June, 2005 (Vol. 20, No. 8)

Buddhism in Thailand and Sri Lanka is finding new support and interest because of the relief role played by the religion during and after the tsunami, according to Harvard Divinity Bulletin (Spring).

The success of the relief effort during the tsunami was due to the consistent support provided by the Buddhist monks. Temples became makeshift hospitals and then the “backbone of the relief effort,” writes Blaine Johnson. The monks, with their belief in the transitory nature of life, were prepared for the “uninviting task of handling decomposed corpses.“ The monks have also provided counseling to victims.

The response of the Buddhist monks has “renewed many Buddhists’ faith in the importance of the sangha (monk community) as the center of the Thai community. In both Thailand and Sri Lanka, the success of Buddhist involvement in the tsunami relief effort has led to a surge of interest among Buddhists to engage their faith in relief and development work,” Johnson adds. An international conference is being held in Sri Lanka in late spring to discuss the formation of a Buddhist equivalent to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

(Harvard Divinity Bulletin, 45 Francis Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138)

The conflict in Iraq may be moving along more sectarian lines judging by the new wave of violence striking the country, reports the New York Times (May 27).

Recent killings of Sunni Muslim Iraqis have fed fears that the now ruling Shiite Muslims are forming death squads, ultimately leading to civil war and a sectarian society. While Iraqis have prided themselves for their unity and lack of sectarian strife, in the last two years a “strengthened sense of religious and ethnic identity began to course through Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish communities, which had endured the most repression under [Sadam] Hussein,” writes Sabrina Tavernise.

In response to many Shiites climbing to positions of power, many Sunnis have become bitter and more open to hard-liner appeals. A sampling of opinions of Sunnis and Shiites at two mosques revealed that the former showed sharp anger at the Shiites, while the latter showed little anti-Sunni sentiment. Nevertheless, there are signs that that the Shiite militia of the 1980s in Iran, known as the Badr Brigade, is being revived. Although the group has been officially disbanded, it still exists and is used to gather intelligence.

Turkey’s attempt to steer a middle ground between secular nationalism and Islamic revivalism appears to be faltering, threatening both religious freedom and its much hoped-for integration into the European Union, writes political scientist Elizabeth Prodromou in the Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs (Spring).

With the election of the Justice and Development Party (JDP) in 2002, Turkey adopted a “Muslimhood model” of democracy that eschewed both its secularist nationalist, or Kemalist, past (which prohibited any public religious expressions) and the establishment of an Islamist government. But this moderate Muslim model seems to be in jeopardy, at least judging by Turkey recent treatment of such minorities as its Greek Orthodox community.

At first, the Greek Orthodox community was promised a restoration of rights (involving regaining property and permitting seminary education) but the JDP has stalled or reversed itself, partly over new security and terrorist fears. The government also has been pressured by those fearing that the JDP‘s moves toward religious liberalization is a plot to Christianize Turkey.

The worsening condition of the Greek Orthodox could be seen in a recent demonstration by both Islamic and secular hardliners opposing the rights of foreigners to purchase property in Turkey. For many JDP supporters, the vote against secularism was largely limited to an expansion of public space for Islam, rather than the pluralization of public life.

The Kemalist secularists who voted for JDP were mainly voicing their dissatisfaction with the failures of the traditional center-right parties rather than rejecting secularism. This catch-all nature of the JDP poses challenges for the stability of religious pluralism in Turkey. Prodromou concludes that for Turkey to fulfill its Muslimhood model, both EU and Washington will have to press the country toward compliance with its own treaty obligations on religious freedom.

(Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs, P.O. Box 14477, Washington, DC 20044)

As more social scientists study religion, there has been a significant growth of new scales and measurements to gauge religious beliefs and practices– enough to make it difficult for scholars to communicate with each other. Science & Theology News (June) reports that it is especially in the burgeoning field exploring the connections between faith, spirituality and health where these “spiritual scales” have proliferated.

Popular measures include the R-COPE scale, which gauges how patients use religious beliefs to cope with illness and trauma, the “daily spiritual experiences scale,“ which evaluates spirituality in people’s everyday life, and the new SpReuk scale, originating in strongly secular Eastern Germany and designed to capture non-theistic and non-institutional beliefs.

These attempts to make the scales as broad as possible may not allow them to capture much of anything of value concerning how religion and spirituality impacts people’s lives, says Thomas Plante, who founded his own “Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire.“ The more scales will make it harder for researchers to share data effectively, and eventually they may be consolidated into a smaller number, writes Julia Keller.

(Science & Theology News, P.O. Box 5065, Brentwood, TN 37024)

A “new fusionism” linking pro-life social conservatives and foreign policy neoconservatives is taking place based around the common concerns of traditional values and reasserting American moral purpose, writes Jody Bottum in First Things magazine (June/July).

When conservatives speak of “fusionism” they usually hearken back to the marriage between libertarians and traditional conservatives in the 1960s over their common opposition to communism and the growth of government. In contrast, a “new moralism” in relation to issues such as abortion as well as spreading democracy worldwide is driving this new conservative fusion.

While Bottum acknowledges that there are social conservatives opposed to the war in Iraq as well as neoconservatives who are firmly pro-choice, both camps have become allied on a number of issues largely driven by religion. The changes have come from both sides; Neoconservatives are more pro-life than they were even 10 years ago, perhaps due to their increased contact with Catholics and their fears over biotechnology. Meanwhile, the social conservatives, consisting mainly of evangelicals and conservative Catholics, have increasingly taken on foreign policy issues, from fighting international sex trafficking to engaging in human rights and humanitarian efforts in the Third World.

Although strategic common interests (for instance, support of Israel and, of course, the reelection of George W. Bush) should not be discounted, Bottum concludes that both neoconservatives and social conservatives are convinced that the “remoralization“ of American society also requires the remoralization of American foreign policy.

(First Things, 156 Fifth Ave., Suite 400, New York, NY 10010)

The public display of religious symbols and mottos has become the most contested church-state issue of recent years, with key battles being fought out in Congress as well as the Supreme Court.

The Wall Street Journal (May 27) reports that a case involving the display of a cross in a national preserve in California is likely to be the scene of the *most significant church-state controversy since last year*s fight over the Pledge of Allegiance.” The presence of the cross, which was erected in memory of war veterans before the area was declared a national preserve, brought a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union. So far the courts have ruled in the ACLU*s favor, stating that it violates individuals civil rights.

But the litigation itself has now become the issue. A 1976 law specifies that anyone bringing an even partly successful civil rights suit may have the plaintiff pay all legal fees for both parties, although such fee reversals are not permitted to successful defendants. Critic Christopher Levenick argues that the ACLU and other wealthy and powerful organizations use the “specter of massive attorney fees to force their secularist agenda on small school districts, cash-strapped municipalities and, now, veterans’ memorials.”

Even if the defendants don’t settle out of court and prevail, the advocacy group*s bringing such cases to court lose no money. Republicans are working on an amendment to the law, under which plaintiffs could still ask the courts to prevent governmental endorsement of religion but could no longer expect the public to pay for such suits.

Another issue gaining momentum in the courts concerns the public and governmental use of religious mottos. At issue in one case is whether theIn God We Trust motto can be inscribed on the façade of the Davidson County Government Center in Lexington, North Carolina. The “motto” appears on the US currency as early as the mid 19th century, and the phrase has been a motto of the United States for almost five decades. Therefore, according to the judge, the phrase is for “patriotic use,” both historically and in the present day and thus that is not unconstitutional, according to an Associated Press report (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/mgb6ku1z08e.html).

Other noteworthy cases involving religious symbols include one concerning four Florida public high schools holding graduation ceremonies at Calvary Chapel in Melbourne Florida. Two families with graduating students filed a lawsuit to either cover the religious symbols in the church or change the ceremony to a non-religious location for the graduation. The commencement was carried out in the church sanctuary as scheduled because the suit was filed at the last moment, yet the legal fight is still continuing.

It was almost two years that a 5,280 pound monument of the Ten Commandments was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building over great controversy.

Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing two cases over similar displays of the Ten Commandments on the state capital grounds of Texas and Kentucky after the two lower courts registered contrary decisions on the display of Ten Commandments regarding whether it is a violation of the First Amendment. In the Texas case, the court ruled against the plaintiff, Thomas Van Orden who is an ex-lawyer, Vietnam War veteran, and homeless. In the Kentucky case, on the other hand, the judge ruled for the plaintiff, the ACLU of Kentucky.

Since these cases could be historically significant on church and state issues, the American Jewish Committee together with some Christian and interfaith organizations, however, filed a brief in opposition with the Supreme Court, saying, “When government attempts to rationalize its display of sacred texts by claiming secular purposes and secular effects, the inevitable tendency is to distort and desacralize the sacred text,” according to an AJC press release (http://www.ajc.org).

The Supreme Court’s decision on this issue will be made known by the end of June.

— This report was written with Ayako Sairenji, a New Jersey-based freelance writer.