Have We Learned Yet?

The recent violence in Kenya is disturbing, even terrifying. A quick summary: following disputed elections on 27 December, 2007, in which incumbent president Mwai Kibaki claimed victory, unrest broke out among opposition supporters of candidate Raila Odinga, amid charges of fraud and election stealing. Not so noteworthy, perhaps, especially for Africa. Here is what makes it so frightening: Kibaki is a Kikuyu, the majority tribe in a country comprised of about 40 ethnic tribes; Odinga is a Luo, the second or third largest tribe; and the violence (which has claimed around 500 lives already, and displaced another 250,000) is quite openly being drawn along ethnic lines.



Last week, 30 Kikuyu, many of them women and children, were burned to death in a church into which they had fled for refuge. There have been retaliations on the part of the Kikuyu. Sound familiar? It does to anyone who remembers a genocide that took place in another African country called Rwanda not fifteen years ago. In that tragedy, 800,000 people were killed before the international community decided to take real measures to stop the slaughter.



Kenyan novelist Ngugi wa Thiong'o, who has called for a UN criminal investigation into the church killing, urges the world to not allow the disputed election to take precedence over the lives of innocent civilians. No political reasoning, by anyone in either party, justifies genocide. He writes,

" What is disturbing is that this instance seems to have been part of a coordinated programme with similar acts occurring in several other places at about the same time against ordinary members of the same community. Ordinary people do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill their neighbours. Ethnic cleansing is often instigated by the political elite of one community against another community. It is premeditated - often an order from political warlords."



This situation must not be allowed to deteriorate any further. The world community has made overtures of diplomacy to both Kibaki and Odinga, and the U.S. has appointed a high-level diplomat to attempt a brokerage of peace. This is well and good, but thus far, the situation has not improved. Let us not forget that we had a token UN force in Rwanda during the crisis there, and it accomplished next to nothing. A percieved effort, even an honest effort, on the part of the U.S. and the international community is not good enough. If the diplomatic efforts do not bear fruit, it is unacceptable for us to call over our shoulder, 'We tried,' as we walk away, leaving thousands at the mercy of genocide-inspiring politicians and their ready followers. This is no excuse; there can be no excuses.

Let us not forget.

Sudanese Government Intelligence

There is a great concern among those parties interested in bringing help and aid to the suffering people of Darfur that the response of the U.S. may be compromised by the fact that Khartoum is now an "ally" in the global war on terror. As incredible as this assertion may sound when one considers the Sudanese government's past role as a state sponsor of terrorism and Islamic radicalism (they harbored Osama bin Laden for some time), as well as the atrocities perpetrated time and again against its own people, the fact is that when President Bush declared that states must be "either for us, or against us" Khartoum shrewdly decided that it could not afford to count the U.S. as a public enemy in the war on terror.

Sadly, it seems that the War on Terror may, in this regard, bear resemblance to one of the most regrettable aspects of the Cold War: the support (or at least tolerance) of regimes with horrendous human rights records by the U.S. goverment, simply because they offer some strategic interest or potential. It makes me shake my head in despair when I learn of my governments' support for regime's such as Mobutu's in Zaire, a "friendly tyrant" who lived in the most oppulent luxury imaginable while his country was slowly strangled by his megalomaniacal rule. All the while, Mobutu recieved billions in U.S. aid for one sole reason - he could be counted on to oppose Soviet influence.

Today, I see history repeating itself. Sudan has been called the worst dictatorship currently in the world by independent study groups. General Bashir has stated openly since his takeover of power of his intentions to "cleanse" Sudan, and to assure the ascendency of radical Islam. For years, Khartoum waged war against the south, bombing hospitals and schools, raping women, and killing civilians en masse. Today, the litany of horrors continues in Darfur, and while the U.S. has, of course, not supported the genocide directly, it has, by its unwillingness to take action against Khartoum, allowed the killing to continue. This is not acceptable.

Such lack of initiative is unacceptable on moral grounds. Yet even beyond this, if one examines the political logic behind tacit support for Khartoum, the current position must be viewed as untenable. What reliable anti-terrorism intelligence can we possibly hope to gain from a government which calculates the death toll in Darfur to be 9,000, while the rest of the world calculates the loss of life to have topped 200,000? Is any intelligence which such a self-serving, immoral, and duplicitous regime could offer us worth the cost of such complicity, even if we somehow had reason to believe it was reliable?

Christians Targeted in Iraq

Pope Benedict XVI expressed concern last month over what may be considered a mass exodus of Christians from the Middle East, particularly Iraq. In that country, as the world is well aware, violence has been rampant and brutal; what is not so well known is the particularly harsh treatment that has fallen upon Christians in the region.

As in most Muslim countries, Christians in Iraq face constant pressure to convert to Islam. If they do not, they are often targeted for persecution, or, as in Iraq, given the choice of leaving the country or facing death. If they are overly open about their faith or seek to convert a Muslim, they may very likely be killed for “dishonoring the Prophet.” In Iraq, in June, a Catholic priest was kidnapped and later released, while another priest was killed in Mosul. Father Bernardo Cevelera, of AsiaNews, states, “There is a continuing pressure to close Christians in the Middle East in a kind of ghetto.” On July 16, Dutch parliamentarian Joel Voordewind made the claim that a number of Christians in Iraq have been crucified by militants.

Though all Christians are suffering the violence in Iraq, it is understandably most notable among the most numerous group of Christians, the Assyrians. The Assyrian Church is indeed in dire straits. According to the U.N., over half of the 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq before 2003 have fled the country, and many more have fled to quieter northern Iraq.

Cornering the Market

"It's our bodies, our choice." It seems inevitable that men who oppose abortion must hear this retort, or some equivalent argument. I have alway found it incredibly irksome, not to mention ill-founded.

Firstly, let us not forget that once a woman has conceived, she is not responsible for her body alone; whether she is amenable to the facts or not, they remain: there is now another body within her, dependent upon her.

Secondly, since when does a pregnancy concern the woman exclusively? It takes two to bring about that state, and one of the parties is a man. Is he to have no say in the future of a life that was brought into existence by his part as equally as the woman's? If one is still inclined to answer that the decision is the business of the woman exclusively, I must then insist, along the same lines of logic, that women desist in the protesting of war and armed conflict. Is this not the business of men, into which women have inappropriately inserted themselves this past half-century, upsetting the proper millinia-old spheres of gender?

"Ah, but it is the fathers, husbands, and sons of women who fight such wars," one may counter. "Women, being in fact so greatly involved in the business of war, bound by blood, concern, and love to those involved in its events directly, must be permitted to have due influence in these matters." I quite agree, and it is by this same logic that I claim the right of every father to have his voice heard when it comes to the health and future of his unborn son or daughter.

Murder in Turkey

Malatya Province, Turkey. On 18 April of this year, two Turkish Christians, Ugar and Necati, and Tilmann, a German Christian living with his family in Turkey, were brutally tortured and killed at a Bible study they were leading that morning. The killers were five Muslim youths, all under age twenty and members of a tarikat, or group of "faithful believers". To these young men, being faithful believers meant torturing their peaceful, albeit infidel, neighbors for nearly three hours, using knives, guns, ropes, and towels. They recorded their acts via their cell phone cameras, then finally slit the men's throats as police finally arrived on the scene, having been called in by another Christian who realized the men where missing.

Although these murders were particularly gruesome, the persecution and killing of Christians is not uncommon in Turkey. Since 2001, the National Security Council of Turkey has considered evangelical Christians to be a national security threat, thus encouraging popular violence against them. Tarikats are widespread and socially respected. As in the case of April 18, youths are increasingly becoming the perpetrators of these violent acts, often with the consent of proud parents; minors are subject to less harsh legal penalties if convicted, and they also recieve greater public sympathy. It is not surprising that Europeans are wary of allowing Turkey into the EU.

In sharp contrast to the violent "faithfulness" of her husband's murderers, Suzanne, the wife of Tilmann and mother of their three children, offered a different type of faithful devotion. Speaking to reporters, she said of the killers, "Oh, God, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Central African Republic: What's New?

Bangui, CAR. The global community by now is well aware of the situation in Darfur, Sudan; or, at least, they recognize the name, and could probably identify it as a troubled spot. But what if it was revealed that people were actually fleeing into Darfur as refugess from another troubled spot in Africa? Insane? Perhaps, but true.

Refugees are seeking asylum from the civil war that has been on-going in the neighboring state of Central African Republic since 2004. The war consists of the rebel group "Popular Army for the Restoration of Democracy," which is seeking to regain power that was lost in a coup in 2003, though the leader of that coup, Francois Bozize, has since been declared president via peaceful elections held in 2005.

Althoug there have been some promising developments recently, such as the defection of a number of rebels (including a high-ranking officer) to the government army, the U.S. State Department continues to issue a travel warning to all U.S. citizens in the area; violence continues to compound the situation in CAR, already desperate due to a failing economy and languishing social services. As always, it is the common people who suffer most; so what's new in Africa?

The Truth ( or, watch what you say about Islam in the 21st century)

In light of the recent Muslim uproar over certain remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI regarding Islam, it is intriguing to note what the situation is not. It is not a case of slander. Muslim throngs were clamouring for an apology from the pope (which, when subsequently given, was not enough), thousands of clerics demanded his resignation, churches were burned, and Christians were targeted for attack (in Somalia, a nun was shot in the back). The reason given for all has been consistent, if nothing else: the pope offended Muslims by dishonoring Mohammed. No where, at any time, has there been any allegation of slander; the pope has not been so vilified for speaking violent and frightening lies about Islam. Rather, as any student of history would assert, and as the world Muslim population is itself bearing out, the pope was speaking the violent and frightening truth about Islam.

Islam is a violent religion, in doctrine and in pratice. Violence against the infidels is admonished, not just by "fanatics", but by the Qu'ran itself. That Islam was spread by the sword beginning in the seventh century is an undisputed historical fact. Even today Islam continues to be spread by violence and maintained through fear. Muslims know this to be true, and that is the reason no one disputed the accuracy of the pope's comments (which were actually quotations from the writings of a Byzantine emperor). The Islamic world has made their demands, breathed their threats, and brandished their swords, not because they have a right to in the face of hateful injustice and inciteful slander, but because they believe no one should have the right to question their religion on any grounds. If the West studies the history and theology of Islam and decides it doesn't like what it sees, it had better keep its opinions (and objectively dicovered facts) to itself if it values its security. That is the message of the intolerant and violent mobs which have been buring the pope in effigy.

Yet we continue to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and we continue to tolerate and seek to pacify this incredibly intolerant, irrational religion. Perhaps I've missed something, but this makes no sense to me. Perhaps what I missed was the self-accepted subservience of the Western intellect, the Western ideal of freedom and truth, to this ranting, scimitar-rattling mob that demands that the world not offend them by speaking the truth. How and when did this happen?

Cease-fire Rambling

Jerusalem, Israel. With regards to the U.N. Resolution 1701, brokering a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, there are many disgruntled in Israel, and with reason. Israeli Vice Premier Peres voiced a pertinent opinion on the diplomacy of the deal recently when he stated that, if Israel had not agreed to the conditions, the world would have turned against them. And yet the prospect of peace in the region looks as uncetain as ever.

Now nearly a week old, the cease-fire's integral provision that there be a 30,000-man international peace-keeping force deployed in Southern Lebanon is already hitting up against difficulties. Lebanon seems to be holding up their end of the bargain in supplying 15,000 troops for the force, although, as members of Israel's government have pointed out, as much as half of the Lebanese army deployed is Shi'ite. This is not very reassuring, as such a force is very likely going to go to no great lengths to reign in Shi'ite Hezbollah.

And what of the rest of the force? Well, France had agreed before the fact to head up the international force. Interestingly, France waited until after the cease-fire had been agreed upon to decide what their actual troop commitment would be. And, more interesting still, they have now revealed that that commitment will consist of 200 troops, in addition to the 200 they already have on the region. Hmmm. Not to down-play the duty of those 400 men, but 400 out of 15,000 doesn't exactly shout commited leadership. Nor does it set an example for other European nations to follow. Consequently, the numbers for the U.N.'s half of the force are languishing.

Of those nations that have offered troops, several have been objected to by Israel. This is understandable for the fact that volunteering nations Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indosesia are all Muslims states that have no diplomatic contacts with Israel.
For a state to place its security into the hands of states with which it can not even communicate is unwise diplomacy, at best.

It is becoming apparent that the peace-keeping force has a long way to go before it accomplishes its ultimate role of stability in the region. As things now stand, we see a under-equipped, under-manned force, composed largely of troops which harbor no great love for Israel, and lacking serious support from those nations that have the money and military to truly make a difference. What seems certain is that the disarmament of Hezbollah (a years-old U.N. resolution that has never been enforced) is not going to happen unless the situation changes. A change in the situation was what Israel wanted to accomplish in the first place. A 30,000-man force (if such a contingency materializes) is a step in the right direction, but at the moment, Israel has the right to be less that optimistic.

Anti-Conversion Laws

Central India. The image of India as a free-thinking, tolerant society is understandable. In the land of a million gods, surely every faith is welcome. One looks at the Western interest in such Hindu ideas as reincarnation, karma, and nirvana, ideas which have gained a prominent place the the New Age movement, and the religious tradition of India seems to be one of tolerance, peace, harmony and balance. But this is not so.

Apart from the generations-old conflict between Hindus and Muslims, most notable in the disputes over Kashmir, violence on the part of Hindus toward Indian Christians has been on the rise in recent years. This upsurge of animosity is often triggered by the conversion of a Hindu to Christianity, resulting in the targeted attack, humiliation, rape, and (at times) murder of Christians at the hands of an incensed mob of Hindu fanatics. In some regions, local laws and customs seek to limit the spread of Christianity. In the two large, central states of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, anti-conversion laws have been implemented to this very purpose.

Such laws do not encouage "harmony and balance". It may be argued that in a land as enormously populous and diverse as India, such increased government control is necessary to maintain peace and order. I maintain otherwise. These anti-conversion laws only serve to justify acts of violence and hatred among the Indian people. Though Christianity in India certainly does not pre-date Hinduism, nevertheless, it has existed in that land for well over a millenium. Indian Christians have every right to live in peace among their Hindu neighbors. The political leaders of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and elsewhere refuse to protect that right to their shame. It is a blot, not only upon their office, but upon their character.

Islamic Extremism?

Niger State, Nigeria. A crowd of angry Muslim men recently stoned and clubbed a woman to death, overpowering the police who were seeking to shelter her. What act had this woman committed to deserve so violent a death? Murder? Theft? Adultery? While any of these could have gained her a death sentence, it was none of the above. This brazen criminal had been seen speaking to a group of Muslim youths about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in therefore had dishonored God's prophet, Mohammed. Under Islamic Shar'iah Law (which the Muslim population of Nigeria, a land split 50/50 between Muslims and Christians, seeks to impose upon the whole country), the mob was simply carrying out justice.

The West shakes it head and sighs, "Islamic Extremism." After all, real Muslims, those who live in the multi-cultural land of tolerance that is America, would never do such things. That is true, America's Muslims have learned well the lessons of modern, critically interpreted theology that so many in Western Christendom have come to embrace; in a word, "don't take your faith too seriously". Don't read the sacred texts as if the writers meant what they said. Don't look to the traditions which form the very foundations of the faith, those things which carried it through centuries of hardship and trial. Don't side with God when the rational, enlightened people of earth oppose Him.

But if one has the ability to step back, away from the current trends of thought which pervade society, one may ask, "Who are the extremists?" That minority which waters down and reinterprets their religion in order to become accepted by a society that places no value on religious conviction, or the fanatical mobs of Nigeria, and Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Egypt, the Phillipines, etc., who, like the generations before them, are following the precepts of their fanatical religion?

Sudan's Noble Leader

Sudan's President Bashir, in the midst of that nation's devastating genocide, made the statement yesterday that the intervention of U.N. peace-keeping troops in Darfur would be entirely out of the question as long as he is in power. He cited opposition to recolonization as his reasoning, saying,"The right question should be,'Why should international forces come into Darfur; what are the reasons for such an intervention?'"

A thought-provoking question, indeed. Why should international forces be deployed to the region? A simple-minded man might be tempted to say, "Because Bashir and the Islamic Arab government at Khartoum have failed to take any measures to stop the violence in Darfur that has killed 200,000 or more and displaced another 2 million over the past 3 years, and because the government has, on the contrary, sought for many more years the systematic annihilation of black Africans (Darfur and elsewhere) and all infidels (most notably the Christian majority in southern Sudan) either through their support of murderous rebels like the janjaweed or through official military action such as the government bombing of schools, hospitals, and churches, and because Bashir was initially opposed even to allowing the small force of African Union troops currently in Darfur to intervene, and because he has denied humanitarian aid workers access to those starving in refugee camps, and because PEOPLE ARE DYING and the government quite obviously has no intention of saving its own people."

But, of course, that is a simple minded-minded man with no understanding of the incredibly complicated ethnic, religious, and political issues which must be solved first, before any talk of saving lives can be considered. And surely such a pointed criticism of Khartoum is misplaced? After all, Bashir has long been open to listening intently to proposed solutions and entering into serious dialogue. And is not such lip-service to be highly praised?

Yes, more talk is what is needed now. Those who continually clamour for action to stop the alleged genocide have simply been brainwashed by the Jewish conspiracy to undermine the sovereign authority of Khartoum. At least that is what President Bashir said.

Go Figure

The United Nations has on numerous occasions been accused of corruption, ineffeciency, and outright inaction. Such charges are frequently well founded, and one does not have to look very far to find some of the reasons why. Witness the recent formation of the UN Human Rights Council. The council has been formed to take the place of the much-maligned Human Rights Commission, and yet one must wonder at the strength of the foundation of this new institution when nations such as China and Saudi Arabia have gained seats on it. These are two countries with human rights records that could stand up to scrutiny like a house of cards in a tornado. Is it any wonder that the UN, a force which, I believe, is in fact capable of great good, is so often laughed off as an irrelevancy?

Bloody Red China

Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, is wrapping up his visit to the U.S. Along the way, he has been met by various protesters, including a woman who disrupted a Washington press conference by calling on the Communist leader to end persecution of the Falun Gong. Though the Falun Gong is a semi-religious movement drawing on Buddhism and Taoism, the government opposition to the movement is similar to their harsh treatment of Chinese Christians.

In Communist China, human rights abuses against Christians are widespread. Though the State allows registered churches to exist without harrassment, these institutions are primarily little more than puppet churches, publicly supporting the Communist party. Those Christians who wish to worship conscientiously, without the approval and strict oversight of the State, have formed what have come to be known as "house churches". Though official numbers are not obtainable, some demographers believe there are upwards of 80 million house church Christians.

The State has been ruthless in their persecution of house church Christians. Christians and church leaders are routinely taken into custody by the police, and subsequently subjected to hours,days, or weeks of interrogations. These interrogations make frequent use of violence in the form of beatings and physical and mental torture, occasionally resulting in death. Humiliation and sexual harrassment of detainees is not uncommon. The Christian watch group Voice of the Martyrs has reported over 1300 arrests for 2005 alone. The U.S. State Department has declared China to be one of the "most systematic" violators of human rights in the world today.

Coptic Trials

Alexandria, Egypt. Police are detaining about 100 individuals in the aftermath of three-day sectarian violence that began last Friday when a knife-wielding man attacked worshippers at a local Coptic Church, killing one individual. In the rioting that ensued, many were injured, and one Muslim man was killed. Although the original instigator of the attacks has been labled "mentally unstable", the violence brings to the surface some idea of the perils of Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. The Coptic Church, which accounts for an estimated 10% of the population, has been in Egypt for over 1800 years, surviving the Muslim conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. In ages past, the church was able to live in relative (albeit servile) peace under the various Islamic rulers of Egypt. However, in recent decades, the rise of a more militant, radical Islam has had dire consequences for the Copts. Egypt's President Mubarak stated today,"Egyptian people don't ditinguish between Muslims and Copts". This is simply not true. Constitutionally, Muslims are given preferential treatment under the law. Copts are discriminated against politically and in employment. Church buildings can not be built or even repaired without the approval of local authorities. In addition, the Coptic community is being increasingly subject to physical harassment, to which the police often turn a blind eye. The Egyptian governtment has good reason to want to present a facade of freedom and tolerance; historically and currently, Egypt is regarded as the scholastic capital of the Islamic world, setting the standard for what the rest of the world views as the ideology of Islam. In addition to this, Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world.

An Introduction

This is a blog dedicated primarily to raising awareness about the state of the Church in regions around the world where religious persecution is a daily reality. Other topics for discussion, regarding various religious and theological issues, may be periodically posted. However, the main purpose here is as stated: to publish a true account of the thousands of Christians who are today subject to horrendous human rights abuses, yet receive precious little attention in the Western media. In the twentieth century, more Christians were killed, expressly because of their faith, than in all the past nineteen centuries combined. At this moment there are people in prison for the sole crime of being a Christian.