The State Department yesterday released its annual International Religious Freedom Report for the year 2011. From Foreign Policy’s overview:
The report highlighted the deteriorating situation in China, whose government continued to increase restrictions on religious practice for Tibetan Buddhist monks in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas . . .
Other designated “Countries of Particular Concern” included Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Burma, also known as Myanmar . . .
In Egypt, where the population democratically elected an Islamist government, the country’s post-Mubarak transition remains tenuous, as Coptic Christians still face persecution. On October 9, for example, hundreds of demonstrators — mostly Copts — were attacked by Egyptian security forces in the Maspiro area of Cairo.
In Iran, meanwhile, the Christian pastor (and convert from Islam) Youcef Nadarkhani remains in prison. In addition to the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists and Christians, the report warns of a “rising tide of anti-Semitism” worldwide.
At a press briefing to mark the release of the report, Suzan Johnson Cook, Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, said:
Freedom of religion is not just an American right but the right of all people. It goes hand in hand with freedom of expression, freedom of speech and assembly, and when religious freedom is restricted, all these rights are at risk. And for this reason, religious freedom is often the bellwether for other human rights. It’s the canary in the coal mine.
July 31st, 2012 | 12:20 pm
I am not sure if it is reasonable to count Hosannah Tabor against the Obama administration when the case dates to the Bush administration and when the “good guys” won unanimously, with Obama’s two appointees to the court voting against the administration’s side.
The big complaint, of course, is the “contraceptive mandate,” and yet states began imposing their own mandates well before Obama even considered running for president. Also, Catholic organizations in two states (New York and California) fought state mandates, lost their court battles, and appeals were turned down in the Supreme Court.
I understand the arguments against the Obama administration, and even agree with some of them, but I don’t see religious liberty in general threatened or under attack in the United States. Even if the contraceptive mandate is upheld as is, won’t the United States still be the country with the most religious liberty in the world?
July 31st, 2012 | 1:54 pm
Another case I didn’t see mentioned: An Indian rationalist debunked a ‘miracle’, and local Catholics are pushing for jail time for
“hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community.”
And there doesn’t seem to be much international concern about witch hunts in Africa.
July 31st, 2012 | 2:50 pm
@David Nickol – With religious liberty in Hosanna-Tabor, I meant to refer to the Obama administration’s arguments in the case (not to the administration’s Court appointees). As Richard Garnett describes in the link I included, the view of the administration “was characterized by the chief justice as ‘remarkable,’ ‘extreme,’ and ‘untenable.’”
As for the New York and California mandates, if I understand it correctly, Catholic organizations in those states still had loopholes that they could use to avoid providing free contraceptives, despite the court decisions. (See section 2a in this blog post.) Those loopholes are closed by the health reform law and mandate.
Religious liberty is not nearly as threatened in the U.S. as it is in many other countries; I said as much in the last line of my post. But I would say the trend in the U.S. is towards reducing religious liberty, which I find troubling.
@Ray Ingles, I don’t support the persecution of rationalists, alleged witches, atheists, etc. any more than I support the persecution of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the rest. I’d say international concern over the persecution of both groups is in short supply. (See the Nadarkhani link for more.)
July 31st, 2012 | 3:54 pm
“I don’t support the persecution of rationalists, alleged witches, atheists, etc. any more than I support the persecution of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the rest. I’d say international concern over the persecution of both groups is in short supply. (See the Nadarkhani link for more.)”
Amen to this. I used to work on the State Department’s International Religious Report for a few years and as far as I could tell from international reaction, we might as well have dropped it down a well. I know there was always coverage of the persecution of sorcerers, witches, and other groups in the report. The study on Saudi Arabia usually demonstrates this concern, for example. A great deal of honest effort is taken to find victims and report their stories. Many are reluctant to speak up, and they have reason to do so. I know from personal experience that some said they didn’t see the point of risking capture if they spoke to us, since the previous report did nothing to alleviate their circumstances.
My impression, however, was and is that Christians are among the most persecuted people in the world today. It is hard for us to imagine it, I guess, but in much of the world, Christians are the poorest of the poor. They are powerless, marginalized and victimized. If publication of the IRFR should one day help them, then that is a good thing.
August 1st, 2012 | 7:47 am
Today, freedom of religion dies in the USA
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/08/today-freedom-of-religion-dies-in-usa.html
August 1st, 2012 | 8:53 am
Anna, I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that anyone here supported persecution of anyone. I just wanted to point out that some of the targets are non-obvious.
August 1st, 2012 | 10:48 am
Today, freedom of religion dies in the USA.
Four,
Actually, the archbishop’s post doesn’t even reflect its title. Maybe the courts will not permit the mandate. Maybe Obama will be defeated. Not mentioned is the fact that even if Obama isn’t defeated, he only gets one more term. Also not mentioned is the fact that even if Obama isn’t defeated, Republicans will take the House and the Senate.
These already hard-pressed will then be subject to further financial hardship as they struggle to find the extra dollars to finance their own plans. Most will be unable to afford the insurance, thereby rendered helpless against life’s slings and arrows.
But if their employer doesn’t provide insurance, they will be able to purchase subsidized insurance through a state exchange.
But there is a sense of inevitability: the unbelieving employee’s free choice to contracept or abort is about to become the financial liability of the believing employer.
Actually, the issue is no longer financial liability, since the cost burden (if any) is on the insurance company. Even if critics don’t believe it will work out that way, the can at least acknowledge how the mandate is designed to work instead of just declaring as fact their view of how it will work.
This is not to deny there is a real issue of religious liberty. But declaring religious liberty dead in the United States now, or even if the contraceptive mandate is fully implemented, is hyperbolic.
But granting for the sake of argument that religious liberty in the United States is dead or dying, to what country should people who want freedom of religion flee to?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact