The state of religion, politics, and global affairs continues to shift in powerful ways. In some of my recent posts, I have given space to issues of “religious freedom”. Part of this analysis continues the original thread established with "Do We Live in a Post-Secular World?”, an October 2009 post on my own blog. Thus, the essence of that question continues to be examined here. Not seeking to be inflammatory, but rather thoughtful, I seek to highlight how religion -- and freedom to exercise public and private expressions of religion, is consistently under various forms of challenge. As such, religious “tolerance” or “intolerance” shapes public discourse, whether one is a “believer” or “non-believer.”
In late December, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life released a lengthy and meticulously crafted study. Weighing in at a good 72 pages, the title is: Global Restrictions on Religion. The authors and research associates claim it to be the first of its kind. Whether it is or not, my take is that this study is not only good, but it is important. And I will share with you just a few reasons why I think it is groundbreaking.
1.) It establishes benchmarks for future studies of all kinds.
2.) The researchers and authors took the time to think through some of their own blind spots and assumptions.
3.) A panel of respected folks in this field agrees on its strengths, weaknesses, yet overall validity.
1.) The authors and researchers, while culling, recording, and analyzing data, used a variety of governmental sources. They claim that the data represents over 99% of the world’s population as present in 198 countries from mid-2006 to mid-2008. Further, they decided to give weight to two primary forms (or sources) of restrictions on religious action/expression/behavior. Governmental and authoritarian “top-down” limitations form one half of the measures. The other half of the method looks at social hostilities. This thus recognizes not just governmental requirements, but also the kind of intra-societal behaviors like “sectarian” violence, hate actions/crimes…expressions that measure those manifestations of a society’s unwillingness to tolerate difference within the population. Quoting directly from the study’s Executive Summary they summarize this portion of the methodology:
“The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective measures that could be combined into two comprehensive indices, the Government Restrictions index and the Social Hostilities index. Future editions of the indices will be able to chart changes and trends over time.”
Thus, this study will enable less comprehensive studies to wield greater insight and information based upon the breadth of this work. Future analysts will benefit from the possibility of comparing changes and charting similarities through time and political/cultural shifts.
2.) Much of the clarity of the Pew report is, again, based in the questions and method. Recognizing that “freedom” defies a definition and cannot be quantified within a culture, let alone cross-culturally, they jettisoned the attempt to measure “religious freedom”. Defining what restrictions exist in a country is a measurable goal, and that is the path taken here. In addition, the researchers make clear that the study does not attempt to explain the restrictions, to judge how justifiable restrictions might be, or to determine any kind of origin, cultural or otherwise, of restrictions or hostilities.
They also re-affirm the commitment to a sole quantifying goal.
“[This study] does not capture the other side of the coin – the amount of religious dynamism, diversity and expression in each country."
Also, The Pew study does not include North Korea. All forms of information were apparently too difficult to locate or verify, let alone confirm. Lastly, the study recognizes the US’s cultural bias in the very crafting of the questions. Our culture values “freedom”. The entire study recognizes that this is the analytical lens through which it examines the data. Thus, while the study will set forth benchmarks, it does not claim to acquire “evidence” or “wrongdoing” as a goal.
Once released, the Pew Forum held a seminar and panel discussion with various thought leaders and media folks. The authors were able to respond to a variety of inquiries, to further explain their methods, the outcomes, as well as problems – expected or unexpected - in producing this important study.
In my next post I will look at two things: the questions posed by those professionals, and the basic findings of the study itself.
Allison Addicott writes and speaks about globalization, religion, and politics. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, she also hosts and edits her own blog: The Future: Religion, Politics, and Culture.