Archivehuman rights

People involved in the five year process leading to the ecumenical recommendations “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World”, whom I want to thank

On the 28th of June, 2011, the ecumenical code “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World – Recommendations for Conduct” was launched in Geneva as reported in my blog twice (here and here).

At the launch, my introduction to the purpose and history of the recommendations had to be short, as I was the first of fours speakers. Thus the following details had to be skiped, also not to give the impression, that the recommendations were bound to much to specific people. But now half a year later, I would like to offer my personal thank you.

Hans Ucko from Sweden with a PhD from India, programme director of WCC’s Office on „Interreligious Relations and Dialogue“ (IRRD, later „Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation“, I stay with IRRD) for nearly 20 years from 1989-2008, brought the idea up in one of the yearly staff meetings between PCID and IRRD. This is why I took the liberty to invite him to the launch of the recommendations in Geneva. (see photo 1: talking to Ucko in Toulouse)

I also wanted to invite Mgr. Dr Felix Machado for the launch, then Undersecretary of the PCID, who traveled to Geneva quite a lot, but he lives a bit far from Geneva. Since 2008 he is back in his native country India, since 2009 as the Archbishop of Vasai.

2006 I was invited by the WCC as an expert to a small meeting in Geneva (see photo 2:). It was there when Hans Ucko – with the consent of Felix Machado – invited WEA on behalf of WCC to become part of the process.

The consultation „Towards an ethical approach to conversion: Christian witness in a multi-religious world“, which was prepared by a small group meeting in Geneva, January [11-12,] 2007, took place as a larger meeting of all branches of Christianity in Toulouse, France, August [8-12,] 2007 with 45 participants. (see photo 3)

The leadership of Hans (Ucko) and Felix (Machado) in Toulouse 2007 is unforgettable! Beside achieving our business, many partcipants became friends across all theological lines. Eg the Catholic archbishop of Nepal became one of my best friends here – I just visted his cathedral recently, which was bombed by Hindu fundamentalists with three young people dying.

After Toulouse, a draft committee of the three bodies involved started to work on the text of the recommendations, following the topics listed in Toulouse. The text was revised again and again in discussion with the leadership and taking in reactions from church leaders from all over the world who got to see the text. Finally the text was taken to a third consultation in Bangkok under the title “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for a Code of Conduct “, January [25-29,] 2011, with 45 high ranking representatives of the three bodies plus church leaders and experts, which had the sole task to discuss and revise the text of the recommendations. After Bangkok, only very minor changes were agreed upon between PCID, WCC and WEA.

The project has stayed on course, while the President of PCID changed as well as the General Secretary of WCC. The responsibility for interreligious dialogue within WCC changed even twice. The majority of the staff on the side of PCID and IRRD changed within the five years. (This is why it came by chance, that at the launch I by chance happened to be the longest one working on the script committee.) This proves that the project was not just a project bound to certain people and their private interest, but was a joint need of the whole Christian community and a result of official cooperation of the largest Christian bodies.

Let me mention some further peoples and names, who were important during the process, even though surely not complete.

I mentioned Hans Ucko and Archbishop Felix Machado already.

Pentecostal Bishop Tony Richie from the USA, representing the Pentecostal voice in the process, is the only person to my knowledge, who visited all three major consultations in Lariano, Toulouse and Bangkok, plus one of the smaller meetings.

The process started under His Emminence Michael Cardinal Fitzgerald and His Eminence Paul Joseph Jean Cardinal Poupard as presidents of PCID. We thank them for their gracious blessings and leadership in the beginning. His Eminence Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, from France, became president of PCID in autumn 2007 and without him backing the process and its result on behalf of the largest church in the world, we would not have achieved anything.

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata from Italy, has ‚outlived’ them all, being the Secretary of PCID since 2002 and thus bringing a lot of stability to the process. He played a major role in the final Bangkok meeting as one of the two chairs.

Later, Andrew Vissanu Thanyaanan from Thailand followed Felix Machado as Undersecretary of PCID. The experts from PCID were a great team: Ms. Khaled B. Akasheh from Jordan and Ms. Denis Chidi Isizoh from Nigeria.

Early 2008, Dr Shanta Premawardhana from Sri Lanka followed Hans Ucko as director of IRRD of WCC. He has been instrumental to ensure that the process would go on even after a major change of staff both in PCID and IRRD. A little earlier in 2007, Ms Rima Barsoum from Syria, became programme executive for Christian-Muslim relations till 2011, and she has been a constant major reminder to us all to view the code with the eyes of adherents of other religions. I am glad, that she attended the launch even so she no longer worked for WCC.

Hans Ucko got Rev Jacques Matthey, programme director of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) of WCC, involved from the beginning, as was Ms Yvette Milosevic in organising the adminstrational side.

In 2009, John Baxter Brown from the UK became consultant for evangelism of the WCC. One of his major tasks was to further the process for a code. He acted as a great bridge builder combining love for mission and love for ecumenical cooperation.

Late in 2010, Dr Shanta Premawardhana left for a new position in the USA and was not immediately replaced. Dr Mathews George, Director of the International Affairs and Public Witness kara from India, had to take over responsibility despite his already full calender of travels etc. In the midst of an incredible work load he guided the last month of the preparation of the text and organised the launch.

On WEA’s side we would have to mention especially Dr Richard Howell from India, General Secretary of the Asian Evangelical Alliance, and Godgrey Yogjahara from Sri Lanka, Executive Director of the Religious Liberty Commission.

From our WEA-side John Langlois from Guernsey, chair of the Religious Liberty Commission and member of the International Committee, and Dr Richard Howell, general secretary of the asian Evangelical Alliance joined me in Toulouse. John’s longstanding experience as a lawyer and a politian, to formulate short and concise texts, was vital to the whole project. In 2010, Dr Rosalee Velosso Ewell from Brazil, joined our team. All participants will not forget her superb ability to write minutes of the discussions and to harmonize proposed formulations.

Dr Geoff Tunnicliffe from Canada, secretary general of the WEA, encouraged and backed the process from beginning to the end and was always willing to deal with critics personally. He used his many connections towards a good end.

The new general secretary of WCC, Dr Olav Fykse Tveit from Norway, was involved in formulating a similar interreligious code in Norway before he took office. He thus backed the finalising of the process and text out of deep conviction and has to be thanked for arranging a fine and successful launch in the hall of WCC.

But beyond all these thanks to finite humans, we thank our Creator and Saviour, the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Whom we worship, and whose Holy Spirit has led us to formulate what it means to witness his message of salvation in a spirit of trust, peace and dignity. May He give us the strength to live out what we state and help to admonish wisely those amongst us who still might use unethical means in preaching the gospel.

“An intra-Christian ethical code for missions:
An introduction”

The following article by a Catholic and a Protestant author was published in German as an introduction to the printed German version of the ecumenical code “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World – Recommendations for Conduct” in the journal “Materialdienst” by the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen (Protestant Central Office for World View Qutesions) of the Protestant Church in Germany. Translated by Dr. Richard McClary [Materialdienst vol. 74 (2011), issue 8, pp. 293-295 (text of the code pp. 295-299)].

Christian Troll SJ, Thomas Schirrmacher

Since 2006 the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the departments within the World Council of Churches and World Evangelical Alliance responsible for the relationship to other religions have worked on an ethical code for missions. Christian Troll SJ and Thomas Schirrmacher participated in the latest consultations in Bangkok, which have led to the recently published results entitled “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World – Recommendations for Conduct.” The ethical code is accessible on the internet on the website of the World Council of Churches (www.oikoumene.org).

The question of ethics in missions has in recent years increasingly been asked in intra-Christian dialogue[1] as well as in relationships between religions.[2] However, a political question has also been asked, and that is the extent to which the human right of religious freedom,[3] including the right to public self-expression on the part of religions and the right to religious conversion, may and must be limited by other human rights.[4]

The first consultation in Lariano, Italy in 2006 was interreligious. There, representatives of Christian denominations listened to adherents of different religions. In the end there was a joint avowal of religious freedom as well as an intra-Christian operational program.

When the second consultation occurred in Toulouse, France in 2007, it involved an intra-Christian assembly. The goal was to find a joint direction as well as to establish a problem catalog and a questionnaire. Questions relating to family, school, education, social and medical care, the economy, politics, legislation, and violence were discussed. In the end there was a rough outline for the impending document.[5] A list was made of which means were to be qualified as unethical with respect to missions and were thus to be rejected. Included among them were the use of violence, threats, drugs, or brainwashing, but likewise also providing material advantages or the use of police or the army to propagate a religion. From a Christian point of view, such an ethical code for missions should more precisely label forms of abuse of religious freedom and at the same time not least offer assistance to politians and governments.

A small group of about nine staff members of the Holy See, the World Council of Churches, and the World Evangelical Alliance met regularly in Genf, Bossey, and Rome from 2006 to 2011. As a result, they progressively formulated a recommended text, which in 2010 was sent to various church leaders, member churches, and commissions. Innumerable suggestions were evaluated and incorporated. The entire process was organized by three bodies, first The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID), to which delegation archbishops and other church leaders from Asia and Africa belonged, second the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches (IRRD), whose delegation also included representatives of oriental, orthodox, and Pentecostal churches in addition to evangelical church leaders. For the World Evangelical Alliance, the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) and the Theological Commission were active. Through the inclusion of numerous church leaders from all continents, quick results were not able to be expected.

For the purpose of the third intra-Christian consultation, experts and high ranking church leaders met January 25 – 28, 2011 in Bangkok for the sole purpose of working intensively on the final text. After the Bangkok meeting only minor details in the text were worked out an amended by the highest committees of the three respective bodies through mutual agreement.

All denominations which unequivocally speak out for and advocate religious liberty are interested that within Christianity there are joint discussions about the limits of religious freedom as well as about unethical methods of missions work. In the meantime everyone is aware of the fact that with respect to the questions named there are problems in all confessions and thus in this respect a self-critical intra-Christian dialogue is called for.

Christian witness essentially includes presenting one’s own faith unfeigned to another. However, this is always to be done in a peaceful way and with deep respect for the dignity of other individuals. People who possibly want to become Christians should do this out of conviction and not in a calculating manner. They should have the opportunity to consider their decision and to make it freely and in utter trust in God. All forms of Christian witness and evangelization which do not correspond to these criteria and injure human dignity and human rights in one way or another are to be resolutely rejected as contradicting the good news of Christianity.

The code of conduct at hand does not have a canonical character. Situations in different countries and cultures are in fact so different that short, succinct statements can often not do them justice. For that reason, general guidelines have been formulated for the code.

[Deleted for reasons of space: The code of conduct at hand is in any event an unambiguous indication of the fact that the vast majority of the global Christian community clearly distances itself from every form of missions work that seeks to coerce or manipulate with psychological, financial, or physical might and power. Missions work is only justifiable within the framework of correctly understood religious freedom. It is based on the conviction that it is part of the basic dignity of an individual to be able to decide freely and concretely after careful consideration for a faith or world view one holds to be true and views to be compulsory for oneself. Daily we see people on television who use force or unfair means to spread their religion or at least attempt to do so.]

In its history, Christianity has in multiple cases employed dishonest means and has to be on guard against any relapse into former and abnormal attitudes and behavioral patterns. We thus view it as an extremely welcomed and long overdue sign that Christians now jointly and officially declare, as in the code at hand, that such methods are immoral and unchristian and thus contradict and distort the true sense of mission. Furthermore, they publicly obligate themselves to follow the principles named in the code as well as to allow their actions to be measured by them.

Paul calls upon believers in 1 Peter 3:15-17 to answer everyone’s questions and to clearly defend one’s own “hope,” also towards those who wish us evil. However, they should do this with “gentleness and respect.” People who do not hold to their convictions are not partners for dialog to be taken seriously, but there is a world of difference between peaceful and respectful propagation and a forcible spreading of one’s own conviction which does not respect the dignity of others. Christian witness is not an ethics-free space; it requires an ethical foundation which is biblically based, so that we truly do who what Christ has assigned us to do.

Umbrella organizations have been founded by the Catholic Church, the National Council of Churches, and the National Evangelical Alliance in India and Malaysia. These organizations face the state with a single voice, especially when it comes to questions relating to missions work and laws against conversion formulated to oppose them. Ostracized and discriminated against via unjust laws, Christian confessions do not work against each other but rather with and for each other.

In recent decades there have been developments in all denominations which have made this affiliation possible in the first place. On the Catholic side this began with the Declaration on Religious Freedom at the Second Vatican Council. It awards state power sole concern for the secular public welfare and once and for all rejects the idea of a ‘Catholic state’ as being contradictory to religious freedom. This also includes the dismantling of prior enemy stereotypes and controversial topics between the World Council of Churches and Evangelicals – thanks to an evangelical missiology which has become self-critical and an enhanced status awarded thought relating to missions over against political topics found in ecumenism. In the process, Churches in the south have been leading the way in building a bridge between the camps.

Let us hope that this code of conduct on missions is accompanied by regularly occurring consultations based on the model of the intra-Christian consultation in Bangkok which took place from January 25-28, 2011. In such consultations, Christian denominations should jointly scrutinize their particular conduct in missions work in a self-critical manner. On all sides, what is called for is self-critical, honest, interreligious dialog on questions of current, concrete behavior exhibited by religious groups towards each other.

---

[1] See Elmer Thiessen, The Ethics of Evangelism. A Philosophical Defence of Proselytizing and Persuasion, Paternoster / Exeter 2011; Pope Benedikt XVI. in his encyclica Spe salvi, 2007.

[2] All codes on mission existing worldwide, secular, religious or Christian, are discussed and compared in Matthew K. Richards / Are L. Svendsen / Rainer Bless, Codes of Conduct for Religious Persuasion. The Legal Practice and Best Practices, in: International Journal for Religious Freedom (Cape Town) 3 (2010) 2, 65-104.

[3] Cf. die international academic consultation at the State University of Bamberg: Marianne Heimbach-Steins / Heiner Bielefeldt (Hg.), Religionen und Religionsfreiheit. Menschenrechtliche Perspektiven im Spannungsfeld von Mission und Konversion, Würzburg 2010.

[4] See the Oslo Declaration signed by all religions in Norway plus experts from the academic field: Oslo Declaration, Missionary Activities and Human Rights: Recommended Ground Rules for Missionary Activities, www.oslocoalition.org/mhr.php (5.7.2011).

[5] The programme is spelled out in the opening plenary in Toulouse: Thomas Schirrmacher, „But with gentleness and respect“. Why missions should be ruled by ethics, short version: in: Current Dialogue (World Council of Churches) 50 (Februar 2008), 55-66, long version under www.worldevangelicals.org/news/article.htm?id=1372 (5.7.2011), German version: „Mit Sanftmut und Ehrerbietung“. Warum die Mission von der Ethik bestimmt sein muss, in: Klaus W. Müller (Hg.), Menschenrechte – Freiheit – Mission, edition afem – missions reports 18, Nürnberg 2010, 97-119.

Download “An intra-Christian ethical code for missions: An introduction” as PDF

Will Europe perish without a Koranic Death Penalty?

(Translated from my German blog, published there in April 2011)

At a high-ranking meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on December 9 and 10, 2010 in the Hofburg in Vienna, the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which addressed the topic of religious freedom within the broader framework of human rights consultations, a hushed up commotion took place.

Since Kazakhstan chaired the OSCE, the first keynote speaker was Ms. Iman Valeriya Porokhova, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a leading Russian Muslim (see http://koran-valeria.narod.ru/). The professionally recognized and personally very congenial lady called for peaceful association between religions (albeit only mentioning Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and not one of the represented minority religions, much less secular world views). She held this is possible because the universal principles of the Koran and the Sharia are supported by the Bible and the Torah. She actually mentioned very little on the topic of human rights or the human right to religious freedom.

The longer she spoke, the more her contribution became a sermon with many quotes from the Koran. According to Porokhova, Europe is moving towards its demise because it is no longer following God’s word as found in the Koran, Bible, and Torah. Rather, it is making its own laws. I believe I would have long been cut off by this point.

The climax was reached when she introduced the elimination of the death penalty as a difference between Islam and Europe. It was against the will of God, as it is set down in the holy books, that Europe abolished the death penalty. If this is not reversed, there can be no blessing upon Europe. It has to do with listening to God’s word or giving room to human rebellion. In the process, the speaker blatantly threatened Europe. Apart from that, she at the same time subordinated all other religions to Islam without qualification.

All of the 200 present (ambassadors, religious representatives, experts) remained nobly silent. Also the Muslims present, which in part represent much more liberal approaches, remained silent. Many of the representatives of the media spoke with me about this after the fact, but none reported on it.

I asked myself: What if the Apostolic Nuncio of the Holy See from the UN in Geneva, Msgr. Silvano M. Tomasi, who spoke later, had called for a reintroduction of the death penalty with reference to the Bible? And what if he had otherwise threatened Europe with judgment. Or Msgr. Michael Banach as a representative of the Holy See (as a state) with the OSCE? That would have led to great indignation among the media and, after that, there would have been sharp statements from politicians all throughout Europe that followed.

Or better yet: If I had called for something like that as a representative of the World Evangelical Alliance. I would have possibly achieved the notoriety of the religious eccentric Terry Jones, who burned a Koran. (Fortunately there is nothing like the penal law of the Sharia, i.e., a holy Christian penal law, so that no one can call for its implementation.)

For a long time I have advocated peaceful coexistence between all religions and world views, including Islam. I have often officially met with Muslim leaders throughout the world, not to mention many other contacts and confidence-building measures.

However, I often just stand shaking my head about the double standard with which secular Europe measures Islam and Christianity. In the process, it is precisely secularly oriented people who have everything to lose if such an Islamist view were to become the thing, while Christians neither call for nor promote a thing like that. Rather, on the basis of theological grounds, they justify and help to stabilize democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.

(Addendum, June 2011)

Quite some time after the meeting in Vienna, a written version of the talk has become available and can be found on the official OSCE website: http://www.osce.org/odihr/74621 The talk has indeed been shortened and changed, but one can read here nevertheless:

1. that for all practical purposes the ideas of religious freedom and human rights are not to be found,
2. that this was actually if anything an Islamic sermon ending with a collection of verses from the Koran,
3. that Islam is the only religion not invented by mankind (middle of p. 3) and the sole religion which truly has God in the center (middle of p. 4),
4. that the talk ends by saying that the Bible has been falsified (p. 6),
5. that the death penalty must be reintroduced and that adultery, the consumption of alcohol, consumption of pork, and the wearing of modern women’s clothing should be punished throughout all of Europe (p. 5).

An all this in the setting of a major human rights authority and within the context of a symposium on religious freedom!

Global Human Rights Conference Includes Homeschooling

For the first time in its 50-year history, the World Congress on the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy included homeschooling on the agenda of its biannual global conference. Held in Frankfurt, Germany at Goethe University August 15–20, the congress attracted nearly 1,000 academics and legal practitioners. Experts in human rights gave papers at a special workshop, organized by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, noted Christian apologist and distinguished professor of philosophy and Christian thought at Patrick Henry College. The workshop included presentations by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, a German theologian and director of the International Institute for Religious Freedom, and by Michael Donnelly, attorney and director for international affairs at the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

In his paper, “The Justification of Home Schooling vis-a-vis the European Human Rights System,” Montgomery said that homeschooling should be tolerated in every country.

“The right of parents a priori to the state to make decisions about how and where their children are educated is a natural right and one that is founded on the basis of holy Scripture. While some governments may choose to regulate or oversee parents who choose this form of education, all governments should tolerate if not encourage it. That is why I thought it should be covered at this conference. I’m glad the organizers agreed with me.”

Missed Opportunity

Montgomery argued that the European Court of Human Rights has missed important opportunities to correctly apply human rights law to the conflict over homeschooling, instead deferring to current societal prejudices and predilections in favor of secular and statist presumptions. He wrote:

“At the deepest level culturally, increasing secularism in modern society— particularly as manifested in Europe—poses special difficulties. The secular mindset can (as in the Konrad opinion) lead courts to an unconscious acceptance of politically correct notions of educational ‘integration.’ Sadly, this also means that where constitutions and international human rights instruments are silent on an issue, the law will not appeal, as in the past, to the ‘higher law’ as set out in the holy Scriptures—the inalienable dignity of the human person, his family, and his personal decision-making, as John Locke derived these rights principally from biblical revelation—but will tend to defer to state power and bureaucracy, infused by prevailing pluralistic viewpoints. Where this occurs, the tragic result will be, not an increase in human rights protections but just the opposite. In that respect, the home schooling issue may serve as a litmus test to discerning jurists.”

Schirrmacher, also a professor of sociology, presented “Compulsory Education in Schools only? Divergent Developments in Germany.” He noted that homeschooling is virtually impossible in Germany because of an aggressive attempt by “legal and sociological machinery” to repress the practice while ignoring regular and rampant truancy among public school children. Schirrmacher argued that the country’s federal child protection law that allows the Jugendamt, Germany’s child protection service, to take custody of children is being misused when applied to homeschoolers. “Parents,” he argues, “who want something different, are not to be placed on the same level as parents who are violent and let their children get into a bad state and who should be punished.”

National Socialism Influence Continues

Schirrmacher points out that compulsory education through school attendance has a long history in Germany, but that the criminalization of homeschooling is a recent issue originating with the rise of national socialism. He wrote:

“Princes wanted all subjects to be good citizens and youth to be raised to be good soldiers. For the first time, as far as I can see, the principle of compulsory education is expressed in the Weimar School Regulations of 1919. Even though educational instruction at home was nevertheless able to have a niche existence, it is still the case that compulsory education as it developed did not serve the august democratic goals of equality and equal opportunity. Rather, it was a central and controlling element with which the state educated the population in accordance with its principles. . . national socialism made use of the fact that in any case all children had to learn according to the manner the state prescribed, and thus it merely eliminated free alternatives in private and alternative schools as well as in home educational instruction.”

Schirrmacher was highly critical of the Germany’s use of criminal law to prosecute homeschooling parents.

“Modern democratic Germany should not use criminal law against parents who homeschool. There is no doubt that the current enforcement approach of jail, high fines and taking children from parents over education began with the national socialists.”

Seeking Asylum

HSLDA has reported on numerous cases where the German government persecutes homeschooling parents. That is why HSLDA brought the first-ever homeschool asylum case in 2008 for the Romeike family from Germany. The Romeikes were granted asylum in January, 2010 by immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, but the Obama administration has appealed the Romeikes’ victory. As of August 2011, the family was still waiting for a determination of the appeal.

Donnelly, who is also an adjunct professor of government at Patrick Henry College, presented “Creature of the State? Homeschooling, the Law, Human Rights, and Parental Autonomy.” He argued that homeschooling is a human right of the first order and that pluralism as practiced in most Western societies demands its acceptance. He disagreed with those, like Emory Law Professor and noted child rights advocate Martha Albertson-Fineman, who argued that homeschooling is a problem in a democracy that should “require compulsory public education because only the government can assure the inculcation of values able to ensure the survival of a democratic society.”

“Nonsense,” says Donnelly. “Those who make this argument conflate ‘society’ with ‘state.’ State and society are not necessarily—in fact are not usually—synonymous. Indeed, a government’s interest in expanding its power may very well be at odds with the people’s interest in freedom.”

For over a century, compulsory public education has been a “standard” in most developed societies. But as homeschooling is on the rise internationally, much of the same drama American homeschoolers experienced for decades is repeating itself. Parents in some of these countries, including former communist nations hostile to any threat to state supremacy, are fighting hard to secure the freedom to teach their own children. HSLDA is helping by offering research and advocacy to public policy makers and encouragement to homeschoolers in other countries. In Germany, however, it looks like it will be a longer road than other countries. State and federal legislators in the republic told Donnelly that most German policy makers are unwilling to credit research gained from America’s 40 years of experience with homeschooling and remain fearful that an American approach to homeschooling will create parallel societies.

Donnelly recounted: “One state legislator was quite short when she asked the host of a meeting I attended, ‘Why is this American here? This is Germany—we’re not like America.’ During the discussion about homeschooling the legislator told a homeschooling mom present that ‘there was no way she could possibly have enough time to properly educate or properly socialize her eight children.’ ”

Religious Views

Germany, like much of Europe, views religion differently than the United States. Unlike here, religion is taught in public schools. Germany’s growing Muslim minority, however, resulting from the influx of Turkish immigrants since the 1960s, invokes fear on the part of “ethnic Germans.” One federal legislator who supports homeschooling in concept agreed that this was a concern on the part of many public policy makers. This phenomenon helps explain the German Constitutional Court’s 2003 Konrad holding that the “interest of society in stamping out parallel societies” is justified so that “minority groups can be integrated,” taught “democratic values” and how to live tolerantly with others. Such prescriptions, however, clash with human rights acknowledged by Germany in writing.

Educational freedom is a foundational right explicitly recognized since 1925 by the United States Supreme Court inPierce v. Society of Sisters. The fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children has also been incorporated in other documents including the 1945 UN Declaration on Human Rights, the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although sovereign nations need to address human rights and freedom issues within the context of their culture and law, organizations like HSLDA that seek to influence public policy both domestically and internationally are needed to speak for the good of all homeschoolers and similarly situated groups. Conferences like IVR 2011 are a place where ideas and information can be shared to ultimately seek to influence public policy.

“Homeschooling is a growing international movement. More parents are finding homeschooling as an alternative to failing public school systems,” said Donnelly. “Governments need to understand that homeschooling produces academically superior, socially well-adjusted and productive citizens.”

Conferences like IVR 2011 get the facts into the hands of academics who can then bring that information back to their countries and use it to inform policy makers so that decisions can be made—hopefully for the good of homeschooling parents. HSLDA has been advancing the cause of homeschooling since 1983 and hopes to help homeschoolers abroad by investing resources to fight these stereotypes in countries like Germany.

American homeschoolers are blessed with great freedom. It is important that we support the less fortunate who are restricted by government policy from teaching their children at home. Because technology allows ideas to travel at the speed of light, it serves the interest of all freedom-loving people to resist totalitarianism in education wherever and whenever necessary.

The papers presented by Donnelly, Montgomery and Schirrmacher will be published by a German publishing company and will be available in the coming months at the HSLDA bookstore.

Download Abstract book of 25th IVR World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy.

When Indian Dalits Convert to Christianity or Islam, they lose Social Welfare Benefits and Rights they are Guaranteed under the Constitution

The International Institute for Religious Freedom is seeking sponsors for a research project that will address the combination of the oppression of Dalits[1] in India as well as the growing persecution of Christians in India. What is primarily happening with regard to these issues?

“The number of Hindu Dalits is estimated to be over 160 million, and together with Muslim, Buddhist, and Christian ‘untouchables’ the number amounts to approximately 240 million, or almost one quarter of the Indian population. Up until the present day they are often massively discriminated against by caste Indians, and in some cases also experiencing persecution and violence. They are to some extent outside of the caste system or on its lowest rung, and for that reason considered to be ‘unclean’ or ‘untouchable.’ In particular in rural areas, this discrimination is up until the present day a reality, something that in the West is often viewed as a form of racism or slavery. This can go so far as to mean that contact with their shadows has to be avoided. Again and again they are the victims of violence and land confiscation.”[2] Up to today 400,000 to perhaps 800,000 Dalits clean latrines daily with their bare hands.

Dalits who convert to Islam or Christianity in India lose their legal status as Dalits and with that the financial and legal support to which they are entitled according to the constitution and legal code. Using the logic that as Muslims or Christians they no longer belong to the lowest order of society, they lose their constitutional rights. Strangely this does not apply to Dalits who become either Buddhists or Sikhs. At least this is the way the constitution views it. Reality is at this point often something else.

That is at least the complaint that one of the two large international associations of Dalits that exist worldwide, the Dalit Freedom Network (www. Dalitnetwork.org) under the leadership of its international president Joseph D’souza, has with human rights campaigners.[3] The other international association, International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) (www.idsn.org), with its central organization in India, the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) (www.ncdhr.org.in), and the German branch, Dalit Solidarität in Deutschland (DSiD) (www.dalit.de), is more cautious but does not, however, contradict the analysis.

Still, the question comes up again and again as to whether this extreme discrimination of Christians and Muslims is constitutionally as well as legally truly preset. Furthermore, an additional question is whether in reality this discrimination is also so intensely practiced and directly applicable to many Dalits. Statements from relevant investigations of the condition Dalits find themselves in serve as the initial rationale for the research project.

The international human rights organization Human Rights Watch domiciled in New York at the headquarters of the UN published the first major human rights report on the condition of Dalits in India (and in Indian communities around the world) in 1999. It was entitled “Broken People – Caste Violence“ and since then has been made available on the web by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.[4] Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at the New York University School of Law presented an opinion regarding reports from India to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2007.[5] This was due to the fact that India’s report had been submitted eight years too late and did not include a single actual infringement against Dalits. The HRW report is considered one of the best reports on the condition of Dalits from the viewpoint of human rights. Regarding the religious freedom of Dalits, there is the following rather lengthy excerpt.[6] (References to excerpts have to do with the entire report, and footnotes are found at the end of the excerpt.)

Excerpt from the Human Rights Watch report:

Article 5 (d) (vii): The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Dalits in India face a number of restrictions on their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Caste-based human rights violations that are the subject of this report are often given religious sanction under the theory that Dalits must live segregated lives and perform menial occupations because they are born into a caste outside of the Hindu varna system. As a result, Dalits are routinely denied entry into Hindu temples (see Section VIII(F)(2)(b)). Dalits have responded to ill-treatment by upper-caste Hindus by converting en masse to Buddhism, Christianity, and historically to Islam. The loss of constitutional privileges upon conversion, however, serves as a serious impediment to their freedom to choose their religion.  Additionally, most Dalits are ultimately unable to escape their treatment as “untouchables” regardless of the religion they profess.²⁸⁴ The introduction of anti-conversion legislation in several states has further made religious conversion extremely difficult if not impossible. Finally, Dalits may become targets of forced “reconversions” to Hinduism by sangh parivar groups.²⁸⁵

a. Loss of constitutional privileges upon conversion

While the Indian Constitution grants certain constitutional privileges to Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh Dalits (see Section V(B)), the same benefits do not extend to those who convert to Christianity or Islam. Dalit Christians and Muslims lose their “scheduled caste” status even though they are unable to escape discriminatory treatment from Christians and Muslims. Many Dalit Christians must pray in separate or segregated churches, bury their dead in separate cemeteries, and endure discrimination by non-Dalit priests and nuns.²⁸⁶

Descendants of Dalit converts to Islam also face discrimination at the hands of Muslims who trace their ancestry to Arab, Iranian, or Central Asian origin.²⁸⁷ Descendants of indigenous converts are commonly referred to as ajlaf or “base” or “lowly.”²⁸⁸ Further, upper-caste Muslims often deny Dalit Muslims entry to graveyards for burial.²⁸⁹ The continued practice of “untouchability” against Dalit Christians and Muslims undermines the argument that these communities should lose constitutional privileges upon conversion, and have led to charges that the Indian government’s practice of assigning scheduled caste status on the basis of religion amounts to religious discrimination.²⁹⁰ Additionally, Dalit Christians and Muslims may be subject to multiple forms of discrimination on the basis of their caste and religion, a risk that has increased with the rise of Hindu nationalism in India.²⁹¹

b. Anti-conversion legislation

Dalits’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is explicitly denied through legislation that prohibits or impedes religious conversion. Seven states, a majority of them ruled by the Hindu nationalist BJP—Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu—have introduced legislation designed to make conversion difficult or virtually impossible.²⁹² Four of the anti-conversion laws explicitly stipulate harsher punishments where the convert is a Dalit, tribal, female, or a minor.²⁹³ Critics have argued that such bills represent a political move by Hindu nationalist groups to maintain their Hindu vote bank.²⁹⁴ Notably, mass “re-conversions” to Hinduism engineered by VHP, often using threats and coercion, are allowed under these laws.²⁹⁵

– – – – –

²⁸⁴ Human Rights Watch, Broken People, p. 27.

²⁸⁵ In one notable incident in the state of Orissa, seven Dalit women, who had embraced the Christian faith of their own volition, were physically abused and forcibly tonsured before being forcibly “reconverted” to Hinduism. http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religioncommunalism/
2004/kilipal.htm (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁸⁶ In a village in Tamil Nadu, for instance, discrimination on the basis of caste has been practiced by Christians for decades. In the village’s church Dalit Christians are made to sit apart from other Christians and must stand while talking to the priest. Like upper-caste Hindus, Christians in this village mete out severe punishment against Christian Dalits who question discriminatory traditions. In February 1999, when a Dalit priest attempted to conduct a funeral procession for his late mother through the main street of his town, Christians attacked the procession with guns, homemade weapons, and stones and verbally abused the Dalits with derogatory caste remarks and threats; more than 100 people were injured. Caste Christians Discriminate against Dalit Priest, National Public Hearing, April 18-19, 2000, Chennai-Tamil Nadu, Case Papers: Summary Jury’s Interim Observations & Recommendations, Vol. 1, p. 259.

²⁸⁷ Salil Kader, “Muslims Infected by Caste Virus,” March 14, 2006, http://www.indianmuslims.info/articles/others/salil_kader_muslims_infected_by_caste_virus.html (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁸⁸ Yoginder Sikand, “The Dalit Muslims and the All-India Backward Muslim Morcha,” December 16, 2004, The South Asian, available at: http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2004/the_dalit_muslims_and_the_alli.html (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁸⁹ Salil Kader, “Social Stratification Among Muslims in India,” June 15, 2004, Counter Currents, http://www.countercurrents.org/dalitkader150604.htm (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁹⁰ See Yoginder Sikand, “Muslim Dalit and OBC Conference: A Report,” November 30, 2005, The Milli Gazette, http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2005/20051130-muslim-dalits.htm (accessed February 7, 2007) (arguing that the Indian government’s practice of assigning scheduled caste status on the basis of religion amounts to religious discrimination). See also Yoginder Sikand, “The Dalit Muslims and the All-India Backward Muslim Morcha,” December 16, 2004, The South Asian, http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2004/the_dalit_muslims_and_the_alli.html (accessed February 7, 2007). For the same claim with respect to Christian Dalits, see Minority Rights Group, “India’s Dalit Christians face caste discrimination and loss of government assistance,” March 3, 2004, http://www.minorityrights.org/news_detail.asp?ID=230 (accessed February 7, 2007); see also Appeal to Join Hands to End Discrimination Against Dalits, All India Christian Council, http://www.aiccindia.org/newsite/0804061910/resources/appeal_to_join_hands.htm (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁹¹ Human Rights Watch, We Have No Orders to Save You, pp. 39-40; see also Human Rights Watch, Politics by Other Means: Attacks Against Christians in India, Vol. 11, No. 6, September 1999.

²⁹² “Dalits to burn anti-conversion laws at Nagpur rally,” Indian Catholic, October 11, 2006,
http://www.theindiancatholic.com/newsread.asp?nid=3859 (accessed February 7, 2007); “Dalits in conversion ceremony,” BBC News, October 14, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6050408.stm (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁹³ Daniel Blake, “100,000 Dalit Christians to Attend ‘World Religious Freedom Day’ Rally in India,” Christian Today, October 11, 2006, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/100000.dalit.christians.
to.attend.world.religious.freedom.day.rally.in.india/7943.htm (accessed February 7, 2007).

²⁹⁴ One such bill was the controversial Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill, passed in the state of Tamil Nadu on October 31, 2002. The law was widely criticized for making it more difficult for poor people, persecuted minorities, and those ostracized under the caste system to convert to another religion. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2003, p. 240. The law nevertheless found support with the BJP-led federal government (Ibid.), and remained in force until June 7, 2006, when it was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion (Repeal) Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion (Repeal) Act, 2006 – www.tn.gov.in/acts-rules/law/ACT_10to12_131_07JUN06.pdf (accessed February 7, 2007). More recently, on September 19, 2006, the state of Gujarat passed a law that classifies Jainism and Buddhism as branches of Hinduism, even though the Indian constitution classifies the two as separate religions. The new law makes conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism or Jainism easier, because the conversion is deemed to be an “inter-denominational” one. However, the purpose of the bill, according to government critics, is to ensure that Dalits do not convert to Islam or Christianity, and that those who convert to Buddhism or Jainism remain a part of Hinduism and thus remain likely to vote for the Hindu nationalist BJP, which heads the state of Gujarat. The leader of Gujarat’s opposition Congress party said that the BJP-led government of Gujarat was using the law as a “tool” to maintain its bedrock of votes. Rajeev Khanna, “Anger Over Gujarat Religion Law,” BBC News, September 20, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5362802.stm (accessed February 7, 2007). Dalit leader Udit Raj, chairman of the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organization poignantly asserts: “[Hindu extremists are trying to assimilate] Buddhism and Jainism into Hinduism. Where is the freedom to choose your own faith?” “Dalits to Burn Anti-Conversion Laws at Nagpur Rally,” The Indian Catholic, October 11, 2006.

²⁹⁵ “VHP orchestrates mass reconversion in Orissa,” Deccan Herald, May 2, 2005, http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may22005/national13399200551.asp (accessed February 7, 2007).

In her standard German language work on the condition of Dalits, Brigitte Voykowitsch concurringly quotes Philomen Raj, the leader of the commission of Catholic Churches in India, who seeks to help fight discrimination against Dalits in the church, but who also with all other Dalits plans campaigns all across India:

“Dalits convert due to the oppression that they suffer. Actually, however, they lose when they convert to Christianity. Only untouchable Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are officially considered so-called ‘scheduled castes,’ which are registered castes with claims to state support measures such as quotas for places at university and for civil service jobs. We are fighting for Dalits to be accepted as a registered caste, because they suffer under the same economic and social disadvantages.”[7]

In a collective volume of the Evangelical Missions Association in Hamburg, one of the affected parties writes regarding the difference in treatment received by Dalits and Adivasis, the underprivileged tribal people of India:

“In its constitution the country of India has codified the protection of and aid to oppressed population groups. There are quotas in institutions of education as well as in the area of governmental employees and civil servants. While the members of the Adavasis people group can always lay claim to the support entitled to them irrespective to which religion they adhere, members of the Dalit people group are stricken from the list of those who have a claim to quota consideration if they convert to another religion. For that reason Christian Dalits lose all these privileges which they otherwise would have from the side of the government. The result is that they have to compete for available places at universities with all the other population groups that do not count as oppressed.”[8]

These allegations do not appear to be pulled out of thin air, even if they have been investigated far too little and for that reason can only be denounced with difficulty in front of international committees and the global public.

But even at that point, where the topic formally imposes itself, for instance with the function of anti-conversion laws in several of the Indian states, seldom is a connection made to the Dalit question. Up to the present day, there has never been a charge brought as a fraudulent conversion case where the anti-conversion law has held up in court. Therefore, there must be other reasons than true danger of fraudulent conversions as a result of bribery or violence.

Dalits‘ conversions to other religions as a result of protest have a history in India. The jurist and Dalit Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956) was essentially responsible for the composition of India’s Constitution. The fact that the caste system was done away with in the constitution and that Dalits and tribal peoples enjoyed particular protection were items attributable to him. As early as 1935 he announced that he did not want to die as a Hindu. But it was not until October 14, 1956 in Nagpur that Ambedkar, in a large ceremony with 388,000 other Dalits, converted to Buddhism. In Buddhist teaching he saw a socially revolutionary religion that replaced the caste system, with a set of ethics which were based on equality and freedom. In the matter of a few years 6 million Dalits converted to Buddhism. Ambedkar himself died only a few months after his conversion on December 6, 1956. Still, his ceremonies set a precedent. On the 50th anniversary of his conversion around 5,000 Dalits converted to Buddhism in Mumbai (earlier Bombay).[9]

The history and the consequences of such conversions by Dalits to Buddhism is rather well researched.[10] The history of the conversion of Dalits to other religions, above all to Christianity, was hardly noted, although today, in large Dalit networks, preeminently Buddhists and Christians work closely together. In October 2006 approximately 2,500 Dalkits in Nagpur converted in a public ceremony, in part to Buddhism and in part to Christianity. Most notably it is hardly known just how much the present day situation of increasing persecution against Christians and Muslims in India is interrelated.

The IIRF’s research project is supposed to change all that.

---

[1] A good introduction with various viewpoints is found in „Dalits: Religion und Menschenrechte der ehemaligen ‚Unberührbaren‘ in Indien.“ Weltmission heute 67. Hamburg: Evangelisches Missionswerk in Deutschland, 2009 with a good list of literature pp. 192-196. Also Brigitte Voykowitsch. Dalits: Die Unberührbaren in Indien. Wien: Verlag der Apfel, 2006 and from an academic point of view: S. M. Michael (ed.). Dalits in Modern India. Los Angeles/Singapore: SAGE, 2007. Dalits: Many English language sources are found under http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/casteism/

[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit (9.10.2009): Wikipedia can sometimes be unreliable or the result of ideological “edit wars.“ The articles relating to Dalits and fundamentalist Hinduism are, however, all very good.

[3] Joseph D’souza. Dalit Freedom: Now and Forever. London: OM & Colorado: Dalit Freedom Network, 2005.

[4] www.unhcr.org/…/country,,HRW,,IND,4562d8cf2,3ae6a83f0,0.html; see also www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/india.

[5] „Hidden Apartheid“. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2007. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11030/section/1, as a pdf at www.chrgj.org/docs/IndiaCERDShadowReport.pdf.

[6] Ibid. pp. 75-77; the central sentence, that Dalits lose government support when when they convert to Christianity or Islam, is confirmed in similar language by Smita Narula. “Broken people: caste violence against India’s ‘untouchables.’“ New York: Human Rights Watch, 199. p. 27 And “India practises  ‘hidden apartheid‘ against dalits: report“ (7.3.2007). http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/india_practises.html.

[7] Brigitte Voykowitsch. Dalits. op. cit., p. 85, comp. on the discrimination  of Dalits in Christian Churches and the growing equal rights movement there pp. 83-87.

[8] George Bharati. “Was ist los in kondhamal.“ pp. 39-48 in: Dalits: Religion und Menschenrechte der ehemaligen ‘Unberührbaren‘ in Indien. op. cit. pp. 45, the article itself is also at http://www.nmz-mission.de/fix/files/doc/Bharati_Artikel_Kondhamal_2008dt.pdf.

[9] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6695695.stm.

[10] See for example Brigitte Voykowitsch. Dalits. op. cit. pp. 34-87 (“Ambdekar und die Religion“); Timothy Fitzgerald. „Ambedkar, Buddhism and the Concept of Religion”. S. 132-149 in: S. M. Michael (ed.). Dalits in Modern India. Los Angeles/Singapore: SAGE, 2007; the standard work is Johannes Beltz. Mahar, Buddhist and Dalit. New Delhi: Manohar, 2005; Additional literature at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhimrao_Ramji_Ambedkar.

Racism is false and evil – Interview

When my book Rassismus (Racism) was published, I gave the following interview. An English translation of the book will be published in 2011.

Is a new book against racism necessary?

First of all, racism is such a seriously mistaken position that there simply cannot be enough written against it. However, you would really be astonished at how few books in the German book market there are on racism. And most of them are very technical, very specialized, and hardly understandable for the man on the street. I wanted to redress this situation.

An Evangelical opposing racism?

Yes, naturally. The word “Evangelical“ was first used for a movement in Great Britain that called for the abolition of the slave trade and then of slavery. The movement finally achieved this under the leadership of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Evangelicals played a central role in the anti-slavery movement in the USA, for instance free church Quakers and Methodists. The best known book about it is the Evangelical classic, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In my book I quote a historian who demonstrates that racism had a greater chance in France and Germany due to the fact that there are few Evangelicals there.

In the 18^th century William Carey fought the racism found in Christian churches in India under the caste system, and his language and cultural research led to the preservation of numerous Indian languages. Many view this British missionary and language researcher as the father of Evangelicals.

So everything is just history?

Nowadays the internationalization of the Evangelical movement means that racism does not have a chance. In my Evangelical environment, from the time I was small, there were Indonesians, Kenyans and Latin Americans whom I got to know as role models, so racism was obsolete before I got to know about it on the school playground. Additionally, the World Evangelical Alliance has repeatedly and clearly taken a position against all forms of racism.

I can agree that this is the case on an international level, but in Germany?

In any event, it is a fact that the Pietists have always had a better relationship to people of other cultures than to the people around them. And Evangelicals in Germany have inherited that from the Pietists. The longtime leading German Evangelical missiologist Prof. Peter Beyerhaus wrote a small book in 1972 under the title Racism and its reasonable Evangelical Conquest. The Young Christians’ Offensive in Reichelsheim grew up during the time of its ecumenical struggle to overcome apartheid in South Africa – mind you, only with peaceful means. As far as the present is concerned, I really would not know where racism could be expected to find a home in Evangelical churches. For a long time we have been used to reading books from all over the world, taking the foremost spiritual leaders from all cultures as role models and welcoming people of all cultures and ethnic groups. Since the majority of the Evangelical movement stems from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, they set the tone in many committees.

But what about Evangelicals in the USA?

When the Evangelical movement in the USA is criticized, a lot of people forget that there are not only ‘white’ Evangelicals. Rather, a lot of African-Americans have been and are Evangelicals, and today this additionally applies to Latinos and Asians. Unfortunately, in the USA there is a broad right-wing extremist spectrum that says that America is white, English speaking, and Christian. The only thing is, that has little to do with Christian churches. And it is far removed from the National Association of Evangelicals and the US Evangelical Alliance.

But don’t Evangelicals view Islam very critically?

As a religion, yes, but they can still treat Muslims with dignity, can’t they? I would like to brazenly maintain that no German group of people is as often a guest of Turkish families as Evangelicals are or invite Turkish friends over as often as Evangelicals do.

What distinguishes racism from other forms of discrimination?

The core of racism in comparison to other ideologies that are used to oppress people (such as class, religious hatred, or disdain for the handicapped) is that what makes the other person different is allegedly in the individual’s biological ancestry and for that reason is unalterable.

Racism has namely two core elements. It constructs ancestral groups with allegedly common features and evaluates these groups and differences for the ends sought by the racist. This occurs to the detriment of the victim, legitimizing privileges and aggression.

Constructs?

Yes. In my book I compile the growing number of arguments arising from investigations into different peoples and modern genetic research. For centuries there have been attempts to classify races, but the division mostly only convinced the researchers themselves who conducted the work. Something has been clear for a long time: there is only one human race.

Do you have a vivid example you can give me?

Yes, for sure. The same blood groups are found throughout all people groups. If you have blood type A, you had better not let a ‘white’ with blood type B donate blood to you. However, the blood of a ‘black,’ ‘yellow,’ or ‘red’ with your blood type can save your life. And a person with blood type O can be a so-called universal donor for any person on earth.

But can’t races be identified by their skin color?

If you take the time to study the history of classification according to skin color, you will quickly realize that it has little to do with the actual skin color. ‘Yellows’ are often lighter than ‘whites,’ ‘reds’ are not red, but rather their spectrum of lighter to darker is found in other races.

What about the IQ tests in the USA which supposedly demonstrate that blacks on average are less gifted than whites?

If one takes IQ tests to be a measure, Jews and Japanese score about 10% higher than whites. However, one would rather keep that quiet. There are problems, however: 1. There are no culture-free IQ tests, no neutral, international intelligence. If you ask questions that relate to what is relevant for Eskimo children, Germans will always stand there and look like the dumb ones. 2. It is always only a question of averages. The same extreme spectrum is found in every group. It‘s just distributed differently. 3. Additionally, it is still an open issue as to where the differences come from. Do they lie in the educational system, in the family, or truly, as is alleged, in the genes?

How does one argue against racism?

One has to argue against racism on two levels. First, there is the argument that even a demonstrated difference among human races says nothing about the common dignity found among people. And secondly, no evidence can be produced to support the assumption that such biological differences between divisible races exist at all.

Actually the second point should suffice. Still, although it is the case that with every decade the scientific evidence increases that says there are no races, it is common up to the present day to continue to use the ancient and frequently refuted division according to skin color, for lack of an alternative. Leading encyclopedias explain under the ‘racism’ heading that there is no such thing as races, only to then nonchalantly continue to refer to the differentiation under the ‘race’ heading or the headings of these individual ‘races.’

What are the most common forms of racism?

There are three types of racism that are the most internationally widespread and can be tracked over the course of many centuries. They are directed against the co-called ‘blacks’ or people with darker skin color, against Jews, and against so-called ‘gypsies,’ which is to say against Sintis and Romanies.

The three international forms of racism are the defamation and fight against or oppression of 1. ‘Blacks’ (or of people who have a darker skin color than oneself ) – they are allegedly dumb, barbarian, and uncivilized; 2. Jews – they are allegedly devious, greedy, and domineering; 3. ‘Gypsies’ – they are allegedly asocial and thievish.

I understand you have written a two volume work about Hitler’s war religion. Is that correct?

Yes, I try to demonstrate that Hitler actually believed in a Creator. That Creator had nothing in common with the Christian God, but it was one that implied a religious exaggeration of the social Darwinist racial conflict. It is a disgrace that only a few Christians recognized that what was being dealt with in the case of Hitler was something that was in complete opposition to their religion. It was not just something political, from which an individual could simply seek to remove himself.

But is not the idea of the ‘Volk’ a creation ordinance?

No, I agree with Karl Barth on this. The Bible indicates that marriage and family as well as work are all creation ordinances prior to the fall. The state, and mostly as a multi-ethnic state, is also seen as instituted by God. Of course, God also wanted the church as an institution. But the Volk, or nation? Even the people of Israel consisted of a number of ancestral sources. In the Bible one see that people grew apart. And nowhere does it say that only one people – whatever that was – should live in one country. The moral connection of a nation-state with an ancestral people, a religion, and a language is a modern invention which does not fit with practically any country on earth.

But aren’t there Germans and French and for that reason a Germany and a France?

We are all half-breeds with a long cultural history. We are the result of centuries of migration, especially Germans, the French or, for instance, the Turks. The French and Germans are culturally and historically distinguished from each other, but thirty generations back we are talking about the same ancestral mix. Charles the Great is seen as the progenitor of the French and the Germans, but for the longest time both sides acted as if there were two different people, the king of France and the emperor of the Germans.

Are you against right-wing extremism, then?

Yes, naturally. It is scientifically indefensible, ethically questionable, and it does not escape the scrutiny of human rights questions. But I do not want to make it too easy on myself. Racism is everywhere. Just think about left wing party leader Lafontaine’s comments regarding Polish workers in Germany or think of the Marxist dictator Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The Media vs. Religious Freedom!?

In my statement yesterday as an expert in human rights for the parliamentary human rights committee of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament), my observations on the role of the media and its negative effects on religious freedom were widely discussed. I am publishing this in advance, from that section of my opinion. The comprehensive report will be published together with all the statements and the minutes of the Bundestag committee in November. Six experts gave their opinions on the future of religious freedom in Europe and the role of Islam in it. I was nominated by the MPs of Chancellor Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Media reports are only available in German yet:

• Press release by the federal parliament: www.bundestag.de
• Christian Media: www.pro-medienmagazin.de
• Press service of the Humanist Union: hpd.de
• Baha’i press service: iran.bahai.de

“Far too little attention is paid to the way in which the media, in a broad sense, will determine whether or not the discussion on the integration of Islamic faith communities into Europe will lead to a constructive result. The media talk about the book by Thilo Sarrazin and a phrase in the speech of the President have just proved this again.

An example is the crucial the role of the international (and German) media in dealing with a crazy, isolated preacher in the United States who announced the burning of a Koran. In a world of 2.5 billion Muslims and Christians of numerous varieties, this would be a totally meaningless event, if the media were not involved. People wanted to finally see peaceful evangelicals pulled into a culture war with Muslims – fundamentalists against fundamentalists- since such an event would make the media ratings fly high. (In retrospect, a profound commentary in Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, provides a crown jewel of evidence.) Very quickly people expected violence from Muslims in Afghanistan and in other countries as well. If such acts of violence really related to the threatened Koran burning, no one could know with certainty, but the media was already certain. No one seemed to care that the media took the risk of causing murder and manslaughter. The 420 million-strong World Evangelical Alliance had long spoken out vehemently and loudly against public Koran burning (and also took concrete preventive steps).  And no one from WEA has ever burned a Koran.  Meanwhile, at the same time, the media did not think it was worth a report that worldwide Bibles, churches, and sometimes even Christians, are being burned. Nor did it merit a report that in Iran Baha’i texts were burned and in India Korans were burned.

The media are not contributing to social peace among religions, but for the cheap effect of audience and readership, the media promote emotional confrontations between religious groups. The work of the media in Belgium, in Orthodox countries, and in Turkey provides many further examples that the media like to inflame or exploit religious conflict, and then later to play the role of the moral judge.

The media will play a major role in determining whether religious tensions between the great religions increase or decline, as well as in the treatment of religious minorities. Violent attacks on other religions generally follow malicious misrepresentations or generalizations which have been disseminated and used against people. In such false generalizations, all the people from the highly differentiated Islamic (or evangelical) world are all thrown into one pot and discussed as if they were all the same. On this topic, Germans should study the history of Jew-baiting, which preceded the extermination of the Jews.

Whenever evangelicals as portrayed as violent, the Yezidis as “worshippers of the devil,” Catholic priests as child abusers because of celibacy, Muslims as authorized to lie “against unbelievers;” and if every time the word Islam is on TV pictures of 9/11 appear, or if with evangelicals a picture of George Bush and the war in Iraq is included; then someone is preparing particular religious groups for societal exclusion by means of constant repetition of slander against them.”

The Right to Life Movement as a Human Rights Movement

The right to life movement has always understood itself to be a human rights movement. Above all it advocates the right to life for those who cannot represent themselves. While at the beginning it only had to do with the unborn, societal and medical developments in the meantime have brought along additional spheres: the aged, the sick, and the handicapped as well as test tube embryos.

Nowadays the unborn individual is in a sense not a person who is received, but rather, and contrary to all logic, not a person until he or she is received – an unwanted child does not have a right to life.

Human rights means, however, that a person is endowed with dignity before encountering any other person or institution such as the family or the state. Every other person, and a fortiori the state, finds us imbued with dignity. No one creates it by the power of his or her office.

The prohibition against killing the innocent belongs to the essence of a constitutional state. All opponents of the death penalty in fact expect from the state that they will not even kill anyone who is guilty. But the most innocent and the most helpless, those who are in a mother’s womb, are left without any government protection when those who should actually protect them more than everyone else, the mother, father, and physician, determine their death.

At present there is one national or European anti-discrimination measure and guideline chasing the other. However, the fact that the unborn are discriminated against, or additionally the handicapped or unloved, or even worse, those because of their gender, does not concern those who say that protection against discrimination so far does not go far enough.

Every unborn child is, from the moment it is conceived, a person who has a claim on the same human rights as every member of the human community. His or her life is to be protected unconditionally, and to kill that individual is unthinkable.

As are all human rights, the human rights of embryos are also independent of others’ consciences, for instance the consciences of mothers or physicians.

Cases where an individual can still be legally killed include the situation where it is done to prevent that individual from killing (e.g., self-defense, the self-defense of the state) – something that is excluded with respect to the unborn.  Another case where an individual can be legally killed is in a grave situation where there is a collision of obligations, one in which life is pitted against life (e.g., just war, self-sacrifice for another individual), but never, however, in order to defend a lesser value.

Muslims: always Victims and never Offenders?

According to media reports (for instance here or here), the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan offered protection  to the President of Sudan, who was scheduled to come to Istanbul for a summit of the Organization of Islamic States. The Turkish Prime Minister subsequently withdrew that offer. The background is that Interpol and the International Criminal Court have issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan for crimes of genocide, and the President of Sudan is therefore being sought for arrest. The Turkish Prime Minister declared that the President of Sudan may not be arrested anyway, a statement he substantiated by declaring that Sudan is an Islamic state and that Islamic states are not in a position to commit crimes such as genocide.

In terms of genocide, he did mention Israel’s actions towards Palestinians as well as China’s actions towards the Uigurs. According to Erdogan, 1,500 people have been killed in Gaza, while the UN accuses Sudan of being responsible for the murder of 300,000 people!

A Muslim leader can by definition not be a criminal, but does this apply even in the case where the evidence is so overwhelming? If Muslims are the victims, is there immediate mention of genocide? It does not appear to be coincidental that China is accused of genocide against the (Muslim) Uigurs but apparently not against the (Buddhist) Tibetans! If that is applied to history, that means that past faults committed by Muslims are denied, while faults committed by non-Muslims are still triumphantly invoked centuries after they were committed. On the one hand, this mentality fits to Christians, who work through their history self-critically and admit many faults (and that should not change). It also fits with historians critical of Christianity, who still preferably only itemize Christian offenses (that, however, should change!).

This is in line with what Islamic states, under the leadership of Pakistan, are presently seeking to implement. In the face of massive resistance from western countries, several votes resulted in a Defamation of Religion Resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council being successfully passed, which addresses what until now has not yet been binding international law: to view a critique of Islam as a human rights violation. This is due to the fact that in the last resolution, from March 2009, religion in general is mentioned but only Islam is mentioned by name.

Islam is allowed to criticize whomever it wishes however it wishes, but no one is allowed to criticize Islam – no matter how peacefully, friendly, and objectively this is done? Therefore: all rights for us, and no rights for others? No, that cannot be! I wrote my book Islam: A Stereotypical Enemy (Feindbild Islam) protecting Muslims from slander by rightwing Christian groups. because from a Christian point of view the slander of others is always wrong, not only when it has to do with our own religion or when it only affects our own people. What is at issue is ‘all rights for all people.”

Just so that no one misunderstands me or accuses me of blanket condemnation: This year I was in Instanbul with Turkish professors from all over the country and from different fields of study (including Islamic theology!) who stand up for religious freedom and were appalled to report about the Islamification of cities and provinces that are under the leadership of Justice and Development party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, or AKP) politicians. Without any “academic fluff,” Turkish families who have visited us at home, as well as politicians with Turkish heritage, have told us the same here in Bonn. By far not all Turks think like the Turkish Premier Minister. As far as I am concerned, I have no interest in increasing any tensions. The World Evangelical Alliance has its own taskforcefor peace building, which is strongly engaged in areas heading towards states of crisis and is engagned in moderating peace between Muslim and Christian communities. We also assist people in personally getting to know each other in a way that goes beyond religious boundaries and promotes their working together for peace. In spite of this it still has to be pointed out that internationally the difficulties with Islam are becoming more intense, when simply by definition it is decreed that Muslims are always the victims and never the offenders.