Growing authoritarianism and surveillance

The pandemic has seen a dangerous expansion of power by autocratic governments and excessive use of force by law enforcement authorities to administer preventive measures. As stated by Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, countries disregarding the rule of law to combat the crisis in the guise of exceptional or emergency measures could spark a human rights disaster. Governments are also increasingly using surveillance technology to gather information, trace movement and track individuals. This is a cause for concern as there are serious questions whether such measures could meet international human rights standards of necessity and proportionality. In some countries such as Sri Lanka and Israel, military intelligence is used for contact tracing. In the hands of restrictive governments, intrusive surveillance could lead to increased restrictions on minorities and pose serious challenges to human rights.

Rising Islamophobia and hate speech

In Sri Lanka, compulsory cremations in violation of WHO guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic have hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, who are a minority in the country.  In one example, the death of a Muslim woman was wrongfully identified as caused by COVID-19 by the authorities. The family was then compelled to cremate the body against their religious sentiments. Moreover, hate speech against Muslims in the country has also been on the rise, after there was severe religious profiling of victims in mainstream media. Similarly, in the UK, far-right groups have used the Coronavirus crisis to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment. According to monitoring groups, fake news has circulated on social media that Muslims were breaching the lockdown by continuing to attend mosques.

Discrimination of religious minorities in the provision of relief

In Myanmar, the Burmese military has been accused of denying Rohingya Muslims access to medical care during the COVID-19 crisis. In Pakistan, a Muslim cleric faced criticism from Christian leaders and human rights activists after he claimed that his organization, Dawat-e-Islami was converting non-Muslims to Islam using COVID-19 aid. According to reports, Christian minorities in the country have also been discriminated in the provision of emergency relief. In Bangladesh, too, there have been reports that the government has provided relief to only Muslims from the Prime Minister’s relief fund. In the Philippines, since pastors are not categorised as self-employed, they have been left out of government welfare schemes.

Inconsistent measures concerning the reopening of religious places of worship

In New Zealand, the government has faced criticism that it had failed to consider the rights to freedom of religion when it drafted the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, after concerns were raised that places of religious worship were ordered to remain closed while malls, bars, and other public places were deemed safe to reopen.

A cover for Islamist extremism

Arrests of leaders of minority faiths

In India, a pastor and 7 others including 3 Christians were arrested while they were preparing relief packs. The authorities accused them of illegally gathering to worship during the COVID-19 lockdown. While in detention they were questioned on whether they were receiving money to convert people. Also, in Nepal, a pastor was arrested on charges of misinformation for stating that prayer could heal COVID-19. He was released and then rearrested on trumped-up charges of outraging religious feelings and proselytism.

A positive development

Conclusion

Religious minorities are facing new challenges and increased vulnerability owing to COVID-19. This requires urgent attention and action on the part of governments and the health authorities battling this crisis. Preventive measures followed by governments must be adequate, proportionate, and guarantee equal treatment. While exercising patience and goodwill during this global pandemic and continuing to follow health regulations as deemed necessary by the authorities, it is also important that human rights agencies, civil society actors and faith groups, where necessary, proactively question the legality of preventive measures and advocate for the rights of religious minorities to ensure their protection and halt governmental overreach. The rights and well-being of religious minorities should not be neglected or undermined in the pursuit of a safer world.

WEA-RLC Research and Analysis Report
June 18, 2020

World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) sponsors the WEA-RLC Research & Analysis Report to help individuals and groups pray for and act on religious liberty issues around the world. WEA has a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. This report was researched and written by Jose Henriques, and moderated by the WEA-RLC Executive Director, Godfrey Yogarajah.

On Monday, June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Image: Marcie Douglass

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said this about the June 4 ruling:

Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs. Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.

For the full press release: http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8700

This volume is an outgrowth of papers presented at the third biennial meeting of the European Forum for the Study of Religion and Environment at the University of Chester in May of 2011. It contains 13 articles by authors ranging from luminaries in the animal ethics field to graduate students.

The introduction, by Deane-Drummond and Clough, is a superb example of what an introduction should accomplish. It situates the text within the discipline of animal-theology, arguing that the book contributes to the discipline but also summarizes each of the articles thereby providing a complete overview of the book’s contents. Readers skip this introduction at their own peril.

The articles are organized under four main headings which will be discussed in turn. Part One, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Thought” contains three articles that seek to reorient us away from our superior attitude towards animals by asking us to reconsider our intellectual authorities, biases, and categories respectively. The first articles draws on pagan practice, poetry, and philosophy (p.25) to convince us to consider the possibility that animals may be more religious than Abrahamic religions have traditionally thought. The second article argues that our contemporary views on animals are biased by the impact of scientific empiricism and Reformational exegesis which separated us from the voices of the earth. The last article contends that we should not allow our thinking to be dominated by the animal-human binary categorization of the animal kingdom.

Part Two, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Symbolism” contains three articles on how animals were viewed by post apostolic Christians, medieval Germany, and Hindus. The fourth article is an interesting discussion on the symbolism of the praying mantis through the ages. This section is primarily of a historical and descriptive nature and can be useful for those interested in those subjects and periods.

Part Three, “Animals as Subjects of Theological Inquiry” contains three articles questioning the notion that the sharp distinction between animals and humans is as real and substantive as presently believed. The first article argues that our sense of place influences our perception of the place animals have in our world. The author asks us to reconsider our perspective in order to have a wider appreciation of the diverse life forms on the planet. The second article appeals to arguments made by Gregory of Nazianzus and Evagrius of Pontus suggesting that humans become like animals when we choose God because we lose our ability to choose. Thus rather than highlighting the distinction between animals and humans, it appears these theologians made an argument that could be used to reduce that gap. The final article in this section argues that our classification schemes reinforce human superiority over animals. The author suggests we should seek to celebrate animals rather than categorize them to reinforce their lower place.

Part Four, “Animals as Subjects of Religious Ethics” contains three articles. The first argues that Deuteronomy’s negative view of animals flows from the urbanized world-view of its author and that we should draw our perspective on animals from that proffered by Jonah instead (cf. Jon 4:11). The second article makes the interesting claim that transgenic research is wrong, not because it violates human dignity but because it can violate the dignity of the animals. The final article attempts to show that Aquinas thought that animals have their own status as being in the image of God, albeit at a different level, thereby overthrowing the historic view that Aquinas believed animals had a very low status.

Since my interests lie in the theological and ethical issues surrounding animals, I will focus my review on those chapters. On the one hand, the book does help readers see the place of animals in a different way. In that regard, the opportunity to reflect on the traditional Christian view that animals are subordinate to humans in status, ontology, and redemption is valuable. Likewise, the authors provide important conceptual schemes that should be considered when discussing animal-theology. On the other hand, articles appealing to scripture fail to properly consider the wealth of data that oppose their position. In addition, I found it ironic that the authors condemn the scientific view of the Enlightenment that humans are superior/different than animals while never considering the possibility that the modern evolutionary-scientific worldview holding that humans are just another animal is also an unjustified assumption.

Ultimately, the authors raise important questions and make thought provoking comments. But their failure to ground the arguments in concrete data make them little more than philosophical musings that require the reader to do a lot more work to arrive at a supportable conclusion. Apparently, it is easier to raise questions than to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a decision based on the preponderance of the data.

Reviewed by Stephen M. Vantassel

Publisher’s page: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/animals-as-religious-subjects-9780567015648/

Preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=HZdLAQAAQBAJ

Tony Richie Summarizes and Reflects on Special White House Convening: “Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism”

On Thursday, December 17th from 1:00-4:30 PM the White House conducted a special convening on “Celebrating and Protecting America’s Tradition of Religious Pluralism.”[1] Participation was by White House invitation only. Two Church of God ministers, Cheryl Bridges Johns and Tony Richie, were among those involved. Johns and her husband, Jackie, pastor New Covenant in Cleveland, Tennessee while Richie and his wife, Sue, pastor New Harvest in Knoxville, Tennessee. Johns is Robert E. Fisher Professor of Spiritual Renewal and Christian Formation at Pentecostal Theological Seminary. Richie is Adjunct Professor of Historical and Doctrinal Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary. Steven D. Martin, Director of Communications and Development for the National Council of Churches, was instrumental in effecting this significant invitation for these two Pentecostals.

The meeting was sponsored by the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It focused on the deep American traditions of religious inclusion, freedom, and cooperation among those with different beliefs. Officials discussed steps they take to promote and protect these traditions. Attendees had the opportunity to discuss efforts to carry these traditions forward in positive modes. Devotees from the major faith traditions participated.

The day’s sessions were moderated by Melissa Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She insisted that, “There are no second class faiths in the United States of America.” However, Rogers also admitted “We have not always lived up to our ideals.” Remarks setting a tone of sober discussion with serious political overtones were made by Cecilia Muñoz, Assistant to the President, Director of Domestic Policy Council; Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; and Vanita Gupta, Principle Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

Robby Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Public Religion Research Institute, presented recent data describing the United States as an increasingly plural nation in terms of its religious population. He submitted that religious diversity is in line with our nation’s history. However, the US has never before experienced the high level of diversity it does now. Yet most people (including atheists) still have small friendship circles including only or almost only their own faith group. The least levels of interaction in the US appear to be in the geographical South (the Bible Belt) and Midwest (the Heartland), apparently because of lower levels of religious diversity than the overall national average. Nevertheless, white Evangelicals appear to be a prominent group expressing mistrust and suspicion of religious others. Tennessee is frequently cited as a key battleground state in the fight for freedom of religion. Accordingly, both challenges and opportunities arise. In a word, more interreligious interaction is needed at communal and individual levels.

An Ethical Approach

More of a practical guide than a theological statement, “Recommendations for Conduct” outlines “A Basis for Christian Witness”. This is the most consistently biblical section, and primarily upholds mission as a participation in the mission of God and obedience to the example of Jesus and the early church with a strong emphasis on ethical behavior and responsibility.³ The document also details “Principles” of Christian conduct in bearing witness to the gospel: “Acting in God’s love,” “Imitating Jesus Christ,” “Christian virtues,” “Acts of service and justice,” “Discernment in ministries of healing,” “Rejection of violence,” “Freedom of religion and belief,” “Mutual respect and solidarity,” “Respect for all people,” “Renouncing false witness,” “Ensuring personal discernment,” and “Building interreligious relationships.” True to its subtitle, it also suggests “Recommendations” for guiding relationships between Christians and others as Christians respond to God’s call to do mission: “study” the critical issues involved, “build” relationships of respect and trust, “encourage” Christians to strengthen their own religious identity and faith, “cooperate” with other religious communities for justice and the common good, “call” on governments to respect religious freedom, and “pray” for all neighbors.

“Recommendations for Conduct” ends with an “Appendix” describing the background and process of its origin and development over the last five years. As a participant from beginning to end in that process, I understand that this background is essential for appreciating many of the nuances of the statements of this document. Also, it would be a mistake to divorce the content and tone of “Recommendations for Conduct” from the clear purpose statement in the “Preamble”.

The purpose of this document is to encourage churches, church councils and mission agencies to reflect on their current practices and to use the recommendations in this document to prepare, where appropriate, their own guidelines for their witness and mission among those of different religions and among those who do not profess any particular religion. It is hoped that Christians across the world will study this document in the light of their own practices in witnessing to their faith in Christ, both by word and deed.

Early Response

Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 368 pages.

Netland capably considers all the angles for a thorough study achieving an informed, sophisticated, and faithfully Evangelical theology of religions. This is a must read for anyone seriously studying theology of religions within the bounds of Evangelicalism or beyond. In the context of refuting radical religious pluralism Netland also presents a viable alternative retaining uncompromising Christian commitment but honestly respecting other religious traditions. He is personally well-prepared for this dual emphasis by a lifetime of Christian ministry in Japan. That he has lived what he writes shows in his work. The Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor is particularly adept at setting the cultural stage for a deeper understanding of contemporary ideological currents involved in the rising popularity of religious pluralism.

Part One puts contemporary religious pluralism into context. Netland explores changing attitudes toward other religions by Christians, “the culture of modernity” and postmodernism as they pertain to pluralism, the nature of encountering and interacting with religious others, and the religious and spiritual aspects of contemporary culture. Notably, Netland analyses the theological journey of possibly the foremost pluralist theologian of our times, John Hick, as an example of cultural and theological dialectics going into the development of modern pluralism. Part Two constructively addresses issues involved in developing a satisfactory theology of religions compatible with Evangelical Christianity. Now Netland hits head-on questions of conflicting truth claims by different religions, problems in Hick’s pluralist paradigm, and challenges for Christian apologetics in answering issues raised by religious pluralism. He suggests criteria for evaluating alternate worldviews proposed by the fact of religious diversity today. Importantly, Netland’s work is not only critical but also constructive; he finishes with a foundation for building an Evangelical theology of religions.

Netland is an associate professor of philosophy of religion, and this shows in his methodology. His arguments are often tight, well-knit constructs requiring close attention to understand. Usually the reward is worth the work. His illustrations, examples, and analogies help. Nevertheless, this is not merely a philosophical treatise. Netland treats divine revelation as paramount. His abundant, reverent use of Scripture can be followed easily enough by anyone with a basic biblical background. Regarding content, Netland really does try to touch all the bases. One noteworthy exception is pneumatology. Typical of some Evangelicals but increasingly hard to understand in light of the modern Pentecostal/charismatic movements, Netland spends major time and space on Christology, necessary in itself of course, but does not even mention notable nuances an informed experience of the Holy Spirit brings to the theology of religions table. Even when discussing Clark Pinnock, who develops a dynamic pneumatological model of theology of religions (cf. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Downer’s Grove, ILL: InterVarsity, 1996), he misses (dismisses?) the chance to talk about the role of the Spirit and the religions. Given his usual thoroughness Netland’s negligence on pneumatology is disparate and disappointing.

That being said, two things really make this book a standout work. First, Netland’s discussion of John Hick’s pluralism is very helpful indeed. Hick is probably the leading pluralist of our day and coming to grips with his work is required in theology of religions research. That Netland studied under Hick and speaks of him with high regard yet respectfully disagrees with his pluralist paradigm lends his work added depth and dimension. His discussion on Hick really does help clarify several salient concepts of Hick’s philosophy and theology. In the process, Netland persuasively shows where and why religious pluralism went wrong. Second, Netland’s concluding proposal for an Evangelical theology of religions is exceptionally clear, concise, and constructive. His definition and clarification of the theology of religions task, goals, and tools give guidance on a road seriously needing such signposts for safe navigation. His continuing uncompromising commitment to the uniqueness of Christ and to Christian evangelism and missions in the context of theology of religions is commendable.