Blasphemy laws don’t protect religion, they kill people: USCIRF hearing

Blasphemy laws in nearly half the world’s countries encourage violence to be inflicted on religious minorities, said researchers at a virtual hearing presented by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The hearing on Wednesday announced the release of a new report titled, “Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws,” which examined the impact of blasphemy laws worldwide. Well-natured politicians in those countries often believe forbidding insults to religion will lead to less violence, researchers said. But in reality, forced conformity creates more oppression.

In many nations with blasphemy laws, mobs attack and kill people who have been accused of blasphemy, said University of California School of Law lecturer Amjad Khan.

“Nations that criminalize blasphemy tend to foster an environment where terrorism is more legitimized, prevalent and insidious. Most notably, nation-states that enforce blasphemy laws are indeed statistically more likely to experience terrorist attacks,” said Khan.

Of the 84 nations with blasphemy laws, 43 do not enforce the blasphemy laws in their legal code. Most blasphemy laws are poorly designed, vaguely worded and have unclear penalties, USCIRF chair Gayle Manchin said to The Christian Post.

“Blasphemy is defined as insulting or showing contempt for God, but of course that pertains to your own beliefs or expression of beliefs,” she said. “Freedom of expression totally invalidates blasphemy laws.”

Even when governments don’t enforce blasphemy laws, they can still threaten religious liberty. Often, mobs violently attack people accused of blasphemy and say they were enforcing the law to escape punishment, said Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, an associate professor of clinical law at Cardozo School of Law.

“There is an issue of mob driven violence at the hands of non-state perpetrators. One hundred and thirty-six incidents of mob violence were reported from 2014 to 2018,” she said. “Sometimes thousands of victims were involved in mob action.”

The hearing included Shaan Taseer, the son of the late Pakistan Gov. Salman Taseer. A bodyguard killed the governor in 2011 because of his plan to reform the country’s strict blasphemy law. Though he was accused of blasphemy, courts posthumously found Taseer’s father innocent of the charge.

Salman Taseer had been accused by hardline groups of committing blasphemy by criticizing Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which is supposed to protect Muslim sentiments, but according to human rights groups is often used to settle personal scores and oppress Christians and other religious minorities.

He was also known for standing up for Christians who were being punished by the country’s blasphemy laws, including Asia Bibi, who was on death row for eight years after being accused of insulting Islam. Bibi was acquitted by a court in 2018 and granted asylum in Canada. She’s been seeking asylum in France since the beginning of this year. 

“Being accused of Pakistan is in itself a death sentence with no judge, no jury, straight to the executioner. People are beaten to death, shot on the spot for only an accusation,” Taseer said. “I, too, have been accused of blasphemy and have a fatwa on my head. A mob believes that anyone who kills me will get a ticket to Heaven.”

In Pakistan, people accused of blasphemy tend to come from poor, minority groups and are often illiterate. People almost always get accused by a neighbor after a previous disagreement, and they never get a fair trial, Taseer said. Blasphemy accusations are legal murder.

Surprisingly, countries including Germany, Scotland, Denmark, Canada and Italy still have blasphemy laws, said Manchin. Germany plans to apply its blasphemy law to internet content. In strongly religious countries where authoritarian governments rule, blasphemy laws are the strictest. In Brunei, Pakistan and Iran, blasphemy bears the death penalty.

“In countries that are governed by authoritarians and where there is a majority religion, there infiltrates an idea that everybody needs to believe the same thing. If you don’t, you’re a threat to the majority,” Manchin said. “Countries that have the strictest blasphemy laws also have the greatest extent of mob violence. They’re turning a blind eye and allowing these hate groups to enforce laws they have on the books.”

At the hearing, Sen. James Langford, R-Okla., called attention to a recent congressional resolution against blasphemy laws which he sponsored.

The resolution would make the repeal of other countries’ blasphemy laws a priority for the United States, designate countries with blasphemy laws as countries of particular concern, and oppose the U.N.’s efforts to create international blasphemy norms.

The resolution has already in the House, but Senate leaders are blocking it from getting a vote, he said.

“Many countries don’t want to be able to discuss blasphemy and apostate laws, and they choose to hide these things,” Langford said. “We cannot turn a blind eye to this because it has been exposed.”

From 2014 to 2018, more countries have made new blasphemy laws than have repealed them, Manchin said. In some countries, laws on blasphemy have improved considerably. Iceland, Norway, France, Malta, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Greece, Scotland and Uzbekistan all removed their blasphemy laws. A key factor in their decisions was pressure from the U.S. to change the laws.

“We have found that what the U.S. thinks of other countries makes a difference. Most countries care what they look like to the rest of the world,” said Manchin. “In many cases, they try to do better. Sudan is a case where they’re winding down and slowly working away from it.”

Utah State game canceled after players protest president’s alleged comments about interim coach’s religion

Utah State’s players reportedly voted not to play against Colorado State on Saturday after comments made by the school’s president about interim coach Frank Maile’s faith.

The players released a statement to Stadium about their decision not to play. The comments allegedly made by school president Noelle Cockett on Tuesday were about her concerns with Maile’s “religious and cultural background.” Maile, a former Utah State player, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Mountain West conference has since announced the game has been called off.

The Utah State players’ statement is below in its entirety.

Story continues

Maile was installed as the team’s interim coach after Gary Andersen was fired following the Aggies’ 0-3 start. Anderson, the former coach at Arkansas State, resigned on Thursday after multiple reports said he was going to become Utah State’s next head coach.

Maile is currently in his fifth season as an assistant at Utah State and began the season as the team’s co-defensive coordinator. He was also the team’s interim head coach at the end of the 2018 season after Matt Wells was hired at Texas Tech.

Utah State is currently 1-5 and Saturday’s game was set to be the final game of the season. Colorado State is 1-3 because it’s missed three games due to COVID-19 cancellations.

More from Yahoo Sports:

Meet the Muslims dismantling taboos around sex and religion

When Zoya Patel was in high school, dating wasn’t just a no-go, it was scandalous.

Her Muslim family hoped — even expected — that when Zoya reached adulthood, she’d enter into a consensual arranged marriage.

“Your match would have to meet certain criteria,” explains the 30-year-old writer.

“You would absolutely need to be with a Muslim, preferably one from the same culture — so, preferably Indian and … ideally from the same part of India, or Fijian-Indian, which is my family’s particular background.”

Arranged marriage went hand-in-hand with another expectation: that sex was reserved for marriage. Because of this, Zoya never received a proper “sex education” at home.

Teen magazines with sex ed sections weren’t allowed, either — her parents deemed them “crass and inappropriate” — so Zoya derived her understanding of intimacy from Bollywood films.

“Back then you didn’t even kiss in a Bollywood movie, and any implication of sex was just like a fade to black,” she recalls.

“I didn’t know how to imagine what sex would be like, because I didn’t have any knowledge.”

Loading…

Fears around sex education

Sex education isn’t banned in Islam.

In fact, Fida Sanjakdar, a senior lecturer with Monash University, says it’s quite the opposite.

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that [sex] can’t be spoken of … and I think that’s still quite detrimental to people involved,” she says.

Dr Sanjakdar points to the Islamic texts known as the Hadith, which advocates for Muslims to be knowledgeable about all areas of life, including sex.

“Ignorance is certainly not endorsed,” she says.

But according to Dr Sanjakdar, who has researched the perceptions of parents from ethnically and religiously diverse backgrounds, cultural taboos often hinder these discussions.

She says many parents fear that greater sex education could “corrupt” teenagers, and lead to sexual activity outside of marriage — which is “haram” or forbidden in Islam.

Pleasure and permissibility

But within an Islamic marriage, sexual pleasure is encouraged by the Hadith and the Qur’an, says Dr Sanjakdar.

“There are lots of Hadith … on how to approach your wife, how to approach your husband … give them words of comfort, you know, lots of cuddling, lots of kissing.”

According to Dr Sanjakdar, foreplay, fellatio and mutual masturbation are permitted, provided they are consensual.

“I think a lot of Muslims and non-Muslims alike don’t know that there are lots of things that can happen within a marriage, that are permissible,” she says.

“It’s cultural shyness that sometimes interferes with that, so it’s really helpful to go back to those core books … because you’ll find all your answers in them.”

When sex is an act of worship

For 32-year-old Steven, a designer and Islamic lecturer who works with Muslim youth, sexuality and spirituality are innately linked.

“It’s going to sound funny [but sex] is considered an act of worship,” he says.

“And so, how you behave and approach it is important.”

The lead-up to intimacy between a husband and wife may also be steeped in religiosity.

Steven says there are Islamic narrations that recommend spouses to perform an ablution, or cleansing, before engaging in the act.

“[One should also] say: ‘Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim’ — in the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful — before you enter the bedroom,” he adds.

He says, under Islamic law, the only person allowed to see you in fully exposed is your married partner.

“It’s a naked relationship; there should be no barriers, emotionally or physically, and that’s one of the wisdoms I see in that law,” he says.

Grounds for divorce

According to Dr Sanjakdar, sex is so important in an Islamic marriage that if one partner is not satisfied, it can be legitimate grounds for divorce.

Of course, sex — or lack thereof — isn’t the only reason for divorce. Dr Sanjakdar notes that physical, emotional and mental factors also come into play.

She says that like Australian law, Islamic law advocates for a period of separation before a divorce. This offers an opportunity for mediation or reconciliation, particularly if there are children involved.

Judgment and mercy

Having been through a divorce of his own, Steven says the Islamic separation period — usually two to three months — is unique.

“[If the husband] says, ‘Please come back,’ or she says, ‘I’m sorry,’ and they see each other again, they are technically remarried automatically, and the divorce is nullified,” he says.

“So, even in times of divorce, it’s geared toward bringing them back together.”

His own experience of divorce was not clear-cut.

“[But] it’s not sinful; there’s no prohibition on divorce. However, God says that he dislikes it very much.”

Now happily remarried and a first-time father, Steven says he was also shown kindness during his divorce.

“It’s like a death in the family when someone divorces. People rally around and … try to get help you get through your feelings,” he says.

“Our religion is pegged in mercy. Imam Ali [a central figure in Shia Islam] says, for example, that you must give your brother or sister 70 excuses before you judge them.

“So, with that spirit, you can’t really judge anyone.”

Faith & Fornication is a three-part video series exploring how young, devout Australians navigate dating and sex, presented by Siobhan Marin.

In Steven’s religion, sex is ‘considered an act of worship’

When Zoya Patel was in high school, dating wasn’t just a no-go, it was scandalous.

Her Muslim family hoped — even expected — that when Zoya reached adulthood, she’d enter into a consensual arranged marriage.

“Your match would have to meet certain criteria,” explains the 30-year-old writer.

“You would absolutely need to be with a Muslim, preferably one from the same culture — so, preferably Indian and … ideally from the same part of India, or Fijian-Indian, which is my family’s particular background.”

Arranged marriage went hand-in-hand with another expectation: that sex was reserved for marriage. Because of this, Zoya never received a proper “sex education” at home.

Teen magazines with sex ed sections weren’t allowed, either — her parents deemed them “crass and inappropriate” — so Zoya derived her understanding of intimacy from Bollywood films.

“Back then you didn’t even kiss in a Bollywood movie, and any implication of sex was just like a fade to black,” she recalls.

“I didn’t know how to imagine what sex would be like, because I didn’t have any knowledge.”

Loading…

Fears around sex education

Sex education isn’t banned in Islam.

In fact, Fida Sanjakdar, a senior lecturer with Monash University, says it’s quite the opposite.

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that [sex] can’t be spoken of … and I think that’s still quite detrimental to people involved,” she says.

Dr Sanjakdar points to the Islamic texts known as the Hadith, which advocates for Muslims to be knowledgeable about all areas of life, including sex.

“Ignorance is certainly not endorsed,” she says.

But according to Dr Sanjakdar, who has researched the perceptions of parents from ethnically and religiously diverse backgrounds, cultural taboos often hinder these discussions.

She says many parents fear that greater sex education could “corrupt” teenagers, and lead to sexual activity outside of marriage — which is “haram” or forbidden in Islam.

Pleasure and permissibility

But within an Islamic marriage, sexual pleasure is encouraged by the Hadith and the Qur’an, says Dr Sanjakdar.

“There are lots of Hadith … on how to approach your wife, how to approach your husband … give them words of comfort, you know, lots of cuddling, lots of kissing.”

According to Dr Sanjakdar, foreplay, fellatio and mutual masturbation are permitted, provided they are consensual.

“I think a lot of Muslims and non-Muslims alike don’t know that there are lots of things that can happen within a marriage, that are permissible,” she says.

“It’s cultural shyness that sometimes interferes with that, so it’s really helpful to go back to those core books … because you’ll find all your answers in them.”

When sex is an act of worship

For 32-year-old Steven, a designer and Islamic lecturer who works with Muslim youth, sexuality and spirituality are innately linked.

“It’s going to sound funny [but sex] is considered an act of worship,” he says.

“And so, how you behave and approach it is important.”

The lead-up to intimacy between a husband and wife may also be steeped in religiosity.

Steven says there are Islamic narrations that recommend spouses to perform an ablution, or cleansing, before engaging in the act.

“[One should also] say: ‘Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim’ — in the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful — before you enter the bedroom,” he adds.

He says, under Islamic law, the only person allowed to see you in fully exposed is your married partner.

“It’s a naked relationship; there should be no barriers, emotionally or physically, and that’s one of the wisdoms I see in that law,” he says.

Grounds for divorce

According to Dr Sanjakdar, sex is so important in an Islamic marriage that if one partner is not satisfied, it can be legitimate grounds for divorce.

Of course, sex — or lack thereof — isn’t the only reason for divorce. Dr Sanjakdar notes that physical, emotional and mental factors also come into play.

She says that like Australian law, Islamic law advocates for a period of separation before a divorce. This offers an opportunity for mediation or reconciliation, particularly if there are children involved.

Judgment and mercy

Having been through a divorce of his own, Steven says the Islamic separation period — usually two to three months — is unique.

“[If the husband] says, ‘Please come back,’ or she says, ‘I’m sorry,’ and they see each other again, they are technically remarried automatically, and the divorce is nullified,” he says.

“So, even in times of divorce, it’s geared toward bringing them back together.”

His own experience of divorce was not clear-cut.

“[But] it’s not sinful; there’s no prohibition on divorce. However, God says that he dislikes it very much.”

Now happily remarried and a first-time father, Steven says he was also shown kindness during his divorce.

“It’s like a death in the family when someone divorces. People rally around and … try to get help you get through your feelings,” he says.

“Our religion is pegged in mercy. Imam Ali [a central figure in Shia Islam] says, for example, that you must give your brother or sister 70 excuses before you judge them.

“So, with that spirit, you can’t really judge anyone.”

Faith & Fornication is a three-part video series exploring how young, devout Australians navigate dating and sex, presented by Siobhan Marin.

The Color of Religion

Signifyin’-Sept. 16, 2020—

Ok, let’s suspend reality for a moment and drop ‘45IQ’ (Trump for those not regular readers of my column) from the political equation.

In the presidential slot, insert a referendum on religion.

More specifically, Christianity’s role in the centuries’ long battle for the soul of America.

Let me crystalize.

Voters on November 3rd will make a sociocultural decision that will determine the validity of what many refer to as White Christianity, whether it be the false premise that there are, in fact, races, or that theirs is superior, made in God’s image and ordained to rule and subjugate.

White Christians excused away slavery and ignored that brutal institution, which included rape, torture, and murder based on the idiotic premise that we were the biblical Ham’s cursed descendants.

And except for Quakers and Mormons, who fought for our freedom, White Christians rewrote the Bible for their own benefit, rejecting tenets espousing universal brotherhood and the basic concept of loving thy neighbor as thy self.

The evolution of Black Christianity is in stark contrast to the White Evangelical Right, or what you might call the Christian ‘White-Right.’

Are there two versions of Christianity, two bibles and two Gods?  One acknowledges we are all made in Nyame’s image and another permits sins far more insidious than abortion and adultery that the ‘White-Right’ prioritize as campaign issues?

But the real question is, can you indeed call yourself a Christian if you’re a racist?

Can you turn your back on systemic racism (apartheid), injustice, and discrimination and expect to be awarded a key to the narrow doorway to heaven or the ‘new earth’?

In many theologists’ eyes, the COVID-19 pandemic, mass demonstrations against systemic racism, and injustice is not mere happenstance.  It is God’s (Nyame) call for reconciliation and appeasement.

This is not just my theory. There is a flood of like-minded Christians who feel similarly. I’ve read a half-dozen articles that posited likeminded assumptions, including a few Evangelicals who now see the light…or dark.

Among the most forthright was issued a few days ago from an Evangelical Christian who gave a call to his fellow Donald Trump supporters to put their concerns about abortion and homosexuality on the back burner and focus instead on tearing down the walls of racism and apartheid.

Well known Evangelical and White-Righter Jim Wallis, president of a Christian organization called Sojourners, issued a call for his fellow ‘White’ Christians to use the elections to start a national healing process.

“We’ve seen far too-long-delayed awakening among many White people about our nation’s systemic racism, sparked by the public killing of George Floyd,” he said in a written appeal.

“An excruciating 8 minutes and 46 seconds has led to a more in-depth conversation about the last 401 years of slavery and racism — partly because the whole nation was home and watching,” he wrote.

These twin crises (racism and the killing of Floyd) proclaim a message that resonates with people of faith, and perhaps even reaching some of Donald Trump’s traditional base: White Christians. We shall see.

Wallis said It might seem like a bold idea that the word ‘Christian’ could become more important than the word ‘White’ when the opposite has been confirmed for a long time.

Since the rise of the so-called ‘Religious Right,’ White Evangelicalism, in particular, has been successfully tied to Right-wing politics indifferent or actively hostile to racial equity, which is a fundamentally religious issue, he continued.

“The Religious Right, in fact, was poisoned from its beginnings with ‘White race,’ ‘White identity,’ and ‘White power’ being prominent among its organizing purposes.”

Eight of ten right-wing White Christians voted for Trump In 2016, despite his apparent flaws, including racism, myogenic, adultery, and vainglory.

Also, 60% of Catholics and 57% of Protestants voted for a candidate who some people of color call the Antichrist.

But that should not be surprising, particularly to those who study history and take note of the Christian church’s role in that ‘Original Sin’ (slavery) and its aftermath.

Whether His-story books continue to disguise it or not, this country was founded on the tenet of White Supremacy under the heading of so-called ‘Manifest Destiny.’

That’s why there is a White church, a Black church, and various shades of churches/religions in between.

Even if you can find White churches who talked about the universality of mankind, or were so bold as to remind the White-Right theologians that the first human beings were African and Black, they too were complicit by their silence and refusal to stand against injustice.

Such African American icons dating back to Richard Allen, founder of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, to Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr., called out the ‘White’ Church for its racist underpinnings and refusal to follow God’s mandates.

Most of today’s middle-realm White churches find themselves promenading down a similar path, some using the cover of ‘more important religious concerns’ to ‘mask’ (no pun intended…I think) their real agenda, or lack thereof.

Explained Wallis: “As an Evangelical Christian, I believe that issues such as abortion and religious liberty are important — but I’ve also lived the history and seen how those issues have been skewed and politicized by paper over clear biblical imperatives surrounding poverty and race.”

The 20th and 21st centuries have borne witness to White political leaders also masking their racism, he posited, “subtly stoking White voters’ racial fears, grievances, and hatred, so this isn’t new.

“But now, racist rhetoric and policies have moved from covert to overt in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to increase fear and animosity on all sides,” the former ‘White-Righter’ declared.

Racial fears are now a central campaign issue and campaign strategy, he explained.

“In early 2020, I wrote this election would be a test of democracy and faith. I wish those words hadn’t proven true. Those of us who believe racism is the paramount religious issue in this election must find practical ways to put our faith into action for the sake of our democracy… and of our faith.”

The cleric advised all Christians to return to the Bible for which the foundation of creation and universal brotherhood is the central tenet.

The foundation for all our politics is found in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible: In Genesis 1:26, he explained.

“Our holy scriptures say that God created humankind in God’s image and likeness.

“That passage is central to and affirms Dei’s imago, the image of God, in others and opposes what it denies.”

Appeals to racial fear, grievance, and hate are assaults on the image of God in others. Therefore, every act of racialized police violence, every family separated at the border, every wink or appeasement to White supremacists, and every attempted suppression of even one vote because of skin color, is denying the image of God — imago Dei.

That may be a little too deep for the novice, the unread, and those neo-Christians—White and Black—who accept what is convenient for their lifestyles and reject all else.

They are Christian in name only…and during funerals.  Nor can they understand why they can’t remember Nyame’s number during times of distress or fear.

In some respects, they are in the same boat at the White-Right evangelist who worships a ‘White’ God who remarkably looks a lot like Uncle Sam, and a Messiah with blond hair and blue eyes.

“Until White Christians understand that loving their neighbors as themselves means fighting unrelentingly for justice for Black and Brown people and dismantling the oppressive structures of White supremacy, White American Christian claims to understand the heart of the gospel ring exceedingly hollow.”

White-wing Christians will undermine the basic tenets of Christianity if they vote for Trump, Wallis believes. They are also complicit in advancing systemic racism if they don’t come out of their caves to fight for equality and justice for their dark-skinned brethren.

And, of course, that starts with accepting African Americans as brothers and sisters.

“The changing perceptions among Whites of what it means to be a (Black American) and further, what it means to be a Christian in this country amid so much inequality and oppression — is leading to an unprecedented national conversation about the last four centuries of American life and America’s ‘original sin.’

“While Black voters, and especially Black women, are the core of the Democratic Party and are among the most religious people in the country, the party has, in recent decades, been reluctant to talk about faith.

“But when candidates talk about racism as the preeminent religious issue in this election season, it changes the conversation and opens up new space for religious voters to engage with their faith and apply it to their politics.”

People of faith and conscience voting against racism means protecting against the re-entrenchment of White nationalism that has emerged in this country and protecting Black and Brown Americans’ future, he said.

“Our nation and American Christianity as practiced by those identifying as White is at a crossroads. If White Christians once again refuse to treat racism as a political deal-breaker for their support, any chance to regain some of the credibility they’ve lost by their political captivity of recent years will be gone forever,” he concluded.

I agree wholeheartedly. Or almost.  I see a subliminal hurdle in Wallis’s message that undermines his premise.

As long as he and other White-Right Christians see the world through a lens that is tinted in Black and White, his message is weakened.  Because God sees only one race: the human race. And Nyame doesn’t need glasses.

Hotep.

Pandemic harming freedom from religion in many countries, says report

The Covid-19 pandemic has undermined the rights of people who reject religious norms in many countries, according to the latest Freedom of Thought Report from Humanists International.

This year’s edition of the report, an annual assessment on the rights of Humanists, atheists and the non-religious, was published yesterday – coinciding with International Human Rights Day.

The report found that blasphemy remains a punishable offence in at least 68 countries. People can effectively be put to death for expressing atheism in 11 countries, all of which are majority Muslim.

Impact of pandemic

The report also said countries including Zimbabwe and Kenya have scapegoated the non-religious for the pandemic, with Zimbabwe’s president describing it as “a warning to people to leave their sinful ways”.

Countries including Azerbaijan have used it as a chance for broader crackdowns on freedom of expression.

It has also had a negative impact on the freedom to reject or change religion. Many people questioning their communities’ religious identities have been trapped with their families, while atheist support groups have often been unable to organise activities.

Many people have found themselves unable to access consular or other support services as they have fled harm. Women’s access to abortion has been restricted in some countries.

Other key findings

The report said “the overwhelming majority” of countries fail to respect the rights of Humanists, atheists and the non-religious.

It found that government figures or state agencies openly marginalise, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious in 12 countries.

And it said dozens of countries engage in discriminatory funding of religion; derive their state legislation in whole or in part from religious law; or use religious courts on family or moral matters.

It also criticised laws which discriminate against the non-religious, for example by not allowing them to marry, or which define citizens by their membership of religious groups.

Non-religious people are barred from holding at least some offices in 26 countries.

Comments

Andrew Copson, the president of Humanists International, wrote the introduction to the report. He said restrictions caused by the virus, “whilst completely necessary”, had “also had the secondary effect of undermining and destabilising the lives of those who are most vulnerable”.

National Secular Society head of communications Chris Sloggett welcomed the report.

“This is a sobering reminder of the restrictions on basic rights which many non-religious people and members of religious minorities face globally, and of the need to defend human rights from religious impositions.

“This year’s report also makes a valuable contribution by specifically highlighting the impact of the coronavirus, and the upheaval it’s caused, on the freedom to reject religious norms.”

What Role Does Religion Play in Your Life?

In “Saying Goodbye to Hanukkah,” Sarah Prager writes about celebrating traditionally religious holidays without religion:

Growing up, my sister and I ate our Hanukkah latkes next to stockings our mother had cross-stitched with depictions of Santa. The white flickering light from the menorah’s candles mixed with the glow of colorful electric lights on our locally cut Christmas tree, decorated with tinsel and Stars of David. Celebrating two holidays at once was normal and a joy. But I’m making different choices with my own children, who won’t grow up with Hanukkah at all.

My sister and I never attended religious services for any Jewish or Christian holidays, but we were still raised with religion. My family attended a Unitarian Universalist meeting house where it was common to celebrate multiple religions’ holy days. We looked forward to the annual Festival of Lights, where each room of the building had a different activity set up: Kwanzaa candle dipping, gingerbread house decorating, reindeer craft making, dreidel spinning, Yule wreath building.

My father’s Jewish tradition only appeared at Hanukkah for the American “holiday season.” We didn’t celebrate Passover or Rosh Hashanah or any other Jewish holiday as a family. In contrast, my mom’s Catholic upbringing emerged not only at Christmas, but also for Easter, though that was only about eggs, bunnies and the resurrection of spring, not Jesus.

We celebrated every holiday secularly, like Halloween or Thanksgiving 一 except Hanukkah. Each of those eight nights we’d recite the Hebrew prayer about God while lighting the menorah. We memorized the syllables and repeated them, but they had no meaning to us and my parents didn’t expect, or want, us to believe what we were reciting. We were trying to honor my dad’s heritage, but it wasn’t a custom he truly wanted to hold on to.

Ms. Prager goes on to explain that, now, she and her wife identify as “nones” — people with no religious affiliation — and that they raise their children celebrating Christmas and Easter, but not in the context of religion:

I respect the incredible value of keeping traditions alive, especially those that centuries of persecution have sought to erase. But while I have more of a connection to Judaism than some, I am not Jewish and it doesn’t feel authentic to celebrate a Jewish holiday religiously. My kids may end up playing dreidel sometimes, but they won’t learn the prayer that begins Baruch atah Adonai, sacred words that are nonetheless empty to them.

Discontinuing my family’s Hanukkah celebration fits right in with our family’s tradition of bucking tradition. Most families do this in some way, even if just adjusting the Tooth Fairy’s gift for inflation. As a queer person, I know my kids will grow up alongside other children whose families created their own way of doing things because the old way hurt or didn’t fit.

Pride in June is my favorite holiday, but this year, the first as our completed family of four, we couldn’t go to a parade. I missed that much more than any holiday rooted in a religion that isn’t mine. I hope that the balloons, floats and rainbows that typically mark its celebration will be a special part of my children’s memories as they grow, and that they anticipate our invented Pride Fairy’s gifts as much as the Easter Bunny’s.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

• In a few sentences, how would you describe your religious or spiritual beliefs — or your choice not to subscribe to religion?

• What role does religion play in your life? Do you pray each day? Do you participate in religious traditions through the clothes you wear or the food you eat? Do you have a spiritual community that is important to you? Do you participate in religious holidays?

• Katarina, a student, suggested this question: “Can you pick and choose which aspects of religion to follow?” What do you think? Is it possible to participate in only some elements of a religion, like holidays or prayers, without following all of a religious tradition? Do you do this in your own life? If so, how do you decide which parts of your religion to observe and which parts to leave behind?

• If you are not religious, do you have other beliefs, traditions or practices — like meditation, yoga, art, music or being in nature — that ground you or give you a deeper sense of purpose or connection to the world? If so, what are they and what do they mean to you?

• Which holidays are most important to you? If they are traditionally religious, is their religious nature important to how you celebrate them? Or do you celebrate them without the religious stories or rituals, like the writer of the article?

• To what extent is your relationship to religion your own choice? Is it important to your family that you are connected to religion? Do you observe your religion in the way you are instructed to by religious leaders or texts? Or have you been able to explore and form your own spiritual beliefs? When you grow up, do you think you will choose to practice religion differently than your family does now? Why or why not?

About Student Opinion

• Find all our Student Opinion questions in this column.
• Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it.
• Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning.

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

What science can learn from religion

Over the first half of the 20th century, the Catholic priest and prehistorian Henri Breuil transformed our understanding of early humans. Armed with a pared-down travel kit and a folding umbrella, this diminutive figure in a worn cassock criss-crossed France, then Europe, then the world, in search of painted caves. Having wriggled his way into hundreds of them, he re-emerged bearing his own renditions of the art with which our Stone Age ancestors decorated their interiors.



Nicknamed the Pope of Prehistory, the bright-eyed, sharp-tongued, chain-smoking Breuil was the first to systematically document Palaeolithic cave art: the scenes involving bison, horses and aurochs, tens of thousands of years old, that still take our breath away today. His thinking on the meaning of this ancient art, which he saw as linked to rituals for ensuring the success of the hunt, has since fallen out of favour, but more than any other individual he persuaded the world that humankind’s most distant ancestors were capable of symbolic thought and that they believed in other worlds.



We’re used to those ideas, now that the cave art of Lascaux and Chauvet is so well known. But in 1902, when Breuil first presented the paintings of Spain’s Altamira cave as the work of Stone Age artists, academics were shocked. Prehistorians believed then that if ancient humans produced art it was essentially to satisfy a passing aesthetic urge. Some thought the rock paintings might be relatively modern, and possibly a hoax. Breuil forced them to look at those paintings anew, and as a result to entirely re-evaluate the ancestors they had once regarded as boneheaded brutes. “What we saw plunged us into an inexpressible stupor,” Breuil wrote, years later.



Changing the paradigm wasn’t easy. There were bitter struggles, and Breuil – who was himself accused of forgery – had to call attention to the art of many other caves before his idea was accepted. In doing so, he incurred the disapproval of both the Church – then fighting modernising forces within – and the fiercely anticlerical posse that dominated prehistory at the time, who objected to his suggestion that the paintings held religious significance. For them, religion was an abomination invented only in the past 10,000 years or so.



<em><strong>[See also: <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2020/12/what-new-atheists-got-wrong" rel="nofollow">What the New Atheists got wrong</a>]</strong></em>



Breuil saw no conflict between science and religion. He considered himself an empiricist who tested his hypotheses against the facts. His view of Palaeolithic art was undoubtedly coloured by his faith. He was drawn to the caves – which he regarded as Stone Age sanctuaries – by the spiritual charge he felt in them. A number of other priest-prehistorians working in Europe in that period were, too, as the French historian Fanny Defrance-Jublot argues in a forthcoming book, but they did not necessarily share Breuil’s or the anti-clericals’ interpretation of the evidence. Their diverse motives stimulated rather than stifled debate.



You could even make the case, as Breuil’s biographer Arnaud Hurel has, that being a priest equipped Breuil for his scientific work. He was a talented draftsman with a prodigious visual memory. These were skills that were needed in the early 1900s, when hardly any of the caves had been documented, and because the Church exempted him from looking after a parish, Breuil had time to hone them. He was often the first on the scene when new cave paintings were discovered, thanks to his formidable network of informers among the parish priests of Europe and missionaries further afield. And, having no family ties, he could spend long stretches of time on the road.



In the 60 years since Breuil’s death, the divide between science and religion seems only to have deepened. Ultra-religious groups deny the reality of evolution while New Atheists dismiss religion as irrational. Yet even scientists are beginning to ask if the existential threats facing humanity – climate change, the coronavirus pandemic – are beyond the remit of science alone, and require an exploration of the points where science and religion intersect.



That suggestion sounds radical, but it isn’t new. Breuil and his fellow priest-prehistorians were among the last to take it for granted. As Defrance-Jublot puts it, they “felt a connection, rather than a boundary, between their faith and their scientific research”.



Many historians now agree that the notion that science and religion must be in conflict was a Western invention of the 19th century, and yet this idea still distorts popular understanding of scientific history. Most people know about Galileo’s persecution at the hands of the Roman Inquisition in the 17th century, for arguing that the Earth rotated around the sun and not vice versa. But they know little of the legions of earlier scientists, men and women of faith, on whose scholarship he built. For centuries, science and religion were seen as complementary. They were simply two ways of reading the same book: nature.



At the time that Breuil was working, the relationship between science and spirituality was still fluid. Like other prehistorians, religious or not, Breuil was interested in spiritualism – the belief that the living can communicate with the dead – which he may have seen as a way of entering the minds of the Stone Age artists. Other scientists, such as Marie Curie and Thomas Edison, visited mediums too. Boundaries were particularly elastic in the interwar years, when all kinds of former certainties were challenged, but after the Second World War they began to harden. Religion was gradually relegated to the private realm – to be kept separate from a scientist’s day job – and a new narrative took hold, that religion loses legitimacy as science gains it.



That narrative has led us ineluctably to where we are now. New Atheism emerged in this century as a response to the increasingly vocal religious groups who challenge the scientific orthodoxy: the American evangelicals who want creationism taught in schools, the orthodox Muslims who believe God fashioned Adam out of clay. On 16 October this year a French schoolteacher was beheaded by an Islamic fundamentalist for teaching free speech, the bedrock of science. Such violent events strengthen the idea that we live in a polarised world where there is no common ground and one side or the other must win. The reality is somewhat different.



In <em>Secularity and Science</em> (2019), the sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund, of Rice University in Texas, and her colleagues observe that religious belief persists in the group of people you might think would be most resistant to it – scientists themselves. Based on international surveys, they report that not only is religious belief surprisingly common in this group, but religion and science overlap in scientific work, and even atheist scientists may see the pursuit of science as having a spiritual dimension.



One of their most eloquent surveys was conducted in the UK. They wanted to understand how scientists viewed religion in a country that, as the birthplace of the science-infused Industrial Revolution, appears outwardly more secular than the researchers’ native US. Of the 115 British biologists and physicists they interviewed, 63 per cent stated they had no religious affiliation (compared to 47 per cent of the general population), yet even the relatively irreligious scientists did not reject all forms of religion. They rejected religious beliefs that challenge scientific claims, while praising those that support them. The majority of those interviewed were also critical of New Atheism, whose proponents include the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Some described Dawkins’s efforts as “a form of evangelism or extremism, similar to the kind of evangelistic and extreme behaviour they object to in religion”.



For the American rabbi and physicist Jeremy England, the misconception that science and religion have nothing to say to each other arises from a mirrored error whereby each side assumes the other only speaks one language. In fact, there are many languages within each: different scientific disciplines may adopt distinct approaches to the same problem, just as religious scholars may have different readings of the same sacred text. That linguistic multiplicity is a good thing, he thinks – if only it wasn’t so often misconstrued – because it’s at the boundaries between languages, or world-views, that discovery happens.



At Georgia Tech in Atlanta, England tries to understand how life is generated from inanimate matter. He told me that although he was drawn to that question by scientific curiosity, the Book of Genesis guided the approach he takes to it. “When it says in Genesis, ‘And God said let there be light, and there was light,’ one of the points surely being made is that the light by which we see the world comes from the way we talk about it,” he said. His conclusion, which he lays out in a new book called <em>Every Life is on Fire</em>, is that neither biology nor physics alone can explain the origins of life. The solution to the mystery lies somewhere between the two.



<span class="divider">***</span>



Religion shapes how scientists approach science. But as knowledge accumulates, science can’t help but encroach on religious territory, if only because the two ask some of the same questions. Where do we come from? Where are we going? What’s the nature of the universe and are we special in it?



In 2020 many astronomers consider it unlikely that rational, intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, though they do think that relatively simple, microbial extraterrestrial life will be discovered before long. In light of that, the Brazilian-born theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser argues that it is time to move beyond the idea that we are merely average residents of the Milky Way. Gleiser, a self-declared agnostic, said in an interview in 2019 that we must accept that we have a moral duty to preserve this exceptional planet because “we understand how rare this whole game is and that for all practical purposes we are alone”.



Some see this increasingly explicit tendency of scientists to place humans back at the centre of the universe – from where Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo ousted them – as a symptom of Western science’s terminal malaise. They dismiss it as “neo-geocentrism” and worry that it means scientists are running out of ideas. Yet for others, making sense of our age of global crises requires a return to the old fluidity, in which science and religion are free to inspire each other.



Many environmental and social movements have emerged in recent years, in response to fears of climate change-fuelled civilisational collapse. In France, where “collapsology” has grown in popularity since 2015, one of the movement’s leaders, the author and former academic Pablo Servigne, has spoken about how the prospect of calamity has forced humans to consider their place in the world. What is our relationship to the rest of nature, or to the future of this planet? “Science offers no solutions to these questions,” he told an interviewer earlier this year. For Servigne, a collective spiritual reflection is called for: “If we satisfy ourselves with private beliefs, little spiritual hummingbirds flitting here and there, we will not achieve anything.”



Like Greta Thunberg, who has been compared to Joan of Arc, Servigne has been described as a guru with an evangelical message – something that is always suspicious to scientists. But perhaps a mature, confident scientific community should recognise that people ask questions for many reasons, none of them untainted by ideology, and that this is how we muddle towards knowledge. After all, argues the German neuroscientist and agnostic Wolf Singer, there is so much more to know.



“Our reasoning has adapted to the world in which life has evolved, which is a tiny segment of what we know exists,” Singer told me over Zoom from his home in Frankfurt. Even within that segment, our cognition and sense organs have been tuned by natural selection to those features essential to our survival, leaving us oblivious to the rest. We probe the broader universe by extrapolation, using maths to enter worlds we can’t imagine, but the territory of the unknown remains vast. Singer sees no objection to hearing the same question framed differently – as long as the scientific method is respected in answering it – and has never shied away from dialogue with religion.



<em><strong>[See also: <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/nature/2020/12/christmas-approaches-we-should-remember-pagan-rituals-came-it" rel="nofollow">As Christmas approaches, we should remember the pagan rituals that came before it</a>]</strong></em>



A member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences since 1992, he remarked on what he considers the academy’s failures – its inability to change the Church’s position on birth control, for example – but also its successes. After the Dutch-born chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen described the dire after-effects of nuclear war at an academy meeting in the early 1980s, the Vatican and its embassies helped introduce the concept of a nuclear winter to global governments, influencing the disarmament debate. And Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical, <em>Laudato Si’</em>, in which he adopted the scientific consensus on climate change, was heavily influenced by the academy’s deliberations.



Singer has debated free will and consciousness with Buddhist monks, and even recruited them to his experiments, exploring how their practice of meditation shapes their awareness of the world. This research is an example of another way in which the two realms have inspired each other. The scientists’ rationale for recruiting religious individuals is clear: in the differences between those individuals and the rest of us, they hope, lie clues to the inner workings of the human mind. But what motivates the participants?



<span class="divider">***</span>



At the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center in Chicago, the Religious Orders Study is approaching its fourth decade. This project tracks the physical and cognitive capacity of more than a thousand ageing nuns, priests and monks across the US, on the grounds that, belonging to religious communities, they tend to stay in one place and to lead similar lifestyles. The study’s architects claim that it has shed light on the neurobiological pathways that both lead to and protect against dementia.



“Death doesn’t worry me,” said 79-year-old Sister Lucille Coughlin of the School Sisters of Notre Dame, speaking to me from her parish home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, on the shores of Lake Michigan. “I’ll be watching from above.” She told me that the requirement to donate her brain at death did not put her off: she was put here for a purpose and this research may be it. Having taught all her life, the study offers her a way to keep giving in retirement. Then, to my surprise, she quoted the Jesuit palaeontologist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”



<em><strong>[See also:<a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/international/places/2020/12/year-great-humbling" rel="nofollow"> The year of the Great Humbling</a>]</strong></em>



Teilhard was a friend of Henri Breuil’s, with whom he worked in the painted caves of Spain and elsewhere. His philosophical ideas are outdated, but he, too, added to knowledge of human prehistory in important ways, and both men played their part in driving the Church towards modernisation. That process involved the Church acknowledging that Genesis could be read in ways that were compatible with the discoveries of science, and that its own legitimacy depended on it recognising the legitimacy of science – an acknowledgement that led to the creation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1936.



Today, there is still no consensus on the meaning of Stone Age rock art. A kind of taboo exists among researchers against projecting intentions on to such distantly related beings who – like any putative extraterrestrials – inhabit such different worlds. Breuil, in his time, recognised no such taboo. “There’s something moving about slipping beneath this sleeve of rock, shelter to lost generations, witness to their ceremonies and home life, faithful guardian of their disconcerting art,” he wrote of Altamira cave in Spain. Even so, there is today an acceptance that the paintings are in some way religious – that as the prehistorian Jean Clottes puts it, Homo sapiens has always been Homo spiritualis. That’s what links humanity through time and space, and it doesn’t seem likely to change any time soon. 



<em>Laura Spinney, a science writer and an agnostic, is the author of “Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How it Changed the World” (Vintage) </em>

India’s New Parliament a Sign of ‘Narrowing’ State-Religion Gap, Modi’s Biographer Says

The formal inauguration of India’s new parliament complex on Thursday is a sign of an ever-narrowing gap between the state and religion and presents “discomforting” omens for Indian democracy, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, a biographer of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has told Sputnik.

“Religion and the state are becoming increasingly synonymous. The two narratives are increasingly converging and the new Parliament building is a step in that direction”, explains Mukhopadhyay, who has written extensively on Hindu nationalism.

“As we have seen from the speech of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, he says that the new Parliament will be the temple of democracy. The signs are already there”, says the political analyst, noting that the completion of Ayodhya’s Ram Temple, another crucial project for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is also on the cards.

Birla has been quoted as saying in Indian media this week that the new parliament is expected to be completed by 2022, which will also be 75th year of India’s independence. The Ram Temple, another grand project close to the heart of the BJP and its Hindu nationalist supporters, is expected to come up in 2023, just ahead of the next federal election planned for 2024.

Mukhopadhyay highlights that an “all-faith ceremony” was also organised to lay the cornerstone of the project on Thursday.

The remarks come against the backdrop of Prime Minister Narendra Modi laying the cornerstone of India’s new parliament building in Delhi. According to the Press Trust of India (PTI) news agency, the new building is set to cost nearly $131 million and have room for 888 members in the lower house (Lok Sabha) as well as 384 in the upper chamber (Rajya Sabha).

The seating capacity of the current Lok Sabha chamber is 543, while the Rajya Sabha hall can only accommodate 245 members.
The massive infrastructure upgrade, coming at a time when New Delhi faces its first technical recession in decades, has raised eyebrows for not only the “economic logic” behind such a project, but also because of apparent “political impropriety”.

“The Constitution clearly says that the President is the head of the Indian federal legislature, which comprises both the houses of the Parliament. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the head of the Executive. It would have been better if the President was at the ceremony than the Prime Minister”, believes Mukhopadhyay.

He says that the writing on the wall for the legislature could be that they will have to be “mindful” of the executive in the coming days. “It is very much like what we are seeing with the judiciary. Their decisions these days seem to be very mindful indeed of the executive”, states Mukhopadhyay.

In fact, senior Congress Party leader and former federal minister Kapil Sibal raised similar objections about PM Modi leading the ground-breaking ceremony, saying that President Ram Nath Kovind ought to have kicked off the construction activity.

‘Doesn’t Make Sense’

Mukhopadhyay also reckons that erecting a new parliament building as the country battles an economic downturn doesn’t make “much sense”.

“It shows the skewed priorities of the federal government. I don’t believe it is a wise move”, opines the expert.

The new parliament building is part of an overall “Central Vista” plan to revamp New Delhi’s federal district. According to estimates, the infrastructural upgrade is expected to cost nearly $2.7 billion.

Many activists have challenged the project in India’s apex court, arguing that there would be implications for the preservation of colonial-era architecture as well as the environment.

The federal government assured the Supreme Court this week that it would not commence construction on the project until all the petitions have been heard.

New international network for freedom of religion and belief

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development’ Office’s UK Aid Connect Fund brings together organisations to create innovative solutions to complex development challenges that deliver real change to the lives of people living in poverty. 

The Freedom of Religion and Belief Leadership Network (FoRBLN) will be led by researchers at the Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion (CSSC), part of Oxford’s School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography. Network partners include the Church of England, the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs, the Jinnah Institute and the Danish Institute of Human Rights and the eight countries in Africa and Asia.

Freedom of religion or belief is under pressure in many parts of the world and this pressure is arguably greater than at any time since 1945…Countries where religious freedom is guaranteed are likely to be more peaceful and prosperous than those that do not

According to the FoRBLN, ‘Freedom of religion or belief is under pressure in many parts of the world and this pressure is arguably greater than at any time since 1945….

‘Countries where religious freedom is guaranteed are likely to be more peaceful and prosperous than those that do not. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but…the practice of religion itself involves speech, assembly, and communication through the media, all of which demand accompanying civil and human rights.’

The aim of today’s move is to build a network of FoRB leaders (parliamentarians and religious leaders) which can respond to the challenges in their countries and the wider regions. This will be achieved by delivering training on FoRB issues, so they can propose initiatives for their national or regional contexts and providing them with technical assistance and expertise to allow delivery. This training will be supported by cutting edge research on the role of FoRB in creating more tolerant and peaceful societies.

Professor Harvey Whitehouse, CSSC director, says, ‘Barrier-crossing leaders have a vital role to play in tackling sectarianism and religious intolerance. This kind of leadership can increase the prospect of cooperation not just within but also across the many interest groups that struggle for survival in the world’s most fragile states.

‘Our leadership network will allow us to investigate more deeply than ever before the psychological mechanisms utilised by barrier-crossing leaders by conducting comparative research in eight countries where FoRB is under threat.’

Dr Pieter Francois, CSSC’s Deputy Director and the overall network lead and principal investigator, says, ‘This project is a fantastic opportunity to foster and to understand better the value of freedom of religion or belief.

‘The combination of delivering training, raising awareness, and conducting research…is unique….we will be able to create a robust set of good practices, standards, and metrics which can then be utilised in a much wider range of countries. The impact of this project will be long term and global.’

 This project is a fantastic opportunity to foster and to understand better the value of freedom of religion or belief

Dr Pieter Francois

Meanwhile, the former Northern Irish political leader, who led the cross-community Alliance Party, Professor, the Lord Alderdice, director of Oxford’s Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict (CRIC) and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the network, says, ‘As the world slips into an increasing polarisation of views, promoting freedom of religion or belief becomes both more difficult and more essential.’

‘It is not only a matter of human rights and the maintenance of economic development and intellectual progress; it is essential if we are to prevent our countries from increasing violence against the individual and indeed from catastrophic wars. As our Centre has explored the problem of violent political conflict, we have been forced to address freedom of religion or belief to better understand and find ways to mitigate this other 21st century plague.’

Based on the CSSC’s expertise in group bonding and its impact on intergroup relations, the research aims to understand the psychological processes that can enable religious and political leaders to cross group boundaries and facilitate understanding between factions, as well as those factors that can obstruct the crossing of these barriers and encourage more entrenched and volatile forms of outgroup hostility.

 As the world slips into an increasing polarisation of views, promoting freedom of religion or belief becomes both more difficult and more essential

Professor, the Lord Alderdice

The FoRBLN consortium consists of 11 partners: Tier 1 – The Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion (CSSC) at the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography at the University of Oxford; Tier 2 – Church of England; Tier 3 – African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA), Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR), Drik Picture Library and Gallery, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Panel of Parliamentarians for FoRB (IPPFoRB), Jinnah Institute, Nordic Ecumenical Network on FoRB (NORFoRB), Pak Mission Society (PMS) and Programme for Christian-Muslim Relations in Africa (PROCMURA).

COMMENT | Reclaiming deprived right to religion due to Covid-19

COMMENT | The right to practice and profess religion certainly has been one of the casualties caused by the Covid-19. The threat of the pandemic, which has been weathered globally for the past 12 months, has tremendously affected the universally accepted tenet of freedom of religion.

Religion, in any name and sect all over the world, has restricted its religious practices and rituals. The restrictions, although only relegated public religious practices to personal spaces, have in many ways affected the right to religion as a whole.

There is every reason why the right to religion is believed to have been undermined by the threat of Covid-19. Religious practices and rituals around the world directly contravened with the public health advice advocated in stopping the transmission of the virus.

They include public congregations in a large crowd, hand-based greetings as well as touching and kissing objects considered sacred. These practices signify the…

Grants totaling more than $43 million will help cultural institutions nationwide explore religion

INDIANAPOLIS – Lilly Endowment Inc. has awarded 18 grants to museums and other cultural institutions across the United States to develop exhibitions and education programs that fairly and accurately portray the role of religion in the U.S. and around the world.

Grants totaling more than $43 million will support a range of organizations, from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts to Colonial Williamsburg; from the Smithsonian Institution’s Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage to the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. These grants were awarded as part of the Endowment’s Religion and Cultural Institutions Initiative.

“Museums and other cultural institutions are trusted organizations and play an important role in teaching the American public about the world around them,” said Christopher Coble, the Endowment’s vice president for religion. “These organizations will use the grants to help visitors understand and appreciate the significant impact religion has had and continues to have on society in the United States and around the globe. Our hope is that these efforts will promote greater knowledge about and respect for people of diverse religious traditions.”

With one exception, the grants range in amount from $500,000 to $2.5 million. The organizations will use grant funds to develop projects that align with their missions and are appropriate for their constituencies. Many will draw on their extensive collections to mount temporary or permanent exhibitions featuring religious themes. Some will develop exhibitions focused on particular religious traditions or religion in specific historical periods. Others will examine religious themes and practices or explore the diversity of religious life in specific geographic regions. Nearly half of the grants will provide funds for endowments to help organizations create permanent staff positions or ongoing programs focused on religion. Many organizations will use a portion of their grants to enhance digital technologies to allow them to reach audiences virtually.

Among the organizations funded are:
• The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Asian Art (Freer Gallery of Art and Artur M. Sackler Gallery), located in Washington, D.C., which will develop a series of exhibitions that help visitors understand the diversity of pre-modern and contemporary Muslim, Buddhist, Zen and Hindu traditions.
• The National World War I Museum and Memorial, located in Kansas City, which will establish an endowed curator position on faith and religion, strengthen public programming on religion in a time of war and enhance gallery and virtual exhibitions.
• The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which will develop an exhibition that explores universal experiences of mortality alongside distinctive ways that religious beliefs and practices help communities respond to death.
• The Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art in Indianapolis, which will establish an endowment to make religion a central component of the museum’s work, incorporate religion into the re-installation of its Native American Gallery, and help with the development and mounting of an exhibition focused on religion and the American West.

A complete list of grants can be found here.

Lilly Endowment launched the Religion and Cultural Institutions Initiative in 2019 when it awarded planning grants totaling nearly $2 million to organizations to help them explore how programming in religion could further their institutional missions. Many organizations used the planning period to examine how religious themes were already present in their collections and design projects that would enhance and complement their current activities. Since the planning activities occurred during COVID-19, many of the organizations experimented with and ultimately proposed increasing their digital capacities to interpret religion and reach additional audiences.

The Religion and Cultural Institutions Initiative builds directly on insights and experiences from previous grants to museums and cultural organizations to mount exhibitions that lift up and explore religious themes. Past grant recipients include the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis, and the International African American Museum located in Charleston, S.C.

Among the current grant recipients, the Smithsonian Institution is receiving a nearly $8 million grant to enable the National Museum of American History to establish its Center for the Public Understanding of Religion in American History and create a dedicated gallery featuring the impact of religion on American history. Through the Center, the Smithsonian also will establish a network for museums and other cultural institutions to learn from and with each other about their work in religion.

Lilly Endowment Inc. is an Indianapolis-based private philanthropic foundation created in 1937 by J.K. Lilly, Sr. and his sons Eli and J.K. Jr. through gifts of stock in their pharmaceutical business, Eli Lilly and Company. Although the gifts of stock remain a financial bedrock of the Endowment, it is a separate entity from the company, with a distinct governing board, staff and location. In keeping with the founders’ wishes, the Endowment supports the causes of community development, education and religion and maintains a special commitment to its founders’ hometown, Indianapolis, and home state, Indiana. The Endowment also funds significant programs throughout the United States, especially in the field of religion. While the primary aim of its grantmaking in religion focuses on strengthening the leadership and vitality of Christian congregations in the United States, the Endowment also seeks to foster public understanding about religion and lift up in fair, accurate and balanced ways the contributions that people of all faiths and diverse religious communities make to our greater civic well-being.

###

Contact

Judith Cebula
[email protected]
(317) 916-7327

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Religion News Service or Religion News Foundation.