2024 USCIRF Annual Report

Just last week, the USCIRF released its 2024 Annual Report (full report in pdf here). You will learn more about the USCIRF later in the course when we study religious regulation, but for now you can get a sense of the significance of the report by reading the press release here.

The significance of the report is really in which countries are named as "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPCs), which are the countries that have the most severe religious freedom violations. This year there are 17 countries that were given the CPC designation. The list nearly identical to last year's list except one country has been removed and a different one added.

Download and browse the report. Pick out a country or two and read about the religious freedom violations in those countries to get a sense of how religion is being regulated in those countries. Appendix 2 has some tables and charts that also summarize some of the findings of the report.

Religion, Free Speech, and Hate Speech

When does saying something negative about a religious group constitute hate speech?

Well, you first have to define hate speech, and this is not as easy as you might think. The basic idea is that hate speech has two parts:

1. It is language that targets an individual or group based on an inherent characteristic (religion, gender, race, etc.).
2. It has some sort of aggression or even potential for harm or violence.

Part 1 seems obvious, but 2 is more difficult to pin down because it is not always clear if and when statements are harmful. Should saying something negative about a religious group constitute hate speech just because it is negative? Can't any sort of negative speech have the potential to promote aggression or violence even unintentionally? Note that there is actually no legal definition of hate speech under U.S. law, however it can be a criminal act to use speech or other expressions to incite criminal activity or threaten violence against a person or group.

This background helps us to contextualize the findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey about religious discrimination in the U.S. Americans report that there has been an increase in discrimination against both Muslims and Jews since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

Check out the page, and especially examine the charts. There is a lot there, but you can focus on just the first findings reported which relate to the possibility of hate speech. The connection to hate speech is that there have been accusations of hate speech against supporters of both sides of the war.

Notice that there is not a perfect consensus among Americans about what types of speech should be allowed, but of course a consensus is hard to expect. There are, on the other, opinions that a majority of Americans hold.

First, 73% of American's say that speech that calls for violence against Muslims or against Jews should not be allowed. That is, a large majority of Americans believe that calls for violence should not be protected as free speech.

Second, there is a lower but still majority amount of support (about 60% give or take) for allowing speech that opposes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or that opposes a Palestinian state. This type of speech is more difficult to assess for Americans because it is negative and could be viewed as implying support for violence against Israel or Palestinians but does not necessarily have to be interpreted as implying support for violence.

Nonetheless, the survey results reveal that most Americans see a big difference between saying something that could be construed as potentially conflictual in nature (most Americans believe this should be allowed) and saying something that is explicitly violent (even more Americans believe this shouldn't be allowed).

This distinction can also help us understand the reasoning and intent behind religious hate crime laws that are meant to protect religious minorities. As we will discuss later in the quarter, the enactment of these laws can help to protect members of religious minorities from violence and therefore help to maintain or increase the religious diversity within a country.

USCIRF Religious Freedom Designations and the 2022 Annual Report

Last week the USCIRF issued a press statement about its designated Countries of Particular Concern.  The following twelve countries were given this designation:

• Burma
• China
• Cuba
• Eritrea
• Iran
• Nicaragua
• North Korea
• Pakistan
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan

Check out the 2022 Annual Report (pdf) for information about religious freedom in these and other countries.  This report was published back in April 2022.

COVID-19 Restrictions on Religion Around the World

The Pew Research Center just published two days ago a report titled "How COVID-19 Restrictions Affected Religious Groups Around the World in 2020."  Read the entire summary page here, and if you want to learn more then check out the full report here (pdf).

Several main findings are reported.  For example, 23% of all countries had some sort of penalties for violation of COVID-19 restrictions on religious gathering, 27% of all countries had religious groups that spoke out against the COVID-19 restrictions, and religious groups in many countries were blamed for helping to spread COVID-19.  In other words, there were both government restrictions and social hostilities towards religious groups during the pandemic.  There were also many cases religious groups working with government officials to slow down the spread of COVID-19.

When the pandemic first started and restrictions on religious practice were being instituted here in the U.S., I wrote several posts that tracked the ongoing developments and debates.  So if you want to learn more about these developments, you can see the posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

USCIRF Report on State-favored Religions

Last week the USCIRF (which you will learn about on Homework 7) issued a report on state-favored religions.  Here's the press release, and here is the entire report (pdf).

Some of the key points include:

• 73% of the 78 countries that have an official or favored religion, also have policies or laws that led to repression or discrimination.
• Religious minorities and women are among the mostly likely victims of this repression and discrimination.

The report is only 8 pages, so read the entire report.  Ask yourself the following questions as you read:

• Of the 78 countries with an official or favored religion, in how many is Islam the favored religion?  What about Christianity?  What other religions may be favored?
• In what parts of the world are countries with favored religions located?  Where are the ones that have discriminatory laws and policies?  Where are the ones that do not have discriminatory policies?
• Do you see any patterns?
• What types of repression and discrimination occur?
• What is the connection between having a favored religion and having discriminatory laws and policies?
• Are non-religious persons also victims?  Why or why not?

Burkinis in the Public Swimming Pool

In June of this year, an administrative court in France upheld a ruling that women are not allowed to wear burkini swimwear in public swimming pools in the city of Grenoble.  The burkini is a head-to-ankle swimsuit that covers the woman's entire body except for her face.  Responding to vocal locals, city leaders had previously determined the burkinis would be allowed, but then a higher-ranking government official (the prefect) stopped this decision.  The administrative court upheld the prefect's decision that burkinis not be allowed.

See this article.  The primary direct effect of this ruling is that many Muslim women will no longer be swimming in the pool because they would only swim there if they could wear burkinis.

Some other French cities do allow burkinis in their public pools, so it might seem strange to not allow them in Grenoble's pools.  The court's reasoning behind not allowing them in Grenoble is not that burkinis should be prohibited in general but rather that the Grenoble city leaders whose decision -- later overturned -- to allow women to wear burkinis in public pools made their decision based in part of religious reasons, which violates a principle of separation of church and state.  Those cities that allow burkinis in public pools made their decisions to allow burkinis as part of general loosening of swimwear restrictions and not specifically to satisfy a particular religious demand.

The article does not make any prediction about what will happen next, however the ruling does seem to leave open a path for burkinis to be allowed in Grenoble in the future.  The key is for the burkini proponents to advocate for a more general loosening of swimwear restrictions rather than a specific burkini privilege.  Whatever happens, this case demonstrates the intricate interplay between religious persons and government officials that leads to the religious rules and regulations that we observe in the real world.

To Be a Jehovah's Witness in Russia

This article in the Associated Press provides a glimpse into what life is like for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia.  Consider the following questions as you read this article:

• How have Jehovah's Witnesses been treated in Russia?
• What justification has the Russian government given for this type of treatment?
• What is distinctive about Jehovah's Witnesses teachings?
• In what other countries have Jehovah's Witnesses experienced persecution?
• How do many Jehovah's Witnesses respond to the persecution?

The Russia-Ukraine War and Religious Minorities

The title of this article in Religion & Politics asks an important question about the Russia-Ukraine war:  What does the Russian Invasion Mean for Religious Minorities in Ukraine?

Read the article to find out.  Here are some key questions for you to ask yourself as you read the article:

• What religious minorities currently exist in Ukraine?
• What types of challenges have religious minorities recently faced in Ukraine?
• What does the experience of religious minorities in Russia tell us about what the experience of religious minorities in Ukraine might be in regions of Ukraine that are taken over by Russia?
• Does the experience of what has happened in Crimea since Russia invaded in 2014 provide any clues?

These questions matter far beyond the scope of this class.  As the author states near the end of the article, "The protection of the rights of religious minorities is often the litmus test for democracy."  There is research to support this claim -- indeed the case of what has happened in Russia during the last two decades is itself evidence that religious protections are among the first to disappear when on a path that diverges from democracy.

The Russia-Ukraine War and Religion

Religion remains a significant part of national identity in many European countries, and this is true for both Russia and Ukraine.  Both have historical ties to the Eastern Orthodox Church, yet there have also been divisions.  Since the end of Soviet rule in 1991, religion and the official status of religious groups in both Russia and Ukraine have undergone significant changes and not without disagreement.

Three Orthodox churches have played the most significant roles in Ukraine, one of which has strong ties to Moscow.  As recently as 2018, there was a unification of the three into a single Orthodox Church of Ukraine -- although some of those with ties to Moscow did not join the unification.  This development was supported by many Orthodox leaders worldwide and gained official support by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2019.  However, it was criticized by Russian political leaders and leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church who want Ukrainian Orthodox Christians to exist under the direction of Orthodox religious leaders in Moscow.

Read this article about religion in Russia-Ukraine war from the Religion News Service, and think about the following questions.  What key religious developments have occurred in Ukraine?  What is the significance of religious developments in Ukraine?  What role has religion played in the war?

A Trade-off Between Friendliness and Security

A recent RNS article discusses a trade-off that several synagogues find themselves facing, i.e., that between offering synagogue services that are open to strangers and services that ensure the safety for congregants.  This comes after a newcomer was welcomed into a synagogue in Texas and took several hostages at gunpoint.  The hostages eventually escaped, and the newcomer was killed.

Leaders of other synagogues who are fearing similar attacks have stepped up security at their services, but this has come at a cost of reducing friendliness.  It is a trade-off that many synagogues are willingly taking.  Doors are locked during services, guards are hired, cameras installed, and more, including turning away newcomers if the clergy do not know they were coming.

Religious groups must always make trade-offs in carrying out their religious mission, but this is not one that we normally think of.  It is a trade-off that a religious group -- usually a new religious movement or a religious minority -- must consider when it finds itself faced with threats of violence.

Pew Study Finds Global Hostilities Decline but Religious Restrictions Remain High

This is the finding reported in the latest Pew Research Center report on religious freedom.  See the main web page here and the complete report pdf here.

The Economics of the Taliban

Tony Gill, a political scientist at the University of Washington and long-time promoter and practitioner of the economic approach to religion, recently published this article in the Wall Street Journal (the article is gated).  In it he explains how economics can be used to understand the surprising success of the Taliban.  This is timely piece about a difficult to understand topic.

USCIRF 2021 Annual Report

The USCIRF just released its 2021 Annual Report.  The page with all annual reports is here.  You can download the pdf of the 2021 Annual Report here.

The following countries were recommended to be designated as Countries of Particular Concern:  Burma, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam.  This list is exactly the same as last year's list.

Blasphemy Laws Around the World

Yesterday the USCIRF released a report on blasphemy laws around the world.  Read the summary of the report here.  The summary page also has a nice map showing how the countries with blasphemy laws are distributed around the world.  For those who are interested, you can read the full pdf report here.

The summary page lists several key findings.  A few of them are:

• 84 countries currently have blasphemy laws.
• From 2014-2018 there were 732 reported blasphemy cases, and 674 of them were considered criminal blasphemy.
• Most of the cases are in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, with over 80% of the state-enforced cases were in just ten countries.  Pakistan had the most (over 175), but others in order starting with the most cases were Iran, Russia, India, Egypt, Indonesia, Yemen, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
• Over half of the accused were Muslims (56%), and the other accused came from various groups, including Christians (25%), Atheists (7%), Baha'is (7%), and Hindus (3%).

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Around the World

The United States Commission on Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is an organization created by the U.S. government in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world, just released a short report on the rise of state persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world.  Access the 8-page report here.

As you read this report, consider the following questions.  In which countries are Jehovah's Witnesses targeted?  What is it about the Jehovah's Witnesses that makes them targets of persecution?  What type of persecution do Jehovah's Witnesses suffer?

This blog post is written just a day after a related post about the Pew Research Center's work that shows religious restrictions continue to rise around the world.  This USCIRF report provides a closer look at how one particular religious group's experience forms a part of the larger trend.

Religious Restrictions Around the World in 2018

 According to new results published earlier today by the Pew Research Center, religious restrictions increased around the world from 2017 to 2018.  Read the entire main page for the published report.   If you are interested, you can browse the full report here.

The main finding is that the median level of restrictions increased around the world from 2017 to 2018.  This continues a steady increase in restrictions around the world since 2007, which is the first year that the Pew Research Center began tracking.  They use a Government Restrictions Index (GRI) that rates each country on a 10-point scale.

The largest increases in restrictions from 2017-2018 occurred in Asia and the Pacific, while the region with the highest overall average restrictions continues to be the Middle East and North Africa.  In fact, in many countries in the Middle East and Africa, there were incidents in which force was used by the government against religious groups.

As you read the main page, consider the following questions:  What kinds of restrictions are experienced?  Which countries have the highest restrictions?  Are restrictions more common with certain types of government regimes than with others?

And if  you are really interested, guess whether you think the USA has "very high," "high," "moderate," or "low" GRI, and check out where they classify USA in Appendix A.  Are you surprised?

Pope Francis, Same-sex Civil Unions, and Tension

The world has been abuzz this week with news that Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has revealed his support for same-sex civil unions in a soon-to-be-released documentary (on another topic).  The excitement is because this support for same-sex civil unions stands in contrast to Roman Catholic Church's long-standing official opposition to same-sex marriages.

This blog post here written by a Jesuit Priest at the Religion News Service does a good job of clarifying what we should take away from this news.  One is that this position is not new for the pope himself.  It's a position that he has personally held for years.  Another is that the opinion expressed is about "civil unions" not "marriages," a distinction that is important for a church that remains opposed to same-sex marriages.  There is also a figure in the blog post showing just how divergent views about homosexuality are around the world.  I want you to consider that figure.

Later this quarter we will learn of the concept of "tension" for religious groups.  Tension refers to how that religious group relates to its surrounding social and cultural environment.  Higher tension means that the group is relatively distinct and separated in its beliefs and practices from the rest of society.

However, society changes, and there is perhaps nothing that has changed so rapidly during your lifetime in many parts of the world than views about same-sex relationships.  American society has overall become much accepting of same-sex relationships (including legally-recognized marriages) in the last couple decades.  But that is not true everyone in the world, as that figures shows.

As society changes, a religious group's tension can go up or down depending on how much its beliefs, teachings, and practices change.  A group that does not undergo significant change can find itself in higher tension when society has changed, such as is the case in the U.S. with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.  The Roman Catholic Church has seen its tension increase as Americans' views on this topic have shifted.

Will Pope Francis's admission lead to a decrease in tension for Roman Catholics in the U.S.?  And how will the tension change in other areas of the world where acceptance of homosexuality remains weak?

Court Rules Against a California Church's Appeal

When COVID-19 first the U.S., many state governments -- including California's government -- issued orders that religious groups must cancel all in-person church meetings because of fears that COVID-19 would be transmitted among religious church-goers.  While some states issued blanket prohibitions, other states did not place any restrictions on churches, and still others states were in between -- see here.

Although most Americans were okay with churches being restricted like other (secular) organizations and business, some think that religious groups should be have special permission to meet during the pandemic -- see here.  Given the disagreement, it should not be surprising that some parties have initiated legal challenges to government-issued orders.  One of these challenges was made months ago from a church in California, called Harvest Rock Church, which argued that the California governor's order treats secular organizations more favorably than religious groups.  They lost this argument in court, appealed the decision, and just last Thursday, another court ruled against their appeal in a 12-1 decision.  See this write up at the Religion Clause blog here.

The court's Thursday ruling explains that the state of California is treating religious groups like comparable secular events that have large groups congregating together, such going to movies or attending sporting events, and that the church did not sufficiently counter the government's claim that going to church is riskier than other secular activities like going shopping that are allowed.  In short, the church did not provide enough evidence to overturn the earlier ruling.

Churches in California are now able to meet in person with safety measures in place and restrictions on capacity, but that does not mean that the issue is dead.  Churches can still choose to contest the current situation by claiming that the current restrictions still inhibit the free exercise of religion.

This episode demonstrates how the practice of religion is situated within social and legal contexts.  The right to meet as a religious group is a protected one to be sure, but the realization of that right can depend on exigent circumstances.  The same is true of other protected rights, such as the freedom of speech.  Moreover, these rights are continually negotiated and contested.

Pres. Trump's Executive Order on Advancing Religious Freedom

Yesterday, U.S. President Trump issued an executive order that states that international religious freedom should factor into U.S. foreign policy.  Among other things:

• The Secretary of State should budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance religious freedom worldwide.
• Government agencies should not discriminate against religious entities when awarding federal funding.
• Plans of action should be developed to support religious freedom in Countries of Particular Concern (remember these from USCIRF).
• Concerns about international religious freedom should be raised when meeting with leaders of foreign countries.
• State Department and Foreign Affairs workers are to undergo training in international religious freedom.
• Economic tools, such as the awarding of foreign assistance or the assigning of sanctions, should be used to help advance international religious freedom.

Because religious freedom is widely understood to be a basic human right (sees Article 18-20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights), it has long been a factor in U.S. foreign policy.  This itself is not new.  However, this executive order does outline some specific ways it is to be factored into policy.  It will take some time to determine whether it actually changes U.S. foreign policy in any meaningful sense.

COVID-19, the Court, and the Rules of the Game

The "rules of the game" provide the context in which economic decisions are made.  They tend to be stable over time, but they can and do change, and change is often prompted by an extreme event, such as a pandemic.  This current COVID-19 pandemic has brought temporary changes in the rules of the game for churches in many states.  As has been mentioned in other blog posts, the state of California decided on March 19, 2020, that no churches should meet.  See here.

Two months later, on May 25, 2020, the state of California issued new guidelines that allow religious groups to meet but with use of face coverings, social distancing, regular cleaning, and other practices.  A particularly contentious issue is attendance.  The state says that attendance must be limited to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.  This limit will be in place for 21 days, after which public health officials will determine if it needs to remain in place.  The full list of requirements can be found here.

The attendance limits were quickly challenged by a church in San Diego, CA, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that challenge on Friday, May 26, 2020.  The Supreme Court ruled that the state of California's restrictions on church attendance will stand.  See this short write-up at the Religion News Service here.

It is worth nothing that the court's voting was not unanimous.  It was a divided ruling, with the yes votes barely beating the no votes by a 5-4 margin.  The yes voters argued that allowing churches to reopen at limited capacity was consistent with the First Amendment because other large gatherings like movies and sporting events were also restricted.  In other words, churches are not being singled out.  The no voters argued that supermarkets and many other businesses did not face the restriction so that churches were being unfairly discriminated against.

The courts play an important role in the development and persistence of the rules of the game.  Changes in laws, which are a big part of the rules of the game, might originate in one part of society (like a governor or health official's decision), but the courts must adjudicate before the change becomes permanent.