Allison Addicott

photo by flickr user channai 166

Recently released, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life offers up a “quantitative analysis”  that reviews many sources in its attempt to configure a review of religious restrictions by both governments and private actors on global expression and practice around the world.

This study is welcome but also a bit unwieldy…and it openly addresses some of the fundamental methodological weaknesses of its effort. At first glance, this study will need to provide a sound definition of “restriction” itself.

Prior to offering more analysis and comment, we simply want to let you know where this column is leading in the next few days. Restriction itself is such an unwieldy term. By the study’s own measure, the example of North Korea, however, places that country among the most repressive in the world. Paradoxically, again, access to real information is almost impossible to attain for that nation-state.

Because we seek to provide a well-conceived and good analysis, this post stands as but an introduction to addressing more of the complications of Pew’s extensive study.