Erasmus

TO JUDGE by some studies, American Christians have very confused feelings about the death penalty. Last year, Pew Research, a pollster based in Washington, DC, published evidence confirming some things you would intuitively expect: white evangelicals support the ultimate punishment by a far greater majority (71-25) than do Americans in general (56-38) or the religiously unaffiliated (48-45). Although their church (at least in the modern era) firmly opposes execution, the procedure was supported by most Catholics (53-42) and an even greater majority of white Catholics (63-34).

AMONG people who spend their lives monitoring religious freedom around the world, it is generally agreed that one of the worst violators in the world is Uzbekistan, a land whose future is in the balance amid reports that its veteran leader, Islam Karimov, has died. It is also a country that triggers some hard arguments among religious-liberty campaigners as to how best to work for change.

In the American State Department's annual report on religious freedom, published last month, it was confirmed that the administration viewed Uzbekistan as a “country of particular concern (CPC)” in respect of religious freedom.

SHOULD it be considered a violation of the law, and of fair electoral practice, if religious leaders use their influence to convince voters that they will be risking their salvation unless they opt for a particular party or candidate? Sir Eric Pickles (above), an anti-corruption fighter for the British government, apparently thinks so. This point came out in a report he published this month on how to reduce the risk of electoral fraud and manipulation.

THIS is a very difficult moment in one of Europe’s most important relationships. A leaked report from the German interior ministry has accused Turkey of fomenting Islamism in the Middle East, and Turkey has responded angrily. An agreement between Turkey and the European Union to stem the flow of migrants into Europe, which is essentially a Turkish-German deal, hangs in the balance.

And, as your correspondent writes in this week’s print edition, arguments over the future of Islam in Germany are both a symptom and a cause of those broader German-Turkish tensions.

RELATIONS between American evangelicals and the powers that be in Russia, whether worldly or spiritual, have had their ups and downs over the years. It was at a conference of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983 that Ronald Reagan made his memorable reference to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire".

WHEN democracy is functioning well, vigorously but fairly conducted elections provide a powerful way of defusing a country's internal arguments. However loudly they denounce one another, rival politicians at a certain level work together to uphold a political system on whose rules they all agree. But in fragile democracies, and places where inter-communal rifts run deep, elections can have the opposite effect, stoking internal tensions to the point where violence explodes. Religious leaders often have a huge influence, for better or worse, as to which outcome prevails.

EVERY time a European city is shaken by an act of mass violence, the continent's heavy-weight newspapers host agonised debates over what has gone wrong. In particular, debaters often ask, should European states have responded differently to the emergence of large, discontented Muslim minorities, either by accommodating cultural difference more generously or (as some advocate) by suppressing it? Even when it becomes clear that Islam was not really a factor at all (as seems to be the case with last week's killing spree by a maladjusted young man in Munich) the discussions go on.