Humans have long been drawn to space as part of our search for meaning, significance and security. But what if space could be the source of our salvation?
It is this question that led Brandon Reece Taylorian, widely known by his mononym Cometan, to start a new religion: Astronism.
From astrology to astrotheology, from questions of how to practice religions ensconced in Earth’s realities and rhythms to the context of outer space or life on other planets to the creation of new religious movements, spirituality and space exploration have long been intertwined.
It is Astronism, perhaps, that has taken the relationship between outer space and religion to its logical limit. At the age of 15, Cometan began to craft an astronomical religion that “teaches that outer space should become the central element of our practical, spiritual, and contemplative lives.”
“From my perspective, how religion and outer space intersect is crucial to understanding the future of religion,” Cometan, who is also a Research Associate at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom, told me. “Outer space is the next great frontier that will reshape the human condition, including our religions.”
To that end, Cometan has contemplated how space exploration might produce new forms of insight, revelation and spiritual experience.
“The further we dare to venture beyond Earth, the more our beliefs about God and the universe will transform. I think that we need new and bold religious systems that will inspire our species to confront and overcome the challenges of the next frontier,” he said.
“As an Astronist, I define outer space as the supreme medium through which the traditional questions of religion will be answered.”
In this edition of “What You Missed Without Religion Class,” I feature a Q&A with Cometan about Astronism and what we might have to learn about religion – and how we define and study it – through his experience founding a new tradition drawn from the stars.
Intrafaith minorities: Appreciating religious communities’ internal diversity
When it comes to international religious freedom, we tend to hear a lot about religious minorities, their struggle for rights and recognition or persecution — both state-sanctioned and informal.
But what of intrafaith minorities?
While interfaith tensions refer to high-friction relations between different religious communities, intrafaith conflict occurs between different denominations or groups within a faith tradition.
One might think of frictions between Shiite majorities in Iraq and Iran and their Sunni minorities — or vice versa in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Syria — or the sometimes awkward relationship between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christians.
In this edition of ReligionLink, we look at intrafaith diversity and discrimination, unpacking how people of different interpretations deal with internal distinctions and differences within shared traditions.
Image via Unsplash.
Culture Wars 3.0
How we identify — according to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or gender — is at the heart of hundreds of bills in legislatures across the country. And as U.S. voters across the political spectrum gear up for the 2024 presidential cycle, debates are intensifying about how to define the nation’s values around these issues.
Just weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
The issue has emerged as a big one in the past few years. While transgender people have gained more visibility and acceptance in many respects, half of U.S. states have instituted laws banning certain health care services for transgender kids.
In recent years, voters have been particularly fired up about the lessons and books that should, and shouldn’t, be taught to children about their bodies or the nation’s past. But those culture wars have also come to corporate America and college sports.
These renewed culture wars have take over everything from local school board meetings to state legislatures and the U.S. Capitol.
In the following, I unpack how we got here and round up stories and sources for going deeper into the culture wars’ decadeslong history.
Source: Pexels.
Spiritual statecraft: The intersections between faith and diplomacy
Dag Hammarskjöld, secretary-general of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961, was both a deeply spiritual person and a widely respected diplomat.
His biographer Roger Lipsey wrote about how Hammarskjöld’s religious convictions directly impacted his diplomatic outlook.
“Somewhat forgotten today but admired nearly worldwide in his time,” Lipsey wrote, Hammarskjöld was a significant figure in shaping the U.N.’s sense of mission and breadth of vision, creating important peacemaking methods such as shuttle diplomacy and the UN peacekeeping forces.
Since then, the U.N. and the wider international relations community have continued to wrestle with the relationship between religion and diplomacy.
As early as the 1990s, authors such as Barry Rubin pointed out how the U.S. and other policymakers too often ignored the impact and influence of religion in international affairs.
Organizations like Religions for Peace — a multireligious platform with representation from diverse religious institutions and communities — and the U.N.’s own Interagency Task Force on Religion and Sustainable Development have sought to bring religious actors to the policymaking table.
Significant moments in the history of the freedom of religion or belief include the enactment of 1998’s International Religious Freedom Act and the two entities it created: the U.S. State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Later came the creation of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, a network of countries with stated commitments to advancing freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). Also of note are the Ministerials to Advance Religious Freedom. Held in locations such as the United Kingdom (2022) and the Czech Republic (2023), the ministerials bring together leaders from around the world to discuss religious freedom and discrimination worldwide.
Leaders in the realm of faith and diplomacy have pointed out the ongoing tensions involved in such efforts.
Shaun Casey, previously the U.S. special representative for religion and global affairs and director of the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs, wrote for Religion & Politics back in January 2023:
Religions are powerful forces in global diplomacy, and … the future of the work we did in the Office of Religion and Global Affairs is unknown. I believe that without such an institutional capacity, the U.S. government will not be able to help the world answer major global issues such as forced mass migration, burgeoning climate change, the effort to inoculate the planet against COVID, and the securing of full human rights for women and girls, to name a few issues where religious communities are simultaneously part of the problem and part of the solution.
Meanwhile, the former secretary-general of Religions for Peace, Azza Karam, critiqued the process by which religious leaders come together to serve the common good, questioning the effectiveness of “projects, programmes, initiatives, meetings, and more meetings” hosted by a certain cadre of global religious experts and elites.
Whatever the future may hold, and whatever role religion is to play in international diplomacy, reporters would do well to cover how faith shapes statesmanship and foreign policy. Journalists would also be wise to report on who is seeking to hold sway over diplomats themselves and how various religious communities wield their influence at the national and international levels.
In the latest ReligionLink source guide, we provide a range of background, resources, stories and sources to help you understand the consequential intersections between religion and diplomacy.
PHOTO via Pexels
Religion at work: How does faith fit in the modern workplace?
There are multiple aspects of life that people may feel comfortable discussing around the water cooler at work — politics and sports, friends and family.
Religion, however, is not only often overlooked — it can be intentionally avoided.
Talking about religion at work can be tricky. And given the status of religious freedom in different regions, in some cases carry real risk to life and liberty.
But beyond awkward interactions, faith traditions and spiritual practices shape the way we labor, our relationships with co-workers and popular perspectives on the vocations we should pursue.
Religion can also become a central point of contention in discussions around labor law, employee-employer relations and other issues of import to workers and their managers. Take, for example, how SCOTUS unanimously ruled in favor of an employee seeking exemption from work on his Sabbath.
The latest ReligionLink Source Guide offers background, resources and sources to help you understand the many intersections between religion and labor.
“I have come to serve, not to be served”: the World Evangelical Alliance’s permanent representative at the UN puts focus on serving others
Gaetan Roy goes to the United Nations building in Geneva with an unusual question: “How can I serve you?”
Roy is not a waiter or a salesperson but the new representative from the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) to the UN. Ever since he first got involved in politics, this is the question he’s led with. Back in 2015, when he went to the German parliament to lobby on behalf of evangelical organizations, he couldn’t get the words of Mark 10:45 out of his mind: I have come to serve, not to be served.
So Roy asked the first politician he met on his first day, “How can I serve you?” He’s continued asking it ever since.
“I thought this was really simple, but I felt God was unrelenting in this regard,” Roy told CT. “If Jesus came to serve and not to be served, then I will do the same by asking diplomats and politicians we engage with how we can serve them.”
With this question, Roy has become one of the primary evangelical voices at the world’s largest intergovernmental organization, speaking on behalf of 600 million believers in more than 120 countries. He takes over from Michael Mutzner, who helped establish the WEA’s office at the UN in 2012, and joins Wissam al-Saliby, director of the WEA’s Geneva office. Al-Saliby focuses on public statements about human rights violations while Roy works behind the scenes, brokering deals and developing official proposals for the UN representatives to consider.
Whether he’s promoting peace in Nigeria or working with the Coalition for Minority Rights in India, Roy said he hopes service will lead the way as he represents evangelical concerns and advances the cause of religious freedom for all.
If Roy’s approach to high-level negotiations and political diplomacy seems unorthodox, so was his pathway to such a high-profile position.
Your 2022 Favorites: The Religion + Culture Top Ten
Back in 2007, I started a blog I hoped would become my first book (blogs are what we did back in the aughts, kids).
My grandma was a faithful reader. So were a few friends. Other than that, you might say not much came of the experience. The book did not work out, the stats were flat, and the writing was sometimes…oof.
What did come out of the blog was a joy for sharing through writing, opening worlds to others through words, and creating a community online.
I’ve been publishing my work online ever since. Now, as a professional religion nerd (a.k.a., religion newswriter and scholar), I continue to be humbled by those of you who take the time out of your day to read what I have to share.
The past year was no different. From predictions about what religion headlines would capture our imagination to spirit tech trends, exploring Morocco’s architecture with the “Prince of Casablanca” to traipsing around Berlin in search of its soul, I got to share some cool stories in 2022.
A blogger at heart, I share all my publications here on KenChitwood.com. Over the last twelve months, some caught your attention or imagination more than others. As 2022 comes to a close, I thought I’d share them with you again as the Top Ten Religion + Culture Stories.
Looking at the list below, your tastes range widely. The religious contours of the war in Ukraine featured twice in the list to no surprise, but otherwise we have selections on the limits and dangers of religious freedom, modern paganism, interreligious dialogue, global Islam, American Christianity, airport spirituality, Mormon missionaries in Berlin, and James Bond’s spirituality.
Y’all are such interesting people. Really. I can’t wait to catch up with you at a cocktail party to discuss the stories below. Until then, take a moment to revisit some of your favorite stories from 2022 or jump in for the first time (and share them with your friends at that cocktail party, in case I can’t make it).
Thanks again and cheers, friends. 🥂Until 2023!
“God puts us here especially for such moments”
Christians Respond to War in Ukraine
Persecution or proper protection?
In Finland, a case looks set to probe where religious freedom ends and other human rights begin
This ain’t your mama’s paganism
Understanding modern witchcraft, nature religions, and ‘neopaganism.’
Why does dialogue often fail?
People just don’t care.
What you missed without religion class
You don’t know what you don’t know.
Did Muslims discover the New World?
No. But that’s just the beginning of the story…
On a wing and a prayer
What airport chapels have to tell us about religion in the 21st-century.
Mission Berlin
The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints And Its Nearly 170 Years In Germany’s Capital City
Religion, James Bond religion
Does 007 take his Christianity shaken, not stirred?
War in Ukraine
Covering the conflict’s religious contours.
And, an honorable mention…
Who are the exvangelicals?
Understanding the exodus from contemporary U.S. Christianity.
Church in Velankanni, Tamil Nadu, India.
In India, attacks on Christians signal wider, worrying trends for religious minorities
Vigilante lynching mobs. State-sponsored harassment. Vandals defacing houses of worship.
According to recent reports, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and other religious minorities in India are being confronted by renewed and increased attacks.
In July 2021, the London School of Economics and Political Science, through research commissioned by the persecution watchdog Open Doors, reported that religious minorities in India are facing “imminent existential threat.”
The most prominent source of this anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-Sikh sentiment is Hindutva, a type of Hindu nationalism that advocates for the transformation of constitutionally secular India into an ethno-religious state based on Hindu supremacy.
Hindutva should be distinguished from Hindu religious traditions, some of the world’s most ancient religious texts and practices, as well as to traditions that are present throughout every part of the globe today.
Along with other religious minorities, Christians are believed to have allegiances that lie outside India — or having adopted the religion of colonial rulers — and thus are not “true Indians” according to Hindutva activists and advocates. Wanting to purify India of their presence, there has been an increase in violent rhetoric against, and orchestrated attacks on, Christians in recent years.
Increased pressure, attacks
In December, Al Jazeera reported that human rights groups recorded more than 300 attacks on Christians and their places of worship from January to September 2021 alone. On February 25, 2022, a 35-year-old pastor was assaulted and tied to a post at a roadside in South Delhi. He was accused of forcing conversions on Hindus by his attackers.
Christians account for around 2.3% of India’s population and are the nation’s third-largest religious group after Hindus and Muslims. Despite Hindutva-inspired allegations that Christianity is alien to India, it is believed that the religion could have taken root in the region some 2,000 years ago. Withhigher concentrations in some small, northeastern states like Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya, Christians are found throughout India, with significant populations in southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala as well as the northwestern state of Punjab.
Rev. Dr. D. Christu Das, principal of Concordia Theological Seminary, Nagercoil, India (CTSN), said that Lutherans are among those facing state-sponsored pressure and orchestrated persecutory actions by local authorities. Although almost half of Christians are Catholic, there are around 4 million Lutherans in the country, making them India’s third largest Christian community and its second largest Protestant denomination after the Assemblies of God.
In particular, Christu Das is concerned about anti-conversion bills, which ban changing one’s faith identification. These laws, said Christu Das, provide pretense for religiously motivated violence.
Proponents of these laws accuse Christians of using money, power, and undue influence to force people into conversion. Some charge Christians with wanting to “convert all Hindus.” Connecting Christianity to European colonialism, one advocate of anti-conversion laws say that Christians have a “fanatical urge to destroy all global religious diversity in the name” of their religion.
The regions where Christians face the most resistance and persecution are states where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party, is a major player in state government. Although that can change every five years due to elections, state authorities both within and beyond the BJP often willingly ignore attacks or implicitly — sometimes explicitly — encourage their proliferation.
Across India’s history as an independent nation, several states have passed “Freedom of Religion” laws to restrict religious conversions. More recently, anti-conversion laws have been passed in Himachal Pradesh (2006 and 2019), Jharkhand (2017), and Uttarakhand (2018). In November 2019, citing supposedly rising incidents of forced and fraudulent conversions, the Uttar Pradesh Law Commission recommended enacting a new law to regulate religious conversions. This led state governments in Uttar Pradesh and neighboring Madhya Pradesh to police religious conversions in the states in 2020 and 2021 respectively.
The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) — in concordance with the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) — said, “These laws claim to merely purge the use of force, fraud, and inducement from religious persuasion in the interest of public order. But these vague and overtly broad legislations are in fact based on a long-time propaganda by right-wing Hindu groups against Christian and Muslim minorities.”
To Christu Das, this means that these laws go against the universal human rights declaration and the guarantees of religious freedom contained therein. Believing that in a modern, globalized world, conversion from one religion to another is common, Christu Das said that people should be allowed to change their faiths according to their personal choice and not be coerced one way or another.
“Religious transformation is a human rights issue”
“Religious transformation is a human rights issue,” he said, “conversion to any religion and profess and practice of any faith is a fundamental constitutional right to every Indian citizen.
“So the anti-conversion bills, banning conversion, are against the fundamental rights of every citizen of India.”
Standing under a streetlight at around 8:00 pm local time, Aneeta (not her real name) said she has seen the steady rise of anti-Christian sentiment in her own lifetime. A college student in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Aneeta said that high school friends and their families began treating her with more disdain in recent years.
“They started to call me names, to chide me for my faith, to accuse me of being anti-Indian,” she said.
While the interactions never rose to the level of violence, she is concerned they might. Depending upon the politician elected, the popular mood, or the discourse online, throwaway comments can turn into open cruel quite quickly.
Looking down at her phone, she said, “you see everything online these days: the reports of violence against Christians, the horrible things people say on social media, blaming Christians for everything from colonization to COVID-19.”
Scholars like Edward Anderson, Arkotong Longkumer, and others have identified how the internet and social media has provided “a new space where Hindutva actors can flourish.”
Reports indicate that when Hindutva hooligans attack Christians, they often try to snatch victims’ and witnesses’ phones, to stop them from recording the incidents. At the same time, they produce their own videos to spread disinformation, stir up hatred, and promote their agenda.
Moreover, during the pandemic, Christians have been deliberately overlooked in the local distribution of government aid and have even been accused of spreading the virus.
For Thomas Schirrmacher, secretary general and CEO of the WEA, the way forward for Christians facing anti-conversion laws, attacks, and other limits on their religious freedom, is to work together with people of other faiths.
Leading Christians into “conversations, cooperation, and witness,” Schirrmacher works closely with leaders from other religious traditions to try and guarantee the rights of all.
In conversation with Muslims, Hindus, and others, Schirrmacher said evangelical Christians should willingly wade into the world of interreligious dialogue to provide protections for various religious minorities and guarantee the right to convert from one faith to another as a basic human right.
Christu Das also sees the pressure facing Christians in India as a shared problem for all people of faith. “All religious minorities are impacted by these laws,” he said, “Sikh, Muslim, Jain, Paris, Anglo Indians, Christians, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians.”
He said that the Indian constitution earmarks freedom of religion as one of its peoples’ fundamental rights.
“Everyone should have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, only subject to limitation for public safety, order, health, and to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others,” he said, “that’s a treasure of our constitution.”
“Religious freedom preserves India’s diversity, where people of different faiths, worldviews, and beliefs can peacefully live together without fear of punishment,” said Christu Das.
These attacks on Christians, he said, are more than the persecution of a particular faith, but an attack on all Indians and their fundamental freedoms.
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash.
Seeking Connections, Exploring Tensions: Human Rights and Religious Values
When it comes to people’s rights to seeking refuge for social, economic or health reasons, to serving and protecting the vulnerable, and numerous other issues related to global justice, human rights organisations and religious actors often share a common cause. However, there are issues of personal moral conviction, public health, and other matters that can become points of divergence.
Recognising the connections and tensions that exist between religious communities and human rights actors, the International Dialogue Centre (KAICIID) put together this primer on how careful coordination and multistakeholder partnerships can contribute to productive dialogue and the promotion of human rights. The below is based on the event “Seeking Connections, Exploring Tensions: Human Rights and Religious Values,” a KAICIID Fellows Alumni Session which took place on May 27, 2021.
Religious leaders not only have a proactive role to play, but can lead the way in upholding, defending, and strengthening human rights across the globe.
Religious freedom: a fundamental human right
For many religious actors, human rights begin with the protection of religious freedom. As some of the oldest and most highly-valued rights, freedoms of religion and belief are addressed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
This also includes the freedom from being coerced "to adopt a religion or belief," rights to assemble, and the freedom "to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions."
And yet, even religious freedom laws — widely recognised as a pre-eminent dimension of international human rights, according to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) — are aimed to protect human beings and not “religions” per se, said Susan Kerr, Senior Advisor on Freedom of Religion or Belief at the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Moreover, these laws protect both internal and external aspects of religious belief and behaviour, she said, but it is only internal aspects of religion — thoughts, beliefs, etc. — that are unconditionally protected. There are limits and conditions placed on external practices.
For example, while the OSCE underscores that everyone is guaranteed the right to adopt a religion or belief of their choice, either individually or in community with others, in public or private, and to manifest that religion in worship, observance, practice, and teaching, there have been robust discussions about the limits afforded to religious actors and institutions when those practices are deemed to be at variance with other fundamental human rights, contravene public health and safety, or do not constitute a core religious belief. According to legal scholar Farrah Raza of Oxford University, the debate continues around the “normative clarity” around the conditions placed on religious freedom.
Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, Senior Scientific Advisor at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) emphasised how religious freedom, and the beliefs and practices defended therein, should be viewed as one part of a wider suite of rights that must be held in balance with each other.
Even so, Kerr believes religious freedom laws can be a good place for religious actors to begin to think about how they can contribute to the realisation of human rights more broadly.
“When a member of one religion speaks out on behalf of the religious rights of others, that’s particularly powerful,” she said.
How can we address issues that are sources of tension between religious freedom and human rights?
The public recognition of diverse family forms and sexual orientations, questions of conversion, and backlash against certain religious practices have triggered negative responses from some religious communities and created tension between them and human rights advocates. Other times, religious actors can feel singled out for human rights violations when there are other factors at play or when they feel a violent, vocal, or fanatical minority within their community is confused with the majority.
Dimitrakopoulos said that the potential tensions between human rights and religious values is not between “religion” and “human rights” per se, but about how both are interpreted and applied. There is no basis to frame these tensions as an unassailable antagonism between the two.
“Our holy books have peace and have war, our societal histories have peace and have war” said Dimitrakopoulos, “it’s up to us to choose which one we emphasise, which one we live.”
Skepticism around human rights by some religious leaders and suspicion of religious actors by human rights advocates comes down to a lack of awareness, education, and interaction, said Kerr.
Dimitrakopoulos and Kerr agreed that the best way to seek this balance — and avoid strained relations — should be to regularly, substantively, and actively include religious actors in discussions around human rights. For example, when the European Union was considering its constitution, religious actors were involved in the dialogue, said Dimitrakopoulos. From the very beginning, partners on both sides recognised that “social law and divine law had to be in dialogue” to make the process successful and sustainable.
“Because religious leaders shape public opinion around laws governing society,” said Dimitrakopoulos, “it is important to engage with them to find some sort of shared space with human rights actors — to build up trust to support and empower the vulnerable in our societies.”
“Just including religious leaders doesn’t go far enough,” said Kerr, “it’s also important to think about, and actively include, other minorities in the same conversations: women, children, youth, etc.”
How can religious actors contribute to the realisation of human rights in the public sphere?
“Religious actors can, and do, contribute to the promotion of human rights in many and various ways,” said Kerr.
However, when it comes to how “religion” contributes to the realisation of human rights in the public sphere, things get a little more complex. Although it may appear as if “religions” enable or stand in the way of human rights, religions, as such, cannot obstruct or contribute to the defence of human rights, she said. “Religions do not have agency in and of themselves,” said Kerr, “it is religious actors who have agency — the power to make a change.”
One way to do this is to intentionally identify issues of common concern: the situation of migrants' and refugees' integration, climate change, marginalised minorities’ living conditions, racism, equity for persons with disabilities, and religious freedom, said Kerr. “By identifying shared challenges and priorities, actors on all sides can find safe spaces to come together,” she said.
Starting with dialogue, Dimitrakopoulos said, religious and secular institutions, organizations, and actors can find ways to work together to achieve change. “It’s the outcome that will bring us together,” said Dimitrakopoulos.In this regard, KAICIID has a wealth of experience, he added.
Their work on issues as diverse as hate speech, integration, environmental justice, and public health has shown not only how religious actors can be a part of upholding and advancing human rights, but often take a leading role, he said. “Organizations such as KAICIID show us how the work can be done — both in theory and in practice on the ground”.
Image courtesy of Christianity Today (July/August 2020).
Refugee Converts Aren’t ‘Fraudsters': the Fraught Politics of Convert Asylum in Germany
When you visit Trinity Lutheran Church in the Berlin district of Steglitz you’re going to meet a lot of different people, from all over the world: the German woman who thinks Mississippi is the greatest place in the world, the family from Bangladesh who comes to the English-language service every other week, the pastor — Rev. Dr. Gottfried Martens — who has learned Farsi in addition to English and German in order to minister to his community.
Then, you might get to know the hundreds of men and women who have found sanctuary at Trinity, seeking to remain in Germany and not be sent home to places as diverse as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
This is a community whose lives are in limbo. They’ve applied for asylum on the basis of their conversion to Christianity and they claim that they will face religious, social, and political repercussions if forced to return to their countries of origin. Some fear for their lives.
Between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees are seeking asylum in Germany on the grounds of religious persecution because of their conversion to Christianity, according to a 2019 Open Doors report. Amid sharp national debates about anti-refugee sentiment, religious literacy, and religious freedom, a number of evangelical leaders have called for changes to the process of officially evaluating refugee conversion.
Currently, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) judges the sincerity of conversion and the severity of potential threats to asylum seekers’ lives. There is, however, a lack of explicit standards, clear criteria, or legal precedent for these examinations, and the BAMF grants asylum at significantly different rates in different parts of the country.
To say the least, this issue is fraught with multiple angles, opinions, and perspectives to consider. The process is mired by Islamophobic assumptions, a supposedly secular and neutral state making decisions in matters of religion, and the messy and mysterious question of “authentic faith.”
But for those seeking asylum, the issue is clear — “I’ve converted and my conversion puts my life, and the lives of those I love, in danger. I need asylum in Germany.”
Reporting on the topic for Christianity Today, I spoke with refugee converts, local pastors, evangelical leaders, scholars of Islamic law, government ministers, immigration authorities, and everyday Germans about how the issues around the question of judging asylum cases might be untangled.
The end result is that there is no clear answer, no silver bullet, no rubric that can be universally applied. Blame for the inefficiencies and failures of the process cannot be easily allocated — it isn’t an “Islam” problem, a secular government problem, or an evangelical Christian problem. It’s a shared problem, one that must activate multiple stakeholders with varying perspectives, postures, and positions on faith, the state, and religious freedom.
Nonetheless, in the course of my reporting, I did sense that there is the possibility for legal experts, politicians, government ministers, pastors, and religious actors to work together to seek the best solution for those involved.
These questions are not going to go away on their own. Instead, as the church body at Trinity Lutheran Church in Steglitz testifies, we are likely to continue to confront such questions in the years to come given the ongoing entanglement of people, traditions, and nations across the world.
Germany’s struggle offers a telling case-study for the issues we might encounter and the possibilities that lie before us. Perhaps, there is a “third way” that religious actors and the secular state can walk together to protect human rights and maintain peace and order.
Time will tell. For now, take a moment to explore an issue that is far more complex than it at first appears.
Israel: Two Case Studies in Politics and Freedom of Religion
For two weeks I traveled from Tel-Aviv Yafo, Israel to Madaba, Jordan; from Kiryat Shmona to Bethlehem, Palestine. As I sojourned in these places I listened and learned, I watched and weighed what I saw, tasted, heard, and walked around. Not only did I pay attention to the communities and locations I was visiting, but also the group -- the evangelical "Holy Land" tour -- with which I participated.
Over the next couple of weeks I will be sharing perspectives and informed observations from my time in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. They are limited, to be sure. However, I want to take the time to focus on pertinent issues regarding these places and U.S. involvement and experience. To do so, I am inviting other informed and expert voices into the conversation.
The blogs will focus on two particular issues: politics & peace in the region and Christian travel and "Holy Land" tourism.
In Israel, debates are being waged concerning women's prayer at the "Western Wall." PHOTO: Elizabeth Chitwood
This first week I am starting our conversation with a perspective from Dr. Alon Harel originally posted with Sightings from the University of Chicago's Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion. Dr. Harel is a law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he holds the Phillip P. Mizock & Estelle Mizock Chair in Administrative and Criminal Law. In this post, Dr. Harel shares his suggestions for temporary solutions regarding two explosive contestations over politics and religious freedom in Israel. This post is not necessarily an affirmation of Dr. Harel's words, but an opportunity to enter into the conversation and hear his perspective on what is often a contentious issue for many at home and abroad. I invite your comments and perspectives.
Stay tuned for later this week when I share a conversation with Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, a Palestinian Christian leader and Lutheran pastor in Bethlehem, about his book
Another debate is raging over prayer on "the Temple Mount," the site of the Golden Domed Shrine of Omar, a Muslim holy site. PHOTO: Ken Chitwood
Here are Dr. Harel's words for your review:
Two recent debates in Israel have drawn a lot of attention, raising questions about freedom of religion in cases in which the religious practices of one group directly impacts other groups.
The first is a debate concerning the desire of Women of the Wall to pray near the Wailing Wall. The second is a debate concerning the desire of Jewish Temple Mount activists to pray on the Temple Mount near the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine.
The first debate involves Women of the Wall, a multi-denominational feminist organization based in Israel whose goal is to secure the rights of women to pray at the Western Wall, a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard (also called the Wailing Wall, see Sightings May 9, 2013 in Resources below).
The participating women conduct rituals which are according to prevailing view among orthodox Jews reserved for men. For instance the women read aloud from the Torah and use religious garments traditionally worn by men such as tallit, Tefillin and kippah.
While Women of the Wall also includes orthodox women their activities are considered offensive by Ultra-Orthodox groups who protest against the women and, at times, use violence against them.
The women regard their right to conduct these rituals near the Wailing Wall as part of their religious freedom while opposing orthodox groups argue against this right on the grounds that the Wailing Wall is a holy site and it cannot be used by groups who violate the rules of the Jewish religion as understood by them.
The second debate involves Temple Mount activists— groups consisting of nationalist and orthodox Jews who wish to conduct prayers on Temple Mount which is also a holy site to Muslims.
Some members of these Jewish groups are extremists who wish to destroy the mosques on Temple Mount and re-build in their place the Jewish Temple which had stood in that location until it was destroyed in 70 CE. Others simply urge the government to allow Jews to pray on Temple Mount while conceding also the rights of Muslims to conduct their religious practices there.
While most orthodox Jews believe it is a grave sin to pray on Temple Mount (as it is a Muslim holy site), Temple Mount activists regard praying there as a fundamental right.
Both cases raise similar questions.
It is evident that Women of the Wall has an interest in conducting their rituals in the place which is among the holiest places to Jews. Yet it is also evident that the Wall is also holy to orthodox communities who regard these rituals as a grave sin.
The Ultra-Orthodox community claims that while no one may prohibit these rituals when they are conducted in Israel or the city of Jerusalem, performing them near the Wall should not be allowed since these religious rituals, for them, are no different than opening a night club or a brothel.
Similarly Muslims argue that Jewish prayers on Temple Mount disrupt their own rituals and is detrimental to their religious practices. The recent riots and violence in Jerusalem, including the attempt to murder a prominent Temple Mount activist (Yehuda Glick), are attributed by some observers to the recent efforts of Jews to pray on Temple Mount.
But while both cases raise similar questions the political forces that support the one group oppose the other. Women of the Wall is a group that is supported by liberal (including secular) forces in Israeli society. They want to challenge the control that orthodox Jews have over the Wailing Wall.
In contrast Temple Mount activists are supported by national extremists including extremists who are secular.
I find this state of affairs to be a regrettable one. I do not deny that there may be major distinctions between the cases that may justify a differential approach. Yet the public debate concerning the right of both groups to pray has similarities which ought not to be ignored.
A serious public debate concerning the right of each of these groups ought not to be subject to the positive or negative feelings one has towards one group or another.
The right to religious freedom is not only the right of leftist liberals to conduct feminist rituals nor is it only the right of extremist nationalists. It is not a political right but a religious one.
While it is evident that both Women of the Wall and Temple Mount activists have, in addition to their religious convictions, political and nationalist agendas, this does not justify treating the conflict as a political rather than religious conflict.
Ultimately the state of Israel and its political and legal institutions will have to address the conflict. The courts have an important role to play since some of the issues raise legal questions as well as questions that affect constitutional rights.
Religious leaders will also participate and their voices will inevitably be heard by the Israeli political establishment.
Lastly, the risks of violence and disruptions will also play a major role in guiding decision-makers. The issue is a thorny one and has a potential to trigger violence on a large scale. This fact is well known to political leaders.
My recommendations?
I would consider the possibility of setting up temporary arrangements that would be subject to review every ten years with the hope that there would be greater trust between the groups in the future. I would also favor pragmatic decisions even when pragmatism conflicts with some of my moral and political convictions.
Resources:
Hirschhorn, Sara. “Women of the Wall Prevail.” Sightings, May 9, 2013. https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/women-wall-prevail-sara-hirschhorn.
Women of the Wall. http://womenofthewall.org.il.
Chabin, Michele. “Jewish girls want to read from the Torah at the Western Wall, new bus ads proclaim.” Religion News Service, October 13, 2014. http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/13/jewish-girls-want-read-torah-western-wall-new-bus-ads-proclaim/.
Goldenberg, Tia. “Ultra-Orthodox Jews Attack Jerusalem Buses Over Women Of The Wall Ad.” AP Huffington Post, October 23, 2014, Huffpost Live/Religion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/ultra-orthodox-jerusalem-bus-ad_n_6036936.html.
Sharon, Jeremy. “Women of the Wall smuggle tiny Torah scroll to Western Wall for Bat Mitzva.” Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2014, Israel News. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Women-of-the-Wall-smuggle-tiny-Torah-scroll-to-Western-Wall-for-Bat-Mitzva-379719.
Times of Israel staff. “New bill would allow Jews to pray at Temple Mount: Likud, Labor lawmakers behind controversial initiative; regulations currently permit only Muslim worship in compound.” Times of Israel, May 19, 2014, Israel & the Region. http://www.timesofisrael.com/mks-propose-law-allowing-jews-to-pray-at-temple-mount/.
JTA. “Despite confiscations, Women of the Wall light Hanukkah candles.” Times of Israel, December 19, 2014, Jewish Times. http://www.timesofisrael.com/despite-confiscations-women-of-the-wall-light-hanukkah-candles/.
Eisenbud, Daniel K. “Jerusalem’s Temple Mount closes to all visitors after shooting of Yehuda Glick: Prominent right-wing activist evacuated to capital’s Shaare Zedek Medical Center for surgery; police searching for suspect.” Jerusalem Post, October 30, 2014, Israel News. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Unknown-assailant-shots-seriously-wounds-known-right-wing-activist-in-Jerusalem-380210.
JPost.com Staff. “Chief Rabbi: Jewish prayer on Temple Mount is crime punishable by death.” Jerusalem Post, November 7, 2014, Arab-Israeli Conflict. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Chief-Rabbi-Jewish-prayer-on-Temple-Mount-is-crime-punishable-by-death-381106.
Margalit, Ruth. “The Politics of Prayer at the Temple Mount.” New Yorker, November 5, 2014, News. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/furor-temple-mount.
Yashar, Ari. “Netanyahu Assures EU: No Jewish Prayer on Temple Mount.” Arutz Sheva Israel National News, November 7, 2014, Inside Israel.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/187176#.VPOxk1ouxbk.
Israel Today Staff. “Muslim Cleric Says Jews Should Prayer on Temple Mount.” Israel Today, December 23, 2014, News. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/25699/Default.aspx.
Image: On the right, the Western Wall, a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard in Jerusalem, Israel. On the left, the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim Shrine located on Temple Mount; Credit: Sean Pavone / shutterstock.com creative commons.
Author, Alon Harel, (D.Phil. Oxford University) is Phillip P. Mizock & Estelle Mizock Chair in Administrative and Criminal Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2014, Harel was Visiting Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He specializes in political philosophy, jurisprudence, criminal law, constitutional law, and law and economics. He is a leading advocate of Israeli human rights in Israel. Harel is the founder and editor, with David Enoch, of the journal, Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies. He is the author of the monograph, Why Law Matters, Oxford Legal Philosophy (2014)