” of a religion could mean (ex: Islamophobia) as compared to mere criticism. This might show that we are not separating violent speech from regular speech. However, in the post-9/11 world, there is a fine line between the various kinds of anti al-Qaeda rhetoric and dangerous hate speech that affects ordinary Muslims.

As this blog has pointed out several times over the past year, the real fear for certain organizations is that “freedom of expression” will be damaged if there is substantial restrictions on the right to criticize. The question then becomes whether freedom of expression is a higher right under international law than freedom of worship and conscience. The main problem behind this debate is that the promoters of restrictions on defamation are countries facing public unrest on account of American and European rhetoric in the War on Terror. Pakistan, one of the sponsors of the resolution, has much to lose if the anti-Muslim rhetoric is not contained – at least partially. The U.S. is particularly pushing for a more stable Pakistan, and therefore, we should understand what kind of results come from the rhetoric of both government officials and ordinary citizens since 9-11.

The State Department has released the blacklist of religious freedom violators established by the Bush administration. It is the same list as in 2006, and it’s questionable whether the new department really analyzed the current situation before releasing the names of eight countries. Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan are listed as “countries of particular concern.” The results of being listed can include sanctions. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom pushed the State Department to get the list published and claims that listing a country will help U.S. public diplomacy efforts to improve the human rights records of violators. I thought after eight years the rhetoric of blacklisting was shown to be ineffective.  In either case, the fact that the State Department is still blacklisting exactly the same countries shows just how little policy has actually changed.

This past week, the UN Human Rights Council heard the report of Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Jahangir provided several findings about world-wide discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of rights. While looking at the adverse impact of religious discrimination, “it was noted that discrimination based on religion or belief often emanated from deliberate state policies.” There were two major elements to state action mentioned in the report. The first is the law of a state, which defines religious freedoms and establishes the rights of minorities. The second element is the obligation of a state to act when there is in practice a limit or restriction on freedom of expression – but specifically in cases when responding or addressing “the phenomenon of advocacy of religious hatred.”

The emphasis in the report and subsequent “interactive dialogue” between states on inter-religious dialogue, education, and public awareness showed the importance of state action to prevent religious hatred and discrimination. The importance of the state, therefore, led to recommendations from the Rapporteur that states take protective measures for vulnerable population groups. For example, Israel was mentioned in the report for its failure to consistently respect liberty of movement and access to places of worship for Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Their ability to access places of worship have been limited (even if for security reasons) by the harsh system of permits, visas, checkpoints, and the Barrier. With respect to state laws, the Rapporteur specifically pointed out “the negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states.” Communal and mob violence can also be encouraged by state actions and laws.

January 16 was Religious Freedom Day (the news was dominated by the miraculous landing of an airplane on the Hudson). Various religious organizations issued statements and press releases, while the Day itself even has its own website.

The White House, on January 14, issued a press release to commemorate the annual recognition of the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (authored by Thomas Jefferson). 

It is the "stubborn endurance of religious repression," which has formed the basis of Religious Freedom Day. At the same time, we remember our First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the legal rights provided to U.S. citizens.  Actually, when looking at the issues connected to religion and politics, it is the highly political and partisan documents, which reveal the trends and make such a Day interesting.

For this reason, on Religious Freedom Day, I found it worthwhile to visit the website of the Heritage Foundation, which published in a WebMemo that same-sex marriage can erode religious freedom - "troubling signs that the ability of people to express their religious beliefs without fear of penalty is eroding." To understand the trends of conservative belief about religious freedom, the Memo gives a good breakdown of current court cases and institutional deficiencies, which may lead to religious discrimination in the name of same-sex marriage. Indeed, it is a day to reflect “on the religious freedom our nation enjoys.”

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."

This map Religions and Ethnicities in Iraq was published yesterday as part of an article titled, “Christians on the Run in Iraq.” It discusses the contradiction of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's “promise of security for everyone” with the continued persecution of Christians. In July, Maliki assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel that Christians were safe in Iraq, which “led the German government to temporarily halt the process of accepting a refugee contingent of religious minorities.” The rest of the article looks at the life of Iraqi refugees in Germany and the possibility that there will be a new resettlement solution.This blog also discussed the security crisis for Iraqi Christians on October 16.

There are approximately 700,000 to 800,000 Christians in Iraq, and in recent weeks, the violence against this religious community has intensified. Some reports say that "it is the work of Al Qaeda." However, a senior Iraqi Interior Ministry official has said, "there are no indications that Al Qaeda is involved in forcing Christians to flee." The area where the violence has been concentrated is Mosul and Nineveh province. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Christians have fled their homes and at least twelve Christians have been killed since the end of August. Earlier this week, CNN reported that the attacks against Christians may have been caused by "Christian demonstrations ahead of provincial elections, which are to be held by the end of January." The Christian community is hoping to have greater representation on provincial councils. Interestingly, some reports say that the violence is concentrated in areas "where the Kurdish militias exercise almost full control." Some Christian activists are demanding a semiautonomous province governed by Christians. The New York Times has reported that a "panel led by President Jalal Talabani approved the provincial elections law but urged the Parliament to reconsider the issue of representation for minorities." An earlier article by the Times reminds readers that the pre-war Christian population was approximately 1.3 million. Another CNN article reported that "in response to the attacks, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qader al-Obaidi ordered more checkpoints in Christian neighborhoods, additional security patrols, and more aerial surveillance of Christian areas."

On Tuesday, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference condemned the targeting of Christians in northern Iraq and said that the acts were unprecedented crimes in the history of Iraq. He stated, "As we have consistently demanded that the rights of Muslim minorities be respected all over the world, we do emphasize the need to respect the rights of all minorities across the Islamic world out of our firm position at the OIC inspired by the teachings of Islam." As for this religious side - a reverend from a church in Mosul has also said quite strikingly, "We respect the Islamic religion and the Muslim clerics. We don't know under what religious pretexts these terrorists work."

At the beginning of October, Al Jazeera reported on the fascinating developments surrounding the Dalai Lama's ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden , a "500-year-old Deity." The news centered on the tension among Tibetans in India over the issue - and also how the Tibetan exile government says that Shugden worshippers are terrorists linked to China. The fears are that they openly sympathize with China. One website - the Shugden Society - looks at the Dalai Lama's statements and of course argues against the ban on worshipping the deity. Meanwhile, other news reports from two months ago focus on the "schism which could exclude the four million Tibetan followers of Shugden" and the lawsuit, which was brought against the Dalai Lama in India for religious persecution. - Most recently - and unfortunately - the AP is now reporting that the Dalai Lama has been hospitalized and will undergo surgery today.

Picture from “people and power” on Al Jazeera: here
The site also includes a video account of the story.