News

The Bishop of Coventry wrote under this heading in The Sunday Express on 22 February:

THE PEOPLE of the Cross, the followers of the hostile Egyptian Church…

That is how IS militants described the 21 Coptic Christians they captured, murdered then publicised around the world a week ago.

This is the latest in an increasingly horrific series of attacks on Christians across the Middle East, where Christianity began. It won’t be the last.

For the Church in these lands persecution has long been present but it has never been as savage or well publicised.

It would be somewhat comforting if we could see the perpetrators of such violence as mad psychopaths whose motives could never be understood.

They are not. Instead they are committed to violence because they believe that it is the route to a perfect society, a utopia. Such a belief is shared by violent movements around the world, religious or otherwise.

So the motivation for the Islamic State is no throwback to medieval times. It’s as modern as the online videos they use.

The IS perversion of theology is matched only by their ignorance of history. Its militants accuse their Coptic victims of being Crusaders. In fact, the Coptic Church opposed the Crusades.

They are, and always have been, loyal citizens of Egypt.

They are one seam in the rich landscape of Middle Eastern Christianity. Others include the Assyrian Church, which shares a language with Jesus, and the Syrian Orthodox Church that predates St Paul. Along with these stand the familiar Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches which also have deep roots in the Middle East.

Like their churches, Middle Eastern Christians themselves have always been well established in their home countries. They speak Arabic, attend university and have careers. They make a real contribution to their nations. Or they did until recently.

The Christian community in Iraq dropped from 1.5 million in 2003 to as few as 200,000 in 2013.

Their number has fallen still further after the onslaught of IS.

It is “beyond all belief,” said the Prince of Wales recently, “that that very faith which has been there for so long is under threat of complete removal.”

The Iraqi Chaldean Archbishop Bashar Warda notes the stark reality: “Christians in Iraq have come to the absolute conviction that their country is not theirs.”

And according to the charity Open Doors, the persecution of Christians worldwide is getting worse. More broadly, a study by the Pew Research Center found that 76 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where the state or other groups restrict religious freedom.

This 76 per cent is made up of people from all faiths and none. It means that religious freedom is everyone’s problem and everyone’s responsibility. From a Christian perspective it cannot be good enough to have freedom for Christians alone. It is a Christian imperative for all to be free to practise their beliefs. So how can we work for religious freedom for all? How do we go beyond solidarity with the persecuted and help put a stop to their suffering?

It’s up to us to keep talking about religious freedom as many suffer persecution in obscurity.

It’s up to us to defend tolerance at home by word, example and hospitality, so we may campaign for it abroad. It’s up to us to promote a more hopeful narrative than the extremist obsession with death and violence. We must provide the alternative to their disregard for human life and their use of faith as a smokescreen.

Here we can look to the Coptic Church. Eighteen months ago their churches in Egypt were attacked by extremists who hoped to provoke them to violence and create a cycle of conflict.

Instead, the Christians responded peacefully. Muslims formed human chains around churches to protect them.

Egyptians expected a cycle of violence, they got a cycle of peace.

Coventry’s story after its bombing speaks with the same voice. Retaliation deepens the wound, reconciliation begins its healing.

Such healing is indeed a long and difficult road but it is our only hope of dealing with such appalling violence and its roots.

It is the road of the People of the Cross who, as St Paul writes, are not “overcome by evil but overcome evil with good”.

The All Party Parliamentary Groups for International Freedom of Religion or Belief and Christians in Parliament are launching their Joint Report on The Persecution of Christians in Iran on Tuesday 10th March 2015 at 3pm – 4.30pm.

The venue is Committee Room 19 of the House of Commons, and the special guest speaker is Tobias Ellwood MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Baroness Berridge will make some closing remarks.

Those wishing to attend should email appg-events@linkedupsolutions.co.uk by Friday 6th March.

This week Morning Star News reported that a Christian in Iran who received 80 lashes for drinking communion wine has been asked to leave the country.

Agents from the Iranian intelligence service, known as VEVAK, on 16 February raided the home of Mehdi Reza Omidi and two other members of house churches in Rasht, Saheb Fadaie and Yasser Mosayebzadeh, according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), a United Kingdom-based advocacy group. Omidi was one of four men sentenced on Oct. 6, 2013 to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine and owning a satellite antenna. Rights advocates believe the flogging was carried out within a month after sentencing.

After the Feb. 16 raids on the homes of Omidi and the two others, authorities ordered the three Christians to report the next day for questioning, where officials asked them to leave Iran.

The agents also confiscated their Bibles, laptops, Christian CDs and religious literature, according to CSW. Kiri Kankhwende, press officer for CSW, said authorities asking Christians to leave the country is just one of the many ways the government pressures religious minorities and suppresses Christian growth. Other ways include harassment, confiscation of property, arrests and imprisonment on false charges.

“All of these things are designed to get converts to recant or stop their involvement with churches,” Kankhwende said. “But sometimes it is easier, as prison sentences can result in a lot of unwanted press attention, to make the lives of Christians difficult and untenable, so that they choose to leave of their own accord. Sometimes veiled threats are made, or other times – as is the case here – they can be politely asked to leave.”

The impetus for the raids remains unknown. Omidi was detained previously on Dec. 31, 2012, for his involvement in a house church.

On the same day the raid took place, authorities released Rasoul Abdollahi from Rajai Shahr Prison in Karaj, according to Middle East Concern (MEC), another advocacy group. Officials, however, placed strict conditions on Abdollahi, a convert from Islam, including prohibiting him from participating in Christian activities with others. If he violates any of the terms of his release, he could be forced to serve the one year left on his sentence.

Authorities arrested Abdollahi on Dec. 26, 2010, along with a group of other Christians. In December 2013, he was sentenced to three years in prison on convictions of “collusion against the government” and evangelism. He was sent to Evin Prison, but in October 2014 officials transferred him to Rajai Shahr Prison in Karaj.

The release resembles the conditional release authorities gave to Vahid Hakkani. On Jan. 26, after holding him for three years, Iranian authorities released Hakkani from Adel-Abad prison in Shiraz. According to MEC, the Revolutionary Court made Hakkani sign a document stating that he would not attend or host any Christian-related activities or house-church services. A condition for issuing his release order was that he would sign the disclaimer.

Previously, Hakkani engaged in a hunger strike starting on March 20, 2014, after authorities denied him a conditional release that inmates are eligible to obtain after completing half their prison terms.

Authorities arrested Hakkani on Feb. 8, 2012, along with several others at a house-church meeting, and charged him with numerous criminal offenses related to his faith. Hakkani was tried with three others over the course of two court hearings, one on Oct. 15, 2012 and another on Dec. 28, 2012. In June 2013, the Shiraz Revolutionary Court issued a verdict, finding all four guilty on charges of attending a house church, spreading Christianity, having contact with foreign ministries, propaganda against the regime and disrupting national security, according to advocacy groups.

The Guardian has reported that families in Turkey are finding it increasingly difficult to find a school for their children that does not teach Sunni Islamic religion and Sunni religious practices. Critics have suggested that the government of the ruling Turkish Justice and Development party (AKP) is seeking to reshape the system along Sunni Islamic lines. Recent government moves to convert a large number of secular schools into Imam Hatip religious schools has added to the controversy.

Under a scheme introduced by the government last year, about 40,000 pupils were forcibly enrolled in religious Imam Hatip schools, Turkish media reported. In some districts religious vocational schools were suddenly the only alternative for parents who could not afford to educate their children privately. “There is nothing wrong with providing religious education to a pious section of society,” said Kenan Çayir, who teaches sociology at Bilgi University in Istanbul. “But it becomes a problem if parents and students are suddenly being robbed of making a choice.”

Baroness Berridge, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, has spoken out against the verdict of an Islamic court in Saudi Arabia which sentenced a man to death after he posted an online video of himself ripping up a copy of the Koran.

“Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is uncompromising in its protection of ‘thought, conscience and religion’ and the manifestation of those beliefs. It even covers actions that are distressing to others,” says Baroness Berridge. “I sympathise with those Muslims across the world who quite reasonably find the behaviour of the defendant in this case upsetting or offensive, but nevertheless I believe this sentence to be profoundly wrong.”

Baroness Berridge goes on to say: “ The all-party group that I chair was set up by Parliamentarians who want justice for those who are persecuted because of their religion or beliefs, and that includes campaigning against blasphemy and apostasy laws which make it a crime to convert. The freedom to convert is a foundational human right and is absolute.”

The original Saudi Gazette report stated:

HAFR AL-BATIN — The General Court has sentenced to death a young Saudi man in his 20s for denouncing Islam as his faith and various other acts of blasphemy, Al-Sharq reported.

A source from the court reported that the convict documented his apostasy by capturing a video and posting it on the social networking site Keek.

The source said: “In the video he cursed God, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his daughter Fatimah and ripped a copy of the Holy Qur’an and hit it with a shoe.

“The death sentence was issued after his apostasy was proven.”

The Hafr Al-Batin branch of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice arrested him last year and his case was forwarded to the Bureau of Investigation and Public Prosecution.

A sheikh at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs Abdullah Al-Enizi said renuciation of Islam is not a new phenomenon.

He said: “It has existed since the age of the Prophet and there are multiple Qur’anic verses on it.

“The phenomenon continued throughout the Islamic ages and cursing the Prophet and the Qur’an is a form of conversion that must be dealt with accordingly through the courts.”

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef will have dinner with Foreign Secretary tonight at the start of a three-day visit and is scheduled to meet Defence Secretary tomorrow and then the Prime Minister and Home Secretary on Thursday.

Despite democratic reforms and international pressure that have pushed Burma to improve its human rights record in recent years, religious freedom remains heavily constrained across the country, reports The Huffington Post.

The persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority in this majority Buddhist country has attracted much international media and foreign policy attention. But in Chin State, along Burma’s northwest border, a predominantly Christian population faces its own challenges and restrictions.

“There is no improvement with regard to religious freedom in Chin State,” said Pu Zoe Ram, chairman of the Chin National Democratic Party. “Authorities destroyed crosses during the military regime and continue to do so.”

Teak and steel crosses atop clocktowers, hillsides and Chin State’s nearly 2,000 churches have long identified the local majority religion. Area Christians consider their destruction, at the behest of government agencies, a direct attack on their faith community.

The Chin Human Rights Organization documented 13 incidents of large crosses being destroyed by order of the Ministry of Religious Affairs during the country’s half-century military regime, which formally ended in 2011. Since then and under nominally democratic rule, at least four more large crosses have been destroyed.

“The previous regime repressed the Christian religion. The army pulled down crosses, which are sacred. The new government is doing the same and is refusing permission to build new churches,” said Daw Zar Tlem, a member of Burma’s House of Representatives, who represents Thang Tlang township in Chin State.

In July 2011, shortly after Burma’s military junta was officially dissolved, two crosses were burned in the townships of Kyin Dawe and Kan Pat Lat. Local Christians in Hakha and Falam were ordered to replace crosses with Buddhist shrines, and a cross in Tiddim Township was removed to make way for a new road, officials from Burma’s ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party told villagers.

“Religious symbols should be built for people in that area. They should not be misused for political purposes,” said Saya Mya, who is Buddhist and secretary of the Chin Progressive Party.

Meanwhile, The Myanmar Times reported that a leading government official has said that the designation of Burma by the United States as a “country of particular concern” for failures to uphold religious freedom was a political act designed to keep the country under control. U Khin Maung Yi, an Amyotha Hluttaw representative for Ayeyarwady Region’s No 6 constituency, asked in parliament what the Union government was doing to get Burma removed from the State Department list of countries that are believed to violate religious freedom. Other countries listed include China, Iran and North Korea.

In reply, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs U Tin Oo Lwin said Burma’s inclusion on the list, at the recommendation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, was a political decision.

In the House of Lords, APPG on International Religious Freedom or Belief vice chair Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) has had his question, regarding the remarks made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma, Yangjee Lee, answered by Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con).

Baroness Anelay said that the Government strongly support the mandate and work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burma, Yanghee Lee. While her full report has not yet issued, the Minister said that the UK shares her concerns about the proposed so-called protection of race and religion bills.

The Minister concluded by extending her answer to publically deplore the hateful and abusive language used by a prominent monk against Ms Lee following her recent visit. Such sexist abuse and intimidation of human rights defenders emphasises the need for the Burmese government to increase its efforts to strengthen respect for universal human rights and tackle hate speech, Baroness Anelay said.

World Watch Monitor reports that sources from Syria’s embattled Hassaka province confirmed at midnight on Tuesday, Feb. 24, that at least 72 Assyrian Christian families – thought to be around 200 people – from three villages have been captured by the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Reportedly taken to the Arab Sunni village of Um Al-Masamier, the exact number of Christian hostages from the Tel Gouran, Tel Jazira and Tel Hormizd villages remains unknown.

An additional 50 or more families are still under siege in Tel Shamiram village, surrounded by IS fighters. Although on Monday Kurdish fighters from Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD) took back control of Toma Yelda, an important hill on the battlefront, the military struggle for Tel Shamiram is continuing.

According to Archbishop Mar Aprem Nathniel, the Bishop of Syria of the Assyrian Church of the East residing in Hassaka, only 200 Christian families remain in the Khabour region, more than 100 in Tel Tamar and the others in villages not yet taken over by IS. He estimates 1,000 families who have fled from Khabour are now displaced in the cities of Hassaka to the south and Qamishli close to the Turkish border.

Calls from abroad to the mobile phones of some Assyrian villagers on Feb. 23 were answered by IS members, according to a posting on the Facebook page of A Demand for Action, an advocacy group for religious minorities in the Middle East. “They told us that we should not call any longer since we cannot do anything about their situation,” said George Kasten, a Swedish caller trying to reach his relatives.

“IS members have been very clear with their demands,” he said. “They want the Syrian Kurdish militias to release the IS hostages they are currently holding. IS members say that if they do not release the hostages, all men from the village will die.”

IS has struck apparent exchange swaps in Iraq in the past year to release Turkish diplomats and truck drivers, after holding them hostage for months. But the gruesome propaganda video released from Libya earlier this month, showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians, has underlined once again the jihadist group’s clearcut anti-Christian agenda. On Monday, during the attack, a regional Kurdish news agency Rudaw reported that intercepted radio signals by IS referred to the capture of ‘56 Crusaders’.

Brussels has done virtually nothing about Hungary’s problematic laws and practices concerning human rights since the European Commission in March 2014 created a “rule of law” measure to address serious abuses in EU member states, Human Rights Watch said in a report released recently.

The five-page Human Rights Watch report identifies a range of outstanding human rights concerns stemming from laws and practices enacted by the government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán since its election in 2010. The Hungarian government has introduced a raft of problematic laws and policies while international calls to amend them have gone largely unheeded.

“Hungary is exhibit A for the need for stronger European Union action to protect rights inside its own borders,” said Lydia Gall, Balkans and Eastern Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The EU needs to stand up for its own values and protect the rights of Hungary’s citizens, including by activating the commission’s rule of law mechanism and putting the country’s record on the agenda of the European Council.”

Hungary’s laws and practices that cause concern include limitations on members of certain religious groups.

Human Rights Watch identified a series of reforms needed to bring Hungary’s laws and practices in line with its international and regional obligations, including implementation of the European Court of Human Rights ruling on equality for religious organisations and ensuring that eligibility for state subsidies by religious groups is determined by an independent body and subject to appeal in courts;

 

On 10 February Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws asked Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to investigate breaches of international law by state and non-state actors in Syria with regard to sexual and gender-based violence and persecution of minorities.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con) replied: My Lords, we are appalled by all violations of international law in Syria. The situation should be referred to the International Criminal Court. We support non-governmental organisations and Syrian activists documenting human rights abuses, including sexual violence and minority persecution, for use in a future accountability process. Through our humanitarian partners, we have provided wide-ranging support for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Syria and the region.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab): My Lords, there is evidence that all parties to the Syrian conflict have perpetrated crimes against women and children, including rape and terrible sexual violence, and such brutality has often been directed at minorities. The majority of such crimes constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and it is alleged that thousands of instances of crimes of this sort have been committed by Syrian Government forces, by ISIS, by the al-Nusra Front and the Free Syrian Army.

Crimes against women and children are often forgotten in the fog of war. What steps are being taken to train people properly to evidence-gather so that there can be prosecutions in future for those crimes? If such training is available, is it sensitive to the social pressure and taboos that are experienced by rape survivors, particularly in that part of the world?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness is right to point to the importance of ensuring that impunity does not prevail in these circumstances and that people on all sides of the conflict need to abide by international law. However, it is clear that it is Assad and his forces who are committing the vast majority of the offences that appal humanity.

With regard to investigating allegations of war crimes, the UK, together with the US, the EU, Germany and Norway are funding the Commission for International Justice and Accountability to develop documented legal case files, with named defendants, on regime and opposition—including ISIL—war crimes in Syria. So far, all this work has recovered about 1 million regime documents and archived 500,000 videos as a result of UK-trained and equipped investigators.

Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, in view of the Minister’s very powerful response to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will she consider the rather surprising interview given by the President of Syria this morning, in which he implied that he knew nothing at all about barrel bombs, weapons which have been specifically condemned by the United Nations as never to be used in populous areas? Given that, will the Government consider inviting the Syrian ambassador to explain what his President meant and whether he agrees that barrel bombs should not be used in heavily populated areas? Does the Minister agree that there should also be mention of the bitter, cruel effects of barrel bombs, which are often filled with shrapnel, nails or devices intended to do great damage to children and women?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Government speak out regularly on these matters and I am delighted to hear my noble friend put them in such a context. Today, President Assad showed that he is divorced from reality if he has ignored the fact that he has not only allowed but clearly encouraged his forces to barrel-bomb his own people. Only he has the capacity to deliver barrel bombs. There has certainly been evidence of the result—literally the impact—on the ground and a spokesman for OCHA, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has made it clear that there is evidence of barrel-bombing and aerial shelling of populated areas by the regime.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): My Lords, does the Minister agree that the use of chlorine-filled barrel bombs is, in itself, a breach of international law? If so, what are the Government doing to put in the public domain the evidence that chlorine has been used in this way by the regime, thus contradicting the not very believable remarks made by the President of Syria this morning?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raises an important point about the work that has been done in recent months and years on removing chemical weapons from Assad. His use of these has been documented, and the use of chlorine in barrel bombs would come within that category. Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile has now been removed from the country and the bulk of it destroyed. However, it is imperative that Syria now addresses its obligation, under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to destroy its chemical weapons production facilities. If it does not, removing what it did have will not prevent the creation of more in the future.

Lord Bach (Lab): My Lords, my noble friend has done the House a service by raising this important issue. In her Question, she referred to the persecution of minorities. Christians, in the Middle East and elsewhere, are being deliberately attacked and targeted because of their faith. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to counter these outrageous attacks? Will they use the UK’s place on the UN Human Rights Council, from March onwards, to speak out for religious freedom and against the persecution of Christians?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the noble Lord’s question. The behaviour of Assad’s regime and ISIL in the area in targeting and attacking minorities, particularly Christians, is inhumane. They appear to be taking action that would strip out some minorities, including Christians, from that area. The noble Lord is right: the Human Rights Council sits in March. Pending the decision of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I hope to be able to attend and make the representations that the noble Lord invites me to make.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, in her initial reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the Minister said that she wanted these issues referred to the International Criminal Court. Does she recall that, last August, the commission of inquiry established by the United Nations called for a referral to that court? It has carried out 480 interviews and drawn up confidential lists of those who ought to be prosecuted. Where have we reached in the judicial process?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I regret to say that, with regard to the judicial process through the ICC, reference to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council was blocked by two members of the 15-strong Security Council: Russia and China. It is indefensible that Russia and China prevented us and the rest of the members of the United Nations referring this matter to the ICC.

The Indian Express reports that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that his government will not allow any religious group to incite hatred and will strongly act against any religious violence. The Prime Minister, who has been accused by opposition and Christian groups of turning a blind eye to a string of recent attacks on five churches and a Christian school in Delhi, said his government “gives equal respect to all religions”.

“My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence. My government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly. Mine will be a government that gives equal respect to all religions,” he said at a function today in New Delhi.

In a stern warning to fringe elements, he said, “We cannot accept violence against any religion on any pretext and I strongly condemn such violence. My government will act strongly in this regard.”

Noting that the world is increasingly witnessing division and hostility on religious lines and the issue has become a matter of global concern, the Prime Minister said the ancient Indian plea of mutual respect for all faiths is now beginning to manifest in global discourse.

Observing that the world is at crossroads, he said if not crossed properly it “can throw us back to the dark days of bigotry, fanaticism and bloodshed”. He further said that this harmonious convergence among religions could not be achieved even when the world entered the third millennium.

Invoking Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, Modi said that equal respect for all religions must be in the DNA of every Indian.
Seeking harmony, the Prime Minister appealed to all religious groups to act with restraint, mutual respect and tolerance in the true spirit of the ancient nation which is manifest in the Constitution and in line with the Hague Declaration.

Modi’s remarks have come after US President Barack Obama said the “acts of intolerance” experienced by religious faiths of all types in India in the past few years would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi.

World Watch Monitor reports that critics of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were ‘pleasantly surprised’ by his unequivocal assertion of the right to freedom of religion while addressing a major church event in New Delhi on February 17, ending his silence on a recent spate of anti-Christian violence and propaganda.

However, while hailing Modi’s stand, the mood among Christians, secular activists and media remains unanimously to urge Modi to ‘walk the talk’. Modi’s federal government is led by his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), known for espousing a Hindu nationalist agenda.

Modi’s declaration followed closely on from his BJP’s poor performance in the recent election to the Assembly of Delhi State. The BJP had won all the seven Delhi State seats in the national Parliament in May 2014, but could win only three of 70 seats to the Delhi Assembly in the Feb. 7 poll.

Modi’s statement on religious freedom – televised across the nation by three dozen news channels – cheered many, while he drew several rounds of loud applause from the audience that listened to him with rapt attention.

P J Kurian, a deputy speaker of the upper house of Indian Parliament and a member of the (Orthodox) Mar Thoma (St Thomas) church from Kerala, said the recent incidents were an ‘aberration’. Kurian recalled “From the time St Thomas the Apostle sowed the seeds of Christianity in Kerala, it was Hindu kings who protected Christians, and even gave them land to build churches.”

Arun Jaitley, finance minister in Modi’s Cabinet, went a step further and told the gathering that what had happened in Delhi was “an unacceptable aberration in a society as liberal as India…those mischief-makers would have no space in India.”

Opposition parties promptly reminded Modi that it was ‘not enough’ to make declarations but ‘time to act’ against the fringe elements in the Hindu nationalist groups who have been carrying out violence, threats and propaganda against the religious minorities.

Commending Modi for ‘Breaking Silence’ in its Feb 18 editorial, the Times of India wrote “Modi has done well to uphold religious freedom and the right to choose.”

However, the editorial reminded Modi that “he must openly counter BJP’s ostensible well-wishers…Only by walking the talk on inclusive development and sidelining the extremist fringe can the government repay the faith the people have reposed in it.” This caution came in the wake of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad [World Hindu Council, VHP for short] promptly describing Modi’s sermon on tolerance as ‘aimed at Christians only’.

The vociferous VHP has been conducting ‘Ghar Whapsi’ [meaning ‘home coming’] or re-conversion of Christians in several places and threatening to re-convert all the ‘150 million’ who, it says, have forsaken Hinduism since Indian independence in 1947.

“We are very happy that the Prime Minister has finally spoken strongly and emphatically” Catholic archbishop Anil Couto of Delhi [who’d earlier addressed the gathering in Modi’s presence] told World Watch Monitor. “We hope now that he will enforce the solemn promise he has made to our community,” pointed out archbishop Couto, who felt he had been forced to lead street protests after the repeated attacks on Catholic churches and institutions. “If he fails to do that, we can now always remind him what he has assured us.”

John Dayal, spokesman for the United Christian Forum for Human Rights launched in January to monitor anti-Christian violence emailed his group: “We would be ungrateful if we do not thank the Prime Minister for speaking up at last against hate crimes…We had been urging him to do (so) for the past six months, especially as we requested him when a delegation met him at his residence on Christmas Eve.

“Freedom of faith, as enunciated in the Hague documents [quoted by Prime Minister Modi in his address, from an interfaith conference held in 2008], is quite a part of the Indian Constitution.　There has been much tragedy and human suffering because the constitutional guarantees have not been fully practiced. And because political groups have enjoyed immunity and government patronage and protection,” pointed out Dayal.

“We are happy that he did not call for a ‘ten-year moratorium’ [i.e. suspension of communal or religious violence… Modi had declared such a moratorium in his first Independence Day address on Aug 15, 2014].” Dayal continued: “The future will tell if groups professing religious nationalism have heard him…And if state governments and their police forces will act against hate crimes and hatemongers.”

Meanwhile Pramod Singh, President of the Christian Legal Association of India urged: “The statement made by the PM should be welcomed and acknowledged by us wholeheartedly. We should be thankful to God for whatever or whoever has prompted making of this statement. …In the fitness of things we should mark the words and remind the concerned of these words if, God forbid, such a situation arises in future.”

World Watch Monitor reports that after a seven-year legal battle, Malaysia’s courts finally ruled that Rev. Lawrence Andrew no longer can call God by the name ‘Allah’ in his Catholic weekly newspaper, the Herald.

It continues “In a country of 30 million people that is 60 percent Muslim, the courts agreed ‘Allah’ in the Herald would confuse Muslim Malays and promote the faith among them. In a country only 58 years old, where the word, which predates Islam, has been used by Christians for hundreds of years, the courts decided “Allah” belongs to Muslims only.”

“We can cope with it. We will continue publishing the Herald without using the word Allah,” said Andrew, who pastors 1,000 parishioners at St Anne’s Church in Port Klang, in the state of Selangor, where he holds an evening service every day after his daily commute from the Herald’s office in Kuala Lumpur.

In an open letter published in the Herald days after the court’s decision, he sounded upbeat: “The court rooms of Malaysia have produced eight written judgments on the Herald Allah case, four of which were in our favour, or in support of us, while four were against us. Did we lose the case then? Not at all! It was a draw!”

The legal saga began in in 2009, two years after the Home Affairs Minister banned the Herald from using “Allah” to make reference to God. It ended Jan. 21, when the Federal Court of Malaysia ruled that an earlier federal court ruling against the newspaper was proper and could not be challenged.

In-between, Andrew endured death threats, graffiti was smeared outside churches, and protesters burned Bibles and Andrew’s effigy. A body guard was assigned to shadow the 70-year-old Jesuit priest. “I just had to compose myself and carry on,” he said.

“We have gained much from this whole saga,” says Most Rev. Julian Leow, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, in a pastoral letter released after the final court ruling. “We need to make a stand on the side of justice and truth. We need to protect the rights of the minority and the voiceless. We need to engage and to dialogue with the ignorant and bring about understanding.”

Andrew expressed a kind of relief in the legal defeat, going so far as to suggest a Herald victory might have prompted violent backlash against Christians and their churches. He remains hopeful that Malaysia’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom will be upheld in separate court cases.

Separately, Jill Ireland, a Sarawakian Christian, is seeking a court ruling permitting the use of the word ‘Allah’ on her spiritual CDs, which were seized in 2008 as she attempted to bring them into the country from Indonesia. In July 2014 the High Court ordered the Home Affairs Ministry to return the discs to her but refused to address her constitutional question on the right to use the word. The government refused, and has appealed. In a counter-suit, Ireland seeks a resolution on the constitutionality on using ‘Allah.’

Rev. Andrew is facing a police investigation for emphasizing that Catholic churches in Selangor state would continue to use ‘Allah’ to refer to God. On this point, the priest and his lawyers remain adamant: the ruling on the Allah term is confined to the Herald. “I brought this case. It only applies to the Herald,” Andrew said. He refuses to heed attempts by Islamic religious groups seeking to extend the remit of the ruling to cover all aspects of Christian worship in the Malay language.

Church leaders say they take some comfort in the Government’s declaration that the decision of the Court of Appeal is confined to the Herald’s case. “We shall therefore take the Government at its word,” Archbishop Leow said in his pastoral letter. “In no way does [the court decision] include a prohibition in our Holy Scripture, the Al-Kitab, as well as in our praise and worship during the celebration of the Holy Mass and prayer sessions.”

“For now,” Andrew said, “we can only put our faith in the Government, which has given its verbal support that we can use the word Allah in prayers and worship. “But this support is verbal; it has no legal value, and so can change at any time. For now, though, it has bought us a bit of freedom.”