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 Alan M. Dershowitz
by Khaled Abu Toameh
There is growing concern in Ramallah, Cairo, Riyadh and Dubai that the U.S. Administration is working to prevent the collapse of Hamas.
"The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, which is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, will be able to combat radical Islam. The Americans are trying to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the region." — Palestinian official, Ramallah.
The Iranians, with whom the U.S. is now negotiating on nuclear weapons -- amid fears in the Middle East that the U.S. will capitulate to Tehran's demands if it has not effectively capitulated to them already -- have now joined Qatar and Turkey in opposing any attempt to confiscate Hamas's weapons.
The Paris conference was actually a spit in the face to the anti-Hamas forces in the Arab world. By failing to invite the Palestinian Authority to the conference, Kerry indicated that he does not see any role for Abbas and his loyalists in a post-Hamas Gaza Strip.
by Amir Taheri
According to Küntzel, German leaders have at least two other reasons for helping Iran defy the United States. The first is German resentment of defeat in the Second World War followed by foreign occupation, led by the US. The second reason is that Iran is one of the few, if not the only country, where Germans have never been looked at as "war criminals" because of Hitler.
by Malcolm Lowe
Go to Nazareth and you can easily find the mini-mosque. It displays a large poster of Koran quotations denigrating Christianity and urging Christians to convert to Islam.
Overlooked is a fundamental difference between the two regimes. Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. The Palestinian Authority, like most other states in the region, is a personal dictatorship. Arafat started the fashion of simply disregarding the laws.
What is needed in Israel is a central policy unit with the brief of developing long-term policies both to integrate Israeli Christians and to engage with the great variety of Christians in foreign countries.
by Peter Huessy
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler not only invents points the Cheneys did not make, he then casually dismisses "uncomfortable points" they did make. How many Pinocchios is that worth?
Kessler evidently assumes that when intelligence assessments differ, the correct version is only that which differs from the points made by the Cheneys but not by their critics.
Most senior Democratic members of the Senate at the time voted -- twice -- for giving the President the authority to take down Saddam Hussein. How else can Democrats say they made a mistake voting for the war if they cannot now make the case that they were "fooled"?
The U.S. took down Saddam Hussein's regime because on balance the threat-intelligence could not be ignored.