The U.S. State Department's annual report on international religious freedom describes hundreds of incidents of religious bigotry and violence, especially in the Arab-Muslim world, Asia, and nations of the former Soviet bloc. Which is why it was no surprise when, at a press conference on September 13, 2011, Assistant Secretary Michael Posner and Ambassador-at-Large Suzan Johnson Cook identified Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan as the most recent "countries of particular concern"— places where sectarian assaults and systematic discrimination on the basis of faith have been widely reported.
Yet the runners-up—the ones deemed not to deserve "particular concern"—include such nations as Egypt (where scenes of mobs torching Christian churches belie the ostensible Muslim-Christian comity of Tahrir Square), Pakistan (where Sufi, Shia, Ahmadiyah, and Christian worshippers are being persecuted in alarming numbers), and Kazakhstan (where strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev is about to sign into law a bill limiting the activities of religious missionaries).
You know who is to blame for all this persecution, of course: The Christians are. Or so, at least, the mainline Christian organizations seem anxious to assure us. The victimized Christians in these countries have "asked for it:" by the very act of being open believers and missionaries, they are intensifying the global threat to freedom of religion. So the World Council of Churches, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue of the Holy See, and the World Evangelical Alliance have joined together to do something about it—by urging their fellow Christians to behave less provocatively.
The group's report, titled "Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct," calls on Christians to reject "the violation or destruction of places of worship, sacred symbols, or texts." And, as the report makes clear, there is a whole lot of violation and destruction being done. What the report does not make so clear is that most of it is being done to Christians. The three organizations, which claim to represent over 90 percent of the world's Christians, met in Italy, France, and Thailand to come up with these guidelines, based on the worthy principle of respect for all faiths.
Surely it is at least a little significant, however, that no non-Christian organization joined them in calling for an end to religious provocations. The poor Christians could not get even one Muslim organizations to join them in decrying religious violence, even when these Christians agreed that, yes, they were guilty of provoking the violence.
To his credit, the Vatican's Secretary for Relations with States has been less muddled on this point. Archbishop Dominique Mamberti recently told representatives of the former Soviet bloc nations that their governments are responsible for the climate in which attacks on religious minorities take place. To combat intolerance and discrimination, he said, "it is essential to promote and consolidate religious liberty," which "cannot be restricted to the simple freedom of worship" but includes "the right to preach, educate, convert, contribute to the political discourse and participate fully in public activities."
Echoing the words of Benedict XVI, Mamberti decried "a radical secularism" in the countries of Europe that "relegates, a priori, all kinds of religious manifestations to the private sphere." The Europeans have embraced relativism and believe this makes them tolerant. But their "postmodern idea that religion is a marginal component of public life" has the effect of denigrating both faith and the faithful, which perversely emboldens the violent to act: Intolerance encouraged by pseudo-tolerance.
As a general critique of the world situation, this seems exactly right: The premodern bigots are nakedly brutalizing minority religions, while the postmodern powers are providing the fig leaf.
Even as Archbishop Mamberti was speaking, the Vatican was signing on to the self-blaming "Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World" report. As Benedict XVI was telling the German parliament to reject the European elites' view of religion, the representatives of world Christianity were trying to ingratiate themselves with these elites.
The result is not only self-contradictory; it is self-defeating and has murderous results. Just ask the Christians in Egypt. Or Pakistan. Or Kazakhstan. If you can still find them.
Joseph Bottum is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and the author of The Second Spring: Words into Music, Music into Words. Lauren Weiner contributed material for this report.
Comment on this item
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Soeren Kern
Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam and as a central hub for European jihadists to fight in Syria.
The proposed revisions would, among other changes, regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran to prevent its "misinterpretation" by Islamic extremists.
Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic sharia law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws.
Leaders of Austria's Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to "institutionalized Islamophobia."
Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna are immigrants or foreigners. The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible.