Last week, UNESCO accepted Palestinians’ application to have Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity (left), the traditional site of Jesus’ birth, declared a “World Heritage Site” under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The list of roughly 1000 such sites worldwide, nominated by states that have signed the Convention, is essentially an honor roll, though named properties can qualify for UN restoration funds and for protection under the laws of war. Adding the Church of the Nativity was more controversial than usual. The US and Israel objected because of the implications for Palestinian statehood. Additionally, the three Christian communions that share the shrine under the 19th-Century Status Quo, which CLR Forum has discussed before, worry that designation as a World Heritage Site will lead to interference from civil authorities. In fact, the threat of outside interference typically gets the communions to settle differences among themselves, which may explain last fall’s agreement on repairs to the church’s roof. This is not the first time the church has been the subject of world diplomacy. In the 19th Century, rival claims to the church caused an international crisis that contributed to the Crimean War.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
- The Top Five New Law & Religion Papers on SSRN
- Onnudottir, et al., “Religious Change and Indigenous Peoples: The Making of Religious Identities”
- Guinness, “Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity”
- Call for Papers: “Cooperating With Evil, Complicity With Sin”
- “A Coat of Many Colors”
- The Look of Depraved Heart Murder: Further Thoughts on the Faith-Healing Case
- Nones Across the Globe
- Around the Web This Week
- D’Antonio, Tuch & Baker, “Religion, Politics, and Polarization”
- Frick & Müller (eds.), “Islam and International Law”
-
Links
Religion in the National Intelligence Council Report
One often hears that America’s foreign policy elites don’t understand religion. Mostly secular themselves, they dismiss religion as a factor in world events; at most, they believe, religion operates as a pretext for other, deeper motivations, like politics and economics. This attitude can blind policymakers to reality. Even after 9/11, some foreign policy experts continue to minimize the religious roots of Islamism.
Some of this attitude is on display in the most recent National Intelligence Council Report, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, released earlier this month. The report, prepared every four years for the incoming administration, is meant to highlight medium and long-term trends in world affairs. Global Trends 2030 has received a lot of attention, primarily for its prediction of a decline in American power and a shift to a multipolar world. The report is also noteworthy, though, for the way it downplays religion’s role in shaping events.
It’s not that Global Trends 2030 completely ignores religion. The report discusses political Islam — we’re now paying attention to that phenomenon, at least — though some of the analysis might strike readers as optimistic, for example, the assertion that the protesters of the Arab Spring “acted in the name of democratic values, not in the name of religion.” (Apparently the report was prepared before recent events in Egypt). The problem is that the report minimizes religion. In 140 pages, Continue reading →
→ Leave a comment
Posted in Commentary, Mark L. Movsesian, Uncategorized
Tagged Arab Spring, Christianity, Foreign Policy, International Law, International Relations, Islam, Religion and Foreign Policy