Today's Wall Street Journal comments on China's inability to control religion. The recent protests in Tibet underscore that the Communist Party's attempts to subdue spiritual structures have little effect.

Bret Stephens writes:

The regime banned religion -- one of the so-called Four Olds -- during the Cultural Revolution. Once it figured out that that didn't work, it sought instead to turn clergy into bureaucrats, and replace the idea of the divine with the mechanics of political control. The results have been, at best, a partial success.

The Party created state sponsored religious groups that do, indeed, have a following. But the official religious groups pale in comparison to the underground ones.

Unofficial Protestants, who attend unsanctioned "house churches," are said to number anywhere between 70 million and 130 million; one prominent Chinese pastor puts the count closer to 300 million. That latter figure is probably exaggerated, but there's no question that Christianity of the unofficial kind is winning Chinese converts in huge numbers. Not only that, it's winning them among every class of Chinese: farmers, urban migrant workers, professionals and intellectuals.

Stephens argues that in "smashing" religion, the country also smashed traditional social structures. That was, of course, the point, as the state was to take over that role. But of course, it couldn't then, and in today's China can do even less.

The Party destroyed the traditional relationships between neighbors, young and old, farmer and villager. But it also destroyed morality. "To a degree that alarms even Chinese rulers, morality and ideology have been replaced by corruption, opportunism and widespread indifference to life's ordinary decencies. Religion offers a corrective to this, too, as it does to the quandaries of 21st century existence."

Ironically, it was this destruction of religion that allowed for the massive growth in Christianity that will be the subject of CT's next cover story. If people's traditional views of religion and society had not been so utterly smashed, Christianity would never have been able to get its foot in the door.

Posted by Rob Moll at March 18, 2008 | Comments (2)

Religion coverage in The Atlantic is typically well done. The magazine's coverage of the neutering of religion from The Golden Compass was interesting for the way it treated both Hollywood and the anti-religious themes of the book on which the movie was based. Though the magazine retains the secular, above the fray, attitude toward faith of its New England founding, it also put Philip Jenkin's article on the New Christendom on the cover in October, 2002, when his book describing the phenomenal growth of non-Western Christianity debuted.

So, the magazine's March cover story (not yet online) on the literal battle between Christianity and Islam in Nigeria is equally well done, despite some mistakes.

Eliza Griswold—daughter of the former presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church—writes from the town of Yelwa, where an attack that killed Christians in church in 2004 brought on a more gruesome response against Muslims killing hundreds. Yelwa is in Nigeria's Middle Belt, which, Griswold writes,

marks the fault line between Christianity and Islam not only in Nigeria, but across the entire continent. A satellite image from Google Earth shows the Middle Belt as a gray-green strip between the equator and the 10th parallel, dividing the fawn-colored dry land from the vibrant sub-Saharan jungle canopy. It also separates most of the continents 67 million Muslims to the north from 417 million Christians to the south.

Because of the 20th century explosion of Christianity in Africa, by the year 2050, Griswold writes, the demographic and geographic center of Christianity will be in northern Nigeria, where the country's Muslims live. This fact makes any tensions in the country religious ones. With 140 million people, oil revenues that never seem to help the people (half of whom live on less than a dollar a day) thanks to government corruption, and a changing regional climate that has wiped out many traditional livelihoods, the country has plenty of tensions.

“Every crisis is automatically interpreted as a religious crisis,” an Anglican archbishop says. “But we all know that, scratch the surface and it's got nothing to do with religion. It's power.”

Power, in this democracy (despite massive corruption) is a numbers game. Christians and Muslims compete for numbers—converts. And to do that, they not only use intimidation (Griswold quotes Archbishop Peter Akinola saying that Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence), Christians and Muslims appeal to want what Nigerians need most—prosperity.

Pentecostalism has brought along American prosperity theology. (Griswold doesn't seem able to separate Pentecostalism from prosperity theology.) And, in the competition for souls, Nigeria's Muslims have come up with an Islamic approach to making people wealthy.

Griswold suggests that, while violence between Christians and Muslims is still a threat, this sort of competition—non-violent pursuit of winning hearts and minds—is growing.

Hopefully she's right. The stories of murder, rape, and intimidation (all justified by either side's scripture) are horrifying. Yet, Griswold doesn't offer much to hang that hope on other than the story of an imam and a pastor who gave up leading militias to work together for peace. It's inspiring, but she gives little evidence of their effectiveness. And Griswold, despite her father's Christian leadership, doesn't seem to fully understand the Christianity she's reporting on, much less Islam. For example, she says Pentecostals “share an experience of the Holy Spirit, or the numinous, that offers the gift of salvation and success in everyday life.” (italics are mine. At least she didn't spell it like Rob Bell.) And Muslims have yet to show that they can treat minorities as equals, instead of "protected" classes or worse.

Still, the article, and it's companions by Alan Wolfe (on how religiosity really is decreasing with modernization) and Walter Russell Mead (on American evangelical political moderation) are worth reading.

Posted by Rob Moll at February 10, 2008 | Comments (2)

We reported last November on the raids on Grace Church, a network of Korean Presbyterian church-plants, in Kazakhstan. The country’s secret police (formerly KGB, now KNB) are back at it, Forum 18 reports. Last weekend they raided the Grace Church in Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan.

Leaks through the media allege that church members are engaged in spying, appropriating church members' property, failing to file financial information, inciting inter-religious enmity and holding illegal drugs, even though no-one has ever been brought before a criminal court.

Vyacheslav Kalyuzhny, the Deputy Human Rights Ombudsperson, says the Church has not complained to his office. "People are not persecuted on religious grounds in Kazakhstan," he claimed.

The claim, while absurd, has worked in the recent past. In November, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) elected Kazakhstan to be the chair, beginning in 2010:

Minister Tazhin also emphasized that religious tolerance is highly valued in Kazakhstan, and that the country "enthusiastically supports the establishment of the three CiO personal representatives on religious tolerance: for Anti-Semitism, Muslims, and for Christians and Other Religions."

In 2009, Kazakhstan will host the third Congress on World and Traditional Religions in Astana.

Kazakhstanis are wonderfully welcoming and friendly people (I lived there for a couple years), and Central Asia has a long tradition of tolerance going back to the Silk Road. But the government has pretty much scrapped that tradition. It seems far more worried about Borat than the possibility of censure from the international community over degenerating religious rights.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 1, 2008 | Comments (1)

Last summer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company denied the West Adrian United Church of Christ in Michigan insurance because its denomination supports same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Wall Street Journal reporter M. P. McQueen writes,

"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions," Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual -- one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions -- wrote in a letter to the church last summer.

McQueen writes that churches have sometimes been denied or have had coverage revoked because of specific acts of violence. "Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s." But this would be the first instance of the denial of a claim due to fears that a controversial stance would provoke a violent backlash.

Founded in 1917 as a mutual-aid organization by evangelical Mennonites, Brotherhood Mutual is now the largest provider of insurance to churches in the country. A spokesperson "didn't have any examples of violence attributable to a church's support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage," McQueen writes. She did note that disputes over gay marriage have led to church splits and resulted in costly lawsuits.

Michigan banned same-sex marriage in 2004. The church has not specifically endorsed the denomination's position on same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals. The article says that as long as insurance companies abide by non-discrimination and other laws, they are free to set their own guidelines for accepting or rejecting applications.

A couple of things to note: Brotherhood Mutual rejected the church's application not because of moral or religious opposition to the church's stance, but because the stance might increase risk to the insurer. So this is not precisely a religious freedom issue. One wonders if the company didn't want to do business with supporters of same-sex marriage and risk seemed a better explanation for its refusal. But are churches that support same-sex marriage really more prone to being victims of vandalism? The article says there is no evidence one way or the other. The story doesn't mention any other ways in which Brotherhood Mutual does business with supporters of same-sex marriage. Does it screen its investments of companies that offer benefits to partners of employees? Presumably, if/when same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination became less controversial, Brotherhood Mutual would then accept applications from churches that supported that stance.

Also, there is no lawsuit. West Adrian didn't sue Brotherhood Mutual over the denial, so the situation would set no legal precedent in regards to religious freedom. If same-sex marriage does gain national legal acceptance, there will probably be exceptions for clergy and churches to discriminate according to their religious teaching. The real test, however, will lie with for-profit companies like Brotherhood Mutual.

Posted by Rob Moll at January 8, 2008 | Comments (4)

Hindu nationalists began burning churches and Christian houses in the east Indian state of Orissa on Christmas Eve. The violence continues, although today it seems to have abated somewhat.

Dozens are injured, many buildings have been destroyed, and the death toll is at 4 (three Hindus killed by police as they burned down the police station, and one Christian killed in the riots).

Compass Direct is reporting higher numbers than those confirmed by the police:

Jacob Pradhan, a Christian leader in Kandhamal district, told Compass that at least four Christians have been killed and more than 50 churches and 200 houses razed or damaged.

Telephone outages and VHP roadblocks made confirming reports “extremely difficult.”

The Associated Press reported that,

On Thursday a mob of Hindus defied a curfew and burned down the house of Radhakant Nayak, a member of India's upper house of parliament and a Christian leader in the area, Nayak told the CNN-IBN news channel.

Also, 11 churches were ransacked and burned in Kandhamal district of Orissa state, the Press Trust of India quoted unnamed police officials as saying.

Meanwhile, in the village of Brahmangaon, a group of Christians burned down several Hindu homes in an apparent retaliation for the attack on churches. Angry Hindus then burned down the village police station, complaining of a lack of protection, a local police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

At least 25 people—both Christian and Hindu—have been arrested so far, and the federal government has announced that it will send in paramilitary troops.

The perpetrators claim that they were defending a Hindu leader who heads an anti-conversion campaign; Christians in Orissa say the attacks were to prevent a Christmas Eve performance that could have led to conversions; AP says it boils down to controversy over thousands of conversions to Christianity in the past few years, “Hindu groups have long charged Christian missionaries with trying to lure the poor and those who occupy the lowest rungs of Hinduism's complex caste-system away with promises of money and jobs.”

The Orissa government has ordered a judicial probe into the attacks, in response to claims that the violence was not spontaneous but sponsored by saffron activists.

Time warns against chalking it all up to religion:

As with most communal violence in India, this latest explosion of hatred is the result not only of religious differences but of a tangled intersection of political power, communal prejudice and the injustices of Hinduism's archaic caste system.

However, in a place where religion permeates everything, it’s not helpful to try to separate religion from political power, prejudice, or the caste system—especially as the hard-line Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is gaining power. Orissa is currently governed by a BJP ally.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 28, 2007 | Comments (1)

The stakes and the rhetoric over last spring’s murders of three missionaries in Turkey continue to get higher. While some are suggesting the victims have PKK connections, others are demanding the defendants be tried for genocide.

Five young plaintiffs are being tried for the killings of Tilman Ekkehart Geske, Necati Aydin, and Ugur Yuksel in Malatya, Turkey. Seven others are not in custody but have been charged with aiding in the murders.

The trial itself opened November 23 with quite a crowd in attendance and has already stalled. The Turkish Press reports that:

The prosecutor demanded life imprisonment for five suspects on charges of setting up an armed terrorist organization and killing people. The suspects and their lawyers said they are not ready to defend themselves. Then, the judge adjourned the court till January 14, 2008.

One of the major concerns about the defense is that, in an appeal to anti-missionary sentiments, it will portray Geske, Aydin, and Yuksel as apostates who had it coming to them. Orhan Kemal Cengiz, one of the attorneys for the complainants and a Turkish Daily News columnist, wrote:

There are 31 files in this case and just 15 of them comprise information about the murder and the perpetrators. What about the other 16 files?

The prosecutor retrieved all documents from the computers of the victims and put them in the case file as “evidence.” If a prosecutor sees missionary activities as criminal then it is not difficult to understand how some people can become crazy and kill these missionaries!

Furthermore, these files, which are public now, may lead to new murders because they include many details on other Protestants who reside in different parts of Turkey. The addresses, emails, telephones of many other Turkish Protestants are in the files, which have already been in the hands of the murderers. The prosecutor failed to make a thorough investigation and he has also put many other lives in danger.

I would like to give you some specific information, but if I went into all details of the weirdness of the files, this article would turn into a small booklet.

It probably won’t be difficult to convince the court that the victims were at least partly to blame, Cengiz says, “From the communications sent to the file we understand that Necati Aydin, one of the victims, had been under constant surveillance and in his police record he has recorded as a former criminal for the ‘crime’ of ‘missionary activity.’”

There has been much hand-wringing in the Turkish press over these murders and what they mean about tolerance and teen violence in their society. But the country—or at least its press—continues to choke on the distinctiveness of people of faith.

Forum 18 published an op-ed that probes the source of the anti-Christian violence. In it, Güzide Ceyhan concludes it’s a result of “disinformation about Christianity in statements by public figures and through the media, the rise of Turkish nationalism, and the implicit and explicit approval both of the marginalization of Christians from Turkish society and also of actions—including murders—against them.”

Keep a lookout for our January cover story, “Jesus in Turkey.”

Posted by Susan Wunderink at November 30, 2007 | Comments (5)

Many news outlets, including CT, have covered the Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to grant refugee status to anyone who gave “material support” to terrorists under the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

The law was riddled with problems: many who are seeking refugee status are doing so because they were forced to give ransoms and temporary housing at gunpoint.

And then there’s the problem of governments that operate much like terrorist groups, including Myanmar’s military junta. Chin Duh Kam, a Burmese pastor in America, told me about government officials forcing Christians in Chin State to make ropes and transport military equipment. The New York Times referred to another UN report that

3,000 villages of the Karen and nearby tribes have been destroyed, and more than 500,000 people have been driven from their homes. Government troops are accused of systematically raping girls and forcing children to join their ranks.

So the law’s broad ban on everyone giving “material support” unfortunately includes those who are victims of terrorists.

But there is good news for some refugees: Homeland Security has begun to issue waivers for those who were clearly forced to give material support to terrorists, said Jenny Hwang of World Relief.

The Associated Press reports that the U. S. State Department also “waived provisions of the Patriot Act that barred 9,300 ethnic Karen from entering the U.S. because of their association with Myanmar rebels.” These Burmese refugees fled their homeland long ago; they are not among those who participated in the August to September protests.

The AP story says the exponential growth in refugee immigration to U. S. cities such as Utica, St. Paul, and Minneapolis is overwhelming aid groups:

Resettlement agency Exodus Refugee has doubled its Indianapolis staff to eight people over the past 11 months but still can't keep up, job specialist Zach Tennant said recently while handing out envelopes with $25 spending money to each adult refugee arriving at Indianapolis International Airport.

In Utica, the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees has received 300 people over the past 11 weeks, including 109 one week, before the end of the federal fiscal year brought a respite. Director Peter Vogelaar said the biggest challenge is finding them safe, clean homes and jobs. He's finding work for 30 to 40 refugees per month.

"Refugees are survivors and they are incredibly resilient," Vogelaar said.

* * *

I wondered whether “Burma” or “Myanmar” was more proper, so I asked.

Chin Duh Kam prefers “Burma,” which he pronounced with great warmth. “I use the old name,” he told me. Pastor David says he uses “Myanmar” in the country and “Burma” outside it.

It turns out that as far as Burmese grammar goes, “Burma” is the colloquial name of the country; “Myanmar” is the formal, literary name. But the names took on a political cast when the government decided in 1989 that it wanted the country to be officially known as the Union of Myanmar. The U. S. State Department still calls it the “Union of Burma.”

As far as adjectives go, “Burman” is usually the majority ethnic group, and “Burmese” refers to nationality.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 16, 2007 | Comments (2)

To celebrate my 60th birthday yesterday, I had dinner with the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank covered the event in his puckish (my wife called it "snarky") style.

Okay, so I had dinner with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and 300 other people. And the Washington Post didn't even mention me. Secretary General Ban and I were only sitting at adjacent tables. But I did get a grip-and-grin photo op with him before the banquet, and after his speech I was one of three evangelical leaders invited to give a brief response.

The banquet itself was a joint effort of the National Association of Evangelicals and the Micah Challenge. It was the closing event of the NAE’s semi-annual board meeting and the opening event of the Global Leaders Forum. Organizations involved in the Forum (beyond the NAE and Micah Challenge) included Bread for the World, World Relief, Frontiers, The Salvation Army, Tearfund, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Korean Church Coalition, and the UN Foundation and the UN Millennium Campaign.

Attendees at the sold-out event got this message loud and clear:

The UN needs evangelicals to help them hold governments to their promised support for the Millennium Development Goals. One hundred ninety-two nations signed on to the MDG’s in 2000 and we are now half-way to the target date of 2015, but without the progress we should have seen by this point, especially in sub-Sarahan Africa. Some nations have been slow in paying their share of the costs.

The MDG’s are all good: ensuring universal primary education, fighting hunger and poverty, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, empowering women, fighting specific diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, working for environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development.

Many of these things have already engaged evangelicals, and Secretary General Ban reminded us of that. He also reminded us of the UN’s desire to work with faith-based groups. From its beginning in 1945, the UN was engaged with the faith community. Forty-two faith-based non-governmental organizations were involved in founding the organization. Today, 400 religious NGOs are accredited to the UN.

He also quoted Isaiah 58:10 to much applause. “If you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.”

In a sense, last night's banquet and today’s issue-oriented discussions are really less about evangelicals fighting disease and poverty and more about evangelicals working in partnerships--partnerships between Western evangelicals and those in the developing world and partnerships with non-evangelicals.

We cautiously engaged those of other shades of Christian faith and even other religions in the mid-90s when we threw tremendous weight behind the effort to pass the International Religious Freedom Act and the creation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We then enlarged the circle of cooperation to work on legislation to fight sex trafficking and, later, human-rights abuses in North Korea. The circle has expanded yet again as many evangelical leaders are partnering on issues of climate change.

Partnerships give evangelicals a sense of participation and empowerment. It gives us the chance to take on really big issues. That’s a strange feeling for a movement whose consciousness is rooted in old-style fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was about being the few and the proud--I mean, the pure. The evangelicalism that emerged in the 1940s hoped for a new engagement with society while maintaining doctrinal and ethical integrity. Its leaders, like first CT editor Carl F. H. Henry and first CT board chair Harold John Ockenga preached a strong social justice message. But the old fundamentalist consciousness still lurks, and these partnerships stretch the evangelical sense of identity.

Despite the uneasiness of some, leaders like Northland Church's Joel Hunter and the NAE's Rich Cizik are plunging ahead with big grins on their faces. I predict we’ll see a continuing expansion of these alliances as we move to tackle an increasing number of the really big problems facing God's world.

Posted by David Neff at October 12, 2007 | Comments (8)

A story in today's Chicago Tribune illustrates one of the tensions of living in an increasingly secular society. The article, "Religious-based education on trial: Christian high schools sue University of California, alleging bias in admissions," discusses a lawsuit that an association of Christian schools is suing the University of California because "the admissions policy at the university unconstitutionally discriminates against them because they teach from a religious perspective."

More specifically the plaintiffs claim that "UC follows the policy of rejecting any course in any subject, even if it teaches standard content, if it adds teaching of the school's religious viewpoint."

The University denies it, of course: "That statement simply is not true," said Christopher Patti, counsel for UC. "There is no prohibition on religious content in UC a-g courses," he said. "If the course adequately teaches the subject matter and adequately teaches the skills that students need in that subject, then the fact that it may also make reference to other theories doesn't disqualify it, even religious theories."

Without knowing more the details of the case, on the surface it seems like another battle in the culture wars than in cultural confusion.

The University, for example, refused to give credit for a course called, "Course: Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic," the text of which was "American Government for Christian Schools" (Bob Jones University Press). The reason rejected was that " Content was not consistent with the "empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community."

Now this could indicate that the University has a narrow, Enlightenment understanding of what constitutes history--it may, for example, rule out miracle a priori as an explanation for an event.

Or it could mean that the textbook and class have not prepared students to participate in classes and conversations that will take place in a modern, secular university on the topic of history. A university has the right and obligation to ensure that when students step on campus, they are familiar with terms, theories, and perspectives that constitute the conversation on campus on any given topic.

Christian schools have an obligation not only to teach from a Christian perspective, but to thoroughly immerse their students in the worldview and perspective of the secular university if they expect them to attend there. This strikes me as a reasonable requirement of the university, but a necessary requirement of those who hope to bring Christ's salt and light to academia. If we demonstrate that we have not listened to or thoroughly understood the point of view of those with whom we disagree, why would they ever give our point of view a hearing?

Posted by Mark Galli at October 8, 2007 | Comments (6)

The federal Bureau of Prisons will return religious materials that were removed from prison chapel libraries to prevent religious extremism, according to the Associated Press.

The purged books that were removed included Christian discipleship materials (see CT’s first story).

The material removed since June will be returned to prison chapel libraries unless it is found to be radicalizing or inciting violence. By June 2008, "what comes off the shelves will be a very, very small number, because the vast majority of material will be on the 'that's OK list,'" bureau spokeswoman Judi Simon Garrett told the AP.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., still expresses concern:

"There's probably a limited universe of materials that incite violence, and I understand that perhaps those need to be banned," said Hensarling. "Instead, what the Bureau of Prisons appears to be doing is really censoring religious texts, deciding what is acceptable."

The New York Times’ story says that previously, the bureau was not reconsidering the library policy, but it reversed its decision after receiving widespread criticism from lawmakers and religious groups.

But critics of the bureau’s program said it appeared that the bureau had bowed to widespread outrage. “Certainly putting the books back on the shelves is a major victory, and it shows the outcry from all over the country was heard,” said Moses Silverman, a lawyer for three prisoners who are suing the bureau over the program.

Prison Fellowship President Mark Early told the AP:

"It took years for chaplains, local churches and other religious organizations to build up the holdings of many prison chapel libraries. Prisoners need access to more material to promote rehabilitation, not less. We want to monitor the process."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at September 28, 2007 | Comments (2)

From reporter Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra:

English Language Institute China (ELIC) denied that any of its English teachers have been expelled from China for illegal religious activity, as reported today by the China Aid Association Inc.

China Aid released a statement accusing the Chinese government of systematically deporting more than 100 suspected foreign missionaries since February 2007. Two of them were English teachers sent to Tibet by ELIC, the statement said. ELIC is a Christian organization that sends English teachers to China.

"We haven't had anyone who was asked to leave," said Gary Lausch, Vice President of Human Resources for ELIC. "We did call China Aid and let them know that was not accurate and they said they would correct it."

The story of government expulsion came as a surprise, Lausch said. He said ELIC has not been feeling any unusual pressure from China lately.

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 10, 2007 | Comments (1)

Christians remain at risk inside Gaza, not to mention the other 1 milion plus Gazans, due to renewed violence between Hamas and Fatah. The situation is being likened to a 'civil war.'

Until recently, it was not clear if militants were targeting Christians or churches. But the Jerusalem Post is reporting that a Roman Catholic church was desecrated and a Catholic school damaged late last week. A Catholic priest is calling for better protection for Gaza's Christians, who number about 3-7,000 people.

Overnight update:

Jerusalem Post has updated their story on the church attack with a report that Hamas has condemned the attack and placed the blame on a local criminal gang.

Christianity Today has heard more from an Egyptian-German Christian leader still inside Gaza. He has been living in Gaza since 2004 for Christian mission and ministry.

Here is his personal account:

On Friday people in the Gaza Strip awoke to a new reality.

Over the previous few days Hamas, an Islamic party had routed the opposition Fatah forces, a secular-nationalist movement, and Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip.

What led to these sudden events?

In February 2006, Hamas was voted into power in democratic elections that were largely imposed by the U.S. and its policy of democratic reform in the Middle East, yet the unexpected outcome seemed to have thrown a monkey wrench in the U.S.’s reform plans.

By March of this year the U.S. and Western countries still had not recognized the Palestinian unity government containing both Fatah and Hamas representatives. An economic embargo stifled not only the government but it also collectively punished the entire people. This economic stranglehold was felt especially in the Gaza Strip, which is enclosed from all sides.

Israel, in one form or another, controls all its borders.

Trade was brought to a slow trickle, after what the World Bank reported to be an economic decline greater than America’s experience during the Great Depression.

Soon Hamas became fed up with not being recognized and being economically crippled despite having come to power through a fair democratic process. Furthermore, with U.S. funding entering Gaza to strengthen Fatah, the election loser, Hamas got impatient and decided to take control of the territory.

The ensuing military takeover of the Gaza Strip that took 80 lives, was bloody and dreadful for many. It took only five days before all opposition headquarters were taken and control was fully in Hamas’ hands.

After the fighting ended I made a trip to the Gaza Baptist Church building with my hosts and the pastor. Minimal damage had been done to the building structure and some equipment, including a laptop used for Sunday worship had been stolen from the building.

A clampdown on lawlessness, which has been widespread in recent months, is one of the few positive prospects of the new political reality in Gaza. With the world not recognizing the Hamas government, the former political power, Fatah, stayed in control in many areas of government. The result had been two parallel government structures in Gaza, one democratically elected by the people, the other voted out by the people and yet only the latter was accepted and recognized by world leaders.

During the past two years I have lived here I have found that it is this meddling of outside powers in Palestinian affairs that has over and over again caused so much suffering for a people so desperately seeking to live a normal life in peace.

Generally people are very concerned about what the near future holds. Despite the Hamas amnesty of Fatah activists, many of them remain scared and are staying home or are in hiding.

By Saturday the streets were relatively back to normal until reports started to spread that Israel was closing the borders and people started scrambling for their basic needs, bread, sugar, flour, and gas. Cars are moving about, people are walking the streets, talking and laughing.

Along the walls of the main hospital in town [Gaza City] I saw old men sitting in the shade playing backgammon. The combination of the normalcy of life and fear of the unknown of the future makes for a strange atmosphere.

Posted by Tim Morgan at June 18, 2007 | Comments (9)

Ever since last October’s special series titled “In God’s Name,” the New York Times has increased its reporting on what it sees as the excessive entanglement of government and religion. The first article in that series complained, for example, that a retirement home near the University of Notre Dame for aging Catholic priests (who, let us be clear, worked for a pittance and never built up equity in a home) receives property-tax breaks that an architecturally similar retirement complex across town doesn’t.

Well, the Times is back today, with an article complaining that the Justice Department defends the free exercise of religion too much—and doesn't pursue as many race-related cases as it did in the past.

The increase in the Justice Department’s attention to religious-freedom cases is hardly news. On February 20, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez gave a widely reported speech to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, in which he “unveil[ed] a new Department of Justice initiative aimed at educating Americans about their religious liberties and to ask for the Southern Baptist Convention’s help in identifying and reporting abuses of those liberties.” (See the Baptist Press account here.)

The same day, Justice released a “Report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious Freedom: Fiscal Years 2001-2006.” Clearly, the Justice Department was seeking publicity for its new focus on religious freedom cases.

Nevertheless, the Times manages to completely avoid references to the Justice Department’s report and offer only oblique references to speeches by the AG. The paper appears to pretend that it is digging up buried information.

The article's main complaints seem to be that:

* under the Bush Administration, Justice is pursuing fewer race-related and hate-crime cases. (The article offers no quantifiable evidence.)

* new entry-level hires at Justice are increasingly coming from faith-based law schools like Ave Maria and Regent. (An accompanying chart, however, shows more hires of Harvard Law grads in the last three years than there were in the preceding three years. Indeed, of the “liberal” law schools on the chart, only Cal Berkely seems to be suffering.)

* vigorously enforcing existing legislation that protects churches against zoning discrimination.

Efforts to combat sex-trafficking also come in for criticism because it is “a favored issue of the religious right.” Sex trafficking—forcing people into sexual slavery—is a civil- and human-rights violation. It is an essential tenet of liberalism that we do not enslave people to do degrading work like this. Even the proponents of the sexual revolution of the sixties built their erotic insurgency around individual autonomy. Why does it matter to the Times that the “religious right” favors this issue?

The story’s final insult to the reader’s intelligence is it’s inclusion of a quote from Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. While Edgar agreed that it was important for Justice to pursue religious freedom and human trafficking cases, there was still a need for race and poverty to get “the highest caliber of attention.” His evidence? The “flawed government response to New Orleans and its mostly poor, black population after Hurricane Katrina.” Wait a minute. Was that the Justice Department responding to Katrina? Was that Alberto Gonzalez running FEMA?

Posted by David Neff at June 14, 2007 | Comments (1)

The conservative Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, in his latest missive--entitled "Family Values or the Liberal Status Quo?"--weighs in on tomorrow's vote in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on the "hate crimes" bill. Perkins opposes the bill, saying it contradicts the "family values" image many Democrats ran on and won with last year. I agree.

But the following passage from Perkins is curious:

"This bill creates a caste system within American society where those who fit a certain category - ranging from race, disability, gender to sexual orientation and transgendered - would be seen as deserving special legal protection. The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime - we matter less." (emphases mine)

Perkins seems to say that those he represents do not belong to "certain" categories, ranging from race to disability, to sex to sexuality. Does he mean the FRC only represents healthy, straight white males? I hope not.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 2, 2007 | Comments (21)

Mexico City's decision to legalize abortion, and the local Roman Catholic reaction to that decision, is getting all kinds of press this week. But don't miss the other big religion story coming out of Mexico, which you're unlikely to see in your local paper. Compass Direct reports, "Local political bosses who had voted to expel 65 Christians from [the Chiapas town of Los Pozos] grudgingly signed an agreement yesterday to let the evangelicals stay in their homes. ... It remains to be seen, he added, whether the Los Pozos town bosses will follow through on the accord’s stipulation that they restore water lines and electricity cut off from some evangelical families since January 30."

Evangelical pastor and attorney Esdras Alonso Gonzalez tells the religion watchdog news service that (in Compass's words) "the signing of the accord could prove to be a watershed moment in Mexican human rights in that it sets a precedent for state authority to head off conflicts before they fester into decades-old, major confrontations."

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 25, 2007 | Comments (2)

AFP goes with "Russia bids farewell to flamboyant Yeltsin." For Reuters, it's "Russians pay respects to flawed hero Yeltsin." The Associated Press (probably wisely) decided not to use an adjective. And it's the Associated Press that hits the religion angle the hardest:

Yeltsin, who died Monday at age 76, sometimes appeared at church services but was not seen as overtly pious. Nevertheless, the Russian Orthodox Church credits him as a key figure in its changed fortunes after decades of the Communist-era's official atheism.

"By his strength, he helped the restoration of the proper role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the life of the country and its people," church spokesman Metropolitan Kirill said in a statement.

That "proper role" is quite a loaded statement. The religion watchdog news service Forum18 and the Russian press agency Interfax have markedly different articles on Yeltsin's legacy on religious freedom. Forum18 summarizes the former president's mixed legacy: "While Yeltsin lifted some state controls over churches following the collapse of the Soviet Union, he eventually signed a controversial Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations."

For more on religious freedom in Russia, see our full coverage area.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 24, 2007 | Comments (0)