Bit o’ this ‘n that:
Ms. Glasses’ interview on Malaysia and Egypt with the Council on Foreign Relations:
We live in a world where we cannot afford to ignore [the question of religious freedom] in our foreign policy. It affects our allies, our enemies, it affects our shores…. It has a major impact on state security and the ability of countries like Malaysia and Egypt and Pakistan to maintain stability in their societies. The idea that you can see sectarian violence flare up, watch it die down, [think] that it doesn’t have deeper roots, is a mistake. And the idea that you can have legal systems that do not actively protect religious minorities is a mistake because that legal environment, as technical as it is, ultimately does create a social norm that affects the way people behave. Read on.
Lincoln-Douglas revisited at xkcd. Sometimes, I get tired of being reasonable, and I just feel like doing this instead:
…but I persevere.
Ms. Glasses in a China symposium at NRO:
The Chinese people are going to define their state as people always have in every country. They are yearning for human dignity, to live with it openly, freely, prolifically.Instead of telling them, as Secretary Clinton did in February, that their dreams “can’t interfere†with economic, climate, or security interests, we have a duty to let them know that prosperity and human respect are not mutually exclusive. We have a duty to let them know the freedom they were born with won’t be sold out to the baser interests of any state. We should regard China the way we should regard the rest of the world and ourselves: with great hope, with high expectations, with the knowledge that sometimes the high ground is gained at a cost that we are willing to share. Read on.
Becket’s very own Asma Uddin was asked to be an expert panelist on WaPo/Newsweek’s On Faith blog. Here she is writing on the Geert Wilders hate speech trial in the Netherlands:
While legal sanctions on non-violent speech are reprehensible because they give the state undue control over its citizens’ expression, some attention must be given to the sociological problem of the ways speech is used and manipulated. Read on.
and the Swiss minaret ban:
The Swiss vote is an expression of the Swiss majority’s fears — some rational, some not — on the role of Islam in their society. Unfortunately, it is a misguided expression that substitutes a symbolic issue for substantive ones, and sets a malign precedent for Swiss citizens of every faith. Islam in Western society poses real and meaningful challenges, for Muslims as much as Westerners. Resolving them demands the exact opposite of what Switzerland chose on Sunday: not less freedom for faith in public life, but more. Read on.
Distractions:
Bacon Gets Its Just Desserts at NPR: It’s not just for breakfast anymore: rich, savory bacon enhances chocolate chip cookies, cakes and other sweets. And why make ordinary fudge for the holidays? Make it extraordinary — with peanut butter and, of course, maple-smoked bacon.
Sir John Soanes Museum in London. 
I adore formerly private collections, the intimacy, and there’s always something unexpected. This one of the famed architect has some really wacky stuff. Such as a retreat for his imaginary monk-in-residence in the basement!
And wow:
Meghan Duke’s run-in at the National Gallery on Friday — security guards made her remove a prolife button because it allegedly violated the museum’s policies regarding separation of church and state. She wrote about it at FirstThings:
[T]he actions and arguments of the guards illustrate—besides complete confusion as to the purpose of the First Amendment—an all too common misconception of the role of religion in public life. “What if I were wearing a cross around my neck?†I asked the security guards, “Would I have to remove that?†“No, of course not,†one of the guards responded, “that’s entirely different.†But it’s actually entirely the same—assuming the guards were correct to call my pro-life pin a religious symbol. If wearing a religious symbol inside a federal building violates the First Amendment ban on the establishment of religion, than no one should be able to wear a cross, or a kippah, or a hijab inside the National Gallery. For that matter, the National Gallery would need to reconsider their display of thirteenth–sixteenth-century Italian art. In fact, they may need to shut down all but the modern and contemporary art exhibits.
glasses off. 