Saba Mahmood, professor of sociocultural anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, passed away on March 10. Dr. Mahmood’s research examined the relationship between religion, secularism, and gender in postcolonial societies. In particular, she questioned traditional liberal assumptions about the limits of ethics and politics, freedom and agency, and the dynamics between the religious and the secular. Her work often analyzed the role of gender in these discussions and the significance of religious freedom for religious minorities.

This summer, the Religious Freedom Research Project funded six doctoral students exploring the sources, development, and consequences of religious freedom. Through original research, they made new observations about colonialism and Catholic conversion in Goa, the role of the Anglican Church in the American colonies, religious and economic liberties after the Great Awakening, religious accommodation, and Islam and Europe. This week the Berkley Forum features their reports.

On Monday, June 4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In a 7-2 decision, the court cited free exercise of religion as the basis for the ruling. The case settled a 2012 incident when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado seeking a wedding cake. Phillips refused to bake the cake on the grounds that he did not want to convey his support for same-sex marriage, a practice contrary to his religious beliefs. After the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the baker, his lawyers took the case to the Supreme Court. The Court offered a narrowly focused ruling constructed on the premise that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown itself to be hostile towards religion (based on the comments of one of its members). Despite the ruling, in the majority opinion Justice Anthony Kennedy did reaffirm civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals: “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

The status of LGBTQ persons within faith communities can differ dramatically. After a contentious vote and an amendment to the denomination’s constitution passed in 2015, the Presbyterian Church (USA) joined the majority of mainline Protestant churches in the United States that now ordain gay and lesbian ministers and perform same-sex marriages. However, for the United Methodist Church, the future possibility of these changes may conflict with the growing worldwide church, which is theologically more conservative than the U.S. church (as has already happened in the Anglican tradition). The Catholic Church—which is subject to similar tensions among its diverse global membership—officially opposes same-sex marriage, but emphasizes in the catechism that LGBTQ individuals must always be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Similarly, the Qur’an and Islamic scholars have traditionally rejected homosexual acts for being non-procreative, but just over half of American Muslims believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. Within Judaism, the spectrum ranges from those who do not accept same-sex relationships to communities that welcome LGBTQ rabbis and recognize same-sex marriages. Hinduism and Buddhism, on the other hand, do not explicitly address sexual orientation, and approaches to LGBTQ issues vary widely.​

The accelerating collapse of the Venezuelan economy over the past few years has spawned political protests and has precipitated a humanitarian crisis. Poverty, starvation, and violence are rampant. Amidst this turmoil, 1.2 million Venezuelans have left the country in the past two years, the largest refugee movement in Latin American history. The vast majority of them have fled to neighboring states, especially Colombia, which struggles to provide for them. President Nicolás Maduro has warned Roman Catholic clergy to avoid speaking about the upheaval or criticizing the government. Pro-Maduro paramilitaries and protesters have targeted churches and threatened priests in a pattern of violent incidents, including an assault on the archbishop of Caracas. Meanwhile, humanitarian organizations, including several affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, are working to provide food and healthcare and help resettle refugees. However, this is complicated by the Venezuelan government’s ban on foreign humanitarian assistance.

In the twelfth century, theologian Thomas Aquinas declared that faith and reason were not in conflict and that the two were actually compatible. Aquinas even asserted that the human faculty for reason could support theological tenets of the Christian faith. Yet religious teachings and institutions have clashed with scientific discoveries in the past: In the 1600s, the Roman Inquisition found Galileo guilty of heresy; in the Scopes Monkey Trial of the early twentieth century, the debate about teaching evolution versus creation in schools suggested an inherent tension between science and religion that allowed one to believe in (and teach) either one or the other. Today, physicist Alan Lightman and others have attempted to reconcile science and religion and explore the ways in which both contribute to a search for truth and meaning. The scientific discipline, with its emphasis on empirical evidence, can answer important questions about how the universe functions, while religion can provide alternate explanations to fill gaps in scientific knowledge, and answer existential questions that science cannot.

The United Nations (UN) has long characterized the Rohingya as the world’s most persecuted population. Historically, the Burmese viewed the ethnic and religious minority as illegal immigrants permitted entry by their former British colonizers. Such historical context informs contemporary views of the group as “foreigners.” And that has helped justify decades-long persecution by both private and public actors culminating in the Rohingya’s legal exclusion as citizens and other discrimination codified in law. Despite the group’s pre-colonial ancestral ties to the land, messaging that Rohingya are “outsiders,” “Bengalis,” and even “terrorists,” has helped the government justify mass atrocity crimes. And, that comes with adverse global security implications for all.

On Wednesday, April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Trump v. Hawaii case, in which the State of Hawaii is leading a challenge to an executive order preventing most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, as well as certain visitors from North Korea and Venezuela from entering the United States. The Trump administration has argued that there are legitimate national security grounds for these restrictions, while critics argue that such widespread restrictions are religiously discriminatory (an assumption based largely on Trump’s own campaign calls for a Muslim ban). Yet, while several amicus briefs in opposition have been filed by religious groups from the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions (both Catholic and Protestant), other religiously affiliated groups have filed with no position on the order.

Though the conflict in Syria has raged for over seven years, the recent alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime—and the joint U.S.-French-British military response that followed—has renewed debate about what course of action should be taken to end the bloodshed. Prior to the strike conducted on April 13, Catholic scholars, priests, and Church leaders were divided as to whether the intervention by the United States and its allies was allowable under the Church’s just war tradition. Already in 2013 some argued that the use of chemical weapons represented a paradigm shift that justified intervention, while others claimed this made little difference; attacks on civilians were equally abhorrent irrespective of the weapon used, and therefore a position on intervening should already have been taken. By contrast, a recent statement released by the patriarchates of Antioch and the East for the Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Greek-Melkite Catholic Churches said the current intervention will only make matters worse: Not only did the strikes violate international law, but they would also encourage terrorist groups to continue attacks. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s approval of the strike was met with criticism by Muslims, as Erdogan was questioned how, as a Muslim, he could support a Western nation bombing a fellow Muslim country. The lack of consensus from religious leaders provides mixed messages as to the moral and ethical implications of any decision made regarding Syria.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018, marks the twentieth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, a key moment in the Northern Ireland peace process. This historic event was of global significance, made possible through the work of political and religious actors from Northern Ireland, Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States. After decades of sectarian conflict, the agreement brought a peace to the region which remains to this day. However, the result of the United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum on its membership in the European Union has cast doubt over the continuation of this stability, and the force and longevity of the Good Friday Agreement. Though the United Kingdom as whole voted to leave the EU, nearly 56 percent of Northern Ireland residents voted to remain. While some argue that this stretch of peace in Northern Ireland proves the agreement is no longer necessary, some fear the possible return of a “hard border” on the island of Ireland will fracture the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Others point to the continued self-imposed segregation between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland as indicative of an uneasy peace that could be upended without the Good Friday Agreement.