Christian Solidarity Worldwide is set to release their new report, "Carrying the Cross: The military regime’s campaign of restriction, discrimination and persecution against Christians in Burma", on January 23rd. The report cites a document reportedly leaked either by the government or a government-backed group of Buddhist monks entitled, "Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma", and which states, "There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised.......The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness."
News of this report, and this article in The Sunday Telegraph, have quickly garnered some interesting comment threads on the interwebs. Many of the reports released on Burma see some good press in some mainstream papers - The Independent always seems to have consistently good coverage. But rarely do such press releases engender blog discussions from non-Burma watchers.
One could argue that any attention for the cause is good, but a quick perusal of some of those comments might quickly dismiss that notion. I can't hardly critique the CSW report, as it's not yet available to read, and it may in fact offer a well-balanced perspective on the issue of persecution in Burma, but so far, it seems to have dropped the Burma issue squarely into the middle of the existing religious-political discourse and debate. I almost modified that with 'Western', but this blog had the most unfortunate of the comments. While the portrayal of Christian persecution and allusions to Nazis certainly will get people's attention, I wonder if all parties involved shouldn't be more aware of the impacts of framing the facts to gain the most attention from the West.
The political/religious debate in this world is a veritable minefield. On the one side, we have the conservative Christians upholding Burma as proof of the 'persecuted Christian' trope and the coming apocalypse. That is, persecution as the inevitable and persistent state for all Christians everywhere, a view which engenders no desire to actually understand the situation and root causes of the conflict and ethnic cleansing in Burma. On the other hand, we have at worst people giving implicit support to the eradication of Christianity as a religion of the colonizers, and at best, questioning the CSW report as biased propaganda. Of course, there is always a "Gee, Buddhism must not be peaceful after all" comment which gets thrown in somehwere. What is noticeably lacking in all of these perspectives are the actual people who are actually suffering. Sure, people will latch onto this story, but it won't take long before the humanity of those involved is quickly forgotten, and only slightly longer until people forget that Burma had anything at all to do with their debate about religion.
|
|
||||||
 Categories
News Links
Recent Comments
Month Archive
Login
|
Religion in Burma
Comments
Re: Religion in Burma
In my opinion, the root of religious persecution in Burma is the government's fear of westernization and imported cultural values. For example, the government's primary outlet of information, its newspapers always focus on traditional Burman Buddhist culture, usually omitting references to minority and alternative cultures and religions. It fears Christianity (and Islam) because of its association with colonialism and the belief that those are "foreign religions", even though Buddhism itself is an import from India. I agree that we should focus on those suffering and see them as plain human, rather than grouping them into neat categories (like Christian, Muslim, Mon speaker, etc.), because doing so only end up creating barriers among people.
Re: Re: Religion in Burma
All good points - it's understandable that Christianity and Islam would be seen as colonialist, there are certainly plenty of western non-christians who have the same perception, unfortunately. 'Christianity' has become such a loaded term now, that it seems impossible for anyone to consider it within the context of the indigenous culture that's practicing it, rather than in the context of "Western" culture. I guess my own reaction to this has more to do with they way I see westerners responding to it - it irks me to see how some western Christians are so quick to appropriate the suffering of the Chin people as their own. It is a little ironic, though, that the junta has this view of Christianity, when the only colonialist power in Chin State today is the Burmese government.
Of course, there are still practical consequences to the way the reports of human rights abuses are 'segregated' as they are. Since the Chin have recieved the material support waiver for the US, the registration of other Burmese ethnic groups with the UNHCR has stopped in Malaysia. (Despite the waiver having nothing to do with the UNHCR's mandate to protect refugees). You'd think that all the hard work and advocacy that earned the Chin this much deserved waiver would trickle down to the other groups. But no, despite coming from the same country, it seems each group must in turn prove to the world that they have suffered enough to deserve help. But this seems to be a systemic problem with the entire global aid/refugee beauracracy. Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Thu 15 Feb 2007 05:17 AM PST | Permanent Link
Why is it a problem when Christians want to help other Christians? (Or Chins help Chins, or Muslims help Muslims.). In addition to helping a specific group (not a bad thing) these activities serve to further publicize the overall problem. The recent posting on the Christian website “The Eagle and Child” illustrates this.
You are concerned that Burmese Christian concerns get relativized by Christian groups that perceive a universal persecution of Christians. You can always find fringe groups with paranoid beliefs. But I don’t know a single Christian who would think the situation in Burma is remotely similar to the condition of most Christians elsewhere in the world. Specific groups have specific problems. Christians, for example, want access to Bibles. Specific groups are often better at meeting specific needs. Certain kinds of help are conditional on religion (give Christians Bibles and study materials, offer specific Christian forms of encouragement to our brothers and sisters in Christ). And of course as a part of that Christians are called upon to condemn the injustice that is being inflicted on all people and try to help. And be thankful when other groups step forward to condemn the situation. Without a deity there is no rational framework for morality. What matters is power and personal gratification. People of faith should speak out on these issues. And their specific religious contest should be viewed as a strength and not a concern. John J Re: Re: Religion in Burma
"Without a deity there is no rational framework for morality. What matters is power and personal gratification."
Really? I have no religion, nor do I beleive in god. What a broad brush you paint your judgements with! You should try opening your eyes to all the non-religious people in this world who are doing good work. But, I'm not getting into a religious debate with you. My overall point that may not have been clearly communicated in this post is that human rights are universal - and not conditional. There are many Christians working on the Burma issue who strive to promote this ideal - and also many Chin. The reason they shy away from making this persecution a "Christian" issue is because it risks making rights appear conditional, and perpetuates attitudes that some are more deserving than others. You might also stop to consider if those bibles are really what is most needed by the recievers. Money may be better spent on food, shelter, and education, and there are plenty of religious aid groups who've figured that out. Religious freedom is a human right, and CSW has done a fair job of presenting this case in such a context. Anyway, it's the reactions of those individuals on the internet that I was responding to. I do beleive the world would be a better place if humans were more willing to stand up and support and empathize with people who don't share their own faith. Everyone has differents skills and resources, and should help wherever they can do the best work, but I will continue to stand by my belief that compassion should be unconditional. Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Fri 16 Feb 2007 05:36 AM PST | Permanent Link
Editor,
I didn’t invent the idea that some form of religion is a prerequisite for morality. A prominent atheist philosopher (his name escapes me) once said “Without God every thing is permissible”. There’s also a famous quote to the effect that even if untrue religion is necessary for civilization. Fortunately even if morality without religion is irrational, many cling to morality. In fact, many atheists and agnostics behave better than many Christians. My point (and the point made by many philosophers) is moral behavior (and even life itself) loses its rational foundation without religion. That may explain why secular belief systems like humanism often tend to take on aspects of religious belief. I of course agree help includes more than Bibles. But you shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that those who believe in eternal life would place a high priority on helping people achieve a positive afterlife. Absent religious (God based) absolutes I’m curious how you know absolutely that human rights are universal and not conditional. Biblical absolutes like “treat thy neighbor as thyself” will tend to lead me to the same answer. But treating everyone rightly is the point - not the same. The Bible tells us that in some cases we should be place more attention on the lost (note the parables of the prodigal son and the lost coin). We are also told to exercise wisdom and not proselytize where there is no receptivity (“not cast our pearls among swine.”). We also have a special responsibility to grow God’s church. And finally, we are responsible to the second great commandment (“love thy neighbor as thyself”). All of this makes us absolutely responsible for caring about our fellow man. It does not mean we have to provide everyone with the same help. I applaud your efforts to draw attention to the horrible situation in Burma. May God bless you in your efforts, and bless all of the Burmese people. Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
The Editor
on Fri 16 Feb 2007 10:36 AM PST | Profile | Permanent Link
I know you didn't invent that idea, but my point remains the same. Whether an atheist said it or not, I don't care. Atheism isn't a religion, and I wouldn't presume I'd agree with another atheist's philosophy based on that alone.
The fact is that you see your morality as rooted in your god, and I don't. I'm not an absolutist, so I don't have to offer you "proof" that human rights are universal - it's simply the logical conclusion I've drawn from observations and experiences. Perhaps a better way to express the idea is that the quickest path for humans to achieve peace and dignity in life is to act and assume human rights are universal, and to strive to respect those rights. If we protect others, we protect ourselves. Ultimately, this has has no bearing beyond human existence, but humans do exist, and we must make the best of it. When we start to allow that some deserve more rights than others, then we create the possibility that we ourselves are those undeserving. Universal rights hardly means treating everyone the same in kind. It means not treating some people as if they were less than others, and I'm speaking in a much broader context than that of individuals or groups helping other groups. But, this is not a discussion that will be productive. We have fundamentally different perspectives and views on the issues you've raised, and while you may be interested in understanding where I'm coming from - ultimately neither of us will be swayed from our current positions on the roles of religion and morality in this world. But thank you for your blessing. Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Sun 18 Feb 2007 01:51 PM PST | Permanent Link
I find a certain arrogance in these remarks that cry out for clarification. To start with, the peoples and the people of Burma don't need a discussion on the foundation of ethics. Second, nor does anyone here, other than the one who opened it up. Therefore, here goes:
I don't know who the philosophers are of which the author reports. I note here only that many have existed in the Western tradition, but few of the more recent ones (say the last 300 years) believed that the mere existence of a Supreme Being could give any sufficient reason for the objective force of any moral statement. I couldn't name any (and I can name a lot of philosophers). What those who give rationality any currency would agree on, though, is that "because God said so" is the exact opposite from giving reasons. It might be helpful to do some philosophy with some experts before engaging in sweeping comments about what philosohpy does (philosophers sit in philosophy departments and actually write lots of books and articles on metaethics--those who do this kind of stuff--all the time and have great conversations amongst each other regardless of their views on the existence of a God or the number of Gods there are). "Love your neighbor as yourself" (why wax archaic English on this?) is way, way, way more demanding than granting people human rights; in fact, it creates a duty (at least on the face of the statement) and I cannot easily derive a right from it. In fact, I don't think the statement's comparison is to mean that you must "love" another in the same manner as you actually love yourself, rather as you SHOULD love yourself. Thus, the content of your duties towards others presupposes a developed concept of what your duties towards yourself are. To put it bluntly, the statement is useless in itself (of course, not in the context of the New Testatement). The statement is, by the way, not among what is customarily considered one of "The Commandments", i.e., those of Deuteronomy or Exodus. In both versions, to my knowledge, the second commandment is that you shall not have any God besides the "me" that gives the commandments. Not sure, though, what the "great" commandments could be other than "The Ten Commandments." --AAS Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Mon 19 Feb 2007 12:20 PM PST | Permanent Link
I’m not clear about why subordinating yourself to God makes you arrogant, while taking it upon yourself to construct a world view reflects humility.
I don’t think developing rival lists of philosophers will prove anything. Truth is not always owned by the most numerous, and it will lead to arguments about what constitutes a philosopher. Regarding your question on commandments, the reference is Matthew 22:36-40, as follows… 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." Regarding your question regarding Bible authority versus reason, If you’d be interested in seeing reason based arguments for Christianity, the book “Evidence that Demands A Verdict” (McDowell) is pretty complete. Other more conceptual presentations can be found in many other books, including… - The Reason Why (Laidlaw) - God The Evidence (Glynn) - Reason to Believe (Sproul) - Basic Christianity (Stott) - Reasons for Faith (Gerstner) You can get reasonably priced copies of most of these books on Amazon.com. While the approach varies, they all address the question of God and His revelation to us. Christianity’s claims are based on events that occurred in human history. These events can and should be examined. I hope this is helpful. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Thu 22 Feb 2007 08:43 PM PST | Permanent Link
There are two things you get wrong. First, I said the remarks betray arrogance; I didn't say you are arrogant nor did I speculate about its origin (whether subordination under God or anything else). In any case, what you claim in your first sentence would not be inconsistent with actually being arrogant, but I don't know whether you are or aren't, and I actually don't care.
Second, you seem to mistranslate Matthew and should check the Greek original. When Jesus is asked what is the "most important" (as 'megalos' should be translated) commandment in the laws (referring to Leviticus) he lists what the "first" important is and what is "equally" ('homoios') important ("love another like yourself"). There is no "second great commandment" here, and the people of Burma don't need it. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Fri 23 Feb 2007 12:08 AM PST | Permanent Link
If the English translation of the original Greek is so clear, I wonder how the translators of the English standard version (the source of my quote) missed it. Perhaps you should point it out to them?
While you’re at it, you may want to correct the editors of the NIV, New King James, NASB, and American Standard, all of whom translate it in a very similar way to the English Standard Version. Re: Religion in Burma
by
Anonymous
on Thu 22 Feb 2007 09:12 PM PST | Permanent Link
Sorry to interrupt, but has anyone actually read the report new report, "Carrying the Cross: The military regime’s campaign of restriction, discrimination and persecution against Christians in Burma"? Where can I find it on the web?
Re: Re: Religion in Burma
by
The Editor
on Thu 22 Feb 2007 09:35 PM PST | Profile | Permanent Link
Good question! The link to the report is buried on Christian Solidarity's Burma page. For all the press it got pre-release, it took me a while to actually find it - I'd expected to be on CSW's front page. This link will download the PDF directly, though.
|
Search
All donations go to support the Books for Burma Campaign websites
Blogs
Books for Burma Bloggers
|
||||