Religion Provisions of the Constitution of Comoros

One of my current research projects involves analysis of the religion provisions of various constitutions enacted since the year 2000. From time to time on this blog, I'll post extracts of those provisions arranged according to categories such as "Religious Freedom" (guarantee of individual rights), "Established Religion" (joining religion and government), "Establishment Clause" (separating religion and government), "Ceremonial Deism" (symbolic references to religion that have little or no legal effect), "Equal Protection of Religion" (non-discrimination guarantees), "Preamble", "Religious Education", and "Religious Limitations".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution of Comoros, enacted in 2001, is rather short and does not contain a bill of rights.  There is a reference to Islam and non-discrimination in the Preamble, and a ceremonial deism in the text, but no substantive provisions relating to religion (though there is a statement that the Preamble should be "integrated as part of the Constitution.")


Source:  Comparative Constitutions Project

Preamble

The Comorian people formally affirm their will to:

 - draw upon Islam as the continuing inspiration for the principles and rules which govern the union,

"Proclamation"

 . . .

the equality of all in rights and duties, without distinction of sex, origin, race, religion or belief,

 . . .

Ceremonial Deism

Article 13  Before assuming office the President of the Union and the Vice Presidents take the following oath before the Constitutional Court in Comorian: “I swear to Allah, the most merciful, to faithfully and honestly fulfill my duties, to act only in the general interest and in accordance with the Constitution”.

"The Cartoons That Shook the World"

Jytte Klausen, The Cartoons That Shook the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

Klausen's book is an interesting account of the global controversy that erupted after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a collection of cartoons depicting Muhammad.  Much has been written about this controversy, but Klausen's book is valuable to readers interested in it because it gives a detailed factual account, complete with chronology, of exactly how the controversy unfolded.  The Cartoons That Shook the World makes it clear that the sequence of events involved is far more complicated than the simple idea that publication equalled protests.  In fact, diplomatic maneuvering, ignorance and mistaken perceptions of what the cartoons were, the re-publication of the cartoons, and more helped feed the fire that eventually led to demonstrations accounting for (by Klausen's count) around two hundred fatalities and eight hundred injuries (p. 106).  The strength of the book comes from the factual detail included, and Klausen conducted dozens of interviews with some of the major players involved.  This is, I think it fair to say, more in the nature of quality journalism than deep scholarly analysis, but there is definitely room for multiple ways of approaching the subject.

One aspect of the book that I found particularly helpful was the discussion of the purported Islamic prohibition on representing Muhammad through images.  As Klausen explains, conceiving of there being a flat ban over-simplifies a complex idea.  "It was often said that Islam prohibits the depiction of Muhammad and that Muslims were angry because the prohibition was violated.  One need not spend much time in Islamic art collections to know that the Prophet's life and biography are the subject of many illustrations.  . . .  The representations are regarded as pictures of the human prophet and not of the divine, 'the beauty of which no human eye can capture,' according to the Koran."  (p. 8).  In a section titled "What Muslims Do and Do Not Do With Respect to Figurative Representations" (pp. 137-143), Klausen goes into more detail on this issue.  Klausen concludes that "it seems clear that the Danish caricatures did not violate a generalized Islamic prohibition on figurative representation but rather insulted Muslims by portraying the Prophet in a disrespectful manner."  (p. 139)

Earlier in the book, Klausen writes "[t]he cartoons live on in a deadlocked debate over the balance between free speech, civility, and the propriety and reach of blasphemy laws." (p. 54)  The concept of blasphemy was invoked during the controversy not just in its religious connotation, but also in its legal connotation as Islamic activist groups in Denmark hoped to apply the country's blasphemy law as a shield against the cartoons.  However, the Danish Public Prosecutor refused to consent to the proceedings, which further fed perceptions of hypocrisy and double standards.

Publisher and Author Statements Regarding Non-Publication of Cartoons in "The Cartoons That Shook the World"

I've recently finished Jytte Klausen's book on the Danish Muhammad cartoons, The Cartoons That Shook the World and I plan to have a post about it soon.  Before getting to that however, I thought it would be worthwhile to separately discuss the controversy over the decision not to include reproductions of the cartoons in the book.  Below, I've reprinted Yale University Press's and Jytte Klausen's statements.  I believe printing them in full is appropriate both because they are relatively short and were intended to be circulated as part of the on-going debate over the appropriateness of the decision.
--------------------------------------------------
Publisher's Statement

"After careful consideration, Yale University Press has declined to reprint in this book the cartoons that were published in the September 30, 2005, edition of Jyllands-Posten, as well as other depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that the author proposed to include.  We recognize that inclusion of the cartoon would complement the book's text with a convenient visual reference for the reader, who otherwise must consult the Internet to view the images.  As an institution deeply committed to free expression, we were inclined to publish the cartoons and other images as proposed by the author.  The original publication of the cartoons, however, was an occasion for violent incidents worldwide that resulted in more than two hundred deaths.  Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violent incidents, as recently as 2008, some three years after the original publication and long after the images had been available on the Internet.  These facts led us to consult extensively with experts in the intelligence, national security, law enforcement, and diplomatic fields, as well as with leading scholars in Islamic studies and Middle East studies.  The overwhelming judgment of the experts was that the republication of the cartoons by Yale University Press ran a serious risk of instigating violence; many of the most senior experts advised that publishing other illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad in the context of this book about the Danish cartoon controversy raised similar risk.  In excluding depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, we hope that Jytte Klausen's excellent scholarly treatment will be read and noticed by those seeking deeper understanding of the cause and consequences of the Danish cartoon controversy."

Author's Statement


"Muslim scholars, friends, and political activists and leaders urged me to include the cartoons in the book with the purpose of encouraging reasoned analysis and debate on the cartoon episode.  I agreed with sadness to the Press's decision not to print the cartoons and other hithero uncontroversial illustrations featuring images of the Muslim prophet.  But I also never intended the book to become another demonstration for or against the cartoons, and I hope the book can still serve its intended purpose without illustrations."
------------------------------------------------------

This decision was extremely controversial when announced.  After reading the book and the publisher's and author's statements, I can't help but join in the chorus of critics who believe the decision was a serious error.

The primary mission of an academic press is to spread knowledge, and the inclusion of the cartoons in a book about them indisputably helps to achieve this goal.  References are made twice in the publisher's statements to the availability of the cartoons on the Internet, with the implication that it would be unnecessary to reprint them in the book.  However, as Klausen himself states in the book itself, there was much confusion in the "Muslim world" about what actually constituted the cartoons that were published in the Danish press, as other, perhaps even more offensive cartoons, were often mixed into a collection that circulated by hand and electronically.  Similar confusion may abound when any layperson searches "Muhammad cartoons" on a site like Google and tries to discern exactly what was and was not published by Jyllands-Posten.  Nor is "it's on the Internet" a sufficient guarantee of access; a substantial portion of the global population still does not have full, affordable, and uncensored access to the Internet.  In short, having a credible and scholarly source in which to view the cartoons with surrounding context provided by written materials would significantly advance dialogue on the topic.  It would also help better preserve the source of the controversy for future generations to study and understand.

There is a  references in the publisher's statement that the Press consulted with "experts in the intelligence, national security, law enforcement, and diplomatic fields, as well as with leading scholars in Islamic studies and Middle East studies."  Although this is a generalization, I think it is fair to say that the experts in these fields are, by the nature of their profession, prone to be cautious and conservative.  They are far more likely to be risk-adverse, and this predictably inclined them to advise against publication of the cartoons.  After all, they cannot be proven wrong if the cartoons are not published; if they advise publication and something happens, their credibility is at stake.  The Press need not have consulted with "experts" to know that there was a risk of violence under these circumstances.

I understand the nature of the Press's concerns; none of us in the scholarly community wish to instigate violence and have innocent lives on our consciences.  However, words have ramifications far beyond what we can credibly predict, and we cannot take responsibility for the actions of those who become irrationally angry at those words.  This is giving into the "heckler's veto" in the worst way, and following this course leads to authors and publishers being timid and banal instead of courageous and provocative.

As for the author's statement, Klausen states "I agreed with sadness to the Press's decision not to print the cartoons" as if this shifts responsibility.  It is Klausen's book; it is Klausen's responsibility to determine whether the Press's decision supports academic freedom and integrity, and it is Klausen's ultimate decision on whether the book should be published with Yale University Press under these conditions, at another press, or not at all.

I hope, in time, we can look back and see this as another example of how fear sometimes leads good people (and good institutions) to abandon the core principles of their vocation.

Religion Provisions of the Cayman Islands Constitution

One of my current research projects involves analysis of the religion provisions of various constitutions enacted since the year 2000. From time to time on this blog, I'll post extracts of those provisions arranged according to categories such as "Religious Freedom" (guarantee of individual rights), "Established Religion" (joining religion and government), "Establishment Clause" (separating religion and government), "Ceremonial Deism" (symbolic references to religion that have little or no legal effect), "Equal Protection of Religion" (non-discrimination guarantees), "Preamble", "Religious Education", and "Religious Limitations".
-------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution of the Cayman Islands, enacted in 2009 as an order of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, contains strong rhetoric adhering the country to Christianity, but little in the way of substantive legal provisions giving that language effect.

Source:  UK Legislative Archives

Ceremonial Deisms

Schedule 1:  The people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their history and made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage and its enduring influence and contribution in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided their development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands, through the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen; Affirm their intention to be—

 A God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions and beliefs.

126. Oath of Allegiance

I………………..do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me God.

127. Oath for due execution of office

I………………..do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the

Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and the people of the Cayman Islands in the office of (here

insert the description of the office). So help me God.

128. Oath for due execution of judicial office

I………………..do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the

Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and the people of the Cayman Islands in the office of (here

insert the description of the office) and that I will do right to all manner of people according to the

law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. So help me God.

1.—(1) This Bill of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities is a cornerstone of democracy in the

Cayman Islands.

(2) This Part of the Constitution—

(a) recognises the distinct history, culture, Christian values and socio-economic framework

of the Cayman Islands and it affirms the rule of law and the democratic values of human

dignity, equality and freedom;

Religious Freedom

10.—(1) No person shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of

conscience.

(2) Freedom of conscience includes freedom of thought and of religion or religious

denomination; freedom to change his or her religion, religious denomination or belief; and

freedom, either alone or in community with others, both in public and in private, to manifest andpropagate his or her religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, observance and day of

worship.

(3) Except with his or her consent or, in the case of a minor, the consent of his or her parent or

guardian, no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious

instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance that relates to a

religion other than his or her own.

(4) No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from or hindered in providing

religious instruction for persons of that community or denomination in the course of any education provided by that community or denomination whether or not that community or denomination is in receipt of any government subsidy, grant or other form of financial assistance designed to meet, in whole or in part, the cost of such education; and this right includes the right of any school or community educational institution to impose requirements on employment, admission or curriculum-design necessary to maintain the religious ethos of that school or institution, subject to applicable employment laws in force.

(5) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to his or her religion or

belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his or her religion or belief.

Equal Protection of Religion

16.—(1) Subject to subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6), government shall not treat any person in a

discriminatory manner in respect of the rights under this Part of the Constitution.

(2) In this section, “discriminatory” means affording different and unjustifiable treatment to

different persons on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, age, mental or physical

disability, property, birth or other status.

Pakistan Blocks Twitter Over Alleged Blasphemy

CNN reports that Pakistan has blocked domestic access to Twitter in a dispute over links and references on the social networking service to a Facebook page that hosted a contest to post images of Muhammad.  Pakistan reportedly asked the operators of Twitter to remove those links and references, and when it failed to comply, the block was enacted.  A Pakistani government agency in charge of telecommunications is to meet next week to determine whether the block should continue or be lifted.

New Blasphemy Law in Kuwait Awaits Signing

The Kuwaiti Parliament has passed a bill prohibiting blasphemy, and included within it severe penalties, including the possibility of capital punishment.  The bill is awaiting the signature of the Emir of Kuwait before it becomes law.  According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom:

"The new provisions would impose the death penalty on Muslims who refuse to repent after being found to have insulted God, the Prophet Mohammad, his wives, or the Qur’an.  For non-Muslims, the punishment would be up to 10 years in prison; for Muslims who repent, the punishment would be up to five years or a fine."

Thanks to: Howard Friedman's Religion Clause Blog for first bringing this to my attention.

Religion Provisions of the Burundi Constitution (2005)

One of my current research projects involves analysis of the religion provisions of various constitutions enacted since the year 2000. From time to time on this blog, I'll post extracts of those provisions arranged according to categories such as "Religious Freedom" (guarantee of individual rights), "Established Religion" (joining religion and government), "Establishment Clause" (separating religion and government), "Ceremonial Deism" (symbolic references to religion that have little or no legal effect), "Equal Protection of Religion" (non-discrimination guarantees), "Preamble", "Religious Education", and "Religious Limitations".


Here are the religion provisions of the 2005 Constitution of the small, land-locked African country Burundi; rough translations from the French are mine.


Source:  Association of Constitutional Courts of French-Speaking Countries
------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishment  Clause

Article 1  Le Burundi est une République indépendance, souveraine, laïque, démocratique, unitaire et respectant sa diversité ethnique et religieuse.  ["Article 1:  Burundi is an independent Republic, sovereign, secular, democratic, and unified that is respectful of ethnic and religious diversity."]

Equal Protection of Religion

Article 13  Aucun burundais ne sera exclu de la vie sociale, économique ou politique de la nation du fait de sa race, de sa langue, de sa religion, de son sexe ou de son origine ethnique.  ["Article 13:  No Burundians shall be excluded from the social, economic, or political life of the nation because of their race, language, religion, sex, or ethnic origin."

Article 22  Nul ne peut être l’objet de discrimination du fait notamment de son origine, de sa race, de son ethnie, de son sexe, de sa couleur, de sa langue, de sa situation sociale, de ses convictions religieuses, philosophiques ou politiques ou du fait d’un handicap physique ou mental ou du fait d’être porteur du VIH/SIDA ou toute autre maladie incurable.  ["Article 22:  No one shall be the object of discrimination due to race, ethnicity, sex, color, language, social situation, religious, philosophical, or political beliefs, physical or mental handicap, HIV/AIDS, or other incurable disease."]

Religious Freedom

Article 31  L’Etat respecte la liberté de religion  ["Article 21:  The State respects freedom of religion."]