weaponising religious freedom
Constantine used ‘religious freedom’ to advance his empire. Are today’s politicians making the same fatal error?
BARNABAS FUND
Old Testament Israel operated as a theocracy under Mosaic Law, with success or failure of the nation relying simply on the extent of the people’s obedience, or otherwise, to God. Under the direct rule of God, the notion of religious freedom did not arise. God commanded His people to ‘care for the stranger and foreigner in their midst’ (Deuteronomy 10:19). In the case of the Gibeonites, there was the extra protection of a special covenant or treaty (Joshua 9:3-27). However, under the God-ordained rule of state (Romans 13:3-4) in the Church age religious freedoms must be established and preserved through a constitution and the rule of law.
The risks to Christian and other minorities1
American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, recently announced 2 that a ministerial meeting to “advance religious freedom” [was] hosted by the Department of State 25-26 July. Mr Pompeo’s announcement affirmed a commitment to religious liberty as a founding principle of the US, as articulated in the first amendment, and also as a “universal human right”. The global intentions for the meeting, to promote religious freedom internationally via US foreign policy, are underscored in the former CIA director’s call to identify “concrete ways to push back against persecution and ensure greater respect for religious freedom for all” .
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” US Constitution, Amendment 1. Many Christians welcome the Trump administration’s call to defend freedom of religious belief and expression. However, a note of caution or even alarm sounds when governments, particularly with the global trade interests and military weight of the US, declare this kind of campaign. Invoking the cause of religious freedom as a pretext for intervening in the affairs of foreign nations is a risk that history begs us not to ignore. America’s first president, George Washington, gave thoughtful articulation to a universal concept of religious freedom and stressed carefully the right of freedom of conscience for those of any religion, or none. Clearly this did not include individual human rights, which came much later with the abolition of slavery. In his letter to the Virginia Baptists 3 he said, “Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
Washington was aware of the potential danger of undermining the liberties of other nations in the context of pursuing political interests abroad.
In 1775, Washington’s Congress ordered the invasion of British-controlled Quebec 4 . The ill-fated attack was an attempt to unite the strongly Catholic Quebec with the rebellion of American colonies against the British. In a letter to Colonel Benedict Arnold 5 ordering him to attack British forces in Quebec City, Washington charged him to consider that his troops were marching through the territory not of an enemy but “of friends and brethren”and cautioned him, “avoid all disrespect or contempt of the religion of the country … While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others…” Washington, then Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, was happy to act militarily to defend the interests of the soon-to-becreated United States, but firmly stood up for the religious freedoms of those on all sides. The year 313 marked the end of the persecution of the early Christian Church. After a time of divided rule in the Roman Empire, Constantine became sole Emperor. The internal struggles for power saw Constantine wavering in his faith in the ‘gods’ of Rome. He turned to the God of the Christiansfor help. Eusebius writes of Constantine’s vision of a cross with the words in Greek: “In this sign, conquer”. Constantine adopted the cross emblem before his victory at Milvian Bridge. While his predecessors had persecuted Christians, Constantine favoured them – but for political ends.
In becoming a defender of the Christian faith, Constantine politicised it. This backfired disastrously for Christians in the Persian Empire, when Constantine wrote to Persian Emperor Shapur II6 , a former enemy, who was seeking to gain favour with Rome. In his letter, Constantine sought protection for the Christian minority in Persia (today’s Iran) complImenting Shapur on his “accustomed humanity and kindness”.But Shapur became suspicious 7 of the Christians under his rule, who were prophesying the fall of Persia, and feared a “fifth column” with covert allegiance to Rome. This eventually triggered the Great Persecution of 339 when a multitude of Christians were martyred.
Many Christians today are rightly concerned about religious freedom. Around the world, it is clear that Christianity and other minority religions are under attack and persecution in many countries. In a society profoundly altered by the sharp rise of liberal humanist ideologies during the Clinton-Obama era, alongside a creeping intolerance of traditional values, the support given by many American Christians to Donald Trump during his election campaign significantly rested on his pledges to defend freedom of religion in America.We pray that President Trump will not duplicate Constantine’s fatal error of – deliberately or inadvertently – weaponising religious freedom to advance the political interests of his Empire. If Christian religious liberty becomes a “Trojan horse” to further vested secular interests, significant harm to minority religious groups could result.
UK government admits ethnic cleansing of Kachin Christians in Myanmar(Burma) 8
Lord Alton of Liverpool questioned the British government on 12 June over its response to attacks on Kachin Christians by the Myanmar (Burmese) military. Speaking in the House of Lords, the Peer asked the government “what representations have they made to the government of Burma … and what consideration have they given to the case for referring the government of Burma to the International Criminal Court”. In response, the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Ahmad, stated that the government had expressed “deep concern”and called upon the Burmese military to cease hostilities and allow humanitarian access to displaced peoples. When pressed by Baroness Cox, and by the Bishop of St Albans, over human rights violations and war crimes committed by the Myanmar army, the Minister admitted, “We have certainly seen ethnic cleansing taking place… there is no better term for it.”
Myanmar is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Court therefore has no jurisdiction. However, the UN Security Council can refer states to the ICC for investigation and potential action by Security Council Resolution, although any move to do so would likely be blocked by China and Russia. The latest offensive began with heavy air-strikes in April and displaced an estimated 10,000 civilians. Barnabas has delivered rice, clothes and tarpaulins for shelter to assist Kachin Christians across 8 different locations in northern Myanmar 9. Only 25 out of 7,000 Syrian refugees recommended for resettlement in UK were Christian, and just 11 were accepted. UNHCR decisions under-represent minority groups, report reveals.10
Figures obtained by Barnabas Fund in response to a Freedom of Information request have revealed that, in 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees recommended 7,060 Syrian refugees for resettlement in the UK. Only 25 of these were Christians – representing less than 0.4%. Yazidis were similarly underrepresented, with only seven refugees finally recommended for resettlement in the UK. Notably, it is precisely these minority groups that have been most severely targeted by jihadists, and victims of crimes against humanity and possible genocide. In October 2017, Barnabas Fund obtained figures for 2016, which similarly reveal a very low percentage of Christians and other minorities.
A number of UK politicians have expressed concerns to senior UNHCR officials and discussed the low percentage of people from minority groups assisted or referred for resettlement. A number of answers were forthcoming, but it appears that many questions remain.UNHCR does not give religion much weight even in situations of sectarian conflict and some UNHCR operations do not ask about religion. There is also a sense that what happens on the ground locally in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and elsewhere does not fully adhere to policies set in place.
Just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK are Christians UK Home Office officials who process referrals from the UN, appear to have made the situation worse. While 69% of all Muslims referred by the UN were accepted for resettlement in the UK, only 44% of Christians were accepted and less than 21% of Yazidis. The end result was that of the 4,850 Syrian refugees the Home Office accepted for resettlement, a mere eleven were Christians, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK. When Barnabas Fund asked, “What representations the UK government have made to the UNHCR concerning the disproportionately low percentage of Christians among Syrian refugees recommended for resettlement in the UK?”, Home Office officials denied there was a problem, claiming: “The UNHCR-registered refugee population is about 1% Christian. The proportion of Christians and other religious minorities accessing the VPRS [UK government scheme] are similar to (and in some cases greater than) the proportions of these groups registered with UNHCR.” Given that only 1% of UNHCR registered Syrian refugees are Christian, this still hugely underrepresents even conservative estimates of the pre-war population. The statistics provided in the response indicate that only 0.35% of all Syrian refugees referred to the UK were Christians. This compares with an estimated 10% Christian population in Syria before the civil war began in 2011.
The primary source of the problem lies with the vulnerability criteria used by the UNHCR. These do not include anything related to religious cleansing or specific targeting of religious minorities by jihadists, even though this has been a significant feature of the Syrian conflict. Shockingly, Islamic State (IS, ISIS or ISIL) produced a slave price list, and tellingly this only lists prices for Christian and Yazidi women. It does Home Office officials no credit that they have attempted to cover up and deny the existence of this problem.
1 https://tinyurl.com/y7oo6c55
2 https://tinyurl.com/yaro48hp
3 https://tinyurl.com/ya7pkqsv
4 https://tinyurl.com/y8vqezf3
5 https://tinyurl.com/y8z6nlx7
6 https://tinyurl.com/y8eollha
7 https://tinyurl.com/ydbrpaxt
8 https://tinyurl.com/ybm5fr9q