Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A question that skeptics have raised for centuries: Why did the Bible accept slavery?

A question that skeptics have raised for centuries: Why did the Bible accept slavery?

QUESTION:

Why did the Bible accept slavery?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

There’s been intense discussion of this never-ending issue in 2023, as we’ll see.

In essence, defenders of the Bible explain that slave-holding was a fundamental aspect of society as far back as the earliest written annals we have, well before biblical times. Due to the existence of that powerful reality, the Bible did not and could not attempt to overthrow the sinful system but worked against its evils. Fact is, slavery was so ingrained that it was not outlawed till recent times, nearly 3,000 years after the Old Testament laws were written and 2,000 years after the New Testament dealt with the problem.

However, skeptics question the moral stature of the Jewish and Christian heritage because the Bible is outwardly neutral toward the practice of owning fellow human beings as property. After all, today slavery is considered a contemptible blight, as in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”

Recent events show how contentious the interpretation of slave history can be. Witness the July furor when a sentence in new Florida public school history guidelines said American slaves “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

Catholics’ debate over their history has been revived this year. Some background: The pioneering 4th Century Bishop Gregory of Nyssa (in present-day Turkey) preached against slavery in the Roman Empire, but his was a lonely voice. The influential 13th Century theologian Thomas Aquinas taught that “nothing is so repugnant to human nature as slavery,” which amounts to “civil death.” And yet some people have “eminence of reason” that makes them “by nature masters” over those who have “deficiency.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Campaign for thorough reform of Muslim law deserves mainstream coverage -- now

Campaign for thorough reform of Muslim law deserves mainstream coverage -- now

The world’s largest organization of Muslims is campaigning for thorough worldwide reform of how to understand the faith’s religious law (Sharia) and applied jurisprudence (Fiqh).

Such an ambitious goal may seem unlikely and, to date, western media have given the effort minimal coverage. It’s time for that trend to change.

Far from some esoteric intellectual discourse, such a philosophical change could potentially affect the future of the world’s second-largest faith regarding democracy, blasphemy laws, human rights, education, the role of women, treatment of other religions, warfare, extremism, terrorism and crime and punishment.

The organization in question is Nahdlatul Ulama (NU, meaning Revival of Islamic Scholars) in Indonesia, the nation with the largest Muslim population. Consider these numbers from James M. Dorsey, a freelance writer and adjunct senior fellow in international studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University: NU encompasses an estimated 90 million lay followers, tens of thousands of religious scholars, 44 universities and 18,000 lower schools.

NU upholds Sunni orthodoxy, but with a more tolerant tone than is customary in the Mideast. Its legal reform program was prominent during the massive February celebration of its 100th anniversary, analyzed in Dorsey’s March 31 Substack column. His article is a good starting point for journalists, but its opinionated viewpoint warrants careful follow-up interviewing. Also note this 2021 NU backgrounder by political scientist Ahmet T. Kuru (akuru@sdsu.edu).

Moderate Muslim thinkers have long favored some sort of move away from rigid legal traditionalism. Dorsey depicts a two-sided struggle among them, pitting allies of NU’s fully democratic and tolerant outlook against religious leaders beholden to rulers in the Mideast, as in Saudi Arabia, where certain social liberation is being allowed without fundamentally rethinking Islamic law or politics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What does the New York Times mean when it reports on 'religious leaders' in Afghanistan?

What does the New York Times mean when it reports on 'religious leaders' in Afghanistan?

Anyone who has read GetReligion for more than a month probably knows that I have always been concerned about the lack of press coverage of endangered religious minorities in large parts of the world — including nations such as Afghanistan.

It’s crucial to remember, when talking about religious freedom issues and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that it is tragically common for members of a major world religion to punish other members of their own faith because of strong disagreements about doctrine and tradition. It is common to see persecution of those who have no faith — think atheists and agnostics — as well as those who have converted to a new faith.

As a reminder, here is Article 18 of that landmark United Nations document:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

With all of that in mind, it’s easy to understand why I was interested in this headline atop a New York Times report: “The Taliban holds first meeting of religious leaders since taking Kabul.

The key, of course, is the meaning of these two words — “religious leaders.”

If you follow news updates, you know that the ancient Jewish community in Afghanistan is long gone — unless merchant Zablon Simintov chose to attend this meeting. Was there a Catholic representative at the meeting? Were leaders of the growing underground church invited? Did they dare to come out of hiding? What about the Muslim leaders of progressive (for lack of a better word) mosques who cooperated with Western leaders during the past 20 years?

Who were these “religious leaders”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Got bias? Pompeo gave a 'divisive' speech, which implies two kinds of insiders were divided

Let’s just say that I saw — in social media and in personal emails — two very different kinds of comments about the recent speech that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered on the subject of human rights.

Quite a few people, as always, wanted to argue about the contents of the speech itself, especially its urgent emphasis on religious freedom. That’s understandable, in light of waves of images coming out of China of blindfolded Uighur Muslims being shipped off to training camps.

Others were upset about the nature of the relatively short New York Times report about the speech, which ran with this rather blunt lede:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a divisive speech … calling for the United States to ground its human rights policy more prominently in religious liberty and property rights.

To cut to the chase, some folks were upset by the inclusion of the word “divisive,” saying that this was a loaded, biased word to use in a lede framing the contents of a hard-news story.

Meanwhile, I was actually intrigued by the word “divisive” for a rather different reason, one directly linked to debates about objectivity and fairness in journalism.

You see, if a speech is “divisive” that would imply that people who heard the speech were divided, in terms of their views of its contents. It’s hard to cover a “divisive” speech without presenting accurate, fair-minded content about the views of people on both sides of that divide. Does that make sense?

The problem with the Times peace — #DUH — is that it contains zero input from people who support the views presented by Pompeo and, thus, would be willing to provide information and input that would explain the speech from their point of view.

Maybe this is one of those cases in which there was only one point of view worth quoting, in terms of reacting to Sec. Pompeo’s words?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Iran's Baha'is lose 'other religion' ID card bracket: A global story ripe for local coverage

The world, unfortunately, is awash in cases of state-supported religious persecution.

Among the better known examples are China’s treatment of its Uighur Muslim and Tibetan Buddhist minorities. Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims and Russia’s Jehovah’s Witnesses have also drawn international attention.

Perhaps less well known is the case of Iran’s Baha’is, who have long been persecuted for their beliefs in the land where their faith first emerged in the 19th century. Since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, however, government-instituted oppression has increased substantially.

Late last month, Teheran’s rulers moved to prevent Baha’is from obtaining national identity cards. Without such cards they cannot participate in Iran’s banking system — which means they cannot cash a check, apply for a loan, or purchase property — adding to their impoverishment.

“The exclusion of the Iranian Baha’i community from national identification cards is unconscionable, and we are disturbed to see how this action against the Baha'is fits into a broader pattern of heightened persecution over the past few months,” Anthony Vance, an American Baha’i spokesman, told The National an English-language publication based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

(Other than the The National, as of this writing my quick web search turned up little other international coverage of this latest Iranian Baha’i twist. Great Britain’s The Telegraph was the best that I found. Also, Germany’s Deutsche Welle carried a piece on its English web site, as did the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe (Radio Liberty), and Israel’s English-language daily The Jerusalem Post. I suspect other outlets will sooner or later follow suit.)

The faith’s official international website says that Baha’is, Iran’s largest non-Muslim religious minority, “are routinely arrested, detained, and imprisoned. They are barred from holding government jobs, and their shops and other enterprises are routinely closed or discriminated against by officials at all levels. Young Baha’is are prevented from attending university, and those volunteer Baha’i educators who have sought to fill that gap have been arrested and imprisoned.”

The latest affront to Baha’i freedoms resulted from Teheran’s decision to eliminate the “other religions” category from government-mandated personal identity cards. Other than Islam, Iran recognizes only Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism as acceptable religious identities. Previously, Baha’is registered under “other religions.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Asia Bibi acquitted, but is she safe? Fighting over blasphemy in Pakistan is far from over

This is a day that human-rights activists have wanted to see for a long time.

Asia Bibi has been acquitted of blasphemy charges in Pakistan.

That’s the lede. What has impressed me in the early coverage of this decision is the degree to which international desk pros in several newsrooms grasped the importance of the news that will unfold after this story. I am talking about the reaction among Muslims who defend their nation’s blasphemy laws, which are used to punish freethinking Muslims more often than Christians, like Bibi, and believers in other religious minorities.

I could have lived without some of the political labels that many editors allowed in descriptions of key players in this story. I was also surprised how few reporters seemed interested in Bibi and the details of her own story.

But we will come back to that. Here is the top of a strong NPR story with the breaking news:

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday announced the acquittal of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2010 for blasphemy in a case that has roiled the country.

In the courtroom, it took less a minute for the Chief Justice, Saqib Nisar, to upturn a series of legal rulings that had kept Bibi on death row for eight years. In terse remarks to the hushed, packed courtroom, he said that Bibi's conviction and sentence had been voided. 

In a 56-page verdict issued after the ruling, the three-judge bench appeared to side with Bibi's advocates. They have maintained that the case against the 51-year-old illiterate farmhand was built around a grievance by her fellow Muslim workers who appeared angry that she might drink from the same vessel as them. She was ordered by a local landlord to bring water to the women on a day while they were picking berries.

If you want to dig into the details, head over to this strong collection of background material that the BBC team had ready to go.

A major question: Bibi is now free, but is it safe for her to be free?

After all, most alleged blasphemers are killed by mobs, not legal representatives of the state. And, in the past, state officials who dared to criticize the blasphemy laws have paid a high price.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

So many journalism questions remain, about current status of evangelism and missions in India

So many journalism questions remain, about current status of evangelism and missions in India

Why is Compassion International closing its doors (for now) in India?

That was the question at the heart of this week's "Crossroads" podcast (click here to tune that in), which explored some of the themes in my post this week that ran under the headline, "Compassion International and India: The New York Times leaves a UN-shaped hole." I would urge you to click here and read the original Times piece on this topic.

Does the Times piece tell us why Compassion is leaving India? Well, it does and it doesn't. And that is where things get complicated, for readers and listeners who have never worked in a newsroom.

Patience please, as we try to walk through this.

You see, there is evidence in this important Times piece that various officials in India are saying different things. The evidence offered can be interpreted in a number of different ways and it's pretty obvious that the Times team was asking questions that the authorities in the Bharatiya Janata Party didn't want to address. So, as public officials often do, they declined to answer questions.

So what do we know? Let's look at four different options.

(I) At one point, it appears that Compassion is being pushed out because of accusations that its work led to people converting to Christianity. The charity, to use Times language, was suspected of "engaging in religious conversion."

(II) However, at another another point, Compassion officials deny accusations that they are --


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Compassion International and India: The New York Times leaves a UN-shaped hole

If you have followed news in India in recent years, you know that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party -- commonly known as the BJP -- has continued its efforts to promote "Hindutva," or Hindu-ness, which essentially argues that Hinduism is an essential component of what it means to be a citizen of India.

Thus, it's goal is to defeat secular pluralism and the recognition of a valid role for other faiths in public life. The side effect has, in many cases, been a crackdown on many of the activities of other faiths in India -- especially ministries linked to foreign groups.

Tensions between Muslims and Hindus remain a fact of life. Meanwhile, attacks on Christians -- including a much-publicized gang rape of a 71-year-old nun -- have risen by 20 or 30 percent in recent years.

This brings us to a detailed New York Times report on the latest battle in this conflict, which ran with this headline: "Major Christian Charity Is Closing India Operations Amid a Crackdown."

The key is that officials in India are accusing a major ministry of evangelism, of converting people to Christianity.  What the story never addresses are these questions: As a matter of human rights, do citizens in India have the right to convert to another faith? Do members of one faith have a right to discuss their faith with others? Here is the overture:

NEW DELHI -- India’s crackdown on foreign aid will claim its most prominent casualty this month, as a Colorado-based Christian charity that is one of India’s biggest donors closes its operations here after 48 years, informing tens of thousands of children that they will no longer receive meals, medical care or tuition payments.
The shutdown of the charity, Compassion International, on suspicion of engaging in religious conversion, comes as India, a rising economic power with a swelling spirit of nationalism, curtails the flow of foreign money to activities it deems “detrimental to the national interest.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

BBC puzzler: Defense of a universal human right is now an 'evangelical' thing?

If there are readers out there in cyberspace who have been reading GetReligion for a decade-plus, the odds are good that they have heard of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Article 18. That's the one that proclaims, in the name of the United Nations:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Long ago, this statement was considered a cornerstone on the political and cultural left. However, that is no longer (alas) always the case today. Here at GetReligion I have been asking the following questions in recent years, while probing some of the shallow labels that journalists often use with little or no thought. They are:

* What should journalists call someone who is weak, when it comes to defending freedom of speech?

* What should journalists call someone who is weak, when it comes to defending freedom of association?

* What should journalists call someone who is weak, when it comes to defending freedom of religion?

I'm not sure what the correct answer is, these days, but anyone familiar with the history of political thought in the West will know that the correct answer is not "liberal."

Why bring this up right now? Well, because of an absolutely bizarre statement at the end of a recent BBC report that ran under this strange (it's almost a fragment) headline: "Sudan apostasy woman Mariam Ibrahim 'to campaign'."


Please respect our Commenting Policy