How the Religious Right Brainwashes Its Followers With a False Narrative of History

Why Is Christian America Supporting Donald Trump?

by John Fea

John Fea teaches American history at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He is the author of the new book, Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump (Eerdmans Publishing, June 2018).

 

 

A week ago Sunday, June 24, 2018, First Baptist Church of Dallas held its annual “Freedom Sunday.” The church website described the special service this way: “Celebrate our freedom as Americans and our freedom in Christ with patriotic worship and a special message from Dr. Robert Jeffress, “America is a Christian Nation.”

Not everyone in Dallas was happy about it. Robert Wilonsky, an opinion writer at the Dallas Morning News, wrote that Jeffress and the First Baptist Church were “divisive” for claiming that America was a Christian nation. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings agreed. Atheists protested. Eventually, the billboard company contracting with the church removed signs advertising Freedom Sunday.

This, of course, did not stop the service from going forward. The people of First Baptist Church spent the morning of the 24th waving American flags, wearing red, white, and blue shirts, singing the Star-Spangled Banner, and celebrating the United States military. Vice-president Mike Pence sent a letter of encouragement.

Was this a religious service or a celebration of nationalism? What was the object of the congregation’s worship?

Jeffress has been preaching his “America is a Christian Nation” sermon for a long time. On Sunday he stuck with his usual script. He indicted the “secularists, atheists, and infidels” for “perverting” the Constitution. He chided the federal government’s failure to acknowledge God in the public square. He told his congregation that academics, historians, and teachers have been lying to them about the religious roots of the United States.

Jeffress made one problematic historical reference after another. He made the wildly exaggerated claim that fifty-two of the original fifty-five signers of the Constitution were “orthodox conservative Christians.” He peddled the false notion that the disestablishment clause in the First Amendment was meant to apply solely to Protestant denominations.

Near the end of the sermon, Jeffress suggested that spikes in violence, illegitimate births, divorce, and low SAT scores in America are the direct product of the Supreme Court’s decision to remove prayer and Bible-reading from public schools.

Jeffress concluded the service with an altar call. He asked people to come to the front of the church and profess their faith in Jesus Christ. I am sure Jeffress was sincere in his desire to lead people to Jesus, but after his message it was unclear whether he was inviting them to accept Jesus Christ as Savior or embrace the idea that the United States was founded, and continues to be, a Christian nation. Maybe both.

***

Robert Jeffress is best known as a Fox News religion commentator and one of the first evangelical leaders to support Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. He has called Trump “the most faith-friendly president in history.”

Within two weeks following the announcement of his candidacy, several polls had Trump leading among white evangelical GOP voters. In November 2016, 81% of these evangelicals cast their vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States. The reasons for this are complex, and we probably need to wait a generation or two before historians can begin to make sense of them, but three young sociologists have published a scholarly essay that suggests the most plausible explanation.

Andrew Whitehead of Clemson University, Sam Perry of the University of Oklahoma, and Joseph O. Baker of East Tennessee State University argue that “the more someone believed the United States is—and should be—a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump.” They conclude that “no other religious factor influenced support for or against Trump.”

These sociologists found that the average Trump voter believes the federal government should: declare the United States a Christian nation, advocate for Christian values, oppose the “strict separation of church and state,” allow the “display of religious symbols in public spaces,” and return prayer to public schools. Likewise, Trump voters believe that whatever success the United States has had over the years is “part of God’s plan.”

This essay is revealing, and it confirms much of what I have written about since the 2011 release of my Was American Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction. But it does not address why and how Americans have come to believe these things. The answer to that question invites us to think historically.

Ever since the founding of the republic, a significant number of Americans have supposed that the United States is exceptional because it has a special place in God’s unfolding plan for the world. Since the early 17th century founding of the Massachusetts Bay colony by Puritans, evangelicals have relished in their perceived status as God’s new Israel—His chosen people. America, they argued, is in a covenant relationship with God. The defenders of this idea like to apply Chronicles 7:14 to the United States: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

Though dissenters have always been present, the Christian culture of the United States remained intact well into the 20th century. But since World War II, the moorings of this culture have loosened, and evangelicals have responded with fear that their Christian nation is about to collapse. Robert Jeffress is correct about this.

During the 1960s, the Supreme Court removed prayer and Bible reading from public schools, the federal government cut federal funding to Christian academies and colleges that practiced segregation, the country grew more diverse through immigration, and the sexual revolution threatened evangelical patriarchy and gave women the right to choose to have an abortion.

The fear that America’s Christian civilization was falling apart translated into political action. In the late 1970s, conservative evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye (the author of the popular Left Behind novels), and a group of politicians who had been closely affiliated with the 1964 Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, developed a political playbook to win back the culture from the forces of secularization. Most of the 81% of American evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 understood, and continue to understand, the relationship between their faith and their politics through this playbook.

This playbook, which would eventual become the culture-war battle plan of the “Religious Right,” was tweaked occasionally over the years to address whatever moral issues seemed most important at the time, but it never lost its focus on “restoring,” “renewing,” and “reclaiming” America for Christ through the pursuit of political power.

When executed properly, the playbook teaches evangelicals to elect the right President and members of Congress who will pass laws privileging evangelical Christian views of the world. These elected officials will then appoint and confirm conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, defend life in the womb, and uphold religious liberty for those who believe in traditional views of marriage.

The playbook rests firmly on the Religious Right’s understanding of American identity as rooted in its view of the American past. If America was not founded as a Christian nation, the Religious Right’s political agenda collapses or, at the very least, is weakened severely.

To indoctrinate its followers in the dubious claim that America was founded as a Christian nation, the Religious Right has turned to political activists, many of whom claim to be historians, to propagate the idea that the founding fathers of the United States were in the business of building a Christian nation.

The most prominent of these Christian nationalist purveyors of the past is David Barton, the founder of Wallbuilders, an organization in Aledo, Texas that claims to be “dedicated to presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined.” Barton and Wallbuilders were the source of most of the historical information Jeffress presented in his Freedom Sunday sermon on June 24th.

For the past thirty years, Barton has provided pastors and conservative politicians with inaccurate or misinterpreted facts used to fuel the Religious Right’s nostalgic longings for an American Christian golden age. American historians, including those who teach at the most conservative Christian colleges, have debunked Barton’s use of the past, but he continues to maintain a large following in the evangelical community.

David Barton peddles fake news about the American past. Yet, if Andrew Whitehead, Sam Perry, and Joseph Baker are correct, his work is essential to the success of the Trump presidency in a way that I imagine even Donald Trump and his staff do not fully understand or appreciate.

Trump does not talk very much about America’s supposedly Christian origins. His grasp of history is not very strong. But his evangelical supporters see him as a gift of God—a divinely appointed figure who has emerged on the scene for such a time as this. He is in the White House to preserve God’s covenant with America, to make America Christian again.

The support for the President is a sign of intellectual laziness in the evangelical community. Rather than thinking creatively about how to move forward in hope, Trump evangelicals prefer to respond to cultural change by trying to reclaim a Christian world that is rapidly disappearing, has little chance of ever coming back, and may never have existed in the first place.

The American founding fathers lived in a world that was very different from our own. In the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century, America was a nation of Christians—mostly Protestants—who put their stamp on the culture.

Yet, amid this Christian culture, the founders differed about the relationship between Christianity and their new nation. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defended the separation of church and state. John Adams and George Washington also opposed mixing church and state, while at the same time suggesting that Christians, because Christianity taught an ethic of selflessness, could be useful in the creation of a virtuous republic in which citizens sacrificed self-interest for the common good.

The founding fathers believed in God, but most of them did not believe that God inspired the Old and New Testaments or sent His son to die and rise from the dead as the ultimate payment for human sin. The God of the Declaration of Independence is a providential deity who created the world and the people in it, but there is nothing in this important American document that defines this God in terms of the Incarnation or the Trinity.

The United States Constitution never mentions God or Christianity but does forbid religious tests for office. The First Amendment rejects a state-sponsored church and celebrates the free-exercise of religion. This is hardly the kind of stuff by which Christian nations are made. Yet Barton and Jeffress invoke these founders and these documents to defend the idea that the United States was founded as a distinctly Christian nation.

***

If the Christian Right, and by extension the 81% of evangelical voters who use its political playbook, are operating on such a weak historical foundation, why doesn’t someone correct their faulty views and dubious claims?

We do.

We have.

But countering bad history with good history is not as easy as it sounds. David Barton and his fellow Christian nationalist purveyors of the past are well-funded by Christian conservatives who know that the views of the past they are peddling serve their political agenda. Barton has demonized Christian intellectuals and historians as sheep in wolves’ clothing. They may call themselves Christians on Sunday morning, but, according to Barton, their “world view” has been shaped by the secular universities where they earned their Ph.Ds. Thanks to Barton, many conservative evangelicals do not trust academic and professional historians—even academic and professional historians with whom they share a pew on Sunday mornings.

I know this first-hand from some of the negative emails and course evaluation forms I received after teaching a Sunday School course on the history of religion and politics at the Evangelical Free Church congregation where my family worship every Sunday. Because I was a college history professor—even a college history professor at a Christian college with strong evangelical roots—I could not be trusted.

What David Barton does not understand is that there are hundreds of evangelical historians who see their work as part of their Christian identity and vocation. These historians are women and men who pursue truth about the past wherever it leads. This pursuit of truth is a deeply Christian pursuit, as is the case with all efforts to distinguish truth from error.

When people like David Barton cherry-pick from the past to promote political agendas, they do a disservice to the past, fail to treat it with integrity, and ultimately harm their Christian witness in the world. They make evangelicals look foolish. This is not what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 1:18 as the “foolishness of the cross,” it is just good old-fashioned foolishness. It is a product of what evangelical historian Mark Noll has described as the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”

Many of us engaged in trying to bring good history to the evangelical church need the support of Christians who are concerned about the direction Donald Trump, the Christian Right, and the pseudo-historians who prop-up their political agenda are trying to take the country and the church. Good history is complex. It is nuanced. And it is an essential part of truly worshipping God with our minds (Luke 10:27). Unfortunately, complexity, nuance, and intellectual discipleship are not the kinds of subjects that inspire Christians to dig into their pocketbooks.

What would it take to fund evangelical historians to travel to receptive churches around the country and spend some concentrated time teaching American religious history, and American history more broadly, to lay men and women? Perhaps such visits could also include times of worship and prayer?

It is unlikely that such an effort would reach the Robert Jeffress’ of the world. but there are many evangelicals who are open and willing to listen and learn. This was another lesson I took away from my Sunday School class. In fact, the criticism I received paled in comparison with the positive comments I got from those who had never heard a fellow evangelical offer a different, more accurate, view of American history.

American evangelical political engagement is built on a very weak historical foundation. It is time that Christian philanthropists, motivated by an entrepreneurial spirit informed by the pursuit of truth and a concern for the testimony of the Gospel in the world, take the long view and invest in responsible Christian thinking about the American past. The American republic, and more importantly, the witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, depends on it.

 

Join us on Facebook in discussion:-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/377012949129789

TWITTER

https://twitter.com/ageofblasphemy

Islam’s Non-Believers

Islam’s Non-Believers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A new film by Deeyah Khan, above – Islam’s Non-Believers –  follows the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, which supports ex-Muslims, often referred to as apostates or unbelievers, both in the UK and abroad.

The documentary – which can be seen here – provides an important insight into the hidden plight of young people in Britain, many of whom are leading double lives – pretending to still be Muslims including by wearing the veil or attending mosque – in order to avoid ostracisation, abuse and even violence.

Depression, self-harm, and suicide are some of the effects.

According to Sadia, one of the ex-Muslims featured in the film said:

I remember saying to my mum, ‘I don’t think I believe in God anymore,’ And her saying, ‘You can’t tell anybody else because they’ll kill you, we are obliged to kill ex-Muslims,’ and that it would put me at extreme risk if anybody else was to find out, so that conversation ended there.

Given the stigma and risks, it’s hard to know how many ex-Muslims there are in Britain, and internationally, but it’s a growing phenomenon.

The Internet is doing to Islam what the printing press did in the past to Christianity. Social media has not only given countless young people access to “forbidden” ideas and allowed them a space to express themselves where none existed – but it has also helped them find each other, share their stories and see that they are not alone.

This has brought with it courage and hope for the right to live as they choose. It’s become a global resistance movement.

There are literally millions of us – in every home and “Muslim” family, on every street corner, in every city, town and village across Britain and the globe.

Atheism is ‘breaking like a tsunami’, says a worried official of the Islamic regime of Iran.

The “threat” of atheism explains why the Saudi government has equated atheism with terrorism and Egypt’s youth ministry has joined with the highest Sunni authority, Al-Azhar, to combat “extremism and atheism”.

Atheism is punishable with the death penalty in 13 countries and a prosecutable offence in many more, including via fines, imprisonment, flogging, and exclusion from civil rights, such as losing child custody.

And it is not just “over there” that apostates face persecution but right here in Britain with Imams and respected mainstream “community leaders” legitimising discrimination and/or inciting violence.

In the film, Omer El-Hamdoon, President of the Muslim Association of Britain, justifies ostracisation by saying that Islam’s non-believers are “outside the human norms”:

How we treat people is the same; we don’t discriminate but our love cannot be the same, it’s just human behaviour. Islam is a pragmatic religion, it doesn’t expect people to behave outside the human norms.

[When asked on his position with regards the death penalty for apostasy in an ideal Islamic state, he refused to respond in usual double-speak.]

Shah Sadruddin, another “community leader”, is shown calling for the death of a Bangladeshi atheist blogger:

This son of a bastard is challenging us.
 
O Bangla’s Scholars, O Bangla’s Muslims, wake up! No son of a bastard will remain alive after swearing at my Prophet!

Sadruddin is a teacher/rector at an Islamic academy and madrasah and ran as a Conservative councillor and lost. In a clip for the Conservatives, he says:

I believe in equality, I believe in fairness, I believe in loving the human race and I hate to hate anybody.

Rayhana Sultan, above left, a young ex-Muslim from Bangladesh, says this form of hate speech can further intimidate ex-Muslims, forcing them back into the closet:

These kind of lectures create an environment that subconsciously teaches devout Muslims to see ex-Muslims or anyone who thinks out of the box as a threat, further ostracising them, de-humanising them, bullying them, so it further creates so much dangers for people to come out as an ex-Muslim.

Whilst apostasy is not criminalised here in Britain, many imams and self-appointed “community leaders” have created a climate where vilification and incitement to violence are permissible, particularly since there is no political will to recognise it as incitement.

Add to this, links to the transnational Islamist movement, British government appeasement of the Islamist movement, multiculturalism as a social policy which homogenises the “Muslim community” and fails to recognise dissent as well as accusations of “Islamophobia” to silence critics and you have a situation where young people born and raised in this country have neither the right nor the choice to think or live as they want.

Identity politics is literally killing us.

Deeyah Khan’s film is often hard to watch – parts of it are heart-breaking – but it also inspires and brings hope by highlighting those challenging apostasy laws and stigma and calling for equality – much like the gay liberation movement has done in decades past.

Clearly, the ex-Muslim movement deserves the support and solidarity of all those more interested in defending human rights and lives rather than religion and the religious-Right.

#IslamsNonBelievers
#NotAlone

Sign a petition calling for an end to apostasy laws.

For more information, visit the website of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

Editor’s note: Islam’s Non-Believers was broadcast by ITV on October 13. In an analysis of the documentary, Luqmaan Al Hakeem wrote:

I came to realise that the majority of their reasons for leaving the faith were emotional and cultural as opposed to being intellectual reasons.

 

PAYPAL :- we value your ongoing support and generous donations that assist the production of this site.

Join us on Facebook in discussion:-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/377012949129789/

https://www.youtube.com/user/theageofblasphemy

 

French Cartoonist Zeon Arrested for Anti-Zionist Art

French Cartoonist Zeon Arrested for Anti-Zionist Art

In ostensibly free European countries, you can get in a lot of trouble for the wrong kind of humor – not just (deadly) trouble from jihadists “avenging” their prophet, but trouble meted out by government agencies and police officers.

For instance, in the Netherlands, in 2008, the home office of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, a poison-pen critic of Islam,

… was raided by a team of ten police officers who had been dispatched by the Openbaar Ministerie, the federal Dutch DA’s office that works in conjunction with the Netherlands Justice Department. The cops confiscated Nekschot’s computer, his sketchbooks, and other materials, then took him to a detention facility where he spent 30 hours in a concrete cell before being released without charges — but after he had been made to promise to remove eight cartoons from his website.

In January of this year, a week after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala (above), whose humor dances on the edge of anti-Semitism and sometimes well over it, was arrested on suspicion of

… “incitement of terrorism,” for appearing to offer a [written Facebook] gesture of solidarity with Amedy Coulibaly, the Islamist gunman who murdered four hostages in a kosher grocery store in Paris last Friday, apparently in concert with the terrorists who carried out the massacre at Charlie Hebdo’s offices two days earlier.

Now it’s the turn of a French cartoonist who goes by the name of Zeon. I just learned that one day last week, at 7 a.m., four police officers of the ominously named Brigade de Répression de la Délinquance aux Personnes (BRDP)

… woke the cartoonist to take him before the judge [at] the High Court … of Paris [link added, TF]. A complaint appears to have been filed by the BNVCA (National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism).

The complaint focuses on these political drawings:

The judge has indicted the cartoonist [for] incitement to racial, religious hatred, by speech, writing, picture or means of electronic communication. Zeon refused to answer [any] questions. He was set free in late morning.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons – though often crude and insensitive — didn’t break the law, and it would be hypocritical of the French prosecutors and bien pensants to treat Zeon’s work any differently.

The cartoon with the scale, which Zeon drew in 2009, had been the subject of a legal complaint before, but on that occasion the judge ruled that the statute of limitations had run out. It’s not clear to me why the new complaint would fare any better. Perhaps the goal of the complainant is not to score a legal victory, but to judicially harass the artist.

You don’t have to like the Nekschot, Charlie Hebdo, or Zeon drawings in order to condemn what’s been done to their creators. The fact that all this work is controversial is only more reason to protest the attempts to muzzle these gadflies. People who say uncontroversial things don’t have to rely on free-speech protections; by definition, that valuable shield only benefits those who speak harshly or outrageously.

I would’ve expected the authorities in the land of Voltaire to understand that, and to act accordingly.

Blasphemy in Pennsylvania; Teenager Faces Jail Time for “Desecrating a Venerated Object”

Pennsylvania teenager faces jail time for “desecrating a venerated object”

Blasphemy in the U.S.???

Reader jsp called my attention to what seems a gross inequity in punishment, something that shouldn’t be happening in America. A teenager photographed himself in a compromising position with the statue of Jesus on a church lawn.  I’ve seen dozens of such pictures, and not just with Jesus, but it was the Jesus bit that got him in trouble. First, the picture and then the story, both from KRON 4 News in San Francisco:

EVERETT, Pennsylvania (KRON) — A Pennsylvania teenager is facing criminal charges after posting pictures to Facebook of him simulating a sex act with a statue of Jesus.

The young man posted that he took the pictures in late July at the statue of a kneeling Jesus in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett.

The criminal charge, which will be heard in family court, consists of “Desecration of a Venerated Object.”

Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted.

For crying out loud, what is that law doing on the books? “Venerated object?”, really? Let’s see them try to convict somebody for burning a Bible or the Qur’an under that law. While what the kid is doing doesn’t really qualify as “free speech,” the most it could be is trespassing, and he should just have been let off with a warning. Now he’s going to court and could go to jail (I predict he won’t).

But that law is unconstitutional. For instance, I suppose I could say that I venerate Hitchens’s book God is Not Great.  If somebody damages it, could I take them to court? If I couldn’t because “venerated objects” apply only to religious objects, then that’s a violation of the Constitution.

This is America, not Saudi Arabia. Religion gets no pass. There is no damage here, and maybe a bit of trespassing, but desecration? Give me a break.

Because the piece was published in San Francisco, you can guess what the comments are like. Here are two:

Blasphemy is Bullshit

Blasphemy is Bullshit

It is a clear demonstration of an imaginary deity’s impotency and incapacity to do its own bidding when humans have to make edicts to defend its alleged hurt pride. Blasphemy laws are more about the insecurity of the believer than an attempt to protect a god. Any god in need of such human intervention is a god not worth its salt.

People all over the planet are being threatened, imprisoned, tortured and killed by religious fanatics for daring to make comment about the veracity of religious magical thinking.  This is one of the worst aspects of accepting mythology as fact.  It turns humans into mob-ruled ideological monsters willing to destroy the lives of others in protecting their own doubts and fears.

Replacing freedom of expression and speech with legally binding penalties for a myriad of subjective notions is a recipe only benefiting tyrannical religious/political systems.

I urge all rational and reasonable people to strongly oppose any attempts at having blasphemy initiated into law anywhere on the planet.

 

David Nicholls
(Former) President
Atheist Foundation of Australia

Related articles

• Clerics Propose Amending Blasphemy Law (newsweekpakistan.com)
• As UN meets, apply pressure against blasphemy laws (csmonitor.com)
• Special Report #5: The Victims of Blasphemy Laws (blasphemieblog2.wordpress.com)
• Meet the LSS: Charlie Klendjian (lawyerssecularsociety.wordpress.com)
• Little to Celebrate for Pakistan’s Non-Muslim Minorities on Independence Day (cnsnews.com)

Man Jailed for 10 Years in Blasphemy Case

Man jailed for 10 years in blasphemy case

From the Newspaper

A Pakistani policeman guards a jail entrance. — File Photo

CHAKWAL: After a trial spread over 14 months and conducted in an uneasy environment, Additional District and Sessions Judge Raja Pervez Akhtar jailed a blasphemy accused for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs200,000 on Tuesday evening.

The verdict left the lawyers of both groups baffled and they now intend to go to the Lahore High Court — one would file an appeal for getting the sentence quashed while the other would file a review petition.

Convict Ghulam Ali Asghar, a resident of Chinji village in Talagang tehsil, was booked on Nov 17, 2011, on a charge of blaspheming the Holy Prophet (PBUH) by misquoting a Hadith in Punjabi language.

Judge Raja Pervez Akhtar acquitted Ghulam Ali Asghar of the allegation levelled under 295-C (the section which forbids blaspheming the Holy Prophet [PBHU]), but imprisoned him for ten years under 295-A (which forbids outraging religious feelings) and also imposed a fine of Rs200,000. The convict will have to undergo an additional jail term of six months if he does not pay the fine.

Related articles

• Alleged blasphemy: SC admits petition filed against Sherry Rehman for hearing (dawn.com)
• Pakistan sinks under a sea of blasphemy (news.techeye.net)
• Pakistan’s Female Ambassador to The United States Accused of Blasphemy (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Man jailed for 10 years in blasphemy case (dawn.com)

French Magazine Commits More “Blasphemy”

French magazine to commit more blasphemy

French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, is to publish new anti-Islam cartoons.

French weekly Charlie Hebdo, known for its publishing of cartoons insulting Islam’s most revered figure, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), says it is planning to publish more blasphemous cartoons.

The magazine made the announcement on Sunday, saying that a special edition with cartoons on the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) will be published on Wednesday.

“If people want to be shocked, they will be shocked,” said Charlie Hebdo editor, Stephane Charbonnier.

In September, the same magazine published cartoons blasphemous against the Islamic sanctities, provoking widespread outrage worldwide.

The publication led to the temporary closure of several French institutes and cultural centers in some Muslim countries.

The September 19 sacrilegious caricatures appeared in the periodical after the emergence of a US-made film that insulted Islam’s holiest figure.

The blasphemous film sparked protests in Muslim countries, as well as in non-Muslim states like Australia, Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, and some other nations.

MR/HN

Related articles

• Muhammad cartoons: magazine to publish illustrated biography of prophet (guardian.co.uk)
• French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons (rt.com)
• Blasphemy Law in the Context of Christian Theology (salem-news.com)
• French magazine publishes bio of Prophet Mohammed in comic book form (foxnews.com)
• Charlie Hebdo Publishes ‘Halal’ Prophet Muhammad Comic Book Biography (huffingtonpost.co.uk)

Pakistan’s Female Ambassador to The United States Accused of Blasphemy

Alleged blasphemy: SC admits petition filed against Sherry Rehman for hearing

          

Sherry Rehman. — Photo by AFP/File

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday admitted a petition filed against Sherry Rehman over allegedly committing blasphemy, DawnNews reported.

The petition was heard by a two-judge bench of the apex court comprising Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Ejaz Afzal.

The bench directed CPO Multan Amir Zulfiqar to take action in accordance with the law.

The petition against Rehman, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, was filed by Faheem Akhtar Gill, a citizen of Multan.

Gill had requested to the court to register a case against Rehman for allegedly committing blasphemy.

The petition claims that Rehman had committed blasphemy while speaking on a news channel two years ago.

In Nov 2010, Rehman had submitted a bill to the National Assembly Secretariat seeking an end to the death penalty under the existing blasphemy laws.

Later in Feb 2011, the then prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, had categorically stated that the government had no intention to amend the law.

After Gilani’s rejection, Rehman had told AFP she had “no option” but to abide by the decision after the premier had ruled out any discussion.

In Nov 2011, Rehman was appointed Pakistan’s ambassador to the US after Husain Haqqani had tendered his resignation over the memogate controversy.

Blasphemy is an extremely sensitive subject in Pakistan, where 97 per cent of the 180 million population are Muslims, and allegations of desecrating the Holy Quran or insulting Islam often provoke public fury.

Related articles

• PAKISTAN: Rimsha Masih blasphemy case challenged in Supreme Court! (voiceofthepersecuted.wordpress.com)
• Three petitions filed against Rehman Malik in SC (nation.com.pk)
• SC admits petition against Sherry Rehman (nation.com.pk)
• Alleged blasphemy: SC admits petition filed against Sherry Rehman for hearing (dawn.com)

Redneck Taliban | A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists

A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists

In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God–or risk 12 months in prison.

The law and its sponsor, state representative Tom Riner, have been the subject of controversy since the law first surfaced in 2006, yet the Kentucky state Supreme Court has refused to review its constitutionality, despite clearly violating the First Amendment’s separation of church and state.

“This is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I’ve ever seen,” said Edwin Kagin, the legal director of American Atheists’, a national organization focused defending the civil rights of atheists. American Atheists’ launched a lawsuit against the law in 2008, which won at the Circuit Court level, but was then overturned by the state Court of Appeals.

The law states, “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln’s historic March 30, 1863, presidential proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy’s November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: “For as was written long ago: ‘Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'”

The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building–and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply.

The plaque’s inscription begins with the assertion, “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

Tom Riner, a Baptist minister and the long-time Democratic state representative, sponsored the law.

“The church-state divide is not a line I see,” Riner told  The New York Times  shortly after the law was first challenged in court. “What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God.”

A practicing Baptist minister, Riner is solely devoted to his faith–even when that directly conflicts with his job as state representative. He has often been at the center of unconstitutional and expensive controversies throughout his 26 years in office. In the last ten years, for example, the state has spent more than $160,000 in string of losing court cases against the American Civil Liberties Union over the state’s decision to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings, legislation that Riner sponsored.

Although the Kentucky courts have yet to strike down the law, some judges have been explicit about its unconstitutionality.

“Kentucky’s law is a legislative finding, avowed as factual, that the Commonwealth is not safe absent reliance on Almighty God. Further, (the law) places a duty upon the executive director to publicize the assertion while stressing to the public that dependence upon Almighty God is vital, or necessary, in assuring the safety of the commonwealth,” wrote Judge Ann O’Malley Shake in Court of Appeals’ dissenting opinion.

This rational was in the minority, however, as the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decision that the law was unconstitutional.

Last week, American Atheists submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the law.

Riner, meanwhile, continues to abuse the state representative’s office, turning it into a pulpit for his God-fearing message.

“The safety and security of the state cannot be achieved apart from recognizing our dependence upon God,” Riner recently t old Fox News.

“We believe dependence on God is essential. … What the founding fathers stated and what every president has stated, is their reliance and recognition of Almighty God, that’s what we’re doing,” he said.

Laura Gottesdiener is a freelance journalist and activist in New York City.

Related articles

• Kentucky Freethought Convention Wrapup (skepticalseeker.com)
• American Atheists Headquarters Gets Solar Panels (patheos.com)
• Atheist group demands answers on Romney’s religious loyalty (intrepidreport.com)
• KY Equality Federation Stops School District Distributing Bibles (lezgetreal.com)
• A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists (democraticunderground.com)
• In Kentucky, Atheism Is Persecuted By Law (addictinginfo.org)
• American Atheists Asks Supreme Court to Review Kentucky’s ‘God Protects Us From the Terrorists’ Law (patheos.com)
• A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky is Persecuting Atheists (alternet.org)

Religious Fundamentalism | Taliban Shoot Young Girl | Bullet Lodged In Brain

Malala Yousafzai has bullet removed from head after Taliban shooting

Relatives say 14-year-old Pakistani peace activist appears to be doing well after three-hour operation

Army doctors treating Malala Yousafzai in Peshawar. Photograph: EPA

Pakistani surgeons have removed a bullet from the head of Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old schoolgirl and peace activist who was shot by a Taliban gunman on Tuesday.

Relatives of the girl, who rose to fame for her outspoken opposition to Taliban militancy in her home town of Swat, said she appeared to be doing well after a three-hour operation.

Her father, Ziaudduin Yousafzai, said doctors were encouraged by a CT scan taken after the operation. She was unconscious but had moved her hand slightly after coming out of surgery.

Malala could be moved abroad for further treatment. A plane is on standby in Peshawar and Rehman Malik, the interior minister, has contacted the family to make sure their passports are in order.

Three years ago Malala blogged on the BBC website about the terror of living amid a rising Taliban insurgency. Last year she received the country’s first peace prize. She was on a Taliban hitlist for publicly advocating what the movement derides as “secular governance”.

On Tuesday morning as she and her classmates sat on a bus to take them home after a midterm exam, three men reportedly approached in search of Malala.

“The man who stopped the vehicle signalled to his other armed accomplices that Yousafzai was inside,” the bus driver, Usman Ali, told the Express Tribune newspaper. “Another armed man went to the back of the vehicle and started firing inside.”

Malala attempted to deny her own identity, but one of the other girls pointed her out. According to the Express Tribune, a total of four girls, including Malala, were injured.

On Tuesday the Taliban appeared more than happy to take the credit for the attempted murder. “She was pro-west, she was speaking against Taliban and she was calling President Obama her ideal leader,” said a spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan. “She was young but she was promoting western culture in Pashtun areas.”

The attack has horrified many in Pakistan, especially liberals who have long been aghast at what they see as the feeble response by the state and some religious political parties towards the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Pakistani offshoot of the hardline Islamist movement that closed down girl’s schools and ran public executions when it was in power in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

On Wednesday, Pakistan’s parliament unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attack. Even the head of Pakistan’s military, General Ashfaq Kayani, made public his anger during a meeting with Malala’s parents at a military hospital in Peshawar.

The attack has alarmed residents of Swat, which was infiltrated by Taliban insurgents who burned schools and executed its enemies. An operation by the Pakistani military eventually forced the Taliban out of the valley in 2009, but the attempt to kill Malala indicates their continued ability to mount attacks in an area still living under a heavy army presence.

“The suicide bombings and blasts may be over in Swat but this attack has rung alarm bells reminding us that militants are still in Swat,” said Iqbal Hussain, one of Malala’s teachers.

He said the girl’s classmates were anxious to return to school despite the attack. “Girls of Swat are courageous and bold and they want to continue their education they cannot be bettered by these tactics of the militants,” Hussain said.

Related articles

• Pakistan child rights activist shot (bigpondnews.com)
• Malala Yousafzai: The Latest Victim in Pakistan’s War on Children (world.time.com)
• Revulsion as girl who spoke out shot (smh.com.au)
• Doctors to decide if Malala to go abroad (nation.com.pk)
• Fury over attack on Pakistan girl (bbc.co.uk)
• Pakistan girl surgery ‘a success’ (bbc.co.uk)
• The Lede Blog: Pakistani Activist, 14, Is Shot by Taliban (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Child rights activist shot in Pakistan (bigpondnews.com)

The Dumbest Politician On Earth | Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan Claimed Blasphemy is a Crime Against Humanity

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: Blasphemy is a Crime Against Humanity

_{Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 2011
Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty}

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan thinks that blasphemy should be banned as a crime against humanity. And when he says “blasphemy” he seems to have in mind specifically “whatever offends Muslims.” So basically, absolutely anything can be banned so long as it offends enough Muslims who complain loudly enough.

What Prime Minister Erdogan wants to do is make certain thoughts and beliefs crimes. The only reason he has for this is the fact that certain thoughts and beliefs are offensive to some Muslims. Is that a reasonable foundation to make something a crime, though? Not in any civilized society. So why is Erdogan trying to make Turkey less civilized?

If Muslims have the power to ban some thought or word or belief by claiming offense, can I have that right too? Can I claim that their protests offend me and then have those protests banned? Can I claim that their Qur’an offends me and so have it banned? If not, then this isn’t really about protecting people’s freedom of belief; instead, it’s about protecting religion from being criticized or challenged.

“I am the prime minister of a nation, of which most are Muslims and that has declared anti-semitism a crime against humanity. But the West hasn’t recognized Islamophobia as a crime against humanity — it has encouraged it. [The film director] is saying he did this to provoke the fundamentalists among Muslims. When it is in the form of a provocation, there should be international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred, on religion. As much as it is possible to adopt international regulations, it should be possible to do something in terms of domestic law.”

He further noted, “Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of others’ freedoms. I was able to include Islamophobia as a hate crime in the final statement of an international meeting in Warsaw.”

Source: Today’s Zaman

Erdogan’s comments here are ambiguous – almost to the point of being incoherent, which may be the point. After all, the less clear you are the harder it is for critics to pin you down on what you are saying. This is important when you’re talking about criminalizing belief and thought.

When he says “You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of others’ freedoms,” does he mean that you cannot say anything about others’ beliefs, or merely that you cannot say anything critical or negative about others’ beliefs?

His statement “Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start” is clearly a reference to the idea that “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose starts,” but the analogy is strained to say the least. You swinging your fist causes demonstrable harm once it reaches my nose, but what demonstrable harm is created by a belief or a thought?

Of course apologists for censorship and oppression like Erdogan will never even try to demonstrate that thoughts or beliefs cause real harm. Since the goal is simply to protect Islam from critique, all they need to do is show that someone, somewhere is offended. That’s certainly easy enough to do.

What’s significant, though, is the fact that Erdogan thinks that Islam in particular or even religion generally need to be protected at all. It’s significant that he wants to make blasphemy a crime which implies that he thinks his god needs to be protected. This all means that he and like-minded believers all regard their religions as weak and impotent. That’s why the need the police powers of the state for protection.

Via:- Austin Cline

Related articles

• HumanistLife : Calls for international ‘blasphemy’ law must be resisted (humanistlife.org.uk)
• Turkish party ‘model for Muslims’ (bbc.co.uk)
• Be wary of playing Turkey’s great game (telegraph.co.uk)
• Erdogan: Islamophobia should be recognized as crime (worldbulletin.net)

Facebook Atheist Charged for “Insulting” Islam | Islamo-Fascism Attacks Free Speech

Alex Aan’s trial begins Thursday

Via:- Maryam Namazie

Alex Aan‘s trial begins tomorrow, Thursday, with the first prosecution witnesses being called, according to Rafiq Mahmood. Alex is the 30 year old Indonesian civil servant who has been charged with ‘insulting’ Islam in an atheist group in Facebook.

Rafiq says:

This isn’t just for Alex but for all of us. There have been far too many “blasphemy” cases which have just slipped by. We have to stop it if we have a chance and Indonesia is a very good place to make a stand.

And a stand we must make.

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the Atheist Alliance International are collecting money towards Alex’s case. If you want to support his case financially, you can send a donation to the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Just make sure to earmark it for Alex Aan.

Related articles

• CFI UK Blasphemy Conference (poddelusion.co.uk)
• Calls to Behead Indonesian Atheist Alexander Aan – Presi Mandari – Jakarta Globe (richarddawkins.net)
• But you cannot shut us up – Maryam Namazie/Author of Jesus & Mo – MaryamNamazie.blogspot.com (richarddawkins.net)
• Alexander Aan, Under Attack for Blasphemy, Suddenly Converts to Islam (patheos.com)
• The Rally for Free Expression (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Indonesian man faces jail after Facebook atheist remark (theamotimes.com)
• Naked ladies calendar sends an ‘up yours’ message to religious fundies (freethinker.co.uk)
• Free Speech Crushed by Islamic Power (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Masterbating Nuns | Banned Blasphemy Film To Be Released

Film banned for blasphemy to be released after two decades

The only film ever banned in Britain for being blasphemous is to be released   in its original, uncut form after more than two decades.

In, 1996, Nigel Wingrove, the director, took the case to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the ban violated his freedom of expression

By Jasper Copping

The 1989 production Visions of Ecstasy was considered so shocking that   the Government even fought a successful battle at the European Court of   Human Rights to uphold the ban.

But the film is now to be released in its original, uncut form after the   British Board of Film Classification overturned its original decision. DVDs   of the film will go on sale tomorrow, at the start of Holy Week.

It comes at a time when many British Christians believe their faith is being   increasingly undermined, over issues such as the wearing of crosses at work   and gay marriage.

The low-budget, arthouse production is about St Teresa of Avila, a sixteenth   century Spanish nun and mystic who had visions of Christ, which lasted   almost uninterrupted for two years. The 18-minute film is an interpretation   of these visions and includes sexual scenes involving St Teresa and another   woman, who represents her psyche. These are intercut with shots of the nun   lying on Christ, who is still nailed to the Cross, and caressing him. The   film was inspired by St Teresa in Ecstasy, the statue by Gian Lorenzo   Bernini, the seventeenth century baroque sculptor, which is located in Rome.

James Ferman, the then BBFC director, ruled that the film’s sexual nature   would inflame Christians and make it liable to prosecution under the   blasphemous libel law.

The board considered allowing the film to be shown with the offending sequence   removed – but as that would have halved the running time, it said the only   option was to refuse a certificate.

The furore at the time was such that one Conservative MP, Sir Graham Bright,   called for the film negatives to be destroyed as part of the banning order.

However, the film, which featured three little known actors and music by Steve   Severin of 1980s band Siouxsie And The Banshees, became a cause   célèbre among anticensorship campaigners, among them Salman Rushdie and Fay   Weldon, the authors, and Derek Jarman, the late filmmaker.

In, 1996, Nigel Wingrove, the director, took the case to the European Court of   Human Rights arguing that the ban violated his freedom of expression. But in   a rare victory for the British government, he lost.

Although the court did not consider whether the video itself was blasphemous,   it ruled that the UK’s blasphemy laws were consistent with the European   Convention on Human Rights.

However, in 2008, the laws were abolished by the Criminal Justice and   Immigration Act which meant they could no longer be considered in the   board’s deliberations.

Last December, Mr Wingrove resubmitted the film for approval, after clips   started to appear on the internet. It will go on sale in high street shops   from tomorrow, on DVDs which will also feature two other films by Mr   Wingrove, as well as a gallery of national and international press cuttings   from the time of the ban and a booklet on the subject. It will have an 18   certificate.

Mr Wingrove, who went on to set up a company which specialised in horror   films, said the release was a “victory for freedom of expression”   but that he has “mixed feelings” about the film itself.

“Although there are bits I like about it, there are bits I don’t,”   he added. “I did not make it to hurt or mock and I wasn’t trying to be   over the top.

“At the time, blasphemy was a very big issue and I think the film was caught   up in it. But looked at now, it is very tame and of its time. The imagery is   no different from what you see in many films and pop videos today.”

He said the film was intended to have been launched last month and was only   being released in Holy Week because of a delay in preparing the accompanying   booklet.

However, David Burrowes, the Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate and member   of the Christians in Parliament group, said: “The law may have changed   in the last 20 years, but the potential for this film to offend has not and   it is a shame that a film like this is being released at such a time. The   timing seems particularly provocative.”

The Rev Sally Hitchiner, curate of St John’s, Ealing, said: “I think it’s   interesting that religion continues to fascinate artists and film makers.

“The arts have always be used to express controversial ideas about a whole   range of topics that may be taken as anti-religious but this has never   stopped people using the arts to worship God as they will be in thousands of   special Easter services and events this week.”

The BBFC said that without any possible breach of the law, it had no grounds   on which to refuse classification.

It said it “recognised the content of the film may be deeply offensive to   some viewers”, but that the decision to pass it “reflected the   clear view of the public that adults should have the right to choose their   own viewing, provided that the material in question is neither illegal nor   harmful”.

The BBFC, which is in its centenary year, has refused classification to nearly   1,000 films.

Related articles

• ‘Blasphemous’ film gets UK rating (bbc.co.uk)
• Visions of Ecstasy cleared for release after 23 years (guardian.co.uk)
• Film banned for blasphemy approved after 23 years (kayceeweezy.wordpress.com)
• Film banned for blasphemy approved after 23 years (ctv.ca)
• Visions Of Ecstasy: Film banned for blasphemy allowed to be seen with 18 certificate (dailymail.co.uk)
• ‘Blasphemous’ film showing Jesus seduced on the cross given certificate after 23 years (mirror.co.uk)
• UK film outlawed for blasphemy finally unbanned (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Girl accused of blasphemy for a spelling error

Girl accused of blasphemy for a spelling error

By Muhammad Sadaqat

Published: September 25, 2011

Eighth-grader expelled from school; mother forced to move from city.

ABBOTTABAD: It may have been a mere misplaced dot that led to accusations of blasphemy against a Christian eighth-grader, whose miniscule error led to her expulsion from school and uproar amongst local religious leaders.

Faryal Bhatti, a student at the Sir Syed Girls High School in Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) colony Havelian, erroneously misspelt a word in an Urdu exam while answering a question on a poem written in praise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The word in question was ‘laanat’ instead of ‘naat’ – an easy error for a child to make, as the written versions of the words are similar.

According to the school administration and religious leaders who took great exception to the hapless student’s mistake, the error is ‘serious’ enough to fall within the realm of blasphemy, Saturday.

Spelling out her punishment

On Thursday, Faryal’s Urdu teacher was collecting the answer sheets from her students when she noticed the apparently offensive word on her pupil’s sheet. The teacher, Fareeda Bibi, reportedly summoned the Christian girl, scolded her and beat her. Her punishment, however, did not end here. When Faryal’s class fellows learnt of the alleged blasphemy, the teacher brought the principal’s notice to the matter, who further informed the school management.

In the meanwhile, the news spread throughout the colony. The next day, male students of the POF colony school as well as certain religious elements took out a rally, demanding the registration of a criminal case against the eighth-grader and her expulsion from the area.

Prayer leaders within the community also condemned the incident in their Friday sermons, asking the colony’s administration to not only take action against Faryal but her entire family. In the wake of the increasing tensions, Managing Director POF Colony Havelian Asif Siddiki called a meeting of colony-based ulemas and school teachers to discuss the situation. The girl and her mother were asked to appear before the meeting, where they explained that it was a mere error, caused by a resemblance between the two words. The two immediately apologised, adding that Faryal had no malicious intentions.

In a move that was apparently meant to pacify the religious elements clamouring for action against the teenage ‘blasphemer’, the POF administration expelled her from the school on Saturday. Faryal was not the only one who got in trouble for her spelling error, however, as her mother, Sarafeen Bhatti, who was a staff nurse at the POF Hospital Havelian for several years, was immediately transferred to POF Wah Cantonment Hospital.

Decision applauded

While talking to The Express Tribune, Maulana Alla Dita Khateeb of Gol Masjid praised the decision of the POF colony administration, claiming that he had personally seen the answer sheet in question. He further went on to say that he had met the girl himself, who had apologised for the word used in error.  Asked whether the incident still fell within the realm of blasphemy and whether Faryal deserved expulsion when she had misspelt the word unintentionally, Khateeb said that although he was unclear about the intentions of the girl, the word she had used was sacrilegious.

The managing director of POF Colony was not available for comment.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 25^th, 2011.

Related articles

• Retarded Pro-Blaspemy Islamists Seek Facebook Censorship (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Pakistani girl’s fate uncertain after ‘blasphemous’ (and unintentional) misspelling on Muslim exam (hindustantimes.com)
• Girl accused of blasphemy for a spelling error (wazaghun.blogspot.com)

Blasphemer Assassinated for Opposing the Islamic Religious Right

Shot down for opposing the religious right

Few Pakistani politicians have had the courage to oppose blasphemy laws so openly and brazenly as Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who was assassinated this week by a member of his own security detail for his political stance.

 

By Irfan Yusuf, January 7, 2011

 

	Last man standing?

Sydney, Australia

 

 

The death of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, has brought Pakistan to the forefront of world affairs in a way that 20 million displaced Pakistani flood victims could not. In August, Taseer told the BBC of the need for urgent international aid to reach flood victims in his state after some $2 billion to $3 billion worth of crops were destroyed, including 260,000 hectares of cotton and rice, maize and other cash crops. Taseer warned that the floods had hit some of the most poverty stricken areas of rural Punjab, which he described as “a breeding ground for potential recruitment” by religious extremists. International aid was important, he said, because ”this is the kind of nest which can grow the vipers”.

Ironically, this extremism was Taseer’s undoing. He was shot by a member of his own security detail. The assassin reportedly told investigators that he killed Taseer due to the politician’s opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

Taseer was a complex political figure. His political mentor was the father of Benazir Bhutto, who was executed after a show trial conducted by a US-backed military dictator. Years later, Taseer served as a minister in a caretaker government appointed by another US-backed military dictator. General Pervez Musharraf, who many Pakistanis not-so-affectionately label as “Busharraf”, appointed Taseer as governor of Punjab in 2008.

Many Western observers describe Taseer as “a liberal politician”. In a sense, he was more liberal than other members of Pakistan’s wealthy elite. He belonged to the ruling Pakistan People’s Party of the late Benazir Bhutto. He opposed various religiously inspired provisions of the Pakistan Criminal Code that entered the statute books during Bhutto’s reign and which she did not oppose to gain support from religious parties.

These provisions included laws that made it an offence to engage in acts deemed blasphemous. The laws typically were used against members of Pakistan’s religious minorities. Among the most vulnerable minorities are the Sikhs. Before Pakistan was carved out of colonial India in 1947, Punjab was a land where followers of many faiths flourished. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, emerged from this area. Punjab is the final resting place to numerous Sufi Muslim saints, and was also where any number of less orthodox Muslim sects were born.

The partition of India saw a splitting of Punjabi society. Millions of Sikhs and Hindus rushed in one direction to the Indian side of the border, while millions of Muslims rushed in the other direction. A million people of all faiths lost their lives. One Sikh who managed to escape was Amarjit Singh who was to become a brigadier in the Indian army. Amarjit’s daughter Tavleen Singh became a respected Indian journalist. In 1980, she had an affair with Taseer and they had a son named Aatish, who was reared in his mother’s Sikh household in Delhi.

In his 2009 book Stranger to History: A Son’s Journey Through Islamic Lands, Aatish Taseer writes that his father’s version of Islam was less about religious observance and more a kind of pan-Muslim nationalism. Certainly, Salman Taseer preferred to keep his relationship with an Indian Sikh journalist and his illegitimate child secret given the effects such a scandal would have on his political career.

At the same time, he championed the rights of Christian and other minorities and openly took on the powerful religious parties that backed blasphemy laws. Over the years, these laws have been used to harass and victimise Pakistani Christians. Among them is Aasia Bibi, a 45-year-old Christian mother of five from rural Punjab, who is in custody for alleged blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad. Her supporters claim that the allegations arose from personal disputes with other women in her village.

Taseer and his daughters visited Aasia Bibi after she had been in custody for some 18 months. He described Aasia Bibi’s punishment as “harsh and oppressive” and appealed to the Pakistani President for a pardon. Taseer also described the prosecution of poor members of religious minorities as a mockery of Pakistan’s Islamic heritage.

Few Pakistani politicians have had the courage to oppose such laws so openly and brazenly. Religious law has become a tool of state-sanctioned oppression of the most vulnerable of all faiths. Congregations of attention-seeking imams join forces with corrupt police to arrest and even kill alleged blasphemers on the flimsiest of evidence. Personal scores and commercial disputes are dealt with in this irrational manner.

Pakistan’s religious right, along with their supporters in the small business sector, had called for Taseer to be sacked. Pakistan’s The News International reported that 100 activists from the Tehrik Tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat (Movement for the Preservation of the Doctrine of Finality of Prophethood) rallied and cheered after Taseer’s slaying. They carried placards and handed out sweets.

On New Year’s Eve, Taseer sent this message into Twitterspace: “I was under huge pressure sure 2 cow down b4 rightest pressure on blasphemy. Refused. Even if I’m the last man standing”. It remains to be seen whether any other politician will be brave enough to stand in the way of Pakistan’s religious right.

Irfan Yusuf is an associate editor of altmuslim.com, an attorney, and the author of Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-fascist.