Pope Benedict XVI was in France for three days last week. On Friday he arrived in Paris, where he was met by President Sarkozy and his wife. As regards the intellectual content of the Pope's visit, a New York Times Article says that he warned "the Parisian intelligentsia of the dangers of secularism." Sarkozy, according to France24, on his end, "renewed his call for positive secularism," which he first spoke about in Rome last year and would mean religion playing a greater role in public life. Apparently, the Pope's aim is to bring faith and reason closer together. Rachel Donadio reported that Benedict XVI's first visit to France centered on the tensions between faith and reason and that "his message went counter to a deep vein of anticlericalism in France." She also reported that the Pope is thereby calling for a "redefinition of laïcité," or secularism (the divide between church and state). The Pope also denounced "fundamentalist fanaticism," when he addressed cultural figures - including Muslim leaders - two years after his controversial speech in Regensburg.

Picture Source: France24

I came across some news from a few months ago in the International Herald Tribune (titled: Integrating Islam into the West) about the Archbishop of Canterbury and his suggestion in a lecture that Britain should adopt certain aspects of Shariah law. This controversy has been making the rounds throughout Europe and North America over the last years, and so far, there have been few substantial results. Nevertheless, I found the article's points about the comments of the Most Reverend Rowan Williams relatively thought provoking. Apparently, the real fear of accepting elements of "minority" law is that you can create "states within states" and that the secular state will no longer have sufficient authority. There are 1.8 million Muslims in Britain, and "Britain is struggling to find a way of accommodating its increasingly ghettoized and radicalized Muslim population." Similar questions have been raised in Ontario specifically when the Attorney General there proposed Shariah for family law disputes. Interestingly, the IHT article makes a concluding comment that "the real reason for Europe's failure to integrate Islam is the European commitment to secularism."    

Good day everyone, I am Patrick Frost, the FPA blogger for Central Asia, and Karin has been kind enough to let me do a post on this site from time to time. Please feel free to send me comments, critiques, and questions at  patfrost1 at gmail.com or just post them on this site.

Today, I would like to talk about a book I read about six months ago that challenged the way I saw the West's political society based on secularization, other societies, civilizations, and political systems throughout the world, especially in Muslim dominated lands, and the current "war on terror.' It is Mark Lilla's, professor of the Humanities at Columbia University, The Stillborn God; Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. At its most basic, it is a philosophical history of Europe/US advancement from a society ruled by political theology to one ruled by secularization. But the book is about much more, in fact it is a warning against complacency of this type of political/societal system in the West.

Here is Lilla's dramatic message;
‘Intellectual complacency, nursed by implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization, has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its manifest power to shape human life at any moment.’

Lilla warns us in the West to not feel so safe and cozy with our secular system, for he argues that we are the "exception', not the rest of the world, and that we are in fact still living in an "experiment.' These are strong words and statements, but they are important for all to ponder. This is a pertinent book because it is based on a question not often asked; "Why don't we understand the ‘enduring attraction of political theology?’ Instead of "why don't they understand our (and copy) our political system and way of life?'

Lilla strongly believes that the argument over politics and religion will not end, and in fact "could not end,' because it concerns the enduring question that all societies must answer and face, whether "to order their political affairs in light of a divine revelation, or to make their way alone.'

There have been two interesting news stories related to China's "religion policies' in the weeks leading up the Olympics. One development concerns Sino-French relations, and the Chinese Ambassador to France's warning that "there would be serious consequences" for their relations if President Sarkozy meets the Dalai Lama. Apparently, just meeting the Dalai Lama is an act of interfering in China's internal affairs. The Dalai Lama will visit France for a conference on Buddhism , after the start of the Olympics. Specifically, from August 16 to August 20, the Dalai Lama will be teaching in Nantes. As the New York Times summarizes the situation, "China has repeatedly accused the Dalai Lama and his subordinates of instigating anti-Chinese riots in Tibet three months ago and encouraging a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, which the Dalai Lama has denied." On Thursday, though, Sarkozy said that would take no heed of China's concerns, and that it was not China's decision to make whether he meets the Dalai Lama. Despite this harsh response, Sarkozy still confirmed that he will go to the opening ceremony of the Games. A second news story concerns whether and how China will permit Bibles during the Olympics. China Daily has reported that tens of thousands of Bibles and New Testaments have been printed to be available at the Games. However, if you did a websearch on the issue, all you would find are news reports from Christian groups exclaiming the atrocity that China plans to deny athletes and visitors their rights to bring Bibles. The fascinating part of the China Daily news report concerns the fact that the Bibles will have the logo of the Beijing Olympics printed on their covers.

(picture from China Daily)

In June of this year, the International Crisis Group published a report titled, "Egypt's Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?" , particularly looking at confrontation in the context of long-term stability. In the world of politics and religion, the question always seems to come back to "confrontation" and whether domestic politics can tolerate the religious foundations of certain forms of opposition, and on the flip side, whether the world community can tolerate local community politics , in contexts where objectionable religion opposition is not confronted. The main aim of the ICG report is to explain how the role of the Muslim Brothers (the largest opposition) in Egypt's politics is formally restricted but that the ban has done "nothing to reduce its legitimacy or deal with its longer-term political role." The report has two sets of recommendations, one set for the Government of Egypt and the other for the Society of Muslim Brothers. With respect to the role of religion, the recommendations are particularly fascinating. To the Government of Egypt, the ICG says there should be a regularization of the participation of the Muslim Brothers in political life. This would require revising Article 5 of the constitution to "set guidelines for the establishment of a political party with religious reference." The laws should also be revised so that new parties with "a religious reference" can be created. To the Muslim Brothers, the ICG says that they should engage with "secular opposition parties and movements to form a consensus on how the Society can best be integrated," and also that representatives of the Christian community should be included "in a frank dialogue on sectarian relations."  The ICG also calls on the Muslim Brothers to clarify (or alter?) their stance on women and religious minorities in public life and particularly the political sphere.

According to President Bush's speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast on June 26, his administration "has provided unprecedented support for the compassionate work performed by faith-based and community groups." He continued this thought by saying that the "government can hand out money, but government cannot put hope in a person's heart." The President remarked that his legacy has been to lower "the barriers that kept government and faith-based groups needlessly divided." The U.S. President also addressed the National Conference of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and said that when he came to office his goal was to change the fact that faith-based organizations were "often barred from receiving support from the federal government." His method of change was "compassionate conservatism." The President also recalled that compassionate conservatism was his main agenda item as a candidate back in 1999.  In reality, it was his main focus until the foreign policy of the U.S. dramatically shifted after September 11, 2001. Afterall, his first executive order established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives itself.  In essence, this order was meant to ensure that faith-based organizations "do not have to give up their religious character to receive taxpayer money." To be clearer about how his initiative could coincide with true U.S.-style separation of church and state, President Bush said, "Government should never fund the teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of the faithful." The President further spelled out three policies advanced for this cause: 1) The tax code was amended to provide greater incentives for charitable donations; 2) The Compassion Capital Fund was established; and 3) The Pro Bono Challenge was launched this year. The President said that "the movement is bigger than politics or any political party;" 35 governors have faith-based offices , 19 of them Democrats; and last year the government provided "more than 19,000 competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations."  The areas where faith-based groups have been active are listed in a White House Fact Sheet, with interesting facts such as: "Of the 60 million people who give their time to others, more than one-third do so through faith-based groups." 

(Photo from the White House website)

A classic example of the complex dynamics surrounding an “Islamic” party in a secular state is Turkey and the AKP (The Justice and Development Party), which has spent most of its recent political clout trying to remove the headscarf ban in universities. The Eurasia Daily Monitor (Jamestown Foundation) has recently reported on research that shows "Turks are becoming more pessimistic and introspective." The article reflects on the decline of support for the AKP and the supposed "deep divisions in Turkish society over the future of secularism." Apparently, "only 5.2% of AKP supporters were concerned that secularism was in danger."

A second example of a secular state, which faces questions about the legitimate role of its religious political parties, is Tajikistan. This less-developed country (rarely discussed in world politics) prides itself on the open inclusion of the “Party of the Islamic Revival/Renaissance of Tajikistan” (also known as PIRT). Tajikistan perpetually claims the status of "most-democratic country in Central Asia" simply because the PIRT is active and openly challenges government policies and agenda items. This past week, in Tajikistan, at the National Center for Strategic Research, there was a presentation of a new book by Abdullo Rakhnamo, "Religious Parties and Secular Governments." Rakhnamo has recently said during an interview that the legal functioning of the PIRT is "one of the most important components of the Tajik peace process." His book focuses on the role of religious parties in maintaining equilibrium in developing political systems , helping to create "a culture of stability" leading to compromise and the furtherance of the rule of law.