Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Gene Expression

Human evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices

Books

Q & A

tonee.jpg
...

An Original ScienceBlog


Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences

Search this blog


Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Blogroll

Recent Posts

« Svante Paabo believes modern humans & Neandertals interbred | Main | "What Darwin Said" »

Religious freedom in 2009  permlink

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Politics
Posted on: October 26, 2009 9:58 PM, by Razib Khan

This weblog has moved
Update your bookmarks:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp

And RSS:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/GeneExpressionBlog


The US State Department has released International Religious Freedom Report 2009. Here the list of countries where "violations of religious freedom have been noteworthy."

Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Brunei
Burma
China
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Laos
Malaysia
Nigeria
North Korea
Pakistan
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Tajikstan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen

H/T: Talk Islam.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

1

Interesting -

I'm surprised there aren't more CIS countries in there. For example, my prior on Belarus making it very hard on the non-Orthodox is pretty high. But I'd hardly expect State to give Lukashenko a pass, so time to adjust the prior.

Posted by: bayesian | October 27, 2009 1:18 AM

2

We didn't bother to list ourselves this year?

Posted by: abb3w | October 27, 2009 2:47 AM

3

"violations of religious freedom have been noteworthy": have there been many in the US since Waco?

Posted by: bioIgnoramus | October 27, 2009 7:01 AM

4

"have there been many in the US since Waco?"

The supreme court has already ruled that freedom of religion also protects atheists. Since candidates for public office in the US are de facto held to an Abrahamic religion litmus test, I'd count that as a systematic violation of religious freedom.

Posted by: miko | October 27, 2009 7:43 PM

5

You've outdone yourself Miko. Being president or a senator is not a right. I'm not guaranteed to get laid in Kansas if I worship Satan, either - and the catholic church also won't let me torture goats inside their little "cathedrals" even when they aren't even using them, so private property is just as oppressive as democratic elections. I think you can see the difference between discrimination against atheists in law, and discrimination by voters or property owners.

Posted by: blue anonymous | October 27, 2009 9:34 PM

6

re: miko's point about public office & discrimination, i think that is relatively small potatoes. after all, most people are never going to be running for public office. OTOH, people interact at work and other social situations, where in some regions different types of prejudice and discrimination might become mores salient issues (here in the state). that being said, "religious persecution" is graded on a curve.

my personal experience as a brown atheist who people assumed was hindu or muslim (by my appearance) in a locale which was half mormon and 3/4 conservative growing up is that it was much harder to be gay than atheist. people were prejudiced against atheists, but it was an abstract prejudice (some people didn't even know the term). in contrast, prejudice against gays or muslims is more concrete (i can't personally speak to anti-muslim prejudice, since the only times people have assumed i was muslim before knowing my background, it is clear that these were the types who don't distinguish between muslims and hindus. generally when people are specific it is clear they think i' hindu, and that's because of local demographics).

Posted by: razib | October 27, 2009 10:11 PM

7

blue, you're correct, but I am only comparing the USto what the other countries on the list do. In many of them, the state does not ban or actively persecute members of a religion, but there are sociopolitical barriers for certain groups.

For example, here's what the report says about Laos:
"The law does not recognize a state religion; however, the Government's financial support and promotion of Buddhism, along with its willingness to exempt Buddhism from a number of restrictions, gave the religion an elevated status. Authorities in some of the country's 17 provinces continued to be suspicious of non-Buddhist religious communities and displayed intolerance for minority religious practice, particularly Protestant groups, whether or not they were officially recognized."

Sound familiar?

Posted by: miko | October 28, 2009 12:09 PM

8

blue,

Any "property owners" you want to exempt from that.... Or do you miss the good ole' days when discrimination against (group x) in law was just the way God or some mushy thinker wanted it?

Posted by: Mike | October 28, 2009 11:23 PM

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.