In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris terrorist attack, then French president Francois Hollande declared a national state of emergency that has been continuously extended over the course of more than 20 months. While scheduled to expire last week, the state’s extraordinary security powers were extended a sixth time until November 2017, despite consistent human rights complaints. Moreover, a new law threatens to make those powers permanent.

This summer, the Religious Freedom Research Project is funding five doctoral students exploring the sources, development, and consequences of religious freedom. Through original research, they are making new observations about the relationship between religious liberty and other fundamental freedoms; its importance for democracy; and/or its role in social and economic development, international diplomacy, and countering violent religious extremism. This week the Berkley Forum features their midterm reports.

The spotlight is on the topic of female genital cutting (FGC—also called circumcision or mutilation). An ongoing Michigan court case involves a doctor accused of performing FGC on young girls; FGC is against the law in the United States (as it is in many countries), but this is a precedent-setting case as prosecutions are rare. Adding to the focus on this issue in the United States, a video widely circulated on social media showed a Washington D.C.-area imam defending FGC, arguing that it curtailed women's “hypersexuality.” Many Muslims were outraged because nowhere does the Qu'ran recommend FGC. For decades the global human rights and health communities have actively condemned the practice as abusing children's and women's rights and serving no health purpose whatsoever. Despite activism and senior religious voices condemning FGC, however, the practice persists, affecting over 200 million children and girls worldwide. The topic raises fundamental questions about why this practice is linked by many to religion and how states and activists can intervene most effectively to bring a cruel practice to an end while respecting the dignity of all concerned.

The battle over what to do with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been bitterly fought and still isn’t over, but many pro-life Republican legislators have supported new bills proposed by both the House and the Senate, despite their potential to greatly reduce maternity benefits and to limit healthcare and access to healthcare for some of the most vulnerable in our society—the very sick and the very poor. While the newly proposed bills are not receiving much popular support, the ACA—which aimed to provide coverage to more people, including those most vulnerable in the United States—was also incredibly unpopular, especially among conservative voters who in 2012 were 87 percent in favor or strongly favor of repealing the law.

Amidst the myriad conversations about violent extremism and radicalization, a distinctive voice breaks through the din. For generations, women have been at the forefront of advocacy for peace and have long shown a unique willingness and capacity to bring together rival groups in the search for common ground. In the women-led peace efforts of recent years, advocates have been successful in convening diverse actors and creating the conditions for consensus to be built. By engaging those whom society has written off and calling for reconciliation, dialogue, and cultural sensitivity to build social cohesion—not only as an end goal but as an operating principle—the voice of women peacebuilders has increasingly demonstrated its indispensability.

Can the new science of mind and brain help overcome longstanding perceived divisions between believers of different faiths? Members of one faith may think of members of another faith as fundamentally different from themselves. Viewed through the lens of modern cognitive and brain science, however, the basic characteristics of a brain are the same no matter where it lives or in which religious context it develops. Thus, it is likely that the brains of diverse believers actually manifest belief similarly, and that shared neuro-cognitive pathways lead to the development of belief across disparate faiths.

The "Cognition of Belief” conference is convening leading scholars to explore this issue. Leading up to the conference, the Berkley Forum is asking participants to reflect on the following questions: In an era of "alternative facts," what exactly are the thought processes leading people to believe in some things rather than others? What forms the basis of belief, and what role do science, objectivity, and religion play in forming that basis? Does religious context affect the cognition of belief and, if so, how?

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global risk and a topic where religious actors have the potential to play significant roles. Partly due to the over- and improper use of antibiotics, AMR contributes to the development of resistant strains of diseases that can lead to longer and more complex illnesses, frequent doctor visits, the need for stronger and more expensive drugs, and potentially more deaths. The World Health Organization 2015 action plan highlights AMR as a deepening global crisis. In response, Georgetown University helped organize a conference at the Vatican in December 2016 where experts met to develop plans for religious NGOs, scholars, and policymakers to help combat the spread of AMR. Historically, faith-linked organizations have been integral in providing health services around the world, such as administering vaccines, facilitating health education, and bridging gaps between government health structures and local communities. Thus, they are on the front lines of battling AMR.

Christians have often been at the forefront of communication technology—from Martin Luther’s use of the printing press to make religious texts accessible to the masses, to religious radio programs, televangelism, and Bible apps. In April Pope Francis recorded a TED Talk to communicate his “revolution of tenderness” message, and many houses of worship have turned to technologies like blogs and social media to share religious messaging with broader congregations.

Since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, more than 11,000 non-governmental organizations in the nation have been barred from accepting foreign funds. This crackdown curtails the flow of foreign aid to activities the Ministry of Home Affairs, which oversees the regulation of foreign charities, deems “detrimental to the national interest” of India. Few NGOs have been as vocal as Compassion International, a Colorado-based Christian charity, which was forced to close after 48 years on suspicion of religious conversion. Compassion International, India’s largest single foreign donor, donates $45 million annually and provides tens of thousands of impoverished children with meals, medical care, and tuition payments via local church-affiliated service centers. Numerous secular civil society organizations, particularly those involved in human rights and empowerment such as the Open Society Institute, have suffered restrictions and closures similar to Compassion International.

In an effort to more effectively articulate the need to uphold religious freedom in the international sphere there is a growing need to more clearly articulate just what it is that is being defended. Having written previously in the Berkley Forum about the need to significantly enhance the religious literacy of foreign services in Western liberal democracies, I would like to expand on one particular aspect of what religious freedom is and also what it is not.