The Function and Dysfunction of Religion in our Secular State

The Function and Dysfunction
of Religion in our Secular State

Statement by Prof. em. Dr. Christian Brünner

 European Leadership Conference, Geneva, UN, 24.-26.3.2011

Session 2: Interreligious cooperation and the prevention of incitement to racial, national and religious hatred
United Nations Office Geneva (25 - 26 March 2011)

__________________________________________

I.  The secular state

It is said that our European states are secular ones. In the respective discussions it is not always clear whether such a characteristic is an unspecified demand or a general description of a reality. In the following, I refer to a reality, and I describe this reality by three aspects:

1. Religion is not a private matter, when and in so far as it is not only related to the individual and her/his relations to God (or whatever other term is used for the unknown), but also demands responsibility for an appropriate societal environment corresponding to the respective religious teaching. The same also applies to those who have an agnostic or atheistic view and who postulate freedom from religion, and they also struggle for a societal content which goes along with their conviction.

2. In a democracy, believers and non-believers will use all democratic instruments to influence and to shape the societal and political opinion and decision-making processes, in order to promote and implement their religiously or non-religiously motivated concept of state and society.

3. The consequence of the two above-mentioned aspects is that religion and its negation are visible in the state and society, and that the public space is neither entirely free, nor can it be kept free of religion or its negation.

It has become apparent that secularization, or secularism, has blurred this view. The fact is that religion and a life of conformity with a religious doctrine is or has remained of significance for people.

Civil Society, Not Laws That Restrict Freedoms, Should Promote Tolerance

Civil Society, Not Laws That
Restrict Freedoms, Should Promote Tolerance

Remarks by Aaron Rhodes
Conference on Interreligious Cooperation and The Prevention of Incitement
to National, Racial and Religious Hatred
United Nations Office Geneva • Room XXIV (24) • 14:00 - 16:30

Geneva, 25 March 2011

I  Introduction

We have confronted many tragic cases of incitement to racial hatred and violence, and hate speech, leading to many crimes by citizens and human rights violations committed by states.In the Balkans, the media fomented hatred that led to crimes topped off by what happened at Srebrenica.  The warnings about possible genocide from hate speech were ignored in Rwanda.  The Helsinki Federation did research on this and published a book on hate speech in the Balkans.  Being a trans-Atlantic group, there were many debates about how far freedom of speech should be restricted in order to clamp down on hate speech.

In Chechnya, violence was encouraged and made possible by a campaign of hatred about people from the Caucasus region.

In the course of this terrible war, the Russian government had passed legislation criminalizing the incitement to racial and ethnic hatred and violence, under pressure from European governments to bring its laws into compliance with the European Convention, and many were worried about racial crimes in Russia, which are a very serious problem.

The Russian-Chechen Friendship Society was a small NGO located in Nizny Novgorad, which promoted tolerance, complained about racism and indeed, denounced racial and nationalist incitement in the Russian state-controlled media.  In 2006, the director of the group, Stanislav Dmitrievsky was convicted by a court for—guess what?—“inciting racial hatred.”  The evidence used to convict him was articles he had published suggesting the Russians negotiate with Chechens to end the bloody war.  The Russian Chechen Friendship Society was forced out of existence and its other leader is now living in Finland.

While this may be an extreme case, it is not the only one in which such laws are turned against human rights in an exaggerated and distorted exploitation of contradictions in human rights law.

Religious Freedom Resolution Introduced due to Recent Religious Intolerance Abroad

Religious Freedom Resolution Introduced due to Recent Religious Intolerance Abroad
http://blog.providenceforum.org/featured/religious-intolerance-abroad/

March 21, 2011 | paulchristiansen | Comments 2

In the latest push to promote international religious freedom, U.S. Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC) recently introduced House Resolution 141.  The resolution would proposition the UN Human Rights Council to pass its own resolution on protecting international religious freedom as well as condemning intolerance.  Congressmen Franks and Shuler, whom co-chair the Congressional International Religious Freedom Caucus, encouraged this resolution based on recent acts of religious intolerance that have gained publicity around the globe.

A recent major setback against the fight for religious freedom occurred on March 2nd when Pakistan Minister of Minority Affairs, Shabaz Bhatti, was assassinated.  According to The Christian Post, “He was the only Christian member of the Pakistani President’s Cabinet. Bhatti, a Roman Catholic, courageously spoke out against the misuse of the country’s blasphemy laws by Islamic extremists and spoke up for religious minorities, including Christians.”

Regarded as one of Pakistan’s main proponents for religious freedom, Bhatti became a prime target of the Taliban and frequently received death threats.  For his courageous efforts, he was awarded the first religious freedom medallion in September 2009 by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.  At the presentation, Bhatti stated, “I personally stand for religious freedom, even if I will pay the price of my life.  I live for this principle and I want to die for this principle.”