Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both

Napp Nazworth
March 19, 2012
The Christian Post

Young people are turning away from churches because they associate Christianity with Republican politics, a study reveals.

Political science Professors David Campbell (University of Notre Dame) and Robert Putnam (Harvard University) published their findings, "God and Caesar in America: Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both," in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs. Campbell and Putnam also wrote American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010), which was recently released in paperback. For that book, they have been surveying the same group of people from 2006 to 2011. The same data was used for the Foreign Affairs article.

One of the most surprising findings from the data they collected, Campbell said in a March 13 interview with The Christian Post, was that people are driven away or toward religious involvement because of their political leanings. In particular, those who are politically conservative, or Republican, are more likely to become churchgoers and those that are politically liberal, or Democratic, are more likely to turn away from religion.

This is the opposite of previous understandings of the interaction of religion and politics. Social scientists believed that people first got involved in a particular religion, which then influenced their politics in some way. Increasingly, more studies like Campbell and Putnam's are finding, though, that politics is more likely to determine religion than religion determine politics.

Campbell likes to use the image of a "brand" from marketing. The Republican brand has been increasingly associated with religion and social conservatism due to the influence of the Christian Right, a social movement which has been a part of the Republican coalition since the 1980s. Moderates and Democrats are uncomfortable with that brand and seek to not be identified with it.

"A lot of what goes on in politics is not so much people thinking through political positions but it's sort of a visceral reaction you have to a brand, whether it be Republicans or Democrats," Campbell said.

Political conservatives and Republicans, who identify positively with the brand, have been more likely to attend church regularly. Campbell suspects that is due to conservatives being more likely to associate with other churchgoers in their social networks.

"You're a conservative, you're around people who are churchgoing, so you begin to adopt the idea that, well, this is what it means to be someone who is conservative, I ought to attend church regularly, I also think of myself as religious," Campbell explained.

While these trends were found in the general population, Campbell and Putnam found them to be much stronger among young adults, those under 30, and especially those under 25.

"Anything you might say about the general population, double it or square it when you talk about the young," Campbell said.

Since young voters are more likely to be politically liberal, especially on the issue of gay rights, they have been driven away from the church by the perception of a close association between religion and Republican politics.

To young adults, Campbell and Putnam write, "'religion' means 'Republican,' 'intolerant,' and 'homophobic.' Since those traits do not represent their views, they do not see themselves – or wish to be seen by their peers – as religious."

Campbell and Putnam report that between 2006 and 2011, the proportion of the population that reported having no religion rose modestly, from 17 percent to 19 percent, but among young Americans rose five times as much.

While it has been true that young people of previous generations have been less interested in religion, then become more religious as they become older, today's generation of young adults are more likely than previous generations of young adults to be without a religious affiliation. About one-third of 20-somethings were without religion in 2011 compared to about one-fourth of 20-somethings in 2006.

Campbell noted that the trends he and Putnam identified are mostly among those who can be described as "nominally" religious. Those who are the least committed to a church or denomination are the ones who are most likely to drop out. When they do drop out, they are not likely to become atheists. Formerly churchgoing young adults remain comfortable with a belief in God but uncomfortable with organized religion.

"The reason this is important for clergy is these are not people who are lost completely to religion. It's almost like they're an untapped constituency, or untapped market, that could be brought back to a different kind of religion, or a religion that they thought was stripped of politics," Campbell argued.

There is a trend among nondenominational evangelical congregations that attract younger Christians to avoid involvement in politics. Campbell believes that the pastors of these congregations understand more intuitively what his data is showing more crudely – that young people dislike their religion mixed with politics.

On Clerical Involvement in Politics

July 11, 2012

BriefingNews

"It's a sin when some Clergy divide people according to their parties criteria and identify with one party faction. This is the reason why the canon laws of the Church forbid to Clergy involvement in politics", said Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios to BriefingNews.

When asked about clergy who involve themselves with political issues, and generally politics, and whether there are limits to this, the Hierarch stressed that the Church is the Body of Christ, the spiritual mother of all Christians, and should remain open to all people, regardless of color, race, class, or political order.

He further said:

"This is the greatness of the Church, that it is not enclosed in small intimate groups that are distinguished by particular political parties and ideologies. And like every mother, She shows Her love for all children, who may belong to different parties, and so much more should this be done by the Church.

It is within this framework that the Clergy should move, as Spiritual Fathers and spiritual mothers of people who are looking for affection, love, freedom, meaning of life.

So it's a sin when some Clergy divide people according to their parties criteria and identify with one party faction. This is the reason why the canon laws of the Church forbid to Clergy involvement in politics.

Of course, we must make a distinction. Politics is one thing when it is an adjective and involves the life of the city, and it is another thing when politics is a noun and is involved in party practices.

With the first a Clergyman is doing politics, after damage has been done to a society and he participates in events, dealing with social and charitable works. Not so with the second meaning, when he becomes a party member and openly supports one political party formation.

When there are elections the Cleric is free to vote for the party he thinks will better address the social and economic problems, but cannot propagate to the Parishioners the party he has chosen.

Some parties try to get backed up by the Clergy and people of the Church, but Clerics should not succumb to this temptation.

On this occasion I want to emphasize my view that the Church should be disentangled from the tight embrace of the state in order to gain Its freedom, to manage Its house, according to canon law.

I cannot understand why we need a Charter which is the law of the State, to determine the many details about the inner life of the Church. One law would suffice to define the personality of the Church to be authorized according to the sacred canons.

Also, I cannot understand why there is a law of the State on Ecclesiastical Courts, which regulates many details, even as to what a Clegyman-judge should wear.

It would suffice for one law and a few articles that would set out some basic principles and leave the Church to judge their Clergy in accordance with the sacred canons, without interfering in secular law.

Unfortunately, the current situation in some areas is the prevalence of a conducive political-state spirit. We must put forward an order in these matters, so that the inner life of the Church will not to be considered and understood as a prisoner of state-civil law.

However, if we Clergy see things through the ecclesiastical perspective, we will not be possessed by insecurities and will not divide the parties into hostile or friendly, and will not engage in electoral dilemmas.

One is the work of the Church and another is the work of the State and party.

When a State seeks and is able to address poverty and unemployment, then it must be welcomed, because it cares for the interests of the people."

Translated by John Sanidopoulos

The Church and the "Civil Society"

By His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos 

of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

It is known from various studies that the European Union in its final functional form, either as a federation or as an Intergovernmental Union of States or in any other form, will necessarily have to assign new roles to the State, the regions and the European Union. The combination of these three factors is what will determine future developments.

However, meanwhile, due to several temptations and problems and in order to prevent the creation of a superstate, there is continuous debate on the development of "civil society". It is argued that the citizen of the European Union must be active and that there must develop "civil societies" with a set of obligations and rights. Through the "civil society" they see the manifestation of modern volunteerism, which may not be expressed individually but collectively.

Professor Panagiotis Ioakeimidis in a relevant study analyzes the institution of the "civil society" and specifies its value for modern European developments.

First, in defining the term "civil society", he refers to Gellne’s view, according to which "civil society" is "a set of various nongovernmental institutions, strong enough to counterbalance the state, which do not obstruct the state in fulfilling its role as a guarantor of peace and arbitrator between great interests, but are able to prevent it from dominating and overwhelming the rest of society".

This definition shows the great value of the "civil society". Indeed, the State may play the role of guarantor of peace and arbitrator between great interests. However, due to the danger that the State, moving between these great interests, might dominate over the citizens, it is imperative that "civil societies" are developed. These are various nongovernmental organizations, associations, I would even say cultural organizations, which will constitute a brake in the State’s attempt for complete domination over the weak masses. The European Union might be accused by many on some aspects, but it does promote the growth of "civil society", for otherwise the very future of Europe is at stake.

In the book I mentioned above, the view of Professor Nikos Mouzelis is cited according to which in Greece there is no developed "civil society", and as a result an arbitrary despotic state has appeared. He writes:

"… a basic weakness of our democratic polity is that because of various reasons – mostly historical reasons – civil society is extremely skinny. This skinniness takes the form of an arbitrary despotic state and of a party-dominated political system, in which narrow bureaucratic interests take systematic precedence over the universal citizen interests."

Despite these, recently there is a great turn towards the development of a "civil society" in Greece. So, it seems that what Legg and Roberts argue about Greece being "condemned to remain a peripheral country" in the framework of the European Union due to "the perpetuating imbalance between the state and civil society" might not be correct after all. This is so because, as Professor Ioakeimidis, who knows well all problems related to the European Union, observes, everyday citizens’ movements which boost the "civil society" are multiplied. Contributing to this are "the consolidation of democracy", the "institutional, political conditions for the 'civil society'", and "the establishment of new rights for citizens".

For the sake of history, it has to be observed that in the place we live, even during the period of the Turkish rule, there existed a developed, at least in some regions, "civil society". This comprised the guilds and other administrative structures, but unfortunately this situation was brought to an end because the organizers of the Greek State, influenced by the enlightened and romantic principles of that time, copied the French overly centralized system of administrative organization for the formation of the new state" and as a consequence this led to "the destruction of the endogenous communities that had developed during the Ottoman empire".

It's a fact that lately in Greece there is a great rejuvenation of this subject. Within our democratic institutions, various associations are established, interested in the culture, the tradition, the customs and mores of the people, and these associations do a great job in preserving our cultural heritage. It should be remembered that the term "civil society" is mostly used to denote groups engaged in the production of politics and in restraining the power of the State on social and political issues, but I think that the development of these cultural associations constitutes the basic axis for the preservation of cultural tradition, which is the catalyst of our nation’s alienation. In this perspective they, too, produce politics, because civilization creates correct politics but also checks wrong politics. It is the seawall of every leveling catastrophe.

In this context, I claim that the Church, the way it is organized especially here in Orthodox Greece where the ancient Greek system of cities as a way of administration is maintained in the Bishoprics, the Parishes, and the Monasteries, is a well-organized "civil society". In order not to be misunderstood, I would like to emphasize that the Church is not a human association but the God-human body of Christ and a communion of deification. As such, it neither identifies with any human organization nor occupies itself with politics, and in this sense it is not a political "civil society". Nevertheless, in its way of administration and because its members are simultaneously members of a specific State, it is a transforming institution which renews society and the whole life and affects deeply all developments.

The Orthodox Church is not like other religious communities, because it does not cultivate a simple sentimentalism and a simple external sentimental relationship with God. Instead, by employing the therapeutic method, which is the psychotherapeutic method per se, it cures man, helps him overcome the problem of death, which is the greatest social problem and causes family and social problems, cultivates love, selfless love, develops genuine volunteerism, and also preserves the civilization known as Greek Orthodox, with the music, religious painting, church architecture, and it even renews the entire life of the Christians outside the church buildings, etc.

Indeed, the Church in our place is a special "civil society", interested not in politics but in the whole way of life and man’s rejuvenation, so that he then becomes a wise citizen. The Church has survived over time and hardships, and no one can ignore it. Of course, this special "civil society" should stay within its borders and not become a political organization nor get involved in political-party activities. It will affect, though, all developments indirectly through the cure and renewal of man. The Church as the Body of Christ and a communion of deification, as well as an organization and "civil society" with a clear rebirth and deifying character, is able to give meaning to man and through him renew society and the creation.

Source: Ecclesiastiki Paremvasi, March 2002.

The Absurdity of Conservatism and Liberalism

By John Sanidopoulos

Let us begin with some quotes that demonstrate the absurdity of conservatism and liberalism:

* The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. -- G. K. Chesterton

* Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others. -- Ambrose Bierce

* A liberal is a person who believes that water can be made to run uphill. A conservative is someone who believes everybody should pay for his water. I'm somewhere in between: I believe water should be free, but that water flows downhill. -- Theodore White

* A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal, as opposed to the conservative who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth. -- Jacques Barzun

* By 'radical', I understand one who goes too far; by 'conservative', one who does not go far enough; by 'reactionary', one who won't go at all. -- Woodrow Wilson

* I think experience will teach you a combination of liberalism and conservatism. We have to be progressive and at the same time we have to retain values. We have to hold onto the past as we explore the future. -- Oliver Stone

* Let's trace the birth of an idea. It's born as rampant radicalism, then it becomes progressivism, then liberalism, then it becomes moderated conservative, outmoded, and gone. -- Powell Clayton

* There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism. -- Henry George

* A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. -- Unknown

* The [Church] Fathers were neither liberals nor conservatives. -- Fr. John Romanides

Fr. John Romanides has written that the true history of Western civilization begins with the American and French Revolutions. It was during this late-18th century atmosphere of revolution that the use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were first used in a political context.

François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819 first used the word "conservative" this way following the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views. Conservatism developed in Restoration England from royalism. Royalists supported absolute monarchy, arguing that the sovereign governed by divine right. They opposed the theory that sovereignty derived from the people, the authority of parliament and freedom of religion.

The French Revolution is often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era," and its convulsions are widely associated with "the triumph of liberalism". The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. Napoleon wrote that "the peoples of Germany, as of France, Italy and Spain, want equality and liberal ideas," with some historians suggesting that he may have been the first person ever to use the word liberal in a political sense.

Ambrose Bierce defines politics in The Devil's Dictionary as "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Though there is much truth to this, essentially both conservatism and liberalism contain certain virtues that ought to be considered. Neither conservatives nor liberals are evil in themselves, but division is evil and opportunism is evil and selfishness is evil. Differences in self-interest are what form modern politics, setting aside the essential virtues behind both the conservative and progressive spirit. The Christian ought to be above these secular ideas of modern politics and be firmly established in the Christian tradition, which is both traditional and progressive in a sense above those formed by secular politics.

I will end with excerpts written by Dinesh D'Souza in his "Letter To A Young Conservative" that helps isolate some of the differences between a modern conservative and liberal:

Neither conservatives nor liberals are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. What really distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not that one is for freedom and the other is against freedom; rather, what separates them is that they have different substantive views of what constitutes the good life.

Let us make a list of the liberal virtues: equality, compassion, pluralism, diversity, social justice, opportunity, peace, autonomy, tolerance. Liberals become impassioned when they use these terms: they make up the moral priorities of the modern liberal worldview. By contrast, conservatives emphasize other virtues: merit, patriotism, prosperity, national unity, social order, morality, responsibility. Both sides are willing to place occasional restraints on freedom to achieve their substantive vision of the good society. Indeed some liberals attach very little importance to freedom....

There is some overlap in the moral vocabulary that liberals and conservatives use. Both speak of “equality,” although they mean different things by the term. Conservatives emphasize equality of rights, and they are quite willing to endure inequalities that are the product of differential capacity or merit. Liberals emphasize equality of outcomes, and they tend to attribute inequality to the unequal opportunities that have been provided by society. Another term that both liberals and conservatives use is “morality,” but conservatives tend to define morality personally, while liberals define it socially. Conservatives find it hard to believe that a sexual reprobate could be a good person, but many liberals who acknowledged Bill Clinton’s personal failings nevertheless considered him an admirable person because of his public positions in favor of the poor and women’s rights.

Since conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of the good society, their priorities are different, and this leads to contrasting policy positions. Conservatives emphasize economic growth, while liberals emphasize economic redistribution. Conservatives like to proclaim their love of country, while liberals like to proclaim their love of humanity. Conservatives insist that force is required to maintain world order, while liberals prefer the pursuit of peace through negotiation and dialogue. Conservatives are eager to preserve moral standards; liberals cherish personal autonomy.

At root, conservatives and liberals have two different conceptions of human nature that cause them to see the world so differently. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau’s proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, liberals hold that the great conflicts in the world are not the result of good versus evil; rather they arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of groups like the United Nations. Finally the liberal’s high opinion of human nature leads to the view that if you give people autonomy they will use their freedom well....

Conservatives recognize that there are two principles in human nature—good and evil—and these are in constant conflict. Given the warped timber of humanity, conservatives seek a social structure that helps to bring out the best in human nature and suppress man’s lower or base impulses. Conservatives support capitalism because it is a way of steering our natural pursuit of self-interest toward the material betterment of society at large. Conservatives insist that there are evil regimes and destructive forces in the world that cannot be talked out of their nefarious objectives; force is an indispensable element of international relations. Finally conservatives support autonomy when it is attached to personal responsibility—when people are held accountable for their actions—but they also believe in the indispensability of moral incubators (the family, the church, civic institutions) that are aimed at instructing people to choose virtue over vice.

The Holy Republic of Moldova

Valeriu Pasat is a former Moldovan spy chief who wants to increase the "fundamental" role of the Orthodox Church in the country while simultaneously bidding to become Moldova's new president. But Moldovans are asking who is actually promoting whom.

June 12, 2010
Alexandru Eftode
Spero News

“When Mr. Pasat puts his mind to something, nothing stops him until he gets the job done. And this is only the beginning.”

With these words, a well-known Moldovan journalist, Dmitri Chubashenko, who recently became the politician's spokesman, announced the start of a new era in Moldovan politics.

But who is Mr. Pasat and what, exactly, is he up to?

Valeriu Pasat is a former Moldovan spy chief who wants to increase the “fundamental” role of the Orthodox Church in the country while simultaneously bidding to become Moldova’s new president.

Last week, he initiated a referendum to introduce Orthodoxy as a compulsory subject in all Moldovan schools. To promote the idea, he plans to form a political party and run for president this fall, when fresh general and presidential elections might be held.

As Pasat joined forces with the Moldovan Orthodox Church, the dominant church in Moldova and a subordinate of the Russian Orthodox Church, questions arise about who is actually promoting whom. Will Pasat promote Orthodoxy, or will the Church promote Pasat for president? Many, including Prime Minister Vlad Filat and his partners in the governing Alliance for European Integration, are inclined to believe the latter.

Nobody can deny Valeriu Pasat’s expertise in the field. He spent years studying the oppression of the Church during the Soviet era, as well as the methods used by the KGB and NKVD (the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Internal Affairs) to infiltrate the institution.

Asked if he sees any danger that Pasat will use the Church to achieve political goals, the head of the Moldovan Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Vladimir, said the clergy is ready to take the risk. Or, as another priest, Father Vasile Ciobanu, puts it, the clergy “hopes that Mr. Pasat is a true believer, as he had enough time to turn to God and think about salvation during his prison years.”

Prison years? That’s right. Valeriu Pasat has had an eventful life since 2001, when he lost his job as the director of the Moldovan Intelligence and Security Service, a position he held since 1999, after his two years as Moldova’s first civilian Defense Minister.

After leaving the intelligence field, Pasat was employed by RAO ES, the Russian electricity monopoly, as the adviser to the president of the company, Anatoly Chubais. But the former Moldovan official never separated himself too much from his home country’s politics.

Seen as a threat by the former Moldovan communist government, Pasat was arrested at the Chisinau airport in March 2005 as he returned from Moscow ahead of the general elections. In January 2006, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. His alleged crime was a decision nine years earlier as Defense Minister to sell 21 MiG-29 fighters to the United States for $40 million, even though Iran was offering $90 million. Later on, the communist government fabricated two more cases against Pasat, accusing him of an attempted coup and attempted murder.

Pasat spent more than two years in prison and portrayed himself as a political prisoner before he was unexpectedly released on July 9, 2007, and fled the same day to Moscow. He returned to Moldova only last November after the Communist Party lost the general elections to the Alliance for European Integration.

Eventually cleared of all charges, Pasat pledged to do whatever it takes to prevent the return of communists to power. But that did not “imply entering politics, Pasat specified at that time.

But seven months later, he came to another conclusion. “Without political power, you can do nothing in this country,” he said. So he decided to enter politics, even though that means challenging the new pro-Western government, not his old communist foes.

In a country where the Orthodox Church appears to be the most trusted institution, according to surveys, some analysts were quick to praise the cleverness of Pasat’s plan to use the referendum on compulsory teaching of orthodoxy as a vehicle to become president.

But others are calling the plan “immoral” and “cynical.” And still others lamented that Moldovan voters, who have been asked to vote with their hearts and their guts in the past, will probably now have to vote with their religious beliefs before getting the chance to vote with their minds.

While there’s some truth in all these remarks, it is also true that Moldova has had many unusual -- and innovative -- presidential candidates before. Some have promised to transform the country into a banking paradise -- a Switzerland of the East. Others talked seriously about using dried cow dung as fuel for Moldova's households to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Valeriu Pasat could prove to be no more exotic than his predecessors.

The Seventh Ecumenical Synod as a Landmark for the Unity of the Church

 

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

The Sunday of Orthodoxy celebrates the restoration of the sacred icons that took place in the year 843 AD, and in fact it is the implementation of the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which took place in the year 787 AD in Nicaea of Bithynia. An iconoclastic period preceded it, during which an intense debate about icons took place, people were divided into iconoclasts and iconophiles and many arguments were heard from each side.

The important thing about this case is that the politicians of that time were heavily involved in this debate. This was not unprecedented since, unfortunately, theology is always connected with politics, to be more precise I would say that politics used and still uses theology to implement its plans. This will also be made evident in today's speech.

The Polarization of Traditionalists and Modernists

How Church Shopping Is Polarizing the Country

The difference in viewpoints between traditionalists and modernists has dramatic effects on the culture wars, June Carbone and Naomi Cahn say.

May 24th, 2010

By Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

CNN

A report this month on who gets abortions showed some surprising results: Catholic women are about as likely as any other woman to terminate a pregnancy. Then again, the striking thing about American Catholics is that they look almost exactly like the average American.

According to the Pew Research Center, for example, Catholics supported Obama in the 2008 election by 1 percentage point more than the general public. Even when it comes to abortion, which the Catholic Church strongly opposes, American Catholics are only 2 percent more likely than the general public to favor making it illegal.

What explains the divergence between church teaching and political poll responses? A large part of it is the difference between those who check a religious box in a public opinion poll and those who show up at a church on Sunday. If we look at only white Catholics who attend church at least once a week, they favor making abortion illegal by 76 to 27 percent.

The figures underlie a striking change in the characteristics of American churches of all denominations: in the '60s, those showing up in church on Sunday might have represented a cross-section of American viewpoints; today, they are more likely to reflect traditionalist views, further driving modernists away from religion altogether - and intensifying what some have called the “devotional divide” in American politics.

The difference in viewpoints between traditionalists and modernists is profound - and has dramatic effects on today’s culture wars. David Campbell, a Notre Dame political scientist, explains that traditionalists believe in an eternal and transcendent authority that “tells us what is good, what is true, how we should live, and who we are."

Modernists, on the other hand, would redefine historic faiths according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life. They are less dogmatic, more tolerant, more open to change. Both might prefer that their 17-year-old daughters not sleep with their high school boyfriends. Modernists, however, would have an easier time saying, “But if you do, be sure you use a condom.”

In the era following World War II, both groups attended the same churches. They were likely to subscribe to their parents’ religion, to attend the church down the street, to include their children in community activities the church sponsored. Today, we are more likely to shop for churches that express our individual values, and traditionalists - those searching for “an eternal and transcendent authority” - are much more likely to attend church at all.

The result, according to journalist Bill Bishop, is the “collapse of the middle” in American church life. Mainline Protestant churches, which tended to be more moderate and inclusive, have been losing membership for decades. The churches that have shown the greatest growth have been the large-scale megachurches, where eight in 10 are traditionalist.

During the same period, Catholics have become more likely to choose parishes on the basis of something other than geography, and 72 percent said that “the traditional or conservative nature of the church” was an important or very important reason for choosing their parish.

In the meantime, modernists, who are less comfortable with churches dominated by traditionalists, have become less likely to attend church at all. During the '90s, the number of Americans reporting “no religion” doubled, and sociologists believe the shift reflected the desire of many Americans to distance themselves from the increasingly close association between organized religion and conservative politics.

That association is the result of a set of reinforcing factors. Traditionalists are much more likely to attend church. The Republican Party has adopted more traditionalist rhetoric and policies, locking in the political support of those most in search of fixed rules and uncompromising principles. The association between religion and conservative politics and policies alienate the modernists, who distance themselves from religion. This leaves church attendees talking to the converted - those who share both their religious and political beliefs.

Studies of group psychology show that when people with similar views talk to one another, they end up at even more extreme positions. The very ability to choose - neighborhoods, cable TV stations, websites, churches - increases the risk that we will hear only those with whom we already agree.

As a result, the middle may be dropping out of American politics the same way it did from Protestant churches. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that those who attend religious services more than once per week voted Republican more than those who never attend religious services at all.

Notre Dame’s Campbell adds that, in interpreting these results, traditionalism may matter even more than church attendance. In 2004, for example, only 24 percent of the top quartile of modernists voted for Bush, compared to 84 percent of the highest quartile of traditionalists. Campbell concludes that in explaining the devotional divide “it is clearly traditionalism that makes the difference.”

Catholics as a group may accordingly be quite capable of reaching consensus views. The traditionalists who dominate Sunday mass and the modernists who have become less likely to attend church at all, however, are increasingly unlikely to talk to each other.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of June Carbone and Naomi Cahn.

Objectivity of Science Undermined

Science has no boast if not objective. It is objectivity that supposedly sets science apart from all other modes of inquiry: following a “scientific method” that guarantees objective truth about the natural world. Results are reported in peer-reviewed journals that weed out mistaken ideas. After publication, other scientists can replicate any published results, making science a self-correcting process that refines its objectivity over time. Most insiders and philosophers know that the picture is highly flawed, but the vision persists that science is objective. Recent articles raise awareness of some of the problems with the portrayal of scientific objectivity.

Fiery Feyerabend: Paul Feyerabend was a fiery philosopher of science who fiercely attacked the concept of scientific objectivity. He died in 1994, but a new anthology of his writings has come out, The Tyranny of Science, Oberheim E, editor (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011). Two reviews were published in PLoS Biology earlier this month (Ian Kidd, Axel Meyer). Although both reviewers think his reputation for the “worst enemy of science” is overblown, there is no question Feyerabend warned of treating science as an objective process. He worried that it could be a threat to democracy – an elitist society unanswerable to the people. Meyer quoted him saying, “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.” Many regard his views as extreme, but Feyerabend did raise a number of issues that are still taken seriously. Kidd, commenting on the 1990s debates about objectivity vs constructivism (the idea that science “constructs” reality rather than “discovering” it), remarked that “There is some truth to such charges” as Feyerabend raised.

Consensus bashing: In Nature earlier this month (published online 5 October 2011 Nature 478, 7 (2011) doi:10.1038/478007a), a headline read, “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree.” Subtitle: “Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful, says Daniel Sarewitz.” That represents severe erosion of the bedrock. His first line: “When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report.” Sharing recent examples of the politics that stifle minority opinions, Sarewitz advised more debate and less consensus. For example, “much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report.” Take-home paragraph:

"The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice."

Conflict of interest: The field of bioengineering is a good place to look for demons undercutting objectivity. The lure of fame or money clouds the objectivity of some researchers, while products of bioengineering – including human cloning – overlap with ethics, philosophy, and theology in big ways. In a Nature book review about Jonathan Moreno’s new book The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America (Bellevue Literary Press, 2011), reviewer Kevin Finneran used the eye-catching headline, “Bioethics: Brave new politics” (Nature 478, 13 October 2011, pp. 184–185, doi:10.1038/478184a). Emphasizing the fact that today’s science cannot remove itself from society, Finneran said, “The age of bioscience has become the age of biopolitics.” Apparently Moreno wrote his book with a political bias of his own: “Moreno devotes much of the book to a critique of what he sees as a neoconservative hostility to science, and explains how science can be a key ingredient of a progressive political agenda.” That doesn’t sound objective; in fact, Finneran felt that “Moreno’s analysis focuses too heavily on the neoconservatives,” while he himself showed he had some heart for conservative concerns: “The challenge is to maintain this human side of science when the research, to many people, seems to be a threat to what is essentially human.”

Smear review: Many have questioned the value of peer review in recent years (a relatively recent convention in science, dating largely from after World War II). Virginia Gewen, writing in Nature this month (478, 13 October 2011, pp. 275–277, doi:10.1038/nj7368-275a) joked a little about the naivete of rookie reviewers. In “Rookie review,” she revealed a bit of the good-old-boys’ club mentality among seasoned reviewers. Rookies (who incidentally never receive much training on how to review a paper) think they are supposed to tell the truth: one Nature editor explained why she sought out rookies as reviewers: “they are politically naive enough to tell the truth,” implying that is the exception to the rule for more seasoned reviewers. Yet even with that saintly attribute, rookies tend to give inconsistent grades, or overestimate their objectivity. Gewen also touched on the issues of disclosure of bias, conflict of interest and politics that cloud the objectivity of peer review in general.

Anthropology: Can science answer big questions like “What is man’s place in nature?” Sites like New Scientist don’t hesitate to ask. What, though, gives a scientist more power of place to discuss such things than a theologian or philosopher? All have access to the same basic scientific facts. Botanist Sandra Knapp gave her opinions on this key question with hat tips to Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin. Proceeding on to the opinions of Melanie Challenger, author of On Extinctions, Knapp discussed other questions far beyond the data of any scientific method: are humans natural? What is naturalness? Knapp concluded that Challenger’s book “doesn't offer answers to any of the complex questions it raises, but it will make you pause to consider your own relationship with the natural world that surrounds you.” If science can only ask questions, and not provide answers, then it would seem to be one among many valid modes of inquiry.

Aesthetics: Can art free itself from anthropo-centrism? What would a universal art look like? It might be pretty bland. Imagine a Bach concerto with a quarter of its notes mutated back to randomness by the law of entropy. Think of a painting with nothing but a uniform shade of tan. Those are some of the things Jonathan Keats (no relation, as far as we know, to the English romantic poet John Keats) tried to visualize by taking the Copernican principle to the extreme in his new San Francisco exhibit, “The First Copernican Art Manifesto.” Keats didn’t even intend his art for humans. Science Magazine entertained the radical idea (“Random Samples,” 21 October 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6054 pp. 295-297, DOI:0.1126/science.334.6054.295-a), but didn’t explain how the Bach composition arose in the first place without intelligent design, or how astronomers determined the average color of starlight was tan without intention and purpose. Indeed, the color of the universe is highly localized to stars and galaxies. A question of definitions also arises. If there is no intelligent viewer, is there art?

What you are not told: Dr. Jennifer Rohn, an insider in the world of academic research, writes a blog called LabLit. Guest blogger Matthew Hall, in the October 21 entry, revealed “The untold story: what doesn’t make the cut in scientific papers.” Hall argues that reproducibility is rare in science. Few read a paper’s protocol and try to reproduce the experiment. Besides, most research papers are so boring! “Given that protocols aren’t as useful as one is taught in History and Philosophy of Science courses, why can’t they be more personal?” He recommends writing scientific papers like stories. Perhaps many already do. How would anybody know without trying to reproduce the experiment?

Analyze the analyzers: An article on Medical Xpress claims that a new field is emerging: the Psychology of Science. The bumper states:

"You've heard of the history of science, the philosophy of science, maybe even the sociology of science. But how about the psychology of science? In a new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, San Jose State University psychologist Gregory J. Feist argues that a field has been quietly taking shape over the past decade, and it holds great promise for both psychology and science."

While an interesting trend, it raises the question of the objectivity of the psychologist. Who will analyze the analyzer, and so on ad infinitum?

We hope these short forays into questioning the objectivity of science provide some snack food for thought. There are much richer meals in books and lectures. Don’t be a dupe and merely assume that someone who calls himself or herself a scientist has a corner on objectivity. Scientists can be very adept at math, jargon and specialized fields of inquiry, but at the conclusion of any paper, every citizen has a responsibility to weigh evidence, evaluate reasoning, and consider influences that led to the conclusion.

Source

Why Americans Love Conspiracies

by Kathryn Olmsted
08/27/2010
Politico

According to recent polls, large numbers of Americans are convinced of two things that are verifiably not true: that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and that Muslims are building a mosque at ground zero. A great many are also convinced that Obama was not even born in America.

The tendency of most pundits and public officials is to dismiss these stories as the easily ignored theories of the lunatic fringe. But the "ground zero mosque" and "Obama-is-a-Muslim" stories have traction in the media for two reasons.

First, they're highly effective because they tap into deep, historic American anxieties about "un-American" agents within the republic--- perhaps even within the White House.

Second, these stories have some powerful sponsors in the media and in politics, sponsors who insinuate their paranoid theories into the mainstream debate to promote their own political goals.

Americans have a special relationship to conspiracy theories involving insidious foreigners. Immigrants to America have brought a wider mix of religions and ethnicities and political histories than to any other New World country, and Americans have worried that their country is especially open---and vulnerable -- to alien subversion.

The historian Richard Hofstadter argued that there was a "paranoid style" in U.S. politics, prompted in part by Americans' need to define themselves by casting out the un-Americans -- or anyone who was not white, native-born and Protestant.

Over the past two hundred years, frightened Americans have targeted Roman Catholics, Masons, Mormons, and Jews because these native groups were allegedly guided by the instructions of an alien power. Now, it's the Muslims' turn.

Throughout the nation's history, many Americans have feared that their federal government would fall victim to one of these conspiracies--- or become a tool of conspirators. Despite the U.S. Constitution's long, stable life, Americans have always been "curiously obsessed with the contingency of their experiment with freedom," as David Brion Davis has said.

Ever since the nation's founding, we have worried that the great instrument of the people's will would be turned against us.

The conspiracy theorists' greatest fear is that the nation's enemies will control the president. The far-right John Birch Society of the late 1950s and early 1960s believed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who appeared to be a moderate, golf-loving, business-friendly Republican, and had won World War II in Europe, was actually a conscious agent of the international communist conspiracy.

Today's birthers, like their Bircher predecessors, believe that their president is a secret agent of the nation's enemies, in this case a Kenyan-born Manchurian Candidate who has been groomed since 1962 to take over and destroy the republic. The birthers see Obama as "un-American" for several reasons: He comes from the multicultural, multiracial and geographically distant state of Hawaii; his middle name is Hussein; and he's lived in a Muslim country.


But above all, his Americanness is almost certainly suspect because he's not white. It's hard to imagine the same theories being used against Sen. John McCain--- even though he was born overseas and could have his U.S. citizenship legally challenged.

These fears are worsening now partly because the economy has fallen on hard times, and also because there is a substantial part of the American electorate that will never accept a black president as legitimate.

Though long-established traditions of nativism provide fuel for these fears, they would not have ignited if someone had not supplied a spark. The current controversies are smoldering mainly because there are political actors who see power and profit in fanning the flames of fear.

In the 1920s, the leaders of the second Ku Klux Klan found it lucrative to sell the fear of Catholics, Jews, Asians, African Americans, and immigrants to white Americans. Four million dues-paying members belonged at the height of the Klan, and the hatemongering organization controlled the politics of many cities and states, especially in the Midwest.

Public officials and pundits have encouraged conspiracy theories many times before in U.S. history.

The original Pearl Harbor conspiracists--- those who believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese attack in Hawaii and did nothing to warn the military commanders there--- promoted their theory in part because they hated his New Deal and his internationalist foreign policies.

The extremist anti-Communists of the 1950s wanted to do more than purge the government of alleged Soviet spies: They aimed to destroy the entire liberal order.

Sometimes these official conspiracy theorists really believed in the theories they promoted; FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, for example, did not lie when he insisted that communism was a monstrous and evil conspiracy bent on destroying America. But his promotion of this belief also was convenient, in that it helped him to get more funding for the FBI.

Other anti-Communist promoters of conspiracy theories, notably Sen. Joseph McCarthy, were simply opportunists who attacked whatever national boogeymen would get them the most attention.

Now Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are playing the McCarthyite role, ginning up fear of Muslims while allowing others to hint that the president is secretly their captive.

Ideas, as Rush Limbaugh likes to note, have consequences. Anti-Communist conspiracy theories led to purges of the most radical thinkers in education, culture, labor unions and politics. Among other things, extremist anti-Communism killed the possibility of universal health care in the 1940s and 1950s.

Today, the public figures who stir up hatred of Islam and imply that the president is a Muslim are attempting to delegitimize him as a leader. After all, 32 percent of Americans don't believe that Muslims should be allowed to run for president.

Americans believe many outlandish theories: about ESP, or alien abductions or Saddam Hussein's alleged responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. But the theories that matter are the ones promoted by media and political elites to further their own agendas.

Kathryn Olmsted, a history professor at University of California-Davis, is the author “Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11.”

See also: Islamophobia: The New Antisemitism

The Pop-Culture Wars, Music, and Politics Today

By Carson Holloway

October 13, 2009

If we take seriously what is said by Plato and Aristotle, then we must also pay attention to what is being said by the likes of Taylor Swift and Kanye West.

A few weeks ago, rapper Kanye West made headlines by crashing Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony. Swift had won the prize for best female video, but West, believing that Beyoncé should have won, took the stage and interrupted Swift to make his opinion known. Confronted with a torrent of uniformly condemnatory public commentary, West soon apologized. In all of the discussion his actions provoked, however, little thought was given to the significance of the connection between West’s self-absorbed music and his boorish behavior.

There was a time in America, not too long ago, when this question might have been raised. Over a period of some decades America’s cultural politics involved a debate between the left and the right over whether some popular music tended to weaken society by eroding standards of personal conduct. This controversy extends at least as far back as the rise of jazz, but it gained intensity with the rise and progress of forms of rock—and, later on, rap—that seemed to celebrate liberation from self-control, especially in relation to sex, drugs, and even violence. Some conservatives have held that such music poses a serious threat to society. Such music, they contended, glorifies and thereby encourages self-indulgent and violent behavior. Yet a free society requires citizens with a capacity for self-control. In the absence of the voluntary public order such citizens support, the alternatives are either disorder or government-coerced order. Thus the worst popular music educates the young not for free and responsible citizenship but for anarchy or despotism—or, more likely, anarchy followed by despotism. In contrast, liberals have seen the great threat to freedom not in such music but in the conservative critics’ reaction to it. Pop music, they suggested, is in fact merely harmless fun. There is, after all, no scientific proof that such music produces violent or otherwise antisocial behavior. Those who think otherwise threaten freedom by their illiberal and un-American interest in regulating other people’s private pleasures.

This argument was alive and well as recently as ten years ago, when troubled artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminem rose to prominence producing troubling music that expressed and celebrated their extreme loves and hatreds. The dispute over the moral and cultural consequences of pop music, however, was soon crowded out of the public discourse by matters of national security. The terrorist attacks of 9-11, and the subsequent American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, turned the minds of Americans away from the culture wars for a time. And, when the culture wars resumed later in the decade, they took the form of the struggle over same-sex marriage. The musical front in the culture wars, it seems, has been abandoned by both sides.

An argument, however, can be forgotten without deserving to be forgotten. In fact, the debate between left and right over the morality of popular music touches upon issues of the deepest significance and gives expression to concerns that were explored with the utmost seriousness at the very beginnings of the tradition of western political philosophy. When conservatives and liberals argued over whether pop music could transform the character of individuals—and hence, eventually, of whole generations and of society itself—they were not, as contemporary social scientists often contended, pursuing a diversionary debate about merely “symbolic” issues. They were rather disputing a question that thinkers like Plato and Aristotle had treated as inseparable from their inquiry into the best political order. To be sure, the contemporary debate was often characterized more by passion than insight. This, however, is not a reason to dismiss its central concerns as fundamentally irrational, but instead to turn for instruction to the classical political philosophers.

What, then, is the classical teaching on the moral and political significance of music? And what light does that teaching shed on the recurring (although presently suspended) American argument over popular music?

Surprisingly, to us, the ancients not only thought music worthy of serious attention, they in fact considered it an issue of supreme political importance. Plato’s Socrates, for example, suggests, in the Republic’s discussion of the political institutions of the best city, that among these the rearing in music is “most sovereign.” He later adds that the guardians of the best regime “must beware of change to a strange form of music ... For never are the ways of music changed without the greatest political laws being moved.” Even more surprisingly, Plato and Aristotle hold the primary preoccupation of the contemporary debate to be of mere secondary importance. For they insist that the political importance of music arises not only from the message of the lyrics of a song but also from the emotional and moral power of the music itself. Hence the ancients’ constant emphasis on “rhythm,” “harmony,” and “tune.”

Plato and Aristotle attribute this great political importance to musical rhythm and harmony because of their power to contribute to the fulfillment of the primary aim of political life. This aim, as Aristotle states it, is to “produce a certain character in the citizens, namely, to make them virtuous, and capable of performing noble actions.” Yet, he continues, music obviously “contributes something to virtue” because “it is evident through many things” that “we become of a certain quality in our characters on account of it.”

Music, the ancients contend, is an “imitative” art. That is, it depicts the various passions and states of character of which human beings are capable. Again, Aristotle: “in rhythms and tunes there are likenesses particularly close to the genuine natures of anger and gentleness, and further of courage and moderation and all of the things opposite to these and of the other things pertaining to character.” Such images do not merely present themselves to the soul but in fact impress themselves upon it. In the case of the extremely impressionable souls of the young, moreover, the mark left by such images is apt to be lasting. Indeed, the ancients attribute this character-forming power to artistic images generally. Hence Socrates’ concern in the Republic that the young, by “grazing” on “licentious, illiberal, and graceless” works of art, will create some great evil in their souls, and his hope that, in contrast, they will, if surrounded by graceful images, be led to “likeness and friendship as well as accord.” Of all such images, however, music is by far the most powerful. Rhythm and harmony, Socrates contends, “most of all insinuate themselves into the inmost part of the soul and most vigorously lay hold of it in bringing grace with them; and they make a man most graceful if he is correctly reared, if not, the opposite.”

The ancients appear particularly interested in using music to foster a kind of moderation. Music’s ability to engage the passions, it seems, includes a capacity to calm them. Thus Aristotle’s concern to exclude from education those forms of music that are “frenzied and passionate” and instead to emphasize music capable of putting us “in a middling and settled state.” The calm disposition of the passions fostered by the proper rearing in music prepares one for the activities of virtue because, as Aristotle points out in the Nicomachean Ethics, one’s capacity for moral reasoning and choice is disrupted by excessive passion. Aristotle argues that living virtuously requires prudence, the twofold ability to discern the first principles of action, the moral virtues, and to discover by calculation how, in particular circumstances, these virtues can be realized by particular actions.

With regard to the former capacity, Aristotle notes that the Greek term for moderation literally signifies “preserving prudence.” This is so, he argues, because moderation in fact preserves our understanding of what is good, since pleasure and pain, which accompany the passions, tend to pervert or destroy our beliefs concerning moral virtue. Aristotle also indicates that the latter capacity is likewise impeded by passion. In the Ethics he contends that there are those who see the goodness of the virtues but who nonetheless fail to live them in their particular circumstances because when under the influence of passion they, in a sense, forget their principles, like men who are asleep, mad, or drunk. It is in this light that we can understand Aristotle’s comment, in the Politics, that the proper rearing in music makes one capable not only of judging noble tunes, but even of judging the noble things themselves.

Looking even higher, the ancients go so far as to suggest that the proper rearing in music can prepare the soul for philosophy. How can music accomplish this? Plato and Aristotle both suggest that excessive passion is an impediment to philosophic activity no less than to moral activity. Hence their moderation-inducing music paves the way for philosophy by quieting the desires that distract the soul from the search for truth Moreover, and more positively, music can foster in the soul an attraction to the truth that philosophy seeks. The graceful music of the best city presents the young soul with a kind of intelligible and beautiful order, and, by its grace and the natural pleasure that accompanies it, such music fosters a lasting taste for such beautiful order. Yet this ultimately is the object of philosophic longing, according to the Republic: the philosopher, Socrates says, keeps company with the divine and orderly, the beautiful order of the cosmos.

What, the modern reader might wonder, does all this have to do with politics? The ancient account offers two answers. To begin with, Plato and Aristotle contend that the kind of character fostered by the proper rearing in music tends to support a decent and free public order. The Republic’s music education is said to produce gentlemen, men who are attracted to virtue and repelled by vice. Thus a city with good music education will not have to bother with a multitude of laws regulating conflicts among the citizens. Absent the moderate and gentlemanly disposition fostered by the right music, however, the preservation of peace is very difficult. One of the themes of both Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics is the close connection between immoderation and injustice: the man with excessive passions eventually must turn to unjust means to satisfy them. Thus the character formed by the lack of passion-taming music, or, worse, by a rearing in passion-inflaming music, leads necessarily to widespread injustice, thence to conflict among the citizens, and thence to the multiplication of laws in a futile attempt to solve these problems.

Furthermore, the concern with musical character formation is political to the ancients because to them the political is above all not so much that which conduces to public order (as important as that is) as that which conduces to human excellence, both moral and intellectual, and hence to human happiness. This is an important point, because it reminds us that the music education they offer moderates the passions not by artificially constraining them but instead by eliciting other longings, for moral nobility and philosophic insight. Such longings are, for the ancients, not only natural but at the core of human nature. Intellect, with its capacity to contemplate and to act in the light of the true and the noble, is our “true self,” says Aristotle. But this true self can only come into its own with the assistance of music. Thus for the ancients music, no less than politics itself, is essential to our becoming fully human, and fully humanly happy.

Source

Victims of Radical Islam: Christianity’s Modern-Day Martyrs

The rise of Islamic extremism is putting increasing pressure on Christians in Muslim countries, who are the victims of murder, violence and discrimination. Christians are now considered the most persecuted religious group around the world. Paradoxically, their greatest hope could come from moderate political Islam.

February 26, 2010
Spiegel

Kevin Ang is cautious these days. He glances around, taking a look to the left down the long row of stores, then to the right toward the square, to check that no one is nearby. Only then does the church caretaker dig out his key, unlock the gate, and enter the Metro Tabernacle Church in a suburb of Kuala Lumpur.

The draft of air stirs charred Bible pages. The walls are sooty and the building smells of scorched plastic. Metro Tabernacle Church was the first of 11 churches set on fire by angry Muslims — all because of one word. “Allah,” Kevin Ang whispers.

It began with a question — should Christians here, like Muslims, be allowed to call their god “Allah,” since they don’t have any other word or language at their disposal? The Muslims claim Allah for themselves, both the word and the god, and fear that if Christians are allowed to use the same word for their own god, it could lead pious Muslims astray.

For three years there was a ban in place and the government confiscated Bibles that mentioned “Allah.” Then on Dec. 31 last year, Malaysia’s highest court reached a decision: The Christian God could also be called Allah.

Imams protested and disgruntled citizens threw Molotov cocktails at churches. Then, on top of everything, Prime Minister Najib Razak stated that he couldn’t stop people who might protest against specific developments in the country — and some took that as an invitation to violent action. First churches burned, then the other side retaliated with pigs’ heads placed in front of two mosques. Sixty percent of Malaysians are Muslims and 9 percent Christians, with the rest made up by Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. They managed to live together well, until now.

It’s a battle over a single word, but it’s also about much more than that. The conflict has to do with the question of what rights the Christian minority in Malaysia is entitled to. Even more than that, it’s a question of politics. The ruling United Malays National Organization is losing supporters to Islamist hardliners — and wants to win them back with religious policies.

Those policies are receiving a receptive welcome. Some of Malaysia’s states interpret Sharia, the Islamic system of law and order, particularly strictly. The once liberal country is on the way to giving up freedom of religion — and what constitutes order is being defined ever more rigidly. If a Muslim woman drinks beer, she can be punished with six cane strokes. Some regions similarly forbid such things as brightly colored lipstick, thick make-up, or shoes with clattering high heels.


Expelled, Abducted and Murdered

Not only in Malaysia, but in many countries through the Muslim world, religion has gained influence over governmental policy in the last two decades. The militant Islamist group Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, while Islamist militias are fighting the governments of Nigeria and the Philippines. Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen have fallen to a large extent into the hands of Islamists. And where Islamists are not yet in power, secular governing parties are trying to outstrip the more religious groups in a rush to the right.
This can be seen in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Indonesia to some extent, and also Malaysia.

Even though this Islamization often has more to do with politics than with religion, and even though it doesn’t necessarily lead to the persecution of Christians, it can still be said that where Islam gains importance, freedoms for members of other faiths shrink.

There are 2.2 billion Christians around the world. The Christian non-governmental organization Open Doors calculates that 100 million of them are being threatened or persecuted. They aren’t allowed to build churches, buy Bibles or obtain jobs. That’s the more harmless form of discrimination and it affects the majority of these 100 million Christians. The more brutal version sees them blackmailed, robbed, expelled, abducted or even murdered.

Bishop Margot Kässmann, who was head of the Protestant Church in Germany before stepping down on Feb. 24, believes Christians are “the most frequently persecuted religious group globally.” Germany’s 22 regional churches have proclaimed this coming Sunday to be the first commemoration day for persecuted Christians. Kässmann said she wanted to show solidarity with fellow Christians who “have great difficulty living out their beliefs freely in countries such as Indonesia, India, Iraq or Turkey.”

There are counterexamples as well, of course. In Lebanon and Syria, Christians are not discriminated against, and in fact play an important role in politics and society. And the persecution of Christian is by no means the domain of fanatical Muslims alone — Christians are also imprisoned, abused and murdered in countries such as Laos, Vietnam, China and Eritrea.


‘Creeping Genocide’ against Christians

Open Doors compiles a global “persecution index.” North Korea, where tens of thousands of Christians are serving time in work camps, has topped the list for many years. North Korea is followed, though, by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives and Afghanistan. Of the first 10 countries on the list, eight are Islamic, and almost all have Islam as their state religion.

The systematic persecution of Christians in the 20th century — by Communists in the Soviet Union and China, but also by Nazis — claimed far more lives than anything that has happened so far in the 21st century. Now, however, it is not only totalitarian regimes persecuting Christians, but also residents of Islamic states, fanatical fundamentalists, and religious sects — and often simply supposedly pious citizens.

Gone is the era of tolerance, when Christians enjoyed a large degree of religious freedom under the protection of Muslim sultans as so-called “People of the Book” while at the same time medieval Europe was banishing its Jews and Muslims from the continent or even burning them at the stake. Also gone is the heyday of Arab secularism following World War II, when Christian Arabs advanced through the ranks of politics.

As political Islam grew stronger, devout believers’ aggression focused not only on corrupt local regimes, but also more and more on the ostensibly corrupting influence of Western Christians, for which local Christian minorities were held accountable. A new trend began, this time with Christians as the victims.

In Iraq, for example, Sunni terrorist groups prey specifically on people of other religions. The last Iraqi census in 1987 showed 1.4 million Christians living in the country. At the start of the American invasion in 2003, it was 550,000, and at present it is just under 400,000. Experts speak of a “creeping genocide.”


‘People Are Scared Out of Their Minds’

The situation in the region around the city of Mosul in northern Iraq is especially dramatic. The town of Alqosh lies high in the mountains above Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. Bassam Bashir, 41, can see his old hometown when he looks out his window there. Mosul is only 40 kilometers (25 miles) away, but inaccessible. The city is more dangerous than Baghdad, especially for men like Bassam Bashir, a Chaldean Catholic, teacher and fugitive within his own country.

Since the day in August 2008 when a militia abducted his father from his shop, Bashir has had to fear for his and his family’s lives. Police found his father’s corpse two days later in the Sinaa neighborhood on the Tigris River, the body perforated with bullet holes. There was no demand for ransom. Bashir’s father died for the simple reason that he was Christian.

And no one claims to have seen anything. “Of course they saw something,” Bashir says. “But people in Mosul are scared out of their minds.”

One week later, militiamen slit the throat of Bashir’s brother Tarik like a sacrificial lamb. “I buried my brother myself,” Bashir explains. Together with his wife Nafa and their two daughters, he fled to Alqosh the same day. The city is surrounded by vineyards and an armed Christian militia guards the entrance.


Tacit State Approval

Bashir’s family members aren’t the only ones who came to Alqosh as the series of murders in Mosul continued. Sixteen Christians were killed the next week, and bombs exploded in front of churches. Men in passing cars shouted at Christians that they had a choice — leave Mosul or convert to Islam. Out of over 1,500 Christian families in the city, only 50 stayed. Bassam Bashir says he won’t return until he can mourn for his father and brother in peace. Others who gave up hope entirely fled to neighboring countries like Jordan and even more to Syria.

In many Islamic countries, Christians are persecuted less brutally than in Iraq, but often no less effectively. In many cases, the persecution has the tacit approval of the government. In Algeria, for example, it takes the form of newspapers reporting that a priest tried to convert Muslims or insulted the Prophet Mohammed — and publishing the cleric’s address, in a clear call to vigilante justice. Or a public television station might broadcast programs with titles like “In the Clutches of Ignorance,” which describe Christians as Satanists who convert Muslims with the help of drugs. This happened in Uzbekistan, which ranks tenth on Open Doors’ “persecution index.”

Blasphemy is another frequently used allegation. Insulting the core values of Islam is a punishable offense in many Islamic countries. The allegation is often used against the opposition, whether that means journalists, dissidents or Christians. Imran Masih, for example, a Christian shopkeeper in Faisalabad, Pakistan, was given a life sentence on Jan. 11, according to sections 295 A and B of Pakistan’s legal code, which covers the crime of outraging religious feelings by desecrating the Koran. A neighboring shopkeeper had accused him of burning pages from the Koran. Masih says that he only burned old business records.

It’s a typical case for Pakistan, where the law against blasphemy seems to invite abuse — it’s an easy way for anyone to get rid of an enemy. Last year, 125 Christians were charged with blasphemy in Pakistan. Dozens of those already sentenced are on death row.


‘We Don’t Feel Safe Here’

Government-tolerated persecution occurs even in Turkey, the most secular and modern country in the Muslim world, where around 110,000 Christians make up less than a quarter of 1 percent of the population — but are discriminated against nonetheless. The persecution is not as open or as brutal as what happens in neighboring Iraq, but the consequences are similar. Christians in Turkey, who numbered well over 2 million people in the 19th century, are fighting for their continued existence.

It’s happening in the southeast of the country, for example, in Tur Abdin, whose name means “mountain of God’s servants.” It’s a hilly region full of fields, chalk cliffs, and centuries-old monasteries many. It’s home to the Syrian Orthodox Assyrians, or Aramaeans as they call themselves, members of one of the oldest Christian groups in the world. According to legend, the Three Wise Men brought the Christian belief system here from Bethlehem. The inhabitants of Tur Abdin still speak Aramaic, the language used by Jesus of Nazareth.

The world is much more familiar with the genocide committed against the Armenians by Ottoman troops in 1915 and 1916, but tens of thousands of Assyrians were also murdered during World War I. Half a million Assyrians are said to have lived in Tur Abdin at the beginning of the 20th century. Today there are barely 3,000. A Turkish district court threatened last year to appropriate the Assyrians’ spiritual center, the 1,600-year-old Mor Gabriel monastery, because the monks were believed to have acquired land unlawfully.

Three neighboring Muslim villages had complained they felt discriminated against by the monastery, which houses four monks, 14 nuns, and 40 students behind its walls.

“Even if it doesn’t want to admit it, Turkey has a problem with people of other faiths,” says Ishok Demir, a young Swiss man with Aramaean roots, who lives with his parents near Mor Gabriel. “We don’t feel safe here.”

More than anything, that has to do with the permanent place Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Catholics and Protestants have in the country’s nationalistic conspiracy theories. Those groups have always been seen as traitors, nonbelievers, spies and people who insult the Turkish nation. According to a survey carried out by the US-based Pew Research Center, 46 percent of Turks see Christianity as a violent religion. In a more recent Turkish study, 42 percent of those surveyed wouldn’t accept Christians as neighbors.

The repeated murders of Christians come, then, as no surprise. In 2006, for example, a Catholic priest was shot in Trabzon on the Black Sea coast. In 2007, three Christian missionaries were murdered in Malatya, a city in eastern Turkey. The perpetrators were radical nationalists, whose ideology was a mixture of exaggerated patriotism, racism and Islam.


Converts in Grave Danger

In even graver danger than traditional Christians, however, are Muslims who have converted to Christianity. Apostasy, or the renunciation of Islam, is punishable by death according to Islamic law — and the death penalty still applies in Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Even in Egypt, a secular country, converts draw the government’s wrath. The religion minister defended the legality of the death penalty for converts — although Egypt doesn’t even have such a law — with the argument that renunciation of Islam amounts to high treason. Such sentiments drove Mohammed Hegazy, 27, a convert to the Coptic Orthodox Church, into hiding two years ago. He was the first convert in Egypt to try to have his new religion entered officially onto his state-issued identity card. When he was refused, he went public. Numerous clerics called for his death in response.

Copts make up the largest Christian community in the Arab world and around 8 million Egyptians belong to the Coptic Church. They’re barred from high government positions, diplomatic service and the military, as well as from many state benefits. Universities have quotas for Coptic students considerably lower than their actual percentage within the population.

Building new churches isn’t allowed, and the old ones are falling into disrepair thanks to a lack both of money and authorization to renovate. When girls are kidnapped and forcibly converted, the police don’t intervene. Thousands of pigs were also slaughtered under the pretense of confining swine flu. Naturally all were owned by Christians.


The Christian Virus

Six Copts were massacred on Jan. 6 — when Coptic celebrate Christmas Eve — in Nag Hammadi, a small city 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of the Valley of the Kings. Predictably, the speaker of the People’s Assembly, the lower house of the Egyptian parliament, called it an “individual criminal act.” When he added that the perpetrators wanted to revenge the rape of a Muslim girl by a Copt, it almost sounded like an excuse.

The government seems ready to admit to crime in Egypt, but not to religious tension.

Whenever clashes between religious groups occur, the government finds very secular causes behind them, such as arguments over land, revenge for crimes or personal disputes.

Nag Hammadi, with 30,000 residents, is a dusty trading town on the Nile. Even before the murders, it was a place where Christians and Muslims mistrusted one another. The two groups work together and have houses near each other, but they live, marry and die separately. Superstition is widespread and the Muslims, for example, fear they could catch the “Christian virus” by eating together with a Copt. It comes as no surprise that these murders occurred in Nag Hammadi, nor that they were followed by the country’s worst religious riots in years. Christian shops and Muslim houses were set on fire, and 28 Christians and 14 Muslims were arrested.

Nag Hammadi is now sealed off, with armed security forces in black uniforms guarding roads in and out of the city. They make sure no residents leave the city and no journalists enter it.

Three presumed perpetrators have since been arrested. All of them have prior criminal records. One admitted to the crime, but then recanted, saying he had been coerced by the intelligence service. The government seems to want the affair to disappear as quickly as possible. The alleged murderers will likely be set free again as soon as the furor has blown over.

More Rights for Christians?

But there are also a few small indications that the situation of embattled Christians in Islamic countries could improve — depending on the extent that nationalism and the radicalization of political Islam subsides again.

One of the contradictions of the Islamic world is that the best chances for Christians seem to crop up precisely where a major player actually comes from the political Islam camp. In Turkey it is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former Islamist and now the country’s prime minister, who has promised Turkey’s few remaining Christians more rights. He points to the history of the Ottoman Empire, in which Christians and Jews long had to pay a special tax, but in exchange, were granted freedom of religion and lived as respected fellow citizens.

A more relaxed attitude to its minorities would certainly signify progress for Turkey.