SoylentNews

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly in 2015, Reversing Downward Trend

posted by on Thursday April 20 2017, @01:08PM   
from the natural-enemies dept.

AnonTechie writes:

Government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion increased in 2015 for the first time in three years, according to Pew Research Center's latest annual study on global restrictions on religion.

The share of countries with "high" or "very high" levels of government restrictions – i.e., laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices – ticked up from 24% in 2014 to 25% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of countries with high or very high levels of social hostilities – i.e., acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society – increased in 2015, from 23% to 27%. Both of these increases follow two years of declines in the percentage of countries with high levels of restrictions on religion by these measures.

Among the world's 25 most populous countries, Russia, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Nigeria had the highest overall levels of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion. Egypt had the highest levels of government restrictions in 2015, while Nigeria had the highest levels of social hostilities.

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly

Does this reflect your personal experience ?

---

Original Submission

• Re:I see a number insights in your comment (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 21 2017, @03:37PM

  by c0lo (156) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:37PM (#497455) Journal

  Logistically, a pure democracy seemed intractable, until the population realized that they could employ a new technology: A network of supremely capable computing devices, which could cheaply collate their votes on any particular topic.

  You assume too much capability or ignore the complexity of the problem.
  Collation is the easiest problem in voting.

  What is hard:

  1. a single vote per person
  2. a vote that's freely expressed = a vote not influenced by coercion (duress) or incentive (bribe) (other than the dis/advantages that the voted issue will bring once its enters in reality
  3. a vote which, once expressed, cannot be modified or repudiated

  The first two requirements are divergent in eVoting: first requires the voter's identification, the second imply the voting act privacy. While they are easy to satisfy in the real world, its not the same in eVoting.
  The second and third requirement are divergent as well in evoting - a voter must be able to control her/his vote was not modified (while stored) without being able to show to anyone the way s/he voted (otherwise the second requirement will be violated).

  Sorry, but we aren't yet at the stage of such sophisticated protocols which would allow reliance on only "supremely capable computing devices" - a paper trail of one sort or another is still necessary.

  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems [wikipedia.org] as a start and, if curious, see where it will lead you.

  --
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2