Although only a small percentage of the world, millions in the world live as foreign-born. A vast number of factors account for migratory patterns, and there are a number of competing theories that attempt to model them collectively. One element of the system which, until now, had received awfully little press, however, was how religious affiliation colored various migratory streams.

The Pew Forum released a study last week which examined the religious breakdown of international migrants: in keeping with global percentages, Christians make up the greatest chunk, followed by Muslims. The relative numbers are particularly interesting, though–Christians make up over half of the migrant population, whereas they comprise only about a third of the world. Muslims, on the other hand, only have slightly stronger representation in the migrant population than globally.

That aside, individual Jews are far more likely to migrate than any other major religious demographic–about a quarter of all living Jews are living as foreign-born residents, followed then by only 5% of Christians, and so on. This phenomenon among Jews has been generally explained by leaders in the tradition as a “consolidation” of the Judaic community, marking mobility from the Third World to the First amid fears of persecution.

For background, immigration is generally understood to be a incredibly complex system not easily explainable without using multiple, intertwined models. For instance, the process can be observed in terms of levels: individual, household, national, international, socioeconomic class– the decision to migrate is typically not made as a simple cost-benefit analysis of economic opportunity, as it is so often portrayed. Often, the existence of social structures, international penetration, conflict, family reunification, and a host of other factors play into the issue.

This study is particularly interesting because it introduces a new dimension to consider with regard to the question of “Why move?” If, as in the aforementioned case of Judaism, a religious minority faces striking oppression in a certain area or are risking conflict by concentrating themselves in unsafe territories, they’ll naturally tend to want to leave. But even further than that: the nature of religion itself offers incentives for migration–seeking monuments and relics, or a common community of believers.

This might partially explain, for instance, the predominant migration streams of Muslims to Saudi Arabia, Jews to Israel, or even–given the religious structures that exist in American public life despite the Establishment Clause et al–Christians to the US. If anything, it’s one in a host of reasons that individuals or groups have for international movement.

Not terribly daunting or compelling, but an interesting find nonetheless. I’d personally like to see a more specific breakdown of the affiliations of refugees, since they are occasionally included in counts of “immigrants” although the study itself never looked at the issue on its own. It seems like such a breakdown would shed some statistical light on what religious oppression worldwide looks like nowadays, and if certain countries have certain trends. Immigration–as (failed) policymaking has demonstrated–is certainly a nontrivial issue, but this new look is a motion in the proper direction for building a better model.

Walker Bristol is an undergraduate studying religion and linguistics at Tufts University, and the Community Organizer and Interfaith Representative for the Tufts Freethought Society. Originally from North Carolina, Walker was raised in a largely Quaker community before exploring several Christian traditions throughout high school and ultimately becoming a secular humanist at age 15. Walker serves as the chair of the Committee to Establish a Humanist Chaplaincy at Tufts, and has worked as a student intern at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. Along with fellow Tufts Freethought board member Lauren Rose, Walker hosts the internet radio show FreethoughtCast. In addition to being involved in secular student activism, Walker is a hobbyist musician, ballroom dancer, and far-too-avid science-fiction fan. He tweets nonsense @GodlessWalker.

There’s a question that often floats about when considering the problem of hunger: “Why us?” With the plight of starving African children so visible that it has become a platitude, and with reports of earthquakes in Haiti and tsunamis in the Indian Ocean devastating already impoverished homes and families– could Americans really be facing anything like their brothers and sisters elsewhere?

Yet, to say that the misfortunes of others overseas devalues those closer to us is absurd. It is certainly strategic to fight poverty where it is most seeded, but holding to practicality, we must sometimes focus our attention to domestic concerns. And so, we look on our own shores, and realize that hunger is anything but alien to this generation of Americans. Let’s start with the men (and women) in the mirror, and “make that change”.

Combating hunger has been, this past year, a theme of sorts driving interfaith action in and around Boston. To benefit children in Quincy, Mass., two separate events hosted by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and the Harvard Interfaith Council packaged over 30,000 meals with the help of Kidscare International. This Saturday, the effort continues, with HUNGERally, a interfaith presentation and discussion to educate the local population on hunger and homelessness in Boston and beyond.

HUNGERally marks the first collaborative effort by Boston-area colleges to organize an interfaith service and dialogue project. Students and faculty from Harvard, Boston University, Brandeis, Boston College, MIT, Gordon College, Fisher College, and Tufts have worked together to organize a compelling series of speakers and exercises, including folks from various religious backgrounds speaking on why their tradition compels them to fight hunger.

I’ll be speaking from the Humanist perspective–and to give a short anecdotal introduction to what draws me to the cause, I remember a Friday night several months ago, just before one of Harvard’s fall interfaith meal packaging projects. Chris Stedman, myself, and a fellow student leader Guillermo Hamlin were the only ones available to bring in the recently arrived ingredients for the next day’s meal packaging, and despite the Friday night, despite the weight of the boxes, and despite the three flights of stairs, we persevered: carrying collectively over 2500lbs to the top-floor chaplaincy space. The experience resonated with me as an example of Humanist dedication to helping out those in need despite unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances, and I hope to find more opportunities to engage my values–put them in action, if you will–in the future.

And so, if you can make the time this Saturday, I’d hope you’d do the same. Take some time to reflect on what your tradition or philosophical perspective says about helping the unfortunate to you, and learn about what the face of poverty and starvation is in the Boston area. Abraham Lincoln asked that we “be sure to put [our] feet in the right place, then stand firm.” This weekend, let’s stand together, on the ground of shared values, and step forward in helping those in need.

HUNGERally

6:00 p.m., Saturday, February 11th

BU College of Arts and Sciences, Room B12

Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/293634374023913/

Walker Bristol is an undergraduate studying religion and linguistics at Tufts University, and the Community Organizer and Interfaith Representative for the Tufts Freethought Society. Originally from North Carolina, Walker was raised in a largely Quaker community before exploring several Christian traditions throughout high school and ultimately becoming a secular humanist at age 15. Walker serves as the chair of the Committee to Establish a Humanist Chaplaincy at Tufts, and has worked as a student intern at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. Along with fellow Tufts Freethought board member Lauren Rose, Walker hosts the internet radio show FreethoughtCast. In addition to being involved in secular student activism, Walker is a hobbyist musician, ballroom dancer, and far-too-avid science-fiction fan. He tweets nonsense @GodlessWalker.

Just a short post today, as moving back into my dorm and restarting classes has been quite the day-ful.

Recent events have left significant attention on Iran’s nuclear program– questions of whether the nation will soon have access to, as it were, weapons of mass destruction, and who would be at risk if they did, are not uncommon in newsrooms across the globe. And yet, there seems to be an underlying assumption about the nature of totalitarianism– particularly that of Muslim rulers– in these conversations that I think should be challenged.

There’s an idea that floats throughout discussions of Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a lunatic, an irrational megalomaniac with the social ethics of The Joker. Now megalomaniac he may be– his totalitarian regime is responsible for a plethora of human rights abuses, corruptions, and suppressions across his state.

And yet, he’s not ignorant of the rest of the world. The second he gets his fingers on a functional nuclear launch red button won’t be the second he directs a warhead towards Israel, or the United States. The backlash from such an action would be utterly untenable– a wall of missiles directed Iran’s way in response. I think it an absurd thing to say this has never crossed the man’s mind.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of the Islamic Republic of Iran

This idea, though, that the ramifications of aggression are entirely ignored by dictators like Ahmadinejad, seems to me to stem from an exceptionality of horror placed on the religion of Islam. People in the mindset of, to use a quite prominent example, Sam Harris, who would claim that the religion expresses a particular sort of evil that warrants our Western attention, seem to take a leap from the extraordinary differences in language and culture between this side of the Atlantic and the Middle East to the notion that they therefore are essentially incapable of making rational, or moral, decisions themselves. However different we, as peoples, may be, should not characterize either of us as inherently anti-human, or irrational.

Ahmadinejad is himself a Shia Muslim, an engineer by trade whose rise to power in Iran has been subject to significant, and I would certainly consider well-deserved, criticism and investigation. I don’t mean to endorse him or his policies in any way, nor do I think the horrors that crop up under many instances of Sharia Law are defensible– I think human rights, particularly in Iran, ought to command humanity’s absolute attention. But to do that, we have to be clear, honest, and accurate in our characterizations of those who would violate those rights, lest we find ourselves entirely self-centered when real, actionable issues in the world are blown out of view.

Walker Bristol is an undergraduate studying religion and linguistics at Tufts University, and the Community Organizer and Interfaith Representative for the Tufts Freethought Society. Originally from North Carolina, Walker was raised in a largely Quaker community before exploring several Christian traditions throughout high school and ultimately becoming a secular humanist at age 15. Walker serves as the chair of the Committee to Establish a Humanist Chaplaincy at Tufts, and has worked as a student intern at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. Along with fellow Tufts Freethought board member Lauren Rose, Walker hosts the internet radio show FreethoughtCast. In addition to being involved in secular student activism, Walker is a hobbyist musician, ballroom dancer, and far-too-avid science-fiction fan. He tweets nonsense @GodlessWalker.

So here’s my (Walker’s) own Hitchens obituary, which I admittedly took my time with. As a reminder, the views of this blog post do not necessarily represent those of Chris Stedman, the other NPS panelists, or any of the organizations with which they affiliate.

He once said, “The finest fury is the most controlled.”

And while he was certainly of the highest class of aggression, it would seem an odd thing to ever consider Christopher Hitchens “controlled”. Note that this is the man who was once literally spanked on his hind end by Margaret Thatcher at a cocktail party, after challenging her on a small detail of Zimbabwean foreign policy.

“Your ideal authors ought to pull you from the foundering of your previous existence, not smilingly guide you into a friendly and peaceable harbor.”

To me, Hitch was a messiah for my now very strong desire to go into journalism. What always colored me uneasy about the prospect of such a career was the emphasis laid by so many on reporting, and the idea that quality of writing should come as a mere afterthought. Hitch excised this notion with characteristic ferocity. He made clear that merely retelling a story does next to nothing for actually telling it—to at once inform and inspire the public, you have to employ the beauty of language, the science of narrative construction, and, above all, a bit of heart.

“The most satisfying comment a reader can pay is to tell me that he or she feels personally addressed. ”

Even further than his journalistic prowess, there was so much in the profound polemicist that warranted respect. I was always warmed by his unrivaled love for his mother Yvonne, a love which, unceasing,  drove him to continue reporting from Athens during his visit to identify her body after her suicide. As he made the journey through life, he respectably rid himself of black-and-white chains, adopting his self-proclaimed “à la carte” politics, which have led his eulogists over the last week to make the obligatory note that he was not always easy to agree with (although so bloody convincing).  And I shared with him a great admiration for literature and poetry—I still remember feeling electrified when he employed a quotation from my favorite T.S. Eliot piece in what I would also consider to be one of Hitch’s best essays, “Unspoken Truths”.

“There can be no progress without head-on confrontation.”

And it was, ultimately, his stridency which propelled him to success. Though it would seem a disservice to offer apologetics for him after he’s lost the opportunity to do it much more eloquently himself, I do want to say: I don’t think he ever engaged in what I would call, “bullying”. Certainly, polemics, and even name-calling in many cases. But never did he batter his antagonists without citation, never did he extrapolate unto them failures of character based solely upon perhaps misplaced political allegiances. He spent a career combating hatred and xenophobia, and demonstrating an extraordinary faithfulness to love—of his mother, of humanity, of his friends, of art. That dedication, in my eyes, painted him as anything but hateful and self-aggrandizing—he was a knight of compassion, albeit one who drew heavily upon the “knight” element when in battle.

“It’s been real.”

That line is such a curiously amateur aside, and sounded so ironic, yet genuine, whenever Hitch would deliver it at the end of an interview or debate. It would always come with a humble smile, illustrating just how much he appreciated the opportunity for discourse. Hitch sparred in such a way that he, at least in my eyes, laid waste to the notion that being tender and being tenacious are mutually exclusive. Like so many of us, I never had the pleasure of sitting across a table—or a debating floor—from the great contrarian. But, also like so many, I nevertheless heard his voice.

So it has been real, Hitch. “Real” in this natural world to which you dedicated yourself, “real” in the never unexciting life you undertook, and “real” fucking eloquent the whole way through.

Thanks—or, as you might have it: cheers.

Walker Bristol is an undergraduate studying religion and linguistics at Tufts University, and the Community Organizer and Interfaith Representative for the Tufts Freethought Society. Originally from North Carolina, Walker was raised in a largely Quaker community before exploring several Christian traditions throughout high school and ultimately becoming a secular humanist at age 15. Walker serves as the chair of the Committee to Establish a Humanist Chaplaincy at Tufts, and this summer was a student intern at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. Along with fellow Tufts Freethought board member Lauren Rose, Walker hosts the internet radio show FreethoughtCast. In addition to being involved in secular student activism, Walker is a hobbyist musician, ballroom dancer, and far-too-avid science-fiction fan. He tweets nonsense from @GodlessWalker.

After a bit of a hiatus due both to exams and late-November North American harvest festivals, the Religion Roundup shall now keep on truckin’, this week with a focus on American politics.

Even though American history’s first openly Pokémon-inspired presidential contender has left the race, the most prominent Republican candidates seem to be holding tightly to their platforms (so to speak).

So, I think it’s probably valuable to take a concise look at how religion has influenced, and been used by, the 2012 presidential candidates– most of whom have followed the traditional path of self-identifying with some flavor of Christianity in an effort to win over devout voters.

The “religious issue” that seems to have garnered the most press over the past two election cycles has been Mitt Romney’s (and, this time around, John Huntsman’s) Mormonism. You might recall Romney giving in 2007 what I would consider a terribly poor parroting of JFK’s 1960 speech regarding his Catholicism, trying to win over evangelical Republican voters who might shy away from support because of what has been deemed the “Mormon problem”. Both Huntsman and Romney hold the traditional Christian conservative view on abortion rights, despite how Romney seems to have altered that position since he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Rick Perry, of course, leaves nothing in the deck regarding his Methodist religious expression: he used his position as governor of Texas to instate the infamous Day of Prayer and Fasting in Houston, teaming up with the notoriously Christian-conservative American Family Association and inviting his fellow lawmakers to join him. Many considered this to blatantly drop church and state in the same soup, and emails sent out to attendees regarding Perry’s campaign essentially branded it a base from which he could launch his 2012 election bid.

Candace Gingrich-Jones, the first ever American Humanist Association LGBT-Humanist Pride award recipient in 2010, is unfortunately not running for office. Her brother Newt, however, very much is, and is currently Real Clear Politics’ highest polling Republican candidate in Iowa. Both he and Rick Santorum identify as Catholic, which, as with many of their fellow hopefuls, seems to have subtly informed their support of intelligent design as a part of high school biology curricula.

Rick Perry listens intently to Michelle Bachmann's comments. Jon Hunstman tries to mentally figure our the final word in that day's Jumble scramble.

Some have tied Michelle Bachmann, formerly a part of the Salem Lutheran Church, to anti-Catholic bigotry inherent in her former church’s doctrine, although she has repeatedly stated otherwise and made efforts to reach out to Catholics in response. Everyone’s favorite politically-“consistent” Libertarian vying for the GOP bid, Ron Paul, identifies as a devout Baptist (also unsupportive of evolution), although of all his fellow Republican contenders he certainly refers to his faith the least in the political arena.

And although I’ve focused on the diversity within the GOP candidacy, there is of course one candidate in the 2012 election whose Islamic  Christian beliefs continually make an appearance throughout his speeches and actions. Barry Obama strikes me, however, to be far more interested in interfaith dialogue and cooperation, than any of his recent presidential predecessors. He faced controversy over Rev. Wright’s statements on black liberation, and came originally from an entirely nonreligious Hawaiian household. As far as policy goes, despite making frequent references to his faith, most recently during the White House holiday tree lighting ceremony, the closest thing to an infringement on the Establishment Clause I know of would be his failure to strike down certain policies of the Bush administration, particularly regarding tax breaks for purely religious organizations.

But I want to make a caveat to all of this: I don’t mean to say that the religions of the candidates are in and of themselves important. I don’t happen to think that we, as American citizens, have any special right to know what specific religion a candidate subscribes to—and I certainly don’t think that we should be interrogating them about their personal religious views in the public sphere.

One specific example springs to mind: the 2008 election saw the panelists at a GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire expected to respond to the question, “Is every word of the [King James] Bible literal?” Many of them happened to hold this view—and could we expect any less? Vlad commented the other day on the way certain polls concerning the unelectability of atheists can be misconstrued—certainly true in some cases, but that doesn’t change the fact that being openly atheistic can put a punctuation mark on any political campaign. Article VI of the US Constitution warns against any religious test being required for office, and I think that having candidates in debates more-or-less unavoidably expected to describe their religious views effectively (or, to use a shaky word, “spiritually”) violates that clause. The tendency to constantly draw attention to the personal religious views of presidential hopefuls seems to further the expectation that they have religious views at all, and drive society further away from welcoming openly nonreligious individuals into office.

And all of candidates I overviewed earlier, with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul, have gone to great lengths to espouse their beliefs by their own volition, which is what I think is interesting. Incidentally, most of them have also used these beliefs a vessel to infringe upon the rights of others, be it by supporting anti-equality or anti-science legislation, or by sponsoring events that are inherently religiously divisive. What ultimately matters, in political terms, is that the individuals directing our country are doing so with equal consideration—if they embrace a pluralistic mindset, how much of the Bible they personally believe to be inerrant seems to be entirely trivial.

In Kennedy’s aforementioned speech, he noted that he believes in an America in which “the separation of church and state is absolute”, and “where religious intolerance will one day end.” I think it absurd to consider these two statements to be mutually contradictory: we can have an America where everyone, even politicians, can have or lack religious beliefs that some of us might find unreasonable, yet still respect one another as individuals and identify our shared values. It is fairly unavoidable to be somewhat aware of what religious beliefs the candidates hold—to judge them on those beliefs alone, and not on whether those beliefs are used to suppress others, however, is our own mistake.

And finally, here’s Herman Cain singing about pizza.

Walker Bristol is an undergraduate studying religion and linguistics at Tufts University, and the Community Organizer and Interfaith Representative for the Tufts Freethought Society. Originally from North Carolina, Walker was raised in a largely Quaker community before exploring several Christian traditions throughout high school and ultimately becoming a secular humanist at age 15. Walker serves as the chair of the Committee to Establish a Humanist Chaplaincy at Tufts, and this summer was a student intern at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. Along with fellow Tufts Freethought board member Lauren Rose, Walker hosts the internet radio show FreethoughtCast. In addition to being involved in secular student activism, Walker is a hobbyist musician, ballroom dancer, and far-too-avid science-fiction fan. He tweets nonsense @GodlessWalker.