The advancement of freedom and democracy in the Middle East may suffer yet another setback as the Iraqi government completes its negotiations on a new constitution. It was only one year ago that Afghanistan approved its constitution, with barely an outcry against its new government being framed under Islamic law (as it was under the previous regime). The new constitution implemented recognition of Islamic law as the basis for the nation’s legal system, declaring in Article 3, “No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam.” Under what National Review calls the new “Taliban-Lite” religious freedom is guided by the principles of Islam, one of the most notorious oppressors of religious freedom in history. Now it appears that Iraq is headed in the same direction.

According to an August 20 report by CNN, “The role of religion has revolved around whether Islam will be termed ‘a’ main source or ‘the’ main source of legislation. Washington, which has shepherded the process, has made it clear that it would like to see Islam termed ‘a’ main source. But if there is compromise with other language espousing the principles of democracy, U.S. representatives say they are willing to agree that religion be ‘the’ main source.”

Is this what American soldiers have fought for, to build a new Islamic government?

Freedom House sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on August 4th, asserting, “The key provision that overrides all others is dangerous enabling language to the effect that ‘Islam’ would be the fundamental source of law in Iraq – rather than a source of law. This seemingly innocuous language threatens to subordinate rights otherwise guaranteed by international treaties, on gender equality and religious freedom in particular, to highly contestable, provisions in Sharia. Indeed, it would subordinate the entire constitution to an extra-constitutional and undefined ‘Islam’ that is itself subject to various interpretations.”

It escapes the notice of many postmodernists within the State Department that the principles of freedom and democracy upon which the Western world was built grew out of a long experience applying the principles of the Protestant Reformation in civil government. New England clergyman Cotton Mather wrote that the early settlers came to America to “express and pursue the Protestant Reformation.” What the early settlers drafted and redrafted in many colonies over the next 100 years were the principles of Biblical governance that eventually lead to the more fully developed concepts of political freedom espoused in the U.S. Declaration of Independence andConstitution.

Let there be no mistake, Christianity invented modern political freedom.

Contrary to the notion that Islamic societies can build lasting democracies – where is the evidence? Turkey may be cited as one example of an Islamic democracy, but is it? Technically Turkey is framed as a secular government, though Islamic forces within the authority structure have recently enlarged their design to further Islamicize the society by the authority of law. In March 2005 the Turkish government issued a public warning about missionary activity within their borders. “The goal of those activities is harming the cultural, religious, national and historical unity of the people of Turkey,’ Anatolia news agency quoted [Religious Affairs Directorate Mehmet] Ayd as saying. ‘These are not merely religious activities and they are not only carried out by Christian clerics. We have observed doctors, nurses, engineers, Red Cross officials, human rights defenders, peace activists and language tutors conducting missionary activities’”

If this is the case in a secular-framed Islamic society, democratic though it may be, what will be the case when Islamic law is “the fundamental” source of civil code? According to the CNN report, Washington may be willing to make compromises on the language as long as the principles of democracy are kept intact within the document. Therein lies the problem that our diplomats seem to forget – Islamic law runs contrary to democratic principles.What Islamic nation in history ever developed concepts of political freedom using the principles of Islam?

In more than 13 centuries, not a single one. In contrast, so-called Christian empires and governments were on a long road of discovery, learning how to apply principles of freedom espoused in the Old and New Testaments. As time went by, monarchies and despots weakened, and personal and political liberties advanced. Not so anywhere in the Islamic world. In fact, as industry and modern technology were applied to Islamic societies, oppression of personal liberties actually increased.

For freedom and democracy to work in a nation, any nation, certain principles must first be clearly understood – and embraced. Democracy is not simply one vote for all, or representation in the halls of government. Iran held elections this year. Are they free and democratic? Saddam used to hold elections. Was Iraq free and democratic? Even communist Russia used to hold a form of pseudo-elections to vote for local representatives of its government. Were they free and democratic?

I fear it was a mistake to move Iraq so quickly toward elections and drafting a new constitution before the true historical principles of freedom and democracy could have a chance to socially transform the country. Iraq is still a deeply Islamic culture. Its law and politics are likely to follow suit.

At least one country is actively using the War on Terror to set up further oppression of its own people – China. The report, released today by the Financial Times should be an ominous warning to every Chinese person’s desire to be free.

The communist government of China “has set up a new police force in large cities, equipped with helicopters and armored vehicles, to combat the threat of terrorism and the rising incidence of rioting and social unrest across the country.” Did you note the key words in that sentence: “rioting” and “social unrest?”

In fact the only “rioting” of recent note has been the peaceful protests staged by Chinese farmers for having their land taken away from them. A video report smuggled out of China and aired by Star News Asia, and eventually on FOX News in the States and Sky News in the U.K. showed hundreds of police beating farmers with clubs and tree limbs. Many were seriously injured. The video made the Rodney King beating look like high school wrestling.

The Financial Times goes on to report, that Minister of Public Security, “Mr Zhou said the authorities dealt with 74,000 protests and riots nationwide last year, involving more than 3.7m people, compared with 10,000 incidents in 1994.” 74,000? What could they be protesting, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan? Nope. The lack of private property, justice issues, in general, the lack of freedom.

People don’t “riot” for freedom. It would be interesting to read the Chinese government’s official definition of a “riot.”

According to the Financial Times report, “China is also drafting a new anti-terror law, which is due to be released later this year.” I.E., “terror” hasn’t been defined yet by the communist authority. How will the communist authority define “terror?” For a government that regularly razes or shuts down churches across its vast landscape, imprisons pastors, and does so without real legal justification, one wonders. I remember when in 2001 — before 9/11 — that the Turkish government began applying an anti-terrorism law to forbid gatherings of Christians in private homes, churches, and even restaurants and parks.

If this article is any indication, the communist authority of China is fighting a losing battle. The Chinese people have received a small taste of economic freedom in their recently mixed-economic state. Now they want seconds. We should do all we can to help them spoon out a full meal of freedom. First by continuing to advance all efforts to proclaim the freedom found in Jesus Christ, and second, by supporting efforts to bring freedom of speech, press, and conscience to their society.

I started reading Persecution by David Limbaugh this week. I realize that the book may be nearly two years old, but as I said earlier, my access to good western books is sometimes limited by my location in Mongolia.

Limbaugh begins the book with dramatic accounts of students across America who have been persecuted for their Christian faith. That persecution took the form of teachers and principals preventing students from praying over lunches, at graduations, forcing them to stop talking about Jesus with friends during recess, and much more. There are many accounts of judges and other officials threatening to arrest and imprison students if they even utter the name of Jesus.

There may not be many Christians in Mongolia, but I may have more religious freedom here than in America.

Reading the accounts in Persecution (which is a tremendous read), brought to mind the time my wife, Diane, and I thought we might be involved with a legal battle to protect our daughter’s right to express her faith. However, our situation turned out very differently.

It was early 1998, Rochele was in first grade at McCoy Elementary School in Orlando, located about 2 miles north of the International Airport. Diane and I were taking part in a parent-teacher conference to go over Rochele’s school work and get a firsthand report from the teacher about what kind of student she was. I was a bit nervous, still feeling raw as a parent, wondering how I would react to a teacher who might want to suppress my kid’s religious freedoms.

The teacher gave us a glowing report of Rochele’s work and behavior, specifically noting how she was not only well behaved, but was often held up to the other students as an example of a hard worker with good behavior. That gave us great pride, though I secretly feared she might become a teacher’s pet geek – which gives you an idea of what I suffered when I was a kid, but that’s a story for another therapy session. I digress.

During the private consultation with the teacher things became serious. “I have to tell you that we do have one problem with your daughter,” the teacher said. Diane and I eyed each other cautiously, waiting for the blow. Now, you must understand that the words that follow are as exact as I can remember them, because I’ve told this story many times since that day, and I don’t want you to miss the exaggeration that was part of this teacher’s speech. She said, “Rochele seems to think it is her mission in life to make sure that every student in this school knows everything about God.

Now…I know my daughter, and while I’m sure the teacher was exaggerating, I’m also sure she wasn’t exaggerating that much. I confess…I was so proud of my girl.

I decided not to respond right away, so the teacher continued. “I have to tell you that this has become a very serious problem. She talks about these things during lunch, recess, in between assignments, all the time.” That was certainly true. Before the semester was out she lead two of her classmates in a prayer to receive Christ – between assignments!

Her teacher finally said, “The problem has become so serious that we had a staff meeting of the faculty about it.” Wow. I was sure the hammer that was about to fall would be a Grade A industrial sledge. “But as we talked we realized that we have real problems in this school. We have drugs and alcohol. We have violence and kids who brings knives, and other problems. We decided that Rochele isn’t really that big of a problem. So, we’ve decided that we are going to let her do whatever she wants. We simply wanted you to know.”

Stunned would not be a good word to describe our feelings. We thanked the teacher and left, counting our blessings, not wanting to “jinx” anything for Rochele, or her early expression of faith.

I am stunned to read of the hundreds, yes hundreds of reports that surface each year of the “legal” suppression of religious speech in the United States – and it’s growing. Rochele’s early experience was a great victory because a number of teachers at an elementary school recognized that the faithful, respectful (though persistent) religious speech of a 7-year-old was far less threatening than the problems associated with kids who live under a value system where drugs, alcohol, and weapons in school are becoming more “normal.” Believe it or not, Rochele, and the rest of our girls, live in a more protected environment now — in Mongolia — than in a public school in the United States. I find it ironic, even tragic, that our kids have fewer problems expressing their faith in the most Buddhist nation on Earth than they would if they still lived in the so-called most “Christian” nation on Earth.

I love America. It took living in Mongolia for me to truly appreciate the heritage of faith we have in the Land of Free. And now that I live in Asia, looking in from afar at what is happening in my homeland, I wonder what the future holds for the nation that has been single greatest champion of religious freedom and human rights in all recorded history. Perhaps someday, the children of those reached by American missionaries in this country will become missionaries themselves, and bring the heritage of true religious freedom back to its great benefactor.

“All fear societies are based on a certain degree of brainwashing. State-controlled television, radio, and newspapers glorify the actions of the regime’s leaders and incite their populations against those it deems to be enemies.”

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, has given me extra insight into the condition of media in Mongolia – and our mission of Faith and Freedom.

My ability to read the latest western books is limited by living in Mongolia (where’s a Barnes and Noblebaatar when you need one?) but during a recent trip to the States I stocked up with a good year’s supply of reading material. Sharansky’s book was my last pick-up; at the Denver airport while suffering through an 8-hour delay. Thank God for airport delays! The Case For Democracy, is one of the most insightful books on political freedom I’ve read.

You may remember from an earlier commenterry that a recent analysis by Mongolia’s Press Institute and Globe International found that while there is sufficient media freedom for journalists to pursue their craft, there is, in practice, less freedom because of how ideological control of the media has developed over recent years. Keep in mind that Mongolia is a young democracy, without the foundation of Judeo-Christian traditions from which modern political freedom sprang (I explore this issue in my forthcoming book, Faith & Freedom: How the missionary principle facilitates political freedom). Like any nation going through a major political change, there are significant issues to grapple with and problems to overcome as the society experiments with new social concepts. Allow me to illustrate.

Yesterday a missionary friend in Mongolia said to me, “To Mongolians unity is often much higher in their priorities than truth because they have a communal society.” Brilliant! Coupled with Sharansky’s comments in his book about the differences between fear societies and free societies, I was beginning to gain greater insight into why, socially, Mongolia slipped so easily into communism. Sharansky notes, “A society is free if people have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm… A simple way to determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society is being upheld is to apply the town square test: Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it’s a fear society…fear societies never cross this threshold and are always unjust.”

What does this have to do with Eagle TV and state of Mongolian media? Very simply, while Mongolia has successfully transitioned from a fear society (under communism) to a free society (under democratic reform), much of its media still lags behind. Most journalists still cannot apply the town square test to their industry, or even many of their workplaces and come away saying they work in an atmosphere of complete media freedom.

The 2005 edition of Freedom of Information in Mongolia, published by Mongolia’s Press Institute, Pact Mongolia, and the U.S. Embassy, illustrates this well. It provides citation after citation of instances where Mongolian journalists were not permitted to write or produce stories on significant political or social issues. Many of those who took the risk lost their jobs, were interrogated by police, or suffered other injustices.

Even at the most free and independent media entity in the country – Eagle TV – we still see the problem of a fear society entrenched in the Mongolian media industry. During the recent Presidential elections I provided a specific set of instructions to our journalists that were designed to obey the existing laws on media and elections, while at the same time pushing the envelope – within the law – in order to gain new ground for press freedom. After the meeting was over one of our journalists came to me privately and said, “I don’t want to do this. I’m afraid.”

She wasn’t kidding, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. While there have been significant developments in media freedom during the last three years, 2003-2004 was still the period that more journalists were interrogated by authorities than any time previously. Udriin Sonin newspaper reported on April 17, 2004 that 400 journalists were interrogated, with 80 cases unresolved during that time (the Central Police Department and Judicial Authority take issue with that report). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reported increase happened during the period when the American-run Eagle TV was no longer on the air, serving as the standard-bearer for media freedom.

The point here is that even at the single most free, uncensored, creative media outlet in the country – Eagle TV – run by an American organization applying principles of western ethics, the fear society that still exists within the Mongolia media has not quite breathed its last. It is still able to stretch its leathery claws into our protective sphere – even if only a little.

I confess to a great deal of pride in what has been accomplished at Eagle TV. Our journalists don’t have an ideological overseer looking over their shoulder. No one on staff, or in management, has any authority to refuse airing a story on ideological grounds beyond the standard practices of fact-checking, proper sourcing, etc. It doesn’t mean things are perfect, and that our people don’t make mistakes. But it does mean that they are free to make mistakes in the exercise of their own judgment. And they are free to say no to the facilitators of the fear society within the media knowing that they will have the unquestionable backing of their fellow staff – and the boss. I believe it is this approach which best serves the growth of democratic ideals within the media – and help us set the stage for further efforts to advance freedom of conscience, and our faith in Jesus Christ.

“All fear societies are based on a certain degree of brainwashing. State-controlled television, radio, and newspapers glorify the actions of the regime’s leaders and incite their populations against those it deems to be enemies.”

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, has given me extra insight into the condition of media in Mongolia – and our mission of Faith and Freedom.

My ability to read the latest western books is limited by living in Mongolia (where’s a Barnes and Noblebaatar when you need one?) but during a recent trip to the States I stocked up with a good year’s supply of reading material. Sharansky’s book was my last pick-up; at the Denver airport while suffering through an 8-hour delay. Thank God for airport delays! The Case For Democracy, is one of the most insightful books on political freedom I’ve read.

You may remember from an earlier commenterry that a recent analysis by Mongolia’s Press Institute and Globe International found that while there is sufficient media freedom for journalists to pursue their craft, there is, in practice, less freedom because of how ideological control of the media has developed over recent years. Keep in mind that Mongolia is a young democracy, without the foundation of Judeo-Christian traditions from which modern political freedom sprang (I explore this issue in my forthcoming book, Faith & Freedom: How the missionary principle facilitates political freedom). Like any nation going through a major political change, there are significant issues to grapple with and problems to overcome as the society experiments with new social concepts. Allow me to illustrate.

Yesterday a missionary friend in Mongolia said to me, “To Mongolians unity is often much higher in their priorities than truth because they have a communal society.” Brilliant! Coupled with Sharansky’s comments in his book about the differences between fear societies and free societies, I was beginning to gain greater insight into why, socially, Mongolia slipped so easily into communism. Sharansky notes, “A society is free if people have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm… A simple way to determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society is being upheld is to apply the town square test: Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it’s a fear society…fear societies never cross this threshold and are always unjust.”

What does this have to do with Eagle TV and state of Mongolian media? Very simply, while Mongolia has successfully transitioned from a fear society (under communism) to a free society (under democratic reform), much of its media still lags behind. Most journalists still cannot apply the town square test to their industry, or even many of their workplaces and come away saying they work in an atmosphere of complete media freedom.

The 2005 edition of Freedom of Information in Mongolia, published by Mongolia’s Press Institute, Pact Mongolia, and the U.S. Embassy, illustrates this well. It provides citation after citation of instances where Mongolian journalists were not permitted to write or produce stories on significant political or social issues. Many of those who took the risk lost their jobs, were interrogated by police, or suffered other injustices.

Even at the most free and independent media entity in the country – Eagle TV – we still see the problem of a fear society entrenched in the Mongolian media industry. During the recent Presidential elections I provided a specific set of instructions to our journalists that were designed to obey the existing laws on media and elections, while at the same time pushing the envelope – within the law – in order to gain new ground for press freedom. After the meeting was over one of our journalists came to me privately and said, “I don’t want to do this. I’m afraid.”

She wasn’t kidding, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. While there have been significant developments in media freedom during the last three years, 2003-2004 was still the period that more journalists were interrogated by authorities than any time previously. Udriin Sonin newspaper reported on April 17, 2004 that 400 journalists were interrogated, with 80 cases unresolved during that time (the Central Police Department and Judicial Authority take issue with that report). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reported increase happened during the period when the American-run Eagle TV was no longer on the air, serving as the standard-bearer for media freedom.

The point here is that even at the single most free, uncensored, creative media outlet in the country – Eagle TV – run by an American organization applying principles of western ethics, the fear society that still exists within the Mongolia media has not quite breathed its last. It is still able to stretch its leathery claws into our protective sphere – even if only a little.

I confess to a great deal of pride in what has been accomplished at Eagle TV. Our journalists don’t have an ideological overseer looking over their shoulder. No one on staff, or in management, has any authority to refuse airing a story on ideological grounds beyond the standard practices of fact-checking, proper sourcing, etc. It doesn’t mean things are perfect, and that our people don’t make mistakes. But it does mean that they are free to make mistakes in the exercise of their own judgment. And they are free to say no to the facilitators of the fear society within the media knowing that they will have the unquestionable backing of their fellow staff – and the boss. I believe it is this approach which best serves the growth of democratic ideals within the media – and help us set the stage for further efforts to advance freedom of conscience, and our faith in Jesus Christ.