Bartholomew's Notes

The “World Summit of Religious Leaders”, which concluded in Moscow yesterday, excluded one particular religious leader. Interfax reports:

Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs Director Ye Xiaowen praised the organization of a World Summit of Religious Leaders taking place in Moscow and thanked the Russian government for its understanding on the issue of Dalai Lama XIV’s visit to Russia.

…The Chinese leadership was satisfied to learn that the Dalai Lama was denied entry to Russia to take part in the religious summit, Ye said. “The Dalai Lama is not only a religious figure but also a politician, who is engaged in dissident activities against his country,” he said.

The wretched Ye Xiaowen has featured on this blog previously, when I noted his part in the imprisonment of Cai Zhuohua, a Chinese house-church leader, for printing Bibles.

However, the Dalai Lama was not the only uninvited religious leader. Radio Liberty notes:

Pope Benedict XVI was not invited due to the ongoing conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which accuses the Catholics of proselytizing in Russia. This long-standing rivalry continues to block a papal visit to Russia.

The summit comes two weeks before a G8 meeting in Russia, and its purpose was to

tell the G8 that the “voice of religion” needs to be heeded in efforts to counter terrorism and end armed conflicts.

The event was organised by the Interreligious Council of Russia; Ecumenical News International provides further details:

Patriarch Alexei II of the Russian Orthodox Church, which initiated the summit, emphasised the role of morality in avoiding conflicts. Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri of Iran praised Putin’s efforts for seeking common ground with Islam and stressed that Islam is a religion of peace.

Actually, this sets off alarm-bells; when Alexei pontificates on “morality” he has a tendency to mean “no homosexuals” and “no secularism”. In fact (as I noted back in January), these are pretty much the bases for Russian-Iranian interreligious dialogue. Suspicion is increased when we read a March interview with Russian Orthodox spokesman Vsevolod Chaplin about the summit. Chaplin said that a central concern would be discussion

…between people who are posing human rights as supreme value, and those who discern higher goals-morals, patriotism, faith and holy things.

In fact, in April the Orthodox Church held a council that criticised the mainstream European view of human rights on just these grounds:

During the Council, many of participants spoke negatively about many aspects of the Western concept of human rights, which includes protection for euthanasia, homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles. Their views were also included in the statement:

“We should not allow situations in which realizing human rights destroys faith and moral tradition, leads to insults against religious and national feelings, against respected sacred objects, puts the very existence of our country at risk. It is dangerous to “invent” the “rights” that legalize the lifestyles condemned by traditional morals and all historic religions.”

In addition to the criticism, the Council rolled out an ambitious plan for protecting “non-political” human rights – a plan obviously aimed at pushing the traditionally anti-government Russian human rights groups to the sidelines.

Other participants at the Moscow summit included

More than 200 religious leaders from several dozen countries…Israel’s Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger…Cardinal Walter Kasper…World Council of Churches general secretary Samuel Kobia, Pope Shenouda of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church and the Grand Mufti of Syria, Baderddin Hassoun.

Despite the banning of the Dalai Lama, some leaders came with political concerns. Today.Az reported that Sheikulislam Allahshukur Pashazadeh will represent Azerbaijan in the event:

Pashazadeh will deliver a speech on Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan, separatism as well as renouncing aggression and inviolability of territorial integrity of states.

While there, he

will present Patriarch of All Russia Alexy II with the Sheikdom Order…in a private meeting with him.

That’s nice for Alexei, who is better known for handing out awards – to the likes of Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko, as I blogged here.

Returning to the interview with Chaplin, the spokesman explains why Russia is the best place for such a summit:

I hope the world is taking an interest in the Russian model of relations between religions. We have really achieved peaceful coexistence of the many religions, with the diverse lifestyles they demand, and with related judicial systems, which vary as widely. Thus, certain parts of the Russian Empire lived according to the Shari’a, and the adat was de facto governing Muslims even in the Soviet years. So, you see, Russia is able to incorporate many lifestyles and even different legal systems-a model that may prove useful worldwide.

Those on the sharp end of religious freedom issues in Russia – some of whom I’ve blogged about – may be inclined to disagree. But no doubt the summit will succeed in raising the global standing of Putin and Alexei; and if a side-effect is the marginalisation of Tibet’s most significant critic of the Chinese occupation, who’s to worry much about that?

UPDATE: More on the summit today.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Back on Monday I blogged on a report from Jews on First about a Jewish family who had allegedly been forced to leave town after complaining about aggressive proselytising by the local Indian River School District in Delaware. One detail which was not included in that report, but which I picked up on via a commentator at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, was that an organisation named the “Stop the ACLU Coalition” (STACLU) had publicised the family’s home address and phone number, in order to “expose” them as “ACLU plaintiffs”. STACLU’s denunciation wasn’t even accurate  – the ACLU has given the family some support, but they are in fact being represented by a Wilmington law firm.

Jesus’ General has now contacted STACLU director Nedd Kareiva, to congratulate him for his part in what he calls the “Indian River Pogrom”:

I think you deserve partial credit for making that happen. After all, you did publish their name, address, and phone number on your web site (see screen cap below) as part of your “Expose ACLU Plaintiffs” project. It certainly wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that such information gave people the means they needed to drive the Dobrich family from their home.

Of course, you didn’t do it all by yourself. The good god-fearing Christians of the Indian Hill School District deserve most of the credit…

Kareiva responds to the General (emphases added):

Pogrom? I’m not sure I want to call it that. That is not an appropriate term, however, I am pleased that we had an effect in this case. We have others we want to put up on the site to shame them but have not gotten around to it. And I’m not so sure I can take credit for it. However, if an ACLU speaker was booed, that’s music to my ears.

I would appreciate it if you would sign your actual name rather than JC Christian.

Regards
Nedd Kareiva
Director

UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION

This story has now received considerable attention on the blogosphere. Most vociferous among those defending Karieva’s posting of the address is Jay Stephenson of Stop the ACLU.com (not to be confused with Karieva’s Stop the ACLU.org). He writes:

Assuming the original reports are accurate, the mother and son apparently moved as early as late 2004. How could the 2006 publication of the address the father maintains have “driven” the family from their home in 2004 or played any role at all?

I must confess that it had not occurred to me that Karieva might have been so incompetent as to post an outdated and therefore incorrect address (although in fact the exact date from which the family was allegedly split up cannot be discerned from the article), but in fact I never claimed that the posting of the address had led to the family’s alleged flight; it just seemed to me to be a significant bit of context worth including in an overview. Karieva became a central issue only when he expressed his pleasure at having “had an effect” when told about the family’s predicament. We can draw significant conclusions about him and his movement from that, whether or not he actually managed to get the address right.

Karieva also insists that he is in no way anti-Semitic, being himself part Jewish. Stephenson, meanwhile, treats us to some rambling anti-Palestinian rhetoric in order to prove his own pro-Jewish credentials. Again, such an allegation was never made by me, although Karieva’s lack of concern about the family having been allegedly subjected to anti-Semitic abuse is telling. There does seem to be some surprising anti-Semitism in the USA (currently being dredged to the surface by Sacha Baron Cohen), but in this case Karieva was simply unlucky that his target was Jewish. Had an atheist family been run out of town, no doubt it could be “justified” (to some) on the grounds that atheists are either Communists or extreme moral relativists. Pagans could be dismissed as devil worshippers, Muslims as America-haters, Hindus and Buddhists as stroppy immigrants. Christians who prefer private devotion over officially-decreed piety would simply be baffling. But, for obvious historical reasons, picking on a Jewish family throws the unpleasantness of certain actions into sharp relief; hence the popularity of the term “Judeo-Christian” on the US right.

Now, it seems, Karieva has decided to end his campaign against private individuals:

It was suggested, NOT compelled or mandated, by our legal counsel to delete the content and thus take this page out of your [sic] arsenal. In its place, we will continue to post ACLU supporting lawyers and companies like Progressive Insurance and the Ford Foundation so that we may boycott them from ever getting our money and business.

Karieva addresses himself to “The Daily Kookoos (KOS with 3 extra O’s), Jesus (Armchair) General, (Hair) Salon and others.” I assume the last reference is to me, since my blog is [UPDATE: was] hosted by Salon magazine, but readers should be aware that I do not work for Salon itself.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

The Guardian reports on the importing of an ancient form of discrimination:

Researchers detail claims that many of the 50,000 Dalits in the UK – once known as India’s lower-caste “untouchables” – suffer discrimination from other castes in terms of jobs, healthcare, politics, education and schools.

…In a report likely to provoke bitter controversy, researchers were told how couples who marry outside their own caste face “violence, intimidation and exclusion”. The study, No Escape – Caste Discrimination in the UK, focuses on domestic discrimination, although campaigners are also trying to force British firms with commercial interests in India to outlaw practices unfair to Dalits. The government has promised to consider the issue in forthcoming legislation and to look at claims of discrimination against lower-caste Gurkhas in the British army.

David Haslam of the Dalit Solidarity Network, who organised the research, said the group had spoken to 130 people for the study.

The Dalit Solidarity Network (UK) has a website here, but unfortunately it does not appear to have been updated since 2002. There is more general information on the organisation’s international website, but nothing about the new report. In fact, the only likely reference to it comes from a Japanese website which makes reference to the following:

‘Research Project: Caste Discrimination in the UK Diaspora’, Dalit Rights- The Newsletter of the Dalit Solidarity Network-UK, Issue No.13, Winter 2005/6, p.4.

However, this issue of the newsletter does not appear to be available online.

How the British government should deal with caste was the subject of a Parliamentary debate last November. Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn noted that the

Dalit Solidarity Network UK produced a solid report on caste discrimination in the private sector. It lays down a number of demands that should be made of the private sector companies that invest in India. It has started talks with HSBC bank, Lloyds TSB, Standard Chartered and Barclays about their investment strategies.

That report was entitled “Caste Discrimination and the Private Sector: Employment Principles for Foreign Investors in South Asia”, and is available to read here (and a brief outline is here). Labour MP Rob Marris added that

We have caste-based discrimination here in the UK. Those who know the UK south Asian community quite well, and I count myself as one of those, can sometimes see, by looking at south Asians and those from a south Asian background, from what caste they have come—because of systematic discrimination for 2,500 years. Dalit people look different. That is reproduced in this country. Sometimes, sadly, here in the UK, it is possible to get a sense of which is a Dalit and which is a Jat temple, or gurdwara, on visiting them. Caste exists in this country, as well as in south Asia and Africa.

And regarding the Gurkhas (a brigade of Nepalese soldiers who serve in the British Army), Marris added that

There have been serious allegations of discrimination, as regards both recruitment and what happens to those recruited, in terms of their career progression—or, according to the allegations, lack of career progression.

However, not everyone thinks that the UK situation is a major cause for concern. Back to the Guardian (link added):

In India, Dalits and non-Dalits rarely eat together, but 81% of those questioned said the restriction did not usually apply here. Piara Khabra, MP for Ealing Southall, accused researchers of exaggerating the extent of problems: “It is a big issue in India, but not here. There is a broader community and different traditions. People live happily together.” He said many complainants may claim caste discrimination mistakenly or for political reasons. “I am the MP and people come to me who are from the lowest castes.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

“Stop the ACLU Coalition” Publicised Home Address, Phone Number

A special “hello” to all my extra readers, currently coming via Jesus’ General, Crooks and Liars, Christianity Today Weblog, and elsewhere.

Back in 2004, the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ (based at Dr D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries) praised the efforts of a school board in Delaware to promote Christianity among the children under its care (link added):

Despite threats of litigation from the ACLU, one Delaware school district has made it abundantly clear that they will not surrender America’s Christian heritage without a fight.

For years, the Indian River School District (IRSD) Board of Education of Sussex County, Delaware, has opened with an invocation. Recently, they received a threatening letter from the Delaware chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) demanding that they discontinue their tradition of prayer.

School Board Takes a Brave Stand

After seeking legal counsel, a meeting was called, and community residents gathered at the Frankford Elementary School. In response to the ACLU’s threats, IRSD board president Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to deliver a prayer. Amid the crowd’s loud cheers, Hattier rose and recited George Washington’s prayer which was offered during America’s fight for independence…

The Delaware Daily Times added:

…Many begged the school board not to take Jesus away from their children. Others read scriptures from the Bible citing instructions given by Jesus.

One parent announced that a petition was being circulated and so far more than 300 people had signed it.

Board members listened for more than an hour during the public comment period, making no opinion statements themselves.

Commenting on the ACLU’s complaint, Jan LaRue of Concerned Women for America asked (link in original):

“Where are the self-proclaimed, ‘Guardians of Liberty’ when a California school district is indoctrinating school kids with Islam?”…”This is one more example of the ACLU’s jihad to end public acknowledgement of the God of the Bible.”

(LaRue is referring to the California case discussed here)

However, the school board’s “brave stand” appears to be itself a bit of a “jihad” (as LaRue defines the term), according to Jews on First:

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they’re suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from “state-sponsored religion.”

The Jewish family is named as the Dobriches. Jews on First also gives an account of the 2004 meeting, with alleged details the CRAC report and the Daily Times left out:

On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meeitng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.

The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board’s opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him “take your yarmulke off!” His statement, read by Samantha, confided “I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.”

…A  former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might “disappear” like Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.

The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to “go back up north.”

In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.

Alex Dobrich claims that he was called “Christ-killer” by classmates; the school board’s lawyer, Thomas Neuberger of the Rutherford Institute, suggests that Dobrich is lying. The family is in fact being represented by a Wilmington law firm rather than the ACLU, but this did not prevent the Stop the ACLU Coalition from deciding to publicise the Dobriches’ home address and phone number, as part of an “Expose the ACLU Plaintiff” campaign.

The Dobriches have a litany of complaints about the school board’s alleged promotion of Christianity, including the claim that members of Bible Clubs were allowed to jump the queue for lunch. One reported incident appears particularly egregious, concerning Samantha Dobrich’s 2004 graduation:

She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for “our heavenly Father’s” guidance for the graduates with:

I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus’ name.

Jerry Fike is the pastor of Mt Olivet Brethren Church in Georgetown (there’s a photo here). Apparently, even board member Hattier had to concede that the pastor’s involvement was out of line:

…Hattier added that the district had to change the practice of inviting pastors to give invocations at high-school graduations because it is against the law and had been for decades.

The Delaware Wave gave further details about the current litigation back in March:

Cheers of joy echoed through Sussex Central High School on Monday night when the Indian River School Board announced they would not pay a “six-figure” settlement to end prayer litigation.

The motion, made by Nina Lou Bunting and seconded by Donald Hattier, was unanimously carried.

“Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ACLU,” said David Bennett, a preacher at the Dagsboro Church of Christ, when the announcement was made.

Just two hours prior, while executive session was held, Bennett led nearly 100 spectators in song as they waited patiently for the news.

…”If these kids are taught evolution — that they came from apes — and they’re not given the basis of faith, what’s to stop them from acting like animals?” he said.

In fact, science appears to be a far lower priority for the school board than getting a Jew to convert, and students who wish to be excused biology lessons that cover evolution are reportedly allowed to attend a Bible Club instead.

But it seems that all this reported religious indoctrination is having only a limited effect, and the Indian River State Board would like the threat of violence to keep the kids in control. Delaware State News reported in April:

A Downstate lawmaker’s legislation to give school districts the ability spank misbehaving students has set off a stinging debate.

Rep. John C. Atkins, R-Millsboro, said he recently filed House Bill 376 at the behest of officials from the Indian River School District, which he represents.

“They are having a hard time controlling students and this would serve as a deterrent, especially if the kids see a teacher or administrator holding the paddle in the hallway when they walk by,” he said.

…They are talking about a couple of swats on a student’s buttocks, done in the privacy of an administrator’s office.

(Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars; the “Stop the ACLU Coalition” publication of the Dobriches’ home details was found by a commentator there)

UPDATE: Jesus’ General gives his take; Stop the ACLU responds. See my new entry here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 30 Comments »