ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme
...but the UN will protect our right to freedom of conscience.

Having followed the debates on religion and freedom of expression at the United Nations over the last several years, I have become accustomed to passing on bad news, such as a decade of resolutions by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly “combating the defamation of religions.” Now that there is some good news, almost no one has noticed.


Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.


The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of eighteen “independent experts” mandated to monitor compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966 human rights treaty that provides for freedom of opinion and expression and other fundamental rights. The Committee’s general comments represent authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR. Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.

The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34, is the outcome of two years of intense debate among representatives of governments and civil society organizations. The Committee’s previous comment on freedom of opinion and expression, in 1983, was only four paragraphs long. In addition to taking up such matters as treason, defamation of heads of state, “memory laws” enforcing an official version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment 34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not only by asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other rights. It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

According to paragraph 48, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18).

Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.

Laws against blasphemy or “religious insult” (found throughout the world, including half of all Council of Europe member states) are inherently discriminatory against secularists and religious dissenters. They are discriminatory in that secularists have no legal recourse—nor should they—when the words of believers offend their moral sensibilities, nor can gays take the publishers of Leviticus to court for the spiritual affront to them that it surely is. Skeptics and heterodox believers, on the other hand, do have an Article 18 right to live and speak according to their conscience even when it offends the orthodox.

Paragraph 32 of the new comment also cautions states against employing a narrow notion of so-called public morals to restrict speech, effectively ruling out laws that defer to a particular faith tradition: “the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations... for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition.”

The implication of these recommendations is that controversies over blasphemy are not just conflicts between “free speech” and faith, but clashes between competing claims of conscience. This stance is defended by the International Humanist and Ethical Union and elaborated in my forthcoming book, The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights.

The message of General Comment No. 34 is not only a clear condemnation of the blasphemy laws of countries such as Pakistan, which despite having ratified the ICCPR in 2008, continues to impose the death sentence for blasphemy and “defiling” the name of Prophet Muhammad. The Comment equally repudiates the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has upheld Austrian, British, and Turkish laws against blasphemy and religious insult by invoking a sui generis right to “respect for the religious feelings of believers.”

The major disappointment in the comment, in my view, is its failure to address hate speech laws, which in many countries function as de facto restrictions on blasphemy and sacrilege. Theoretically, we can distinguish between bashing a belief and bashing its adherents. Yet, absent some precise international norm, “advocacy of religious hatred” could mean anything from provoking imminent violence against individuals (criminalized even under the First Amendment) to the effectively unverifiable standard of being motivated by religious hostility, as under the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. Convictions against writer and activists such as Paul Giniewski in France, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria demonstrate that hate speech laws are ripe for abuse even in liberal democracies.

Civil society activists now have the final legal authority of the United Nations on their side as they press governments to come into compliance with their treaty obligations and bring an end to the criminalization of blasphemy.

Read more at www.religiondispatches.org
 

Vatican Phonecian Saturn

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com





Vatican Phonecian Saturn


See more at www.youtube.com
 

Ireland’s rift with Vatican deepens over child sex abuse reports

Amplify’d from www.pri.org

Ireland’s rift with Vatican deepens over child sex abuse reports

image
Pope Benedict XVI greeting pilgrims in 2004. The pope's envoy to Ireland left this week after the publication of the Cloyne Report. (Photo courtesy of flickr user Sergey Gabdurakhmanov)

The Catholic Church's cover-up of child sex abuse cases may have tarnished relations between Ireland and the Vatican forever.



Listen NowListen Now
Story from Here and Now. Listent to audio above for full report.
The pope's envoy to Dublin has been recalled to Rome this week after the recent publication of the Cloyne Report earlier this month. The report details 19 additional child sex abuse allegations by clerical members of the Catholic Church from the Diocese of Cloyne amidst an ongoing worldwide scandal of sexual abuse and misconduct. Most of the cases in the Cloyne report were never reported to the police.

The report has inspired a wave of anger among the Irish people. In a chilling speech, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny condemned the Church for letting the abuse cases slip by unpunished.

"The rape and the torture of children were downplayed, or managed, to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, its power, its standing and its reputation," Kenny said in a speech to the Irish Parliament.

Cases from the Cloyne Report date as recent as three years ago, during a time when the Catholic Church promised the world there would be no more cover-ups. Criticism to the Church has come from within its own ranks as well.

"My reaction to the Cloyne Report was one of rage and devastation, followed by a kind of depression and a sense of shame of belonging to this clerical group," said Father Brian Grogan, a representative of the new Association of Catholic Priests, a group with over 300 members. Grogan noted that during the group's meetings, many members expressed dissenting opinions to the Church's policy, but were afraid to speak out for fear of being sent to a far-off diocese in such places as "outer Mongolia or Siberia."

Some, such as Irish Sen. Ronan Mullen, believe that the anger and shock the Cloyne Report has caused across the country could spur anti-Catholic sentiments among citizens.

"It's important the state respect the fact that, within the law, the Church has to regulate its own affairs," Mullen said. "There's almost a danger, behind the calls for separation of Church and state, there's a call for anti-Catholicism in some quarters."

Whatever the case, it is clear that relations between Ireland and the Church may be tarnished forever.

"When it comes to the protecton of the children of this state, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate, cannot and will not be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic" Kenny said. "Because children have to be, and will be, put first."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Here and Now" is an essential midday news magazine for those who want the latest news and expanded conversation on today's hot-button topics: public affairs, foreign policy, science and technology, the arts and more. More "Here and Now".
Read more at www.pri.org
 

Vatican Phonecian Saturn

Ireland Grows Increasingly Anti-Clerical

Amplify’d from atheism.about.com

Ireland Grows Increasingly Anti-Clerical

Ireland has long been one of the staunches Catholic countries in Europe; today, though, it's becoming one of the staunchest anti-clerical countries in Europe. The two situations are not contradictory; in fact the latter grows out of the former. The extreme deference given to churches and church leaders led to incredible abuses of power, no to mention abuses of children, and that's creating an incredible backlash -- especially given the immoral, callous manner in which the Vatican is handling things.




The airwaves are full of bitter remarks supporting Taoiseach Enda Kenny's attack on the "disgraceful" Vatican, and recommending every anti-church measure from the dissolution of the monasteries to the expulsion of the Papal Nuncio and the severing of all links with the Holy See. (The recall of the Papal Nuncio this week marks the lowest point of relations between Ireland and Rome.)
One correspondent wrote that it was his ardent hope that the Catholic Church would follow the example of the News of the World, and hold a "last Mass" before shutting down.



The Taoiseach, meanwhile, has been met with standing ovations for his salvo against the Vatican for failing to respond with sufficient concern to the clerical sex abuse scandals as described in the Cloyne report.



His justice minister, Alan Shatter, is introducing a highly controversial Bill which will compel Irish priests to disclose the secrets of the confessional where paedophilia is mentioned: failure to do so could result in a five-year prison sentence.



Source: Telegraph

The secularist movement in Ireland is growing in support, power, and influence. I expect that few Irish or even experts on Ireland would have expected such a shift a couple of decades ago, but it is happening and the momentum right now is very much with the advocates of increased secularism rather than with apologists for clericalism and for the church.

Church and state are already formally separate in Ireland -- there is no official state church and the Catholic Church has no official position within the government. However, there isn't much separation between church and culture in Ireland. That sort of separation is much harder to achieve. It can be done legislatively and through force, though that tends to have bad effects. Better, long-term separation must come from the ground up. In Ireland, there might be a chance of that happening.

Read more at atheism.about.com
 

Mystery Religion in the Vatican by Michael Hoggard

Amazon Disarms Brits By Banning Self-Defense Items

Amplify’d from www.prisonplanet.com

Media, police and politicians disparage communities protecting themselves as “vigilantism”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Amazon Disarms Brits By Banning Self Defense Items alg tottenham riots

Following calls by politicians, media and the police for Brits not to buy baseball bats and engage in what was disparagingly termed “vigilantism,” Amazon UK has followed suit by banning self-defense items from its online store, after sales of makeshift weapons soared through the roof as a result of riots plaguing the country.

In the immediate aftermath of widespread looting and rioting which was directed primarily against private homes and local family businesses, Brits left defenseless by a blanket gun ban that makes it virtually impossible to own a private firearm rushed to Amazon to purchase whatever could be used as a weapon to protect their families and property from attack.

The need for self-defense was exacerbated after police in London were ordered to stand down and let the rioting take place for the first three nights of chaos as a result of a Scotland Yard directive.

Sales of aluminum truncheons and baseball bats skyrocketed, with some items achieving sales 50,000 per cent above normal.

However, despite the fact that communities organizing themselves into groups to protect their streets, undermined by being labeled “vigilantes” by the media, did indeed serve to quell the worst of the rioting, politicians like Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow which was hit by riots on Monday night, lambasted members of the public for purchasing weapons to defend themselves.

“This crosses the line when it involves weapons,” said Creasy. “That just encourages the sense of fear – we want to reduce tension and fear in the area. People with baseball bats roaming the streets is not helpful: don’t go on Amazon buying them.”

Following suit, Amazon UK today banned the sale of perfectly legal items, including self-defense sprays and Kubotans, short lengths of plastic or steel.

“Amazon has removed several police-style telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons, baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting,” reports the Guardian.

Amazon users were divided about the decision, but many applauded the move despite the fact that police completely failed to protect countless businesses from being burned to the ground and did little to stop violence which led to people being killed.

“Even if they are being bought by respectable home and business owners, they should be banned from sale temporarily,” said V Woolf. “Vigilantism is not the answer. Get these items off the shelves, we are all scared and angry in London and need to know that measures are being taken to help us to feel safe in our cities again.”

But there’s a difference between ‘feeling safe’ and actually being safe in your own home. No amount of government legislation or police deterrence can provide true safety and security, that responsibility rests with the individual. This has been proven in triplicate over the past few nights. As soon as communities started banding together and patrolling their streets, the riots withered and last night there was virtually no trouble at all.

However, the media quickly disparaged people getting together with their neighbors to protect their communities as “vigilantism”. The Metropolitan Police, whose order to its officers to stand down on the first three nights of rioting directly led to the escalation of the chaos, also warned residents not to patrol their communities.

Just like gun control, banning baseball bats only disarms the public and creates victims. Criminals will always be able to acquire weapons of any description because they do not obey laws. Leaving Brits defenseless will only embolden the rioting hordes.

If the UK riots have proven nothing else, they’ve proven that the authorities cannot and will not protect you. It always comes down to the responsibility of the individual and the community to protect their own families, businesses and private property.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Read more at www.prisonplanet.com
 

Episode 375 Steve Quayle - Worldwide Chaos 08/10 by Omega Man | Blog Talk Radio

Episode 375 Steve Quayle - Worldwide Chaos 08/10 by Omega Man | Blog Talk Radio

Rising Restrictions on Religion

Amplify’d from pewforum.org

Rising Restrictions on Religion

One-third of the world's population experiences an increase

restrictII-large

Executive Summary

Navigate this page:

Restrictions on
religious beliefs and practices rose between mid-2006 and mid-2009 in 23 of the
world’s 198 countries (12%), decreased in 12 countries (6%) and remained
essentially unchanged in 163 countries (82%), according to a new study by the
Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Changes in Global Restrictions on ReligionBecause several
countries with increasing restrictions on religion are very populous, however,
the increases affected a much larger share of people than of states. More than
2.2 billion people – nearly a third (32%) of the world’s total population of
6.9 billion – live in countries where either government restrictions on
religion or social hostilities involving religion rose substantially over the
three-year period studied. Only about 1% of the world’s population lives in
countries where government restrictions or social hostilities declined.

Among the world’s
25 most populous countries – which account for about 75% of the world’s total
population – restrictions on religion substantially increased in eight
countries and did not substantially decrease in any. In China, Nigeria, Russia,
Thailand, the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the increases were due primarily to
rising levels of social hostilities involving religion. In Egypt and France,
the increases were mainly the result of government restrictions. The rest of
the 25 most populous countries, including the United States, did not experience
substantial changes in either social hostilities or government-imposed
restrictions.

This is the second
time the Pew Forum has measured restrictions on religion around the globe. Like
the baseline report, the new study scores 198 countries and territories on two
indexes:


  • The Government Restrictions Index measures government laws, policies and
    actions that restrict religious beliefs or practices. This includes efforts by
    governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or
    give preferential treatment to one or more religious groups.
  • The Social Hostilities Index measures acts of religious hostility by
    private individuals, organizations and social groups. This includes mob or
    sectarian violence, harassment over attire for religious reasons and other
    religion-related intimidation or abuse.

Among the five geographic regions covered in the study,
the Middle East-North Africa region had the largest proportion of countries in
which government restrictions on religion increased, with nearly a third of the
region’s countries (30%) imposing greater restrictions. Egypt, in particular,
ranked very high (in the top 5% of all countries, as of mid-2009) on both government
restrictions and social hostilities involving religion. Egypt was one of just
two countries in the world – Indonesia was the other – that had very high
scores on both measures as of mid-2009.

Europe had the largest proportion of countries in which social
hostilities related to religion were on the rise from mid-2006 to mid-2009.
Indeed, five of the 10 countries in the world that had a substantial increase
in social hostilities were in Europe: Bulgaria, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and the
United Kingdom. The study also finds that social hostilities involving religion
have been rising in Asia, particularly in China, Thailand and Vietnam.

Countries Where Government Restrictions Rose, Ranked by Total PopulationCountries where government restrictions declined, ranked by total population
 

Overall, 14 countries had a substantial increase in government
restrictions on religion, while eight had a substantial decline. In terms of
social hostilities involving religion, 10 countries had a substantial increase,
while five had a substantial decline. No country rose or declined substantially
in both categories over the three-year period. Just one country, Kyrgyzstan,
showed a substantial increase in one category (government restrictions) along
with a decrease in the other category (social hostilities); consequently, it is
treated as having no overall change.


Changes in Restrictions Among the 25 Most Populous Countries


Among the world’s most populous countries, government restrictions or social hostilities substantially increased in eight countries – China, Egypt, France, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Vietnam and the United Kingdom – and did not substantially decrease in any. Countries in the upper right have the most restrictions and hostilities. Countries in the lower left have the least. The countries with substantial increases in restrictions are labeled in bold below.


 

In general, most of the countries that had substantial increases in
government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion already had
high or very high levels of restrictions or hostilities. By contrast, nearly
half of the countries that had substantial decreases in restrictions or
hostilities already scored low. This suggests that there may be a gradual
polarization taking place in which countries that are relatively high in
religious restrictions are getting higher while those that are relatively low
are getting lower.

Countries where social hostilities rose, ranked by total populationCountries where social hostilities declined, ranked by total population
 

Specifically, among the 62 countries with high or very
high scores on either or both indexes as of mid-2008, restrictions or
hostilities increased substantially in 14 countries (23%) and decreased
substantially in five (8%). Among the 42 countries that started out with
moderate scores on either or both indexes, increases occurred in seven
countries (17%) and decreases in two (5%). In contrast, among the 94 countries
that started out with low scores on both indexes, the level of government
restrictions and/or social hostilities involving religion decreased in five
countries (5%) and increased in two (2%).

During the three-year period covered by the study, the extent of
violence and abuse related to religion increased in more places than it
decreased. The number of countries in which governments used at least some
measure of force against religious groups or individuals rose from 91 (46%) in
the period ending in mid-2008 to 101 (51%) in the period ending in mid-2009.
This violence was wide-ranging, including individuals being killed, physically
abused, imprisoned, detained or displaced from their homes, as well as damage
to or destruction of personal or religious properties.

In nearly three-quarters of all countries, private citizens or groups
committed crimes, malicious acts or violence motivated by religious hatred or
bias. Such acts occurred in 142 countries (72%) in the period ending in
mid-2009, about the same as in the previous reporting period.  The number of countries that experienced mob
violence related to religion rose from 38 (19%) as of mid-2008 to 52 (26%) as
of mid-2009.

Countries with high restrictions or hostilities are getting higher

Harassment and Anti-Blasphemy Laws 

Number of countries where religious groups were harassedAdherents
of the world’s two largest religious groups, Christians and Muslims, who
together comprise more than half of the global population, were harassed in the
largest number of countries.1 Over the three-year period studied, incidents of
either government or social harassment were reported against Christians in 130
countries (66%) and against Muslims in 117 countries (59%). Buddhists and
Hindus – who together account for roughly one-fifth of the world’s population
and who are more geographically concentrated than Christians or Muslims – faced
harassment in fewer places; harassment was reported against Buddhists in 16
countries (8%) and against Hindus in 27 countries (14%).

In
proportion to their numbers, some smaller religious groups faced especially
widespread harassment. Although Jews comprise less than 1% of the world’s
population, government or social harassment of Jews was reported in 75
countries (38%). Incidents of harassment involving members of other world
religions – including Sikhs, ancient faiths such as Zoroastrianism, newer faith
groups such as Baha’is and Rastafarians, and localized groups that practice
tribal or folk religions – were reported in 84 countries (42%). (For more
details, see Harassment of Particular Religious Groups .)

In addition, the study finds that restrictions on religion are
particularly common in countries that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or
defamation of religion. While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to
protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities
whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical. (For more details, see Laws Against Blasphemy, Apostasy and Defamation of Religion.)

About the
Report
 

These
are among the key findings of Rising Restrictions on Religion, the Pew Forum’s second report on global restrictions
on religion. The 198 countries and self-administering territories covered by
the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. Each country was
scored on a total of 33 measures phrased as questions about government
restrictions or social hostilities involving religion. (For the full question
wording, see the Summary of Results.) The Government Restrictions Index is comprised of 20 questions; there are 13
questions on the Social Hostilities Index.

Time periods covered in the reportTo
answer the questions that make up the indexes, Pew Forum researchers combed
through 18 widely cited, publicly available sources of information, including
reports by the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or
Belief, the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom’s Foreign &
Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, the Hudson
Institute, Freedom House and Amnesty International. (For the complete list of
sources, see the Methodology.) Many of the examples cited in this
report were drawn from the State Department’s annual International Religious
Freedom reports.

The researchers involved in this process recorded only
concrete reports about specific government laws, policies and actions, as well
as incidents of religious violence or intolerance by social groups; they did
not rely on the commentaries or opinions of the sources. (For a more detailed
explanation of the coding and data verification procedures, see the
Methodology.) The goal was to devise a battery of quantifiable, objective
measures that could be analyzed individually as well as combined into two
comprehensive indexes, the Government Restrictions Index and the Social
Hostilities Index.

The
Forum’s baseline report on global restrictions on religion calculated each
country’s average scores on the Government Restrictions Index and Social
Hostilities Index for the two-year period from mid-2006 to mid-2008. This
report assesses changes over time by comparing each country’s original scores
with its average scores for the overlapping two-year period from mid-2007 to
mid-2009.2 Comparing rolling averages for overlapping time
periods reduces the impact of year-to-year fluctuations and helps identify
consistent trends.

This
report focuses on changes in countries’ scores on the indexes that are deemed
to be “substantial.” (The report refers to a change in a country’s score as
substantial only if it is at least 1.5 standard deviations above or below the
mean amount of change among all 198 countries on each index. The change also
had to be in the same direction over the two periods studied, meaning that it
had to rise or fall both in the period from mid-2006 to mid-2008 and in the
overlapping period from mid-2007 to mid-2009. See the Methodology for more
details.)

Situation as of Mid-2009 

Countries with very high government restrictions or social hostilities involving religionThe Pew Forum
characterizes each country’s place on the Government Restrictions Index and the
Social Hostilities Index by percentile. Countries with scores in the top 5% are
characterized as “very high.” The next highest 15% of scores are categorized as
“high,” and the following 20% are characterized as “moderate.” The bottom 60%
of scores are characterized as “low.”

As
of mid-2009, government restrictions on religion were high or very high in 42
countries, about one-in-five worldwide. The 10 countries that had very high
government restrictions as of mid-2009 were Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Uzbekistan, China, Maldives, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea and Indonesia.
Government restrictions were in the moderate range in 39 countries. A much
larger number of countries – 117 – had low levels of government restrictions.
But because many of the more restrictive countries (including China and India)
are very populous, more than half of the world’s population (59%) was living
with high or very high government restrictions as of mid-2009. (For a complete
list of all countries in each category, see the Government Restriction Index table.)

As
of mid-2009, social hostilities involving religion were high or very high in 40
countries, about one-in-five worldwide. The 10 countries that had very high
hostilities as of mid-2009 were Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia,
Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Israel and Egypt. Social hostilities were in
the moderate range in 43 countries. A much larger number of countries – 115 –
had low levels of social hostilities. But because many of the countries with
high or very high social hostilities (including India, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Nigeria) are very populous, nearly half of the world’s
population (48%) was living with high or very high social hostilities involving
religion as of mid-2009. (For a complete list of all countries in each
category, see the Social Hostilities Index table.)

Government
restrictions or social hostilities were high or very high in about one-third of
the countries as of mid-2009. But because some of the most restrictive
countries are very populous, nearly 70 percent of the world’s 6.9 billion
people were living in countries where governments imposed high restrictions on
religion or where there were high levels of religious hostilities in
society. 

Changes in Government Restrictions 

Substantial changed in government restrictionsComparing
the Pew Forum’s first set of scores (for the two-year period from mid-2006 to
mid-2008) with the second set of scores (for the two-year period from mid-2007
to mid-2009), the study finds that 14 countries had a substantial increase in
government restrictions and eight had a substantial decline.

Six
of the 14 countries where government restrictions rose substantially were in
the Middle East-North Africa region: Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Syria and
Yemen. In Egypt, for example, the government maintained a longstanding ban on
the Muslim Brotherhood, an influential Islamic organization, and discriminated
against Christians in various ways, including in public-sector hiring. In
Yemen, government officials reportedly sought to intimidate Baha’is and
converts to Christianity, including arresting people for promoting Christianity
and distributing Bibles.

Most
of the countries with substantial decreases in government restrictions (seven
of the eight countries) had low levels of restrictions to begin with. The
exception was Greece, which started out with high government restrictions but
moved to the moderate level by mid-2009. While the government of Greece
continued to restrict proselytizing, for example, there were fewer reported
cases where the police detained people for proselytizing.

Changes in Social Hostilities 

substantial changes in social hostilitiesTen
countries had substantial increases in social hostilities involving religion
and five had a substantial decline.

As
noted above, the level of social hostilities involving religion rose
substantially in five European nations: Bulgaria, Denmark, Russia, Sweden and
the United Kingdom. Much of the tension in Europe focused on the region’s
rapidly growing Muslim population, but in some cases it also reflected rising
anti-Semitism and antagonism toward Christian minorities, such as Jehovah’s
Witnesses.3  

Social
hostilities also rose in several Asian countries, including China, Mongolia,
Thailand and Vietnam. In China, for example, an August 2008 terrorist attack
attributed by Chinese authorities to a militant Muslim separatist group, known
as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, caused more than a dozen casualties in
Xinjiang Province, and riots in Tibet in March 2008 pitted ethnic Tibetans
(mainly Buddhists) against ethnic Han Chinese. 

Three
of the five countries where social hostilities declined are in sub-Saharan
Africa: Chad, Liberia and Tanzania. But social hostilities involving religion
rose in Nigeria, the region’s most populous country, where there were a number of violent clashes between
Christians and Muslims.

Government Restrictions or Social Hostilities 

Looking at the countries that had a substantial increase
in either government restrictions or social hostilities, most (14 out of 23, or 61%) previously had high or very
high levels of restrictions or hostilities. By contrast, among the countries
that had substantial declines in either government restrictions or social
hostilities, most (seven out of 12, or 58%) previously had low or moderate
levels of restrictions or hostilities. And of the countries that stayed roughly
the same, most (120 out of 163, or 74%) previously had low or moderate levels
of restrictions or hostilities. Once again, this suggests that there may be a
gradual polarization taking place in which restrictions are rising
predominantly in countries that already have high or very high restrictions or
hostilities, and are declining or staying the same predominately in countries
that already have low or moderate restrictions or hostilities.

Change in government restrictions or social hostilities

Other Findings 

Other
key findings from the study include:

  • Among the five
    geographic regions covered in this report, the Middle East-North Africa had the
    highest government and social restrictions on religion, while the Americas were
    the least restrictive region on both measures. The Middle East-North Africa region
    also had the greatest number of countries where government restrictions on
    religion increased from mid-2006 to mid-2009, with about a third of the
    region’s countries (30%) imposing greater restrictions.
    In contrast, no country in the Americas registered a substantial increase on
    either index.
  • Prior
    to the recent uprising in Egypt, government restrictions on religion were
    already very high there. By mid-2009, Egypt also had joined the 5% of countries
    with the most intense social hostilities involving religion. However, the
    increase in social hostilities in Egypt fell just short of being a substantial
    increase, as defined in this study.
  • Government
    restrictions on religion increased substantially in two European countries,
    France and Serbia. In France, members of Parliament began discussing whether
    women should be allowed to wear the burqa, and President Nicolas Sarkozy said
    the head-to-toe covering was “not welcome” in French society. The French
    government also put pressure on religious groups it considers to be cults,
    including Scientologists. For example, the lead prosecutor in a fraud case
    involving the Church of Scientology sought to have the group declared a
    “criminal enterprise.” In Serbia, meanwhile, the government refused to legally
    register Jehovah’s Witnesses and several other minority religious groups. There
    also were reports that some government officials referred to minority religious
    groups as “sects” or other pejorative terms.
  • Government
    restrictions also increased substantially in Malaysia, which, like Egypt,
    already had very high restrictions to begin with. Although the country’s
    constitution recognizes freedom of religion, Malaysia restricts the observance
    of Islamic beliefs and practices that do not conform to Sunni Islam. Indeed,
    the Malaysian government monitors more than 50 Muslim groups that it considers
    unorthodox, including the Ahmadiyya movement.
  • In China,
    there was no change in the level of government restrictions on religion, which
    remained very high. But social hostilities involving religion, which had been
    relatively low, increased substantially from mid-2006 to mid-2009. During that
    time period protests erupted among the predominantly Buddhist population in
    Tibet and among Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang Province over what they saw as
    cultural and economic domination by ethnic Han Chinese.
  • In some other
    Asian countries, social hostilities also involved ethnic and religious
    minorities, such as Malay Muslim separatists in southern Thailand, who were
    involved in several violent clashes with the majority Buddhist population. 
  • Social
    hostilities involving religion in the United States remained at a moderate
    level. In recent years, the U.S. annually has had at least 1,300 hate crimes
    involving religious bias, according to FBI reports. (Most of the recent
    controversies over the construction of mosques and Islamic centers in New York
    City and other communities across the country took place after the period
    covered in this report. )
  • Religion-related terrorist groups
    were active in 74 countries around the world in the period ending in mid-2009.
    The groups carried out acts of violence in half of the 74 countries. (In the
    other half, their activities were limited to recruitment and fundraising.) In
    Russia, for example, more than 1,100 casualties resulted from religion-related
    terrorist attacks during the two-year period ending in mid-2009. This was more
    than double the number of casualties recorded in the previous reporting period.
    This includes people who were killed, wounded, displaced from their homes,
    kidnapped or had their property destroyed in religion-related terrorist
    attacks.

Return to Table of Contents at top to continue reading the Full Report. 


Footnotes: 

1 As of 2010, Muslims made up nearly a
quarter (23.4%) of the world’s population, according to the Pew Forum’s January
2011 report The Future of the Global Muslim Population.
The Pew Forum is currently compiling population data on other world religions
and intends to publish a series of reports on the demography of religion in
2011-2012. In the meantime, the population figures used in this section are
from the World Religion Database at Boston University, which estimates that
Christians comprise about a third (32.9%) of the world’s population. (return to text) 

2 Answers to Questions 1 and 2 in the
Government Restrictions Index were recoded for the period from mid-2006 to
mid-2008 to match the coding conventions used for the period from mid-2007 to
mid-2009. After the recoding, two fewer countries scored in the high or very
high category for the period ending in mid-2008. As a result, this report lists
62 countries as having high or very high restrictions as of mid-2008 rather
than the 64 countries listed in the 2009 baseline report, Global Restrictions on Religion. (return to text) 

3 For background on Europe’s growing
Muslim population, see the Pew Forum’s January 2011 report The Future of the Global Muslim
Population
. (return to text) 









Read more on:
Government



Read more at pewforum.org
 

Religious Harassment on Rise Throughout the World, Report Finds

Amplify’d from www.foxnews.com

Religious Harassment on Rise Throughout the World, Report Finds

| FoxNews.com

Egypt Blast

Jan. 1, 2011: Worshippers shout around an exploded car in front of a Coptic Christian church in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, Egypt.

Worshippers are under attack in more countries as governments crack down on religion, and social hostilities grow, according to a new report.

The report, by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, looked at statistics and government data spanning from 2006 to 2009, and uses such criteria as government crackdowns on religion and social hostility, including religious-motivated bias, beatings and murder, to determine which countries were the least tolerant to religion.

Christians in 130 countries -- 66 percent of the world's countries -- experienced government laws and social harassment. Muslims, according to the Pew report, faced government and social harassment in slightly fewer countries, with incidents reported in 117 countries. Many of those countries overlap with incidents against both religions, suggesting ongoing strife between the two religions, according to the report.

The world’s most geographically concentrated religious groups – Hindus and Buddhists – also experienced discrimination in 27 and 16 countries, respectively.

Religious intolerance is highest in the Middle East and Europe. Although the Middle East is predominantly Muslim, the report said that Muslims were the most harassed religious group, with Christians and Jews also showing a heavy level of harassment.

Egypt showed the biggest increase in both government crackdowns and social hostilities, with the report mentioning that this rise was independent of the recent revolution the country experienced this year. Strife between Muslims and Coptic Christians is an ongoing problem in Egypt, as well as the ability to express religion freely.

France came in second for the biggest rise in harassment, and took criticism for implementing anti-burqa laws last year. Bias against Muslims has also been on the rise there.

“In general, most of the countries that had substantial increases in government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion already had high or very high levels of restrictions or hostilities,” the report said.

The Pew report named Japan the most religiously tolerant of the world’s countries, with the fewest number of government crackdowns and social hostilities. Brazil also proved to be welcoming to religion, coming in a close second.

Read more at www.foxnews.com