Posted on 01/05/2016 1:12:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
When we think of religious persecution, the Middle East comes to mind. But the world's largest democracy?
At this time last year, I urged BreakPoint listeners to pay close attention to the state of religious freedom around the world in 2015. I said that this most important of freedoms was in peril at home as well as abroad.
Little has changed in the past twelve months. If anything, the state of religious freedom is even more precarious, as events in India amply demonstrate.
Normally, when we think about the persecuted Church, what comes to mind are places like the Middle East and China. But as I told you two years ago, "the country that has witnessed the single greatest outburst of anti-Christian violence in recent years" is India.
I quoted from "The Global War on Christians" by John L. Allen, which told readers that in 2008, "a series of riots [in the state of Orissa] ended with as many as five hundred Christians killed," many of them "hacked to death by machete-wielding Hindu radicals."
Thankfully, there hasn't been a repeat of violence in India -- a least on that scale -- in the past seven years. But in some ways, religious freedom in India is in worse shape today than it was back then. In the past few years, six Indian states, including Maharashtra, which includes Mumbai (or Bombay, as it's better known), have enacted laws that effectively ban conversions from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam.
I say "effectively," because while the laws, at least as written, "only" ban conversions that are the result of "force, allurement or fraudulent means," these terms are extremely vague. So much so that something like providing free medical care -- a moral obligation given the sorry state of India's health care system -- could be seen as "allurement."
Likewise, the term "force" includes the "threat of divine displeasure." Thus, talking about hell could be interpreted as a use of force, or at least coercion. What's more, many of the laws require people to inform authorities prior to conversion or even, in some instances, to seek permission before converting.
The Hindu nationalist proponents of these laws claim that they're protecting vulnerable populations from being exploited by what they see as "political tools" being wielded by "foreign powers."
The bad faith of this argument can be seen in the fact that the states that have adopted these measures have large populations of "untouchables," more properly known as Dalits, and Adivasi, also known as "tribals." These groups occupy the lowest rung of Hindu society and have been treated accordingly by their higher caste neighbors.
Not surprisingly, they are the people most likely to convert, sometimes to Islam, more often to Christianity. Thus, the violence in places like Orissa was, in part, an effort to preserve Hindu caste hierarchies.
If the concern was for the well-being of these people, the far better and more decent approach would be to end caste discrimination instead of trampling on their religious freedom.
But of course, that wasn't the concern. Tarun Vijay, a prominent Hindu nationalist, justified these measures by saying that "for the first time [in India], the population of Hindus has been reported to be less than 80 percent. We have to take measures to arrest the decline. It is very important to keep the Hindus in majority in the country."
"Measures" include a proposed national anti-conversion law, with the Orwellian title "The Religious Freedom Bill."
While the State Department's 2014 Religious Freedom Report mentioned these anti-conversion laws, there's no evidence to suggest that President Obama brought up this gross violation of religious freedom when he visited with India's Prime Minister Modi last year.
This is a shame. Our government may not want to talk about it, but that shouldn't stop us.
Is Metaxis an apologist for Islamists?
RE: Is Metaxis an apologist for Islamists?
Why the question?
Why does this liberal now have control of Charles Colson’s ministry?
Because he seems to be from what I have seen.
RE: Because he seems to be from what I have seen.
Can you elaborate?
He seems to be very associated with the magazine that put up this:
What the Bible Says About How to Treat Refugees
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/what-bible-says-about-how-treat-refugees
Now he is pushing this moral relativism regarding Islamism.
Truth is the truth.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
It’s just that no religion corners the market on vicious rigid conformity like Islam.
I read the entire article from Relevant magazine and all Metaxas did was QUOTE from the Bible without giving any policy advise.
Hard to judge what he advocates from the above article.
As for this:
“Now he is pushing this moral relativism regarding Islamism.”
I would be grateful if you could provide a relevant link for me.
Anyone who pays attention to India knows this is true. There IS persecution of non-Hindus in India.
The first sentence establishes the piece as one of moral relativism with respect to Islamism.
“Anyone who pays attention to India knows this is true. There IS persecution of non-Hindus in India.”
No one can disagree with that.
bfl
RE: The first sentence establishes the piece as one of moral relativism with respect to Islamism.
_________________________________
Not sure which article you are referring to, but let’s look at each of them...
Here is the first sentence of the article from your link:
“Immigration continues to be one of the most politically polarizing issues in America.”
The above is a statement of fact and does little to tell us what Metaxas thinks of the issue.
Now, if you are referring to the article in this thread, here is the first sentence:
“When we think of religious persecution, the Middle East comes to mind.”
Hard to argue with that too. It is MAINLY in the Middle East where Christians are not even allowed to establish their churches and there is a danger of being killed and persecuted for simply being a Christian.
The first sentence is this:
“When we think of religious persecution, the Middle East comes to mind. But the world’s largest democracy?”
Completely superfluous except for introducing moral relativism.
RE: Completely superfluous except for introducing moral relativism.
I’m not going to judge his intentions based on that one sentence alone.
He is not saying that Hindus are equivalent to Muslims. Only that there are persecution of Christians in Muslim and Hindu dominated places.
And I don’t even think he is saying that :
1) The DEGREE of persecution are the same.
2) That Islam and Hinduism are similar in all respects.
You didn’t read the article you posted.
RE: You didn’t read the article you posted.
OK, let’s say I have a problem with reading comprehension.
Tell me where in the article it shows that Metaxas believes that Islam and Hinduism are equivalent.
All he did was REPORT ( and even quote sources like “The Global War on Christians” by John L. Allen, ) on persecutions occurring in India. And remember this — India is a BIG country with Individual states controlled by their own government where pockets of persecution are SURE to occur.
So, the question still stands. Where in the article does it show that Metaxis an “apologist for Islamists”?
If any, it shows ALARM for Christian persecution in BOTH Islamic and alas, Hindu dominated countries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.