The Volokh Conspiracy

The Pew Forum’s survey of international Muslim attitudes asks, among other things,

Some people think that if a woman engages in premarital sex or adultery it is justified for family members to end her life in order to protect the family honor. Do you personally feel that this practice is [often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified].

It also asks the same question about men engaging in premarital sex or adultery.

The results:

(1) There’s a vast range of attitudes on the subject in various countries, with “never justified” ranging from just over 80% (in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia) to just under 25% (in Afghanistan and Iraq).

(2) In most countries, the respondents’ answers as to “honor killing” of women is very close to their answers as to men, including in many of the countries where there’s a lot of support for such killings. Only a few countries had statistically significant differences, ranging from 47% (81% believe that “honor killing” of men is never justified but only 34% believe that as to women) in Jordan, 10 or 11% in Iraq and Egypt, 7% in Russia, and 14% in the opposite direction in Uzbekistan.

(3) Though the Pew report states, “The Quran and hadith do not condone honor killings, that is, taking the life of a family member who has allegedly brought shame on his or her family,” in a substantial minority of the surveyed countries attitudes towards “honor killings” are significantly correlated to support for imposing Sharia law.

(4) Support for such “honor killings” is shockingly high in some countries. In Afghanistan, for instance, 37% of Muslim respondents say that such killings of women are “often justified,” and 23% say “sometimes justified.” In Iraq, 44% say “often” and 16% say “sometimes.” In Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Territories, 36% to 41% of respondents say they are often or sometimes justified (and still more say they are justified only rarely).

UPDATE: Commenter SykesFive notes that the question was asked differently in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (emphasis added): “Some people think that if a woman brings dishonor to her family it is justified for family members to end her life in order to protect the family’s honor....” I don’t know how this might affect the respondents’ understanding of the question, and I assume that the Pew people thought that the italicized clause would be understood as generally referring to supposed sexual misconduct; but it’s certainly worth noting.

Co-blogger Eugene Volokh recently linked to a Virginia state court decision striking down as unconstitutional a state law that allowed religious societies without official clergy to designate only one member as having the power to perform wedding ceremonies, while religious groups that do have clergy can designate more. The court concluded that the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar this law because “The General Assembly [Virginia's state legislature] cannot favor one type of religion over another without a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored method.”

I think the same reasoning should lead to the invalidation of another form of religious discrimination in the marriage law of our beloved Commonwealth, which I blogged about in this 2009 post:

My fiancee and I are not religious, and we plan to have our wedding performed by Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit, the federal judge I clerked for. Unfortunately, however, Judge Smith lives in Texas. This would be fine under state law if he were a minister or other religious leader; but secular wedding officiants must be state residents.

Virginia law allows any minister of a religious denomination to perform a wedding, even if he or she is not a resident. The same applies to religious leaders of faiths that don’t have any official ministers. Similarly, state law allows any Virginia resident to perform a wedding if he posts a bond, and permits federal and state judges resident in Virginia to officiate even without posting a bond. However, Virginia does not allow out-of-state judges or any other nonresident secular personages to officiate. Thus, we have a clear case of discrimination on the basis of religion. Nonresident ministers and other religious leaders can perform weddings in Virginia; but nonresident secular leaders cannot. This holds true even if the secular figure and the religious one are exactly identical in every respect other than the fact that one is religious and the other is not (e.g. – if they are equally skilled at performing weddings, have the same high standing in their respective communities, and so on).

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, courts strike down state laws that discriminate on the basis of religion unless the law in question passes “strict scrutiny.” To overcome the strict scrutiny hurdle, the state would have to show that the religious classification was “narrowly tailored” to the promotion of a “compelling state interest.” Without going into an exhaustive analysis, I think it highly unlikely that the Virginia marriage law can meet this standard. No good purpose is served by categorically forbidding the performance of marriages by nonresident secular figures, much less a “compelling state interest.”

In the end, my then-fiancee and I didn’t sue, and instead got married in the District of Columbia (in large part because she preferred a site in the District over the Virginia sites we looked at). But had we sued, I think we should have prevailed under the same reasoning as in the case noted by Eugene. The only difference between the two cases is that in one the state is discriminating in favor of some religious officiants relative to others, while in the other it is discriminating in favor of out-of-state religious officiants relative to out-of-state secular ones. But discrimination in favor of the religious against the secular is still clearly discrimination on the basis of religion, and thus subject to strict scrutiny. As the Supreme Court explained in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), “[N]either a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers.” (emphasis added).

Hopefully, someone else will challenge this small but annoying example of unconstitutional religious discrimination in Virginia marriage law.

Scotland is considering a new law that would grant official recognition to wedding ceremonies performed by practitioners of the new “Jedi” religion:

The Force is strong with the Jedi in Scotland. A bill under consideration in Scotland would grant those who have literally made “Star Wars” a religion the power to perform marriage ceremonies.

The BBC reports that the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill would apply to other nonreligious groups such as the Flat Earth Society and the Jedi Knights Society, aka Temple of the Jedi Order.

And while it may sound like a joke to most, the Jedi religion is quite popular in some parts of Europe. In England, it is the second-most popular “alternative religion,” with more than 175,000 people listing themselves as Jedi in the 2012 nationwide census.

“Our current consultation covers not only the introduction of same-sex marriage but also the detail of important protections in relation to religious bodies and celebrants, freedom of speech and education,” a Scottish government spokeswoman said.

“At the moment, marriage ceremonies by bodies such as humanists have been classed as religious, even though the beliefs of such organizations are nonreligious....”

The Scottish government plans to hold a public consultation on the bill and, of course, not all traditionally religious groups are happy about creating a new category for ceremonies that are by their very nature, arguably, a religious practice.

“There are loads of people in a diverse society like this for whom belief can mean virtually anything—the Flat Earth Society and Jedi Knights Society—who knows?” the Rev. Iver Martin told the BBC.

“I am not saying that we don’t give place to that kind of personal belief, but when you start making allowances for marriages to be performed within those categories, then you are all over the place.”

For their part, the Jedi say the very nature of their beliefs would prevent them from tarnishing any other religious institutions.

“We believe in Peace, Justice, Love, Learning and using our abilities for Good so it’s unlikely that our way conflicts with your beliefs and traditions,” reads a statement on the group’s website.

The Jedi faith may now be the fourth largest religion in Britain, though there is some question as to whether it’s really a religion, as opposed to a secular philosophy.

Despite the objections of the Reverend Iver Martin, I don’t see the problem with letting them perform officially sanctioned weddings. Most liberal democracies already allow wedding ceremonies performed by every conceivable religious group, as well as purely secular ones. Western civilization can easily survive having a few ceremonies performed by Jedi Knights, especially if The Force is truly with them.

Still, the fact that the possible legalization of Jedi weddings in Scotland is an outgrowth of a bill intended to legalize gay marriage might reinforce claims that gay marriage leads to a dangerous slippery slope. If we allow gay marriage, we will end up legalizing Jedi weddings, and weddings performed by Sith Lords wielding the power of the Dark Side can’t be far behind. To paraphrase Darth Vader, “[t]he ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force to perform weddings”!

Co-blogger Sasha Volokh asks for examples of Catholic science fiction. As with the debate over Jewish fantasy literature a couple years ago, a lot depends on the definition of the relevant field. But even under a pretty narrow definition, there are many, many examples.

One of my personal favorites is Frank Herbert’s Dune series, where the Bene Gesserit order (which plays a key role in the plot) is based on the Jesuits, and the dominant religion has substantial elements derived from Catholicism. The characters even often quote from the “Orange Catholic Bible,” the result of a future rapprochment between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Another famous example is Keith Roberts’ alternate history novel Pavane, which portrays a world in which the Catholic Church managed to crush the Reformation and then went on to severely constrain social, economic, and technological progress. Roberts viewed that result as a natural outgrowth of the Church’s doctrines if it had succeeded in staving off challenges to its position as the dominant church for all Western Christians.

If we expand the focus to include fantasy literature, there are even more examples. As Tom Shippey documents in an important study of Tolkien’s work, Catholic theological concepts significantly influenced the themes of The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien was a strongly committed Catholic). Criticism of the Catholic Church and its theology are central themes of Phillip Pullman’s atheistic Dark Materials trilogy, and Marion Zimmer Bradley’s well-known feminist reinterpretation of Arthurian legend, The Mists of Avalon.

It would be easy to extend this list. Overall, I would say that the Catholic Church and its theology get far more attention in science fiction and fantasy literature than any other religion, possibly more than all others combined. That’s not surprising, given that the Church has had more influence on Western history than any other, and to this day epitomizes organized religion in the minds of many Americans and Western Europeans.

UPDATE: I did not cover Walter L. Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz because it was already mentioned in Sasha’s original post.

An interesting story about two of Fred Phelps’ granddaughters’ leaving the Westboro Baptist Church — interesting both for its own sake, and also for the account of how they seem to have been persuaded, apparently in part by conversations with David Abitbol, an Israeli web developer and blogger at Jewlicious.

As a lawyer, a teacher of lawyers, and a blogger, I’ve often wondered how people’s minds are changed; this in an interesting case study, though, as usual, it’s hard to tell how or whether it generalizes to other situations, and what else may have been going on in the people’s lives that made them open to persuasion. Thanks to Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

A forthcoming issue of the Connecticut Law Review will feature a symposium on an article by Prof. Nicholas Johnson (Fordham) about the changing attitudes of the Black leadership towards firearms. In brief, Black leadership was historically very supportive the right to keep and bear arms, and particularly concerned that Blacks be able to have firearms for defense against white racists. The leadership’s attitude changed quite strongly in the late 1960s, and has remained anti-gun ever since. Johnson suggests that among the explanations for the change is that civil rights successes turned that leadership into powerful participants in the government, rather than outsiders.  Thus, the leadership adopted a more establishmentarian approach.

The symposium will have a variety of articles responding to Johnson. My own article observes that the change in attitude of the Black leadership parallels a change in much of the American Christian leadership about the legitimacy of defensive violence–at both the personal and the national level. For the Christian leadership, opposition to the Vietnam War was the proximate cause, but the change persisted long after the war had ended. Here’s the abstract:

This Article analyzes the changes in orthodox Christian attitudes towards defensive violence.

While the article begins in the 19th century and ends in the 21st, most of the Article is about the 20th century. The article focuses on American Catholicism and on the Vatican, although there is some discussion of American Protestantism.

In the nineteenth and early in the twentieth centuries, the traditional Christian concepts of Just War and of the individual’s duty to use force to defend himself and his family remained uncontroversial, as they had been for centuries. Disillusionment over World War One turned many Catholics and Protestants towards pacifism. Without necessarily adopting pacifism as a theory, they adopted pacifism as a practice. World War Two and the early Cold War ended the pacifist interlude for all but a few radical pacifists.

Beginning in the 1960s, much of the American Catholic leadership, like the leadership of mainline Protestant churches, turned sharply Left. Although churches did not repudiate their teachings on Just War, many Catholic and mainline Protestant leaders seemed unable to find any circumstances under which American or Western force actually was legitimate. Pacifism and anti-Americanism marched hand in hand. Today, pacifism now has greater respectability within orthodox Christianity than any time in the past 1700 years.

Among the influential thinkers profiled in this Article are all Popes from World War II to the present, Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker Movement, and the Berrigan Brothers. The article suggests that some recent trends in pacifist or quasi-pacifist approaches have been unduly influenced by hostility to the United States, and by the use of narrowly-focused emotion rather than the rigorous analysis that has characterized Catholic philosophy.

Al Arabiya reports:

An Egyptian Copt arrested on suspicion of posting online an anti-Islam film that ignited Muslim protests around the world was sentenced on Wednesday to three years in prison, a court source said

Computer science graduate Alber Saber, 27, was arrested at his Cairo home on Sept. 13 after neighbours accused him of uploading sections of the film “Innocence of Muslims” and making another movie mocking all religions....

Prosecutors accused Saber of running Facebook pages calling for atheism, insulting Islam and Christianity and questioning religious beliefs....

Thanks to Charles Chapman for the pointer.

Noted televangelist Pat Robertson firmly rejected young-earth creationism on “The 700 Club.” As CNN reports, when asked by a viewer how to respond to those who believe “the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs,” Robertson suggested his viewers should not “fight science.”

“You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

If Robertson truly doesn’t want his viewers to “fight science,” he should also dissuade them from pushing “intelligent design.” The bills attacking evolution and pushing ID pseudo-science keep coming. As HuffPo notes, a newly elected Montana state representative announced plans to require the teaching of “intelligent design” alongside evolution under the guise of “teaching the controversy.” The one federal court to consider the question rightly concluded that “intelligent design” is creationism in pseudo-scientific drag.

Neither young earth creationism nor the rejection of evolution is required by the Bible. As Dr. Joshua Swamidass, “a Christian and career scientist,” noted in the WSJ last week:

the age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren’t core Christian beliefs. Neither appears in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. Nor did Jesus teach them. Historical Christianity has not focused on how God created the universe, but on how God saves humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . .

there is simply no controversy in the scientific world about the age of the Earth or evolution. Evidence points to a billion-year-old planet.

The evidence for evolution is just as strong. In the past, evolution rested on ambiguous fossil evidence, but now it rests on much clearer DNA evidence that increases exponentially every month. Fully appreciating this evidence takes a lot of time, reading and patience. And it is not appropriate to “teach the controversy” in science class because there is no ongoing debate in the scientific community comparable to the theological debate.

The evolution debate is not a scientific controversy, but a theological controversy about a non-central Christian doctrine.

Religious leaders should no more try to deny evolution or the age of the earth than scientists should preach about Biblical commandments. Politicians, too, should stop pandering to scientific ignorance, even when grounded in religious belief — though this may be difficult. Polling suggests nearly 50 percent of Americans (58 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats) believe the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. As Beth Reinhard notes, “It’s not easy to reconcile matters of faith with matters of science, but smart public policy demands it.”

MEMRI reports that “Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid” is claiming that “Hurricane Sandy is Allah’s punishment for Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Meantime, Rabbi Noson Leiter [UPDATE: starting around 2:45] is claiming that Hurricane Sandy is God’s message about the “same-gender-marriage recognition movement.”

A few years ago, “Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans” praised God for using Hurricane Katrina to make “New Orleans ... abortion free,” “Mardi Gras free,” “free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion.”

And of course this is an echo of Jerry Falwell’s famously saying that 9/11 happened because God was “mad” about abortion, and also about “the pagans, ... and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” (Pat Robertson totally concurred.)

I’m aware that this is indeed long-established theology among some. It just doesn’t portray that brand of religion in a particularly good light, it seems to me.

UPDATE: Here’s one way of thinking about this: Religious people often argue several things together — God is just, God is all-knowing, God is all-powerful, and following their brand of religion will lead people to behave more morally.

That seems to be a hard argument to make when at the same time they say that God kills innocent people in order to punish other people (though of course believing in him means we ourselves would never ever do that). Yes, it’s theoretically reconcilable, on the theory that it’s OK for God but not for us, and that God moves in mysterious ways. It just doesn’t fit well my understanding of how human beings actually function; if their greatest moral guide does things like this, it seems not unlikely that this will bleed over into their beliefs as well. And, beyond this, such an explanation of how God supposedly operates doesn’t make this brand of religion any more appealing — or worthy of respect — for those who don’t yet believe in it.

The AP reports:

Thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims angry over an alleged derogatory photo of the Islamic holy book Quran on Facebook set fires in at least 10 Buddhist temples and 40 homes near the southern border with Myanmar, authorities said Sunday....

[A police chief] said at least 20 people were injured in the attacks that followed the posting of a Facebook photo of a burned copy of the Quran. The rioters blamed the photo on a local Buddhist boy, though it wasn’t immediately clear if the boy actually posted the photo.

Bangladesh’s popular English-language Daily Star newspaper quoted the boy as saying that the photo was mistakenly tagged on his Facebook profile....

More details from the Daily Star:

Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir ... promised to rebuild the Buddhist monasteries and temples and compensate the victims whose houses were destroyed.

The minister assured that the miscreants who stirred the violence would be traced and brought to book within 15 days....

Also addressing the rally, Industries Minister Dilip Barua said that in 1971 the country was liberated to establish a secular state. “The unprecedented events in Ramu have tarnished its reputation and our belief in secularism,” he said....

Thanks to Charles Chapman for the pointer.

Times of India reports; it’s not clear to me from the article whether the dead were the rioters or innocent victims of the rioters:

[S]ix people were killed and 12 injured, including two critically, in violence and arson during a protest against alleged desecration of the Quran. This is the sixth incident of communal violence in six months rule of Samajwadi Party so far....

“A member of our community saw pages of the holy Quran on which objectionable words were written along with a mobile number. He showed the pages to senior community members in the town, who took the pages to the police station,” said Ayub, a local advocate. “Instead of taking action, the police ignored the complaint,” he added. Following which an angry mob set the Masuri police station on fire.

Four police vehicles, six buses and some other vehicles were also damaged in the incident....

Ghaziabad district magistrate Aparna Upadhyay and senior superintendent of police Prashant Kumar told reporters that six persons were killed in the violence. A sub-inspector and a head constable suffered serious injuries and are in critical condition.

Asked whether protesters died in police firing, officials said it was a matter of investigation and they were awaiting post-mortem report to ascertain the cause of deaths....

Thanks to commenter shakerb for the pointer.

That’s what MSBNC contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch, the University of Pennsylvania’s Prof. Anthea Butler (Religious Studies), and of course the Egyptian government argue with regard to the movie that mocks Mohammed:

Prof. Butler: “Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid...” “And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don’t understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.” “And people do to jail for speech. First Amendment doesn’t cover EVERYTHING a PERSON says.” “[T]he murder of the Ambassador and the employees is wrong, wrong. But Bacile will have to face his actions which he had freedom[.]”

Mike Barnicle: “Given this supposed minister’s role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”

Donny Deutsch: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”

The Egyptian government: “We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film’s producers within the framework of international charters that criminalise acts that stir strife on the basis of race, colour or religion.”

And same for all of you who mock young earthers, or devout Scientologists, or believers in miracles — and all who say that, for instance, racist or sexist religious beliefs are contemptible — and maybe even all those who, even politely, contend that rival religions’ views are wrong and will deny salvation to the holders of those views:

The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

So says the Secretary of State, in quite categorical terms. After all, in all the examples given above, you would presumably be intentionally denigrating the religious beliefs of others: saying that they are immoral and foolish. The U.S. government deplores your speech. It’s not just that the government doesn’t endorse the speech, not just that it deplores a limited and narrow category of blasphemous acts (e.g., burning a Koran, treading on a crucifix, and the like), but rather that it deplores any attempt to denigrate religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, which are routinely used by billions as a guide to private action and a guide to lawmaking, are supposed to be somehow immune from the denigration that is a commonplace and necessary part of debate about ideological beliefs generally.

The government statement also rightly condemns the murder of American diplomats and soldiers, but in the process deplores anti-religious speech as well. And, yes, I understand the context in which the statement was made, the demands of diplomacy (which often include the need to lie), and the reality that the State Department likely cares only about denigration of those religious groups that contain a substantial extremist fringe likely to respond to the denigration with murder. But the statement says what it says, and deliberately goes beyond an expression of nonendorsement to an expression of official governmental condemnation.

Here, by the way, is the English version of the U.S.-government-deplored movie trailer that has led to the most recent round of murder and other violence by extremist Muslims:

Over the last decade, a lot of attention has focused on the Boy Scouts’ policy banning gays and lesbians from participating as Scouts or working for the organization. Most recently, a group of Eagle Scouts have returned their merit badges in protest of the policy. Unfortunately, very few have protested the Boy Scouts’ equally unjustified exclusion of atheists and agnostics.

It would be understandable for the Boy Scouts to exclude atheists if the purpose of the organization was to promote a particular religion, such as Catholicism or Judaism. But in fact that is not their purpose at all. They accept members of any and all religions (including ones with beliefs that most Americans would find highly objectionable) so long as they believe in God. Such an “anyone but atheists and agnostics” policy smacks of bigotry.

The most likely reason for the Boy Scouts’ policy is the belief that you can’t be a moral person without believing in God. As I explain in this article, such beliefs are widespread (shared by about 50% of Americans), but false. One can be an atheist and yet still have strong ethical commitments. And there is no evidence that atheists or agnostics have higher rates of criminal or unethical behavior than religious believers do.

It’s also worth noting that the Girl Scouts have allowed open atheists and agnostics to participate since the early 1990s, allowing members to omit the word “God” from the Girl Scout oath. There is no evidence that this has caused any problems for the organization. The Boy Scouts should follow their example.

Prejudice against atheists is more widespread than hostility towards any other religious or ethnic group, and more common even than homophobia. But the Boy Scouts – and others who aspire to moral leadership – should reject that bigotry rather than promote it.

To avoid misunderstanding, I should emphasize that I do not want the government to forbid the Boy Scouts from excluding either gays or atheists. Private organizations like the Scouts have a right of freedom of association; I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Boy Scouts v. Dale. But other private parties have a right to criticize the way the Scouts use that freedom.

UPDATE: As co-blogger Dale Carpenter reminded me, the Girl Scouts also allow lesbians to become scouts and both gays and lesbians to work as employees of the organization. That, like their nondiscrimination policy towards atheists, hasn’t hurt the organization in any way. The Boy Scouts can and should learn from that experience.

ABC News reports:

Suicide bombers killed 21 people [and wounded at least 100] in attacks on three churches in Nigeria during Sunday services, exacerbating religious tensions in a West African nation that is almost evenly divided between Muslims and Christians....

It was the third Sunday in a row that deadly attacks have been carried out against Christian churches in northern Nigeria. No one immediately claimed responsibility for the latest one, but suspicion fell on the radical Islamist sect Boko Haram because it took responsibility for the two earlier weekend assaults.

Boko Haram is waging an increasingly bloody fight with security agencies and the public in Nigeria. More than 560 people have been killed in violence blamed on the sect this year alone, according to an Associated Press count....

Atrocity has, unsurprisingly, begun to lead to atrocity, though fortunately at this point at a smaller scale, and apparently just beginning (which suggests that it can more easily be stopped); the Christian Science Monitor reports:

Frustrated with the government’s inability to stop a string of such attacks in recent months, some Christians responded today with reprisals, killing at least 7 more people....

Until today, Christians living in the predominately-Muslim north have mostly resisted being provoked to violence, responding instead with calls on the government to suppress Boko Haram and reestablish security. Today’s retaliation from some Christians is raising concerns that a cycle of religious violence could start in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation.