NSS urges even-handed approach to freedom of religion or belief

The National Secular Society has urged the UK’s new envoy on freedom of religion or belief, Fiona Bruce, to take an even-handed rather than selective approach to promoting the principle.

Fiona Bruce was appointed as the prime minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) this week.

The NSS has questioned the wisdom of the appointment.

Bruce is a council member of the Evangelical Alliance council. She chairs the all-party parliamentary pro-life group and has lobbied to limit women’s reproductive rights.

She has voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and assisted dying, and support for daily Christian worship in state schools.

In 2016 she was accused of seeking to exclude non-religious worldviews from religious education when she took over as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on RE.

But she has also raised human rights abuses in countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Nigeria in parliament.

NSS letter and comment

In a letter to her, the NSS warned that efforts to promote FoRB are impeded when the agenda is manipulated to protect specific beliefs rather than people.

It said the perception of FoRB as a right that protects religious groups and individuals, rather than more broadly as a right that protects both the religious and non-religious, risks disengagement from potential civil society allies.

NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: “Freedom of religion or belief is fundamental to living in an open, tolerant and diverse society – and we support the government’s agenda of promoting and protecting this right around the world. But in doing so the government must take an even-handed approach.

“It’s vital to recognise that freedom from religion is a necessary corollary to freedom of religion.

“Fiona Bruce has rightly used her platform to raise some significant human rights abuses. But she’s also promoted a false narrative of persecutions of Christians in the UK – and her parliamentary activity indicates a keenness to impose her religious beliefs on others. This isn’t a vision of FoRB the government should promote.

“We hope to work with Ms Bruce and the government to ensure that everyone’s right to freedom of religion or belief is upheld and protected equally.”

Note

• Bruce has replaced Rehman Chishti, who resigned from the government in September in opposition to the internal market bill.

Image: Official portrait of Fiona Bruce MP, via parliament.uk [CC BY 3.0]

Discuss on Facebook.

Israel, settler colonialism and religion

by Bill Fletcher Jr.

(NNPA)–On a regular basis those of us who demonstrate our support for Palestinian self-determination and freedom are demonized as being anti-Semitic or otherwise insensitive to the religious persecution that has been perpetrated against Jewish people.

Such allegations are nothing more than sophistry and aim at deflecting the criticisms of the expropriation of the Palestinian land by Zionists settlers and the establishment of a neo-apartheid state by the Israeli political establishment. But it is useful to turn to the question of religion for a moment.

The religious argument for the establishment of Israel is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. That the Zionist movement, established in Europe during the 19th century as a secular response to the persecution of European Jews is frequently ignored.

What is also ignored was the search, by the leadership of the Zionist movement, for a European colonial-imperial ally with the aim of establishing a Jewish state somewhere in the world (within the sphere of that colonial empire!).

This included overtures toward the major colonial empires of the time such as Britain, Russia, and Turkey.

The fact that the Zionist movement saw itself as having shared interests with colonial powers that were dividing up Africa, Asia and, in a different manner, Latin America, should tell us something about the motive of the movement.

It is also worth noting that the proposed Jewish state was not located exclusively in what is today Palestine. Uganda and Madagascar were two of several other locations that were explored.

Once it is clear that multiple locations were explored—only one of which had any relationship to the Bible—and that this exploration was viewed in the context of the European division of the world, it becomes clear that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel had little to do with a fair treatment of the Bible. It had to do with power and the aim of Europeans to establish a settler-colony in the Middle East.

Yet here is another interesting part of this saga. It turns out that nearly every settler colony, if not every settler colony, associated itself with religion. Whether one is discussing the British colonization of Ireland, the British colonization of North America (and the ultimate founding of the USA), or the Boer/Afrikaner invasion of southern Africa, religion was used by the colonizers as a justification. In each case the colonizers claimed that God instructed them to go forth and seize the land from those who had been occupying it.

This religious justification became central in the atrocities carried out against the indigenous peoples—in each case—and the lack of any degree of empathy with those who had originally inhabited the land.

Thus, the establishment of Israel was neither unique nor otherwise unusual. It just happened to be the last in a long line of European settler colonial experiments carried out at the expense of those who had inhabited the land, in each case using a religious explanation as the rationale.

(Bill Fletcher Jr. is the executive editor of globalafricanworker.com and a past president of TransAfrica Forum.)

Fiona Bruce appointed as new Freedom of Religion or Belief Envoy

Bruce, a committed Christian, said the plight of young Christian girls like Leah Sharibu, kidnapped by militants in Nigeria, and Maira Shahbaz, forced into a marriage in Pakistan, would be priorities for her.

Welcoming the news on Twitter, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said: “Fiona Bruce is a champion for freedoms here and abroad.

“I look forward to working with her as the UK’s Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief to make sure everyone, everywhere is free to have and practise a faith, belief, or not, in accordance with their conscience.”

She succeeds Rehman Chisti who resigned earlier this year after the Government suggested it would break international law over Brexit. 

Bruce said she was “honoured” by the appointment.

“There is much to do, and my post will be placed at the service of some of the most vulnerable people across the world, people like young girls Leah Sharibu from Nigeria and Maira Shahbaz from Pakistan, both brutally abducted from their homes and whose plights I was able to highlight recently in the House of Commons,” she said.

“This appointment comes in the light of continuing large scale horrors taking place – such as those against Uighur Muslims in China, Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and Yazidis in Iraq and at a time when, as the late and much respected former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks stated, ‘the persecution of Christians throughout much of the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, and elsewhere, is one of the crimes against humanity of our time.’

“These are some of the most deeply concerning issues of our generation, on which it will be a privilege to engage as Special Envoy, both nationally and internationally, with others similarly concerned.”

Her appointment has been welcomed by CSW’s Founder President Mervyn Thomas, who said: “This appointment is wonderful news for all who work on freedom of religion or belief.

“Fiona Bruce has been unwavering, courageous and outspoken in championing this fundamental right since she became an MP in 2010, and we look forward to continuing to work with her in her new role.

“We would also like to thank Rehman Chisti MP for his work advancing the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief worldwide both during and after his time as FoRB envoy.”

Henrietta Blyth, CEO of Open Doors, said the Conversative MP has been a “champion” for minority religious groups.

“We are thrilled that a new special envoy has been appointed,” said Henrietta. “And we are delighted that it is Fiona Bruce – she has been a friend of Open Doors through the years and is a real champion for freedom of religion and belief,” she said. 

“Freedom of religion and belief affects all religious groups and it’s great to see that the Government is open to appointing members of all religions to the role.

“Rehman Chishti MP was very energetic in pursuing the recommendations from the Bishop of Truro’s report to support persecuted Christians and we will look forward to continuing our work on this with Fiona.”

Dr David Landrum, the new director of Advocacy and Public Affairs at Open Doors UK & Ireland, said:

“This is a timely and important appointment. Fiona understands that the freedom to convert is at the heart of religious freedom and that religious freedom underpins all our other human rights and civil liberties.

“We look forward to working with Fiona as the UK government affirms its commitment to addressing the persecution of Christians across the world.

“We know that from her extensive campaigning work and her role on the Joint Human Rights Committee Fiona is not only very knowledgeable about the issues facing the persecuted church, but she also has both a heart for religious freedom and a vision to see things change.”

British PM appoints new envoy for freedom of religion or belief –

        <span>British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has appointed Fiona Bruce, MP for Congleton, as his Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.</span>

In her new role, Fiona will bring together efforts across the UK government with faith actors and civil society to promote religious tolerance abroad, read a press release issued by the British Embassy Dubai on Sunday.


Fiona will work alongside the UK Minister responsible for Human Rights, Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon.


In her new role, Fiona will draw on her wealth of experience from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief to look at how the UK Government can protect and promote this fundamental freedom internationally. She will also work with the members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to raise awareness of cases of particular concern, advocating for the rights of individuals around the world who are being discriminated against and persecuted for their faith or belief.


Johnson said, “The UK is absolutely committed to protecting the inalienable right to freedom of religion and belief, at home and around the world. As we approach Christmas, the season of peace, people of all faiths and none are still being persecuted for their beliefs. I am delighted to appoint Fiona as my special envoy on this issue, and I know she will be a passionate advocate for tolerance and freedom.”


Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said, “Fiona has been a standard setter for Freedom of Religion or Belief in Parliament, and I look forward to working with her to make sure everyone, everywhere can have and practise a faith, belief, or no religious belief, in accordance with their conscience.


“Acting as a force for good in the world will see the UK continue to promote and defend Freedom of Religion or Belief for all.”


Speaking on her appointment Fiona said, “I am honoured to be given this opportunity to serve as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.


“I pay tribute to the work of my predecessors, Rehman Chishti MP and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and hope to build on their dedicated work and that of many Parliamentarians and others in this field, to raise further the profile of this fundamental freedom.


“There is much to do, and I shall place myself at the service of some of the most vulnerable individuals across the world.”


WAM

Secular Democrats mistakenly invoke Jefferson’s ideals to try and stifle religion in America

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

                  This past week a group defining themselves as Secular Democrats of America submitted a 28-page letter to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden calling on them to expunge religion from all sectors of <a href="/topics/american-public-life/">American public life</a> and to “re-educate” Christian Americans that they should keep their “religious dogma” to themselves.












                  In their document, titled “Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House,” congressional Democrats <a href="/topics/jamie-raskin/">Jamie Raskin</a> of Maryland, <a href="/topics/jared-huffman/">Jared Huffman</a> of California and <a href="/topics/jerry-mcnerney/">Jerry McNerney</a> of California bemoan life under the Trump administration:












                  “The constant entanglement of religion and government … sweeps far beyond hot-button ‘culture war’ issues … It permeates every aspect of government policy — health care, public and private education, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, military policy, and more …”
















                  They continue:












                  “[Government] decisions should be guided by science and evidence … We believe that now is the right time to make a case for reviving a Jeffersonian approach to governance that favors reason … and to disentangle government policy from the influence of … religious interests that have become dangerously entrenched at all levels of government.”














                  Well, seeing as Reps. <a href="/topics/jamie-raskin/">Raskin</a>, <a href="/topics/jared-huffman/">Huffman</a> and McNerney are so interested in “reviving” our second president’s “approach to governance,” perhaps they’d do well to actually read some of Jefferson’s words before they presume to spout off bromides of their own.




























                  In 1798, Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolution declaring, “[N]o power over the freedom of religion … [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”












                  In 1805, he stated that “In matters of religion …, its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the [federal] government.”












                  In 1808, Jefferson penned a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church promising, “Our excellent Constitution … has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.” In that same year, Jefferson said to Samuel Millar, “[We] consider the government of the United States as [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions … or exercises.”









                    <a name="pagebreak"/>




                  As governor of Virginia, Jefferson introduced bills punishing “disturbers of religious worship” and annulling marriages prohibited by “Levitical law.” And just in case our cute little secular Democrats don’t understand what that means, the chief architect of the Declaration defined it quite clearly as any marital union that was “contrary to that … cohabitation of a man and wife.”










                  As president, Jefferson declared, “No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion — nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man, and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it sanction …”

                  In his second inaugural address, Jefferson stated, “I shall need … the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life: Who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom … and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications … that He will enlighten [our] minds [and] guide [our] councils …”

                  Yes, it is true that in 1802, the newly elected president of the United States of America wrote of what he called a “wall of separation” between Church and State. But here is a bit of “science,” “reason” and “evidence” that appears to have escaped the notice of our good congressmen. Jefferson’s intent in using this metaphor was crystal clear. He was reassuring a group of concerned conservative Christians from Connecticut that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provided them with full and unmitigated protection against any government imposition upon their private or public religious practice.

                  In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson made it clear that “religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God,” and just to be sure there was no confusion, he doubled down and concluded, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that … [your] legislature should make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” He then added punctuation by promising that the federal government was prohibited by the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God from intruding into its citizens’ religious lives.

                  So, Reps. <a href="/topics/jamie-raskin/">Raskin</a>, <a href="/topics/jared-huffman/">Huffman</a> and <a href="/topics/jerry-mcnerney/">McNerney</a>, those of us among the science-denying religious rubes on the “Christian right,” agree with you. We think it is a wonderful idea to “revive a Jeffersonian approach to governance” that favors “reason and evidence.” And, maybe we could start with that bit about how “our excellent Constitution … has not placed our religious rights under the power of ANY (emphasis mine) public functionar[ies]” such as those of you who have apparently forgotten how to read.

                  <em>• Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host. He is the author of “Not a Daycare: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery).</em>







              <div id="newsletter-form-story">

                  <div class="block-content" id="opinion-signup-block">
                    <h3 class="block-title">Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter</h3>

                  </div>


             </div>

Wajid Khan’s wife Kamalrukh reveals the late music director threatened to divorce her in 2014 as she wasn’t ready to convert her religion

Late Bollywood music director Wajid Khan’s wife, Kamalrukh has come up again with a new revelation and said that Wajid threatened to divorce her in the year 2014 as she was not ready to convert her religion, and the duo was living separately since then. In her latest interview, Kamalrukh opened up about her relationship with the late Wajid Khan. She praised the deceased music director but said he wasn’t ‘strong-minded’ and could be easily ‘influenced’. She further revealed that ‘the last few days of his life were very sad’ as he was suffering from COVID-19 and was not allowed to meet his family. Notably, Kamalrukh recently accused his family of pressuring her to convert.

Read More

New Freedom of Religion Act in Himachal

SHIMLA: With Himachal Pradesh home department fixing December 18 as the date to implement provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 (13 of 2019), any forced religious conversion will be a cognizable and non-bailable offence in the state.
The Bill was tabled and passed in the state assembly last August. It later received the governor’s nod but the date of implementation was not fixed.
“In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) Section 1 of Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 (13 of 2019), the Governor Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to appoint the 18th day of December, 2020 the date from which the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall come into force,” said a notification issued by the principal secretary (home) on Friday.
According to Section 3 of new Act, no person will convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage; nor shall any person abet or conspire such conversion. The violators will be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and up to five years. The violator will also be liable to pay fine.
The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 had the provision of punishment of maximum two years of imprisonment or fine which may extend to Rs 25,000 or with both. In case the offence was committed in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to schedule castes or schedule tribes, the punishment of imprisonment may extend to three years and fine may extend to Rs 50,000.
Now, violating provisions in respect of a minor, woman or person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will invite imprisonment of not less than two years, which may be extended to seven years and the violator will also be liable to pay fine. According to the law, any marriage conducted with the sole purpose of conversion by a person of one religion with a person of another religion either by converting himself before or after marriage or by converting the other person before or after the marriage can be declared null and void by the family court on a petition presented by either party thereto.
One who desires to be converted to another religion will have to give a declaration at least one month in advance on the proforma as may be prescribed, to the district magistrate or executive magistrate, of his intention to convert his religion on his own volition or free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence, inducement or fraudulent means. In case a person wants to re-convert to his parent religion, no notice will be required.
Even the religious priest who performs purification sanskar or conversion ceremony for converting any person of one religion to another religion will have to give one month’s advance notice of such sanskar or conversion to the district magistrate or executive magistrate on the prescribed proforma.
Under the new Act, burden of proof as to whether religious conversion was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the person so converted and where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on such other person.
To put a check on forcible conversion and conversion taking place by way of misrepresentation and inducement etc, Himachal Pradesh government, on August 29 last year, tabled the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Bill 2019 to re-enact the law to provide freedom of religion by prohibition of conversion.
Chief minister Jai Ram Thakur, in the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill, said that it has been observed that there is a rise in conversions by fraudulent means and unless checked well in time, this practice may erode the confidence and mutual trust between different ethnic and religious groups in the state.
It was stated that if forcible conversions were not prohibited, there would be public disorder in the state. Thus, in order to check forcible conversions of religion in the state and to preserve the peaceful atmosphere thereof, it was decided to bring an effective legislation in place of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 2006.

UP Cops: Man held under anti-conversion law, tried to change woman’s religion

                                            <span itemprop="image" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject">
                                                        <meta itemprop="url" content="https://images.indianexpress.com/2020/12/up-police.jpg"/>
                                                        <meta itemprop="width" content="1200"/>
                                                        <meta itemprop="height" content="667"/>
                                                    </span><span class="custom-caption"> <span class="ie-custom-caption">As per the FIR, the accused, Mohammad Saeed, concealed his identity and introduced himself to the woman, a mother of two, as Sunil Kumar. (Representational)</span></span>A 32-year-old man was arrested on Friday for allegedly coercing a 42-year-old married woman into changing her religion for marriage in Shahjahanpur district. This is the district’s first case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020.

As per the FIR, the accused, Mohammad Saeed, concealed his identity and introduced himself to the woman, a mother of two, as Sunil Kumar.

He is alleged to have threatened her to convert and sexually assaulted her.

The FIR has been registered against Saeed and his family members under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 384 (extortion), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation), and sections of the anti-conversion law. Police said they were probing the role of his family members.

Earlier, the woman and her mother accompanied by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other right-wing organisations reached the police station concerned and got an FIR registered.

“The woman has alleged that the accused came to her contact around four-five years ago. As per the allegations, he introduced himself as Hindu and later established physical relations with her. He used to regularly talk to her over phone. It has also been alleged that her started pressuring her for marriage,” said Shahjahanpur SP (City) Sanjay Kumar. Her husband stays in Mathura.

Talking to the media, the woman alleged that the man, who identified himself as Sunil, had come to her house to rent a room and took her phone number.]

“He started talking to me over phone and with increasing closeness, he started threatening me. He made videos of me and started asking for money. He asked me to transfer my land and house in his name. He physically and mentally abused me. He also threatened me with acid attack,” she alleged.

“He was forcing me to get married after conversion and wanted me to sign a nikahanama. His mother also came to my house and said the same. On December 10, seven-eight of his family members came and asked me to sign the nikahanama. When I started shouting, they started beating me. I informed my family and went to the police,” she claimed.

???? The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

                                                                                                        <p class="appstext hide_utm_paytm_phonepe">For all the latest <a href="https://indianexpress.com/section/india/" rel="nofollow">India News</a>, download <a class="click-event" id="IE_app_download" href="https://indianexpress.page.link/aeiu" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Indian Express App.</a></p>
                                                    <p>© The Indian Express (P) Ltd</p>                                             

Supporters of hardliner Rizieq Shihab clash with Indonesia police – Religion News

Women associations leader calls for religion tolerance for national development

The President, Federation of Muslim Women Associations in Nigeria, Mrs Halima Jibril, on Saturday charged religious leaders to promote religion tolerance to engender national development.

Jibril gave the charge in Abuja at the opening of a three-day summit on “’Religious Tolerance in Nigeria’’.

She stressed the need for joint regular inter-religious programmes to foster love and unity among the two major faiths in the country.

She also appealed to religious and faith-based organisations to rise to their obligations and assist the needy, irrespective of religious affiliations.

In his remarks, the Project Officer of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO, Mr Adamu Ephraim, maintained that religion tolerance could be achieved if all leaders promoted peaceful co-existence.

The summit, which had “Advancing Religious Tolerance’’ as its theme, had more than 100 Christian and Muslim leaders in attendance. (NAN)

Dize: Jesus is the reason for the season; swing the pendulum in the direction of love | RELIGION COMMENTARY

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

All I want for Christmas is freedom of and from religion

Opponents often erect a straw man of secularism to justify demands for religious privilege. But freedom of religion must come with freedom from religion, says Stephen Evans.

There was little sign of Christmas spirit in my inbox the other day when a Christian gentleman got in touch to accuse me of being a “Devil’s advocate who wants to turn off the light of God’s Son Christ message”. What had I done to provoke his wrath? I suggested in a letter to the Telegraph that Christians shouldn’t have a right to refuse to provide services to gay people.

The email arrived just as I was listening to the government’s ‘faith engagement adviser’ talking about an “evangelical secularism” that wants to “close down faith”.

And all this got me thinking about the gulf between what secularists say, and what many religious advocates hear, or claim to hear.

Another recent example of this phenomenon came when I suggested that places of worship shouldn’t be privileged when it comes to public safety measures to suppress COVID-19. Anglican priest Giles Fraser translated this as me “gloating about churches being closed”. When I explained that I actually want churches to remain open, so long as it is safe for those attending them, he simply responded with “I don’t believe you”. Nevertheless, I chucked some money in the pot to help rebuild his church hall which recently collapsed. It is Christmas, after all.

Like many others, Giles has created a fictitious bogeyman secularism, to help defend religious privilege. The essence of secularism is fairness, so a straw man secularism needs to be erected to effectively challenge it. So, in Giles Fraser’s worldview, secularism becomes a “thin camouflage for anti-religious bigotry”.

Many people who support the idea of a secular state may have an unfavourable view of religion – but that doesn’t make them bigots. And many sincere religious believers are also persuaded by the advantages of a secular state. Whatever their personal views on religion, National Secular Society members unite around the principle that everyone should be free to believe whatever they like, and to live out those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t inflict harm or impinge on the rights and freedoms of others.

But this live and let live philosophy isn’t always shared by some of the loudest advocates for religious freedom. They loudly declare their support for freedom of religion, but they’re less keen on its necessary corollary – freedom from religion.

Freedom from religion is the ultimate litmus test for a true commitment to freedom of religion or belief. Unless you equally support individuals’ rights to manifest their atheism or live their lives free from religion, then it’s likely to be religious privilege you support, not religious freedom.

And religious privilege is deeply ingrained in the UK, undermining freedom from religion.

Our head of state is the defender of the Christian faith. The Church of England is established by law. The Westminster parliament begins its sittings with Anglican prayers – as do some local authorities. Anglican bishops have an automatic right to seats in the legislature. National events have a distinctly religious feel.

Public money funds faith schools. A third of all schools have a religious ethos. The majority are Christian, and equality law exceptions mean many can prioritise children from Christian families in admissions. The children from non-Christian families who do attend these schools routinely have someone else’s religion imposed on them. We even have laws requiring daily school worship.

And some Christians still claim ‘marginalisation’.

Decades of declining adherence has made Anglican supremacy harder to justify. So, a multifaithism has emerged with minority faith and belief groups competing for crumbs from the establishment table.

Church schools have morphed into state-funded faith schools. Anglican chaplaincy in hospitals, schools, prisons and the armed forces has become multifaith. There are even calls for other faith leaders to join Anglican clerics on the ‘bishops’ bench’ in the Lords. The Church of England is willing to see its privileges extended to other faiths – but can’t accept them being removed.

Multifaithism may make Christian privilege seem less egregious, but it completely neglects those who aren’t so assertive about their beliefs ­– the majority – who eschew religious labels. The religiously indifferent are simply expected to put up with other people’s beliefs being foisted upon them.

Secularism’s proposition is to level the playing field. It’s not about closing down faith, but making it a personal matter for individuals, and not the business of the state.

So, whenever you hear a straw man secularism being erected, you can be sure that someone, somewhere, wants to impose their religion – either on a person or public policy – where it doesn’t belong.

Religious diversity, like all other forms of diversity, should be a welcome component of society. But we don’t have to – and nor should we – organise public policy, services and state occasions around it. Fuelling identarian politics is divisive and unlikely to end well.

Focusing instead on our common humanity and what we share as citizens is a more cohesive approach. Secularism is the best recipe for living together well.

At Christmas, now a largely secular affair, Christian anxieties about declining influence often come to the fore. For some, Christmas is a sacred religious holiday that marks the birth of Jesus Christ. For others it’s family time – or something closer to its origins, a period of merriment, feasting and gift giving to mark the winter solstice. For some, Christmas just isn’t a thing.

Secularists have often been accused of trying to take the Christ out of Christmas. But no sensible person wants to stop people choosing to mark religious festivals if they wish to. And the truth is, people vote with their feet. Secularism simply gives people the freedom to decide for themselves. And that really is something to celebrate.

So, however you decide to spend the upcoming holidays, take care of yourself and others. And may next year be better than the last.

On Religion and Tolerance, the Modi Government Must Walk the Talk

Protests have been at center-stage since last year in India, be it the recent farmer protests or the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests last year, or student protests on a variety of issues criticizing the current government. Scrutinizing the responses of the Narendra Modi government and their allies towards them, one cannot miss how these reactions have a fundamental element of attacking religious identity.

While Indian farmers from Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan were protesting against the government at the borders of New Delhi, the United Nations General Assembly was discussing its Agenda Item 15 for the 75th session, on Culture of Peace. One of the highlights during the session’s discussion on the item was a speech made by the Indian representative, First Secretary Ashish Sharma. His speech was iconic as he targeted the U.N. and at the same time asked the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations to be vocal about and cognizant of the atrocities and violence committed against non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. He also mentioned how this disparity in treating violence against different religions will only go on to corroborate Samuel P. Huntington’s claims about a clash of civilizations.

The entire speech by Sharma was an eye opener as to how violence against religions in contemporary times also has an underlined connotation of global power politics. But if Sharma’s speech is closely looked at, and compared with what is happening in New Delhi, India’s words on a global platform do not seem to match its actions on domestic issues.

In New York, Sharma made several allegations against Pakistan, one of which involved the perilous state of minorities in that country. The situation of minorities in India, however, do not seem to be any better. A 22-year old Hindu man told The Caravan in an interview that he, along with other Hindu men, took part in communal violence against Muslims, destroying their belongings and beating them up. Something that was even more saddening from this interview was to know that the Delhi police were directly involved in such violence, telling these men that the police wouldn’t be present in Muslim areas where they can attack the minorities, unrestricted.

In another article by The New York Times, Kaushar Ali, one of the victims of the Delhi police’s violence, said that when he approached the police for help, he was thrown on the ground and beaten up along with other Muslim men. Among these men, one died due to internal injuries from the violence perpetrated by the police. Despite a video capturing the incident going viral no concrete action was taken by the Modi government to which the Delhi police report.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Such instances only showcase that the treatment of minorities in India remains problematic, to put it mildly. The treatment of Muslims during the anti-CAA protests was so violent that it was termed a “pogrom” by Mira Kamdar in an article in The Atlantic due to the complicity of the authorities and the police while citizens were openly rioting against religious minorities.

Certain other elements in Sharma’s speech would make anyone point out the discrepancy between the current government’s global aspirations and its domestic actions. For example, the first secretary greatly emphasized how religion should not be misused to justify and propagate personal agendas. But recently, farmers who were protesting against legislation that seeks to reform the agricultural sector were termed as Sikh separatists by the chief minister of Haryana who belongs to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. This was a clear indication that many close to the Modi government seek to portray these protestors as anti-national, based on their religious identity.

Another claim by Sharma in his speech at the Assembly was how intolerance has become the norm in the contemporary world. It is clear that New Delhi has not done much to push back against this norm at home; a crucial test ahead for world to gauge its commitment to tolerance will be to see how it handles the ongoing protests in the country. Will the current government be tolerant toward such protestors and try to match the words that New Delhi has spoken at global forums with its actions at home?

Arkoprabho Hazra is a Young India Fellow at Ashoka University who has completed his undergraduate studies in political science. He writes on Indian foreign policy, Rohingya refugee crisis and the Middle East. His writings have been published by South Asia Democratic Forum and South Asia Centre, London School of Economics. He tweets @ArkoprabhoH.

Do not to use religion as political tool: Bangladesh PM

Dhaka [Bangladesh], December 17 (ANI): Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has urged the political leaders not to use religion as a political tool as the country was “liberated with the blood of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians”.

“The people of Bangladesh are religious, not fanatics. Do not use religion as a political tool. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. It (Bangladesh) is a country of communal harmony. It was liberated with the blood of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians,” The Daily Star quoted Hasina as saying during her address to the nation from Gono Bhaban, on the occasion of Victory Day.

She asserted that Bangladesh belongs to everyone and reiterated that the country will move in the path of progress and development “while upholding religious values”.

“This is the Bangladesh of Lalon, Rabindranath Tagore, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Jibanananda Das. This is the Bangladesh of Shahjalal, Shah Paran, Shah Makhdum and Khanjahan Ali. This is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Bangladesh; Bangladesh of sixteen and a half crore Bangalees. This country belongs to everyone,” she said.

The Prime Minister said a section of the defeated forces in 1971 has been trying to distract devoted Muslims with false and fictitious statements and create unrest to take the country 50 years back, The Daily Star reported.She further highlighted the ongoing development projects including Padma Bridge and initiatives taken to “spread Islamic studies and religious practices”.

Vijay Diwas or Victory Day is celebrated every year on December 16 to mark India’s triumph in liberating Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971.

In one of the fastest and shortest campaigns of military history, a new nation was born as a result of the swift campaign undertaken by the Indian Army.

After facing defeat in the 1971 war, the then Army Chief of Pakistan General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, along with his 93,000 troops, surrendered to allied forces, which also comprised Indian Army personnel. (ANI)

Taking jab at gov’t policies, bar owner creates own religion to counter lockdown rules

            <p>Subscribe to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.inquirer.net/plus" rel="nofollow noopener">INQUIRER PLUS</a> to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.</p>               









            <!-- TAGS -->

            <!-- TAGS END -->


            <!-- CONTACT US -->
            <div id="article_disclaimer">
                <h6>For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, <a href="https://services.inquirer.net/contactus/" rel="nofollow">contact us.</a></h6>
            </div>
            <!-- CONTACT US END -->