Well, as an English-reading-only American, I get most of my info about Europe from the Economist. I know that it is strongly biased in the liberal direction, and that it is strongly biased in the British direction. But, I'm not sure how an article like this one [June 25] reflects either bias, since Britain and the Economist both support Turkish membership in the EU.

"Some 3000 Syriacs [Orthodox Christians] in the south-east say their land and houses have been seized, not just by Kurds, but also by the state... the state institution that micro-manages religious life in Turkey, when it issued a sermon on March 11th to be preached at some 75,000 officially registered mosques. The sermon talked of the dangers posed to the national unity by missionaries who "work as a part of a plan to cut the ties of our citizens with the faith."

Doesn't exactly sound like freedom of religion to me...

I wouldn't go that far. Actually, the Bush administration is pressuring the Turks because they refuse to recognize the Eastern Orthodox head. They have also closed down churches and seminaries in and around Istanbul.

Here are some of the problems:

"The Orthodox and other religious minorities are anxious to have more control over their finances, to be able to grant work permits to foreign clergy, to freely elect their own leaders and to build and rebuild sanctuaries.

During his visit, Bush said he was satisfied that Turkey will soon let the Orthodox reopen the Halki seminary on Heybeliada Island, which was closed in 1971 under laws strictly controlling all religious education. In addition to training new clergy, this might strengthen two surviving monasteries. This is crucial since, under Turkish law, any monk who is elected Orthodox patriarch must be a Turkish citizen."

This is a good link for a rundown of a few problems:

What if Italy limited the Pope's sacred precinct to the grounds of the Vatican?