Barack Obama in Indonesia Appeals for Muslim-Christian Tolerance
THE GUARDIAN: White House dogged by 'secret Muslim' claims, amid sniping from the American right

Barack and Michelle Obama with the grand imam at the Istiqlal mosque in Jakarta. Photograph: The Guardian
Barack Obama was in wistful mood today on his return to Indonesia, where he spent part of his childhood. He reminisced about mango trees, flying kites, running alongside paddy fields, buying satay from street vendors and catching dragonflies.

He spoke too of the tolerance Indonesians had shown the foreign child brought up in their midst, and the tolerance needed today to eradicate the mistrust that had built up over the years between Muslims and Christians.

He was speaking at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, in the second major speech of his presidency reaching out to the Muslim world. The first was in Cairo last year.

But there was little sign of tolerance on US conservative websites, where there were derogatory comments about the visit. Pictures of the Obamas visiting the Istiqlal mosque in Jakarta are likely to surface on websites propagating the myth that the president is a secret Muslim. >>> Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Toni O'Loughlin in Jakarta | Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Religious Tolerance Has Put a Fatwa On Our Moral Nerve
THE SUNDAY TIMES: Religious freedom has turned out to be a mixed blessing. The idea was once an article of faith with me, irreligious though I am. But my faith is beginning to weaken. Religion has turned out to be different from what tolerant people of my monocultural childhood understood by it — a system of private belief and devotion that did not intrude into the public space except through charity and uncontroversial good works.

Now, by contrast, religion is constantly claiming attention in the public space and demanding special treatment. It is also abused in the name of divisive identity politics. All this makes even the most tolerant liberal think twice about freedom of religious expression.

Last week’s case of the self-styled “crucified” nurse is a perfect example of the problem. Shirley Chaplin, an experienced ward sister and devout Christian, discovered at an employment tribunal that — despite the support of seven bishops and a mention in the Easter sermon of the Archbishop of Canterbury — she had lost her battle to be allowed to wear a crucifix at work in the wards of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. Her crucifix is on a long chain and although she has worn it at work for many years, a recent hospital risk assessment found that it breached health and safety rules. This decision was upheld by the employment tribunal.

“I don’t use the word crucified lightly,” said Chaplin, “but in one sense I have been crucified by the system. Every Christian at work will now be afraid to mention their beliefs.” What on earth can she mean? The reverse is the truth. The hospital suggested to her as a compromise that she might indeed wear her crucifix openly at work, but pinned to her uniform rather than on a chain — rather as nurses wear watches pinned to their frontage for reasons of hygiene — thus publicly displaying her beliefs at all times.

One can, however, sympathise with something else she feels. Commenting that Muslim hospital staff have been allowed to continue wearing head coverings, she said that “Muslims do not seem to face the same rigorous application of NHS rules”. There’s certainly some truth in that.

At the end of March it emerged that female Muslim doctors and nurses are indeed to have special treatment on National Health Service wards. Non-Muslim staff in direct contact with patients must keep their arms bare to the elbow for important hygiene reasons — to make sure their sleeves do not become contaminated and so they can wash their hands thoroughly on ward rounds.

Their Muslim female counterparts, however, have been given a special dispensation by the Department of Health. Because some Muslims consider nudity of the female forearm to be immodest, Muslim doctors and nurses are to be issued with disposable sleeves, elasticated at wrist and elbow, to cover up the erogenous zone that lies between. This is absurd, unfair, wasteful and yet another example, as Chaplin and her episcopal supporters (and I) all feel, of the bias in favour of a vociferous religious minority. >>> Minette Marrin | Sunday, April 11, 2010

Minarets : Deux juristes proposent un article sur la tolérance religieuse
Crédits photo : Le Temps
LE TEMPS: La Constitution fédérale devrait contenir un article sur la tolérance religieuse plutôt qu’interdire les minarets, préconisent deux professeurs de droit renommés, Jörg Paul Müller et Daniel Thürer. La conseillère fédérale Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf veut rassembler les organisations musulmanes

Jörg Paul Müller, ensignant notamment à l’EPFZ, et Daniel Thürer, de l’Université de Zurich, proposent un article constitutionnel sur la tolérance. Il régirait non seulement la question des minarets, mais aussi des autres signes extérieurs jugés dérangeants par les partisants de l’interdiction, comme le port de la burqa ou les mariages arrangés, selon «Sonntag».

Le projet de texte stipule que «les communautés religieuses prennent garde à ne pas heurter les sentiments du public dans leurs manifestations extérieures, que ce soit par leurs immeubles, leurs prescriptions vestimentaires ou leurs symboles. Elles évitent tout comportement menaçant». Dans l’esprit des auteurs, les attitudes menaçantes peuvent inclure les vêtements «pouvant générer de l’angoisse».

Les constructions prohibées seraient celles qui «traduisent des prétentions au pouvoir ou des représailles de la part d’une communauté religieuse». Le respect des droits humains fondamentaux et de la démocratie de la part des groupes religieux serait aussi inclu. >>> ATS/LT | Dimanche 13 Décembre 2009

World Leaders Plead for Religious Tolerance
AFP: UNITED NATIONS — World leaders pleaded Wednesday for religious tolerance at a UN conference sponsored by Saudi Arabia, but displayed their own rifts on the sensitive issue.

The meeting at UN headquarters in New York of representatives from 80 countries targeted religious and cultural divisions dubbed the "clash of civilizations."

Saudi King Abdullah -- who heads the ultra-orthodox Wahhabi branch of Islam and allows no other form of public worship -- called for "peace and harmony."

Speaker after speaker echoed these words, insisting that the world's major religions all back tolerance.

But anger over the Israeli-Arab conflict, as well as resentment at Western economic and social policies, soon surfaced.

Barely discussed, but also haunting the conference, was the divide between the West and Islamic countries on whether tolerance should also extend to individual freedoms.

Some 20 heads of state or government were due to speak, including US President George W. Bush on Thursday. He was represented Wednesday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In the opening speech, the president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, lashed out at "unbridled greed" in the West.

Jordan's King Abdullah II also criticized Western policy, saying "ignorance" had subjected Islam to "injustice."

"Millions of people, especially young people, question whether the West means what it says about equality, respect and universal justice.

Meanwhile, extremists -- Muslim, Christian and Jewish -- are thriving on the doubts and divisions," he said.

But if King Abdullah II, like other Muslim leaders, saw intolerance and stereotyping against Islam as the problem, Western representatives were mindful of the lack of personal freedom in the Islamic world.

The issue was doubly sensitive given that Saudi King Abdullah, who allows almost no religious or political dissent in his oil-rich kingdom, was sponsoring the conference. >>> | November 12, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>