You may not have ever heard about a 35-five year old Iraqi named Ragheed Ghanni, but his story is at once tragic and inspiring. A Chaldean Catholic priest, belonging to the small but ancient Iraqi Christian community, Fr. Ragheed was a brilliant student who studied in Rome before returning in 2006 to serve as pastor of a parish in the city of Mosul. He willingly returned despite the danger to himself.
He returned knowing that the persecution of the Christian minority in Iraq was getting worse daily, a persecution so violent and relentless that the number of Christians in Iraq have fallen from an estimated 1.5 million people in 2003 to fewer than 250,000.
Once back in Mosul, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Fr. Ragheed unless he immediately closed his church. He refused to do so. On June 3, 2007, after leaving Mass with three deacons and the wife of one of the deacons, his car was stopped by armed men. The deacon’s wife, the only survivor, recounted what happened next:
“Fr Ragheed could have fled, but he did not want to, because he knew they were looking for him. They forced us to get out of the car, and led me away. Then one of the killers screamed at Ragheed, ‘I told you to close the church, why didn’t you do it? Why are you still here?’. And he simply responded, ‘How can I close the house of God?‘ They immediately pushed him to the ground, and Ragheed had only enough time to gesture to me with his head that I should run away. Then they opened fire and killed all four of them.”
In addition to Fr. Ragheed, many other Catholic and Orthodox priests as well as Protestant ministers and the remaining members of their faith communities have been the victims of violence, intimidation, kidnapping and even murder. Christians are not the only ones targeted (thousands of Muslim Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, have been the victims of ongoing sectarian violence and wholesale ethnic cleansing since the 2003 American invasion of Iraq). But Muslim extremist groups have singled out the Christian minority because of their faith. Churches all over the country have been the target of bombings and congregations have been attacked, even while at prayer, by armed gunmen.
Very few Christians remain in Baghdad, a mere fraction of the 200,000 who lived there at the beginning of 2003.
Extremist groups are open about their intention to drive out the Christian minority. In October 2010 when gunmen from the “Islamic State of Iraq” took responsibility for the attack on Our Lady of Salvation Syrian Catholic Cathedral and murdered 52 worshippers, including two priests, they demanded that all Christians should leave Iraq.
The violence against Iraqi Christians has become so severe that in a few short years there may no longer be a Christian presence in that country as refugees pour out of the country in search of safety. The United Nations estimates that Christians, who are only 3 percent of Iraq’s population of 30 million people, make up 40 percent of the 1.6 million Iraqi refugees living outside of the country.
The hatred, contempt and violence endured by Iraqi Christians are just some of the more extreme examples of the persecution (often violent) that Christian believers experience around the world. In 2010, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, drawing on data collected by international human rights organizations, estimated that at least 75 percent of all religious persecution was directed at Christians.
In some countries, such as China, persecution is state policy. In China, Christian groups not recognized by the state are the target of severe repression: churches are shut down and religious leaders are imprisoned or kept under house arrest.
In other countries, government authorities lack the political will to stop the violent activities of extremist groups. For example, in India, (where Christians are only 2 percent of the population), over the past decade police and security forces in a number of Indian states have stood by and done nothing when mobs of extreme Hindu nationalists have rampaged through Christian neighborhoods, burning churches, religious schools and private homes.
Christians are not the only people of faith who suffer ill-treatment and persecution in our world. The ongoing repression of the Bahai minority in Iran and of the Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet and other parts of China are particularly egregious examples government religious persecution.
Religious liberty is a fundamental and God-given human right. All of us, religious believers and people of good will, should not be silent about the persecution of religious believers, including Christians. We have a moral obligation to do what we can on their behalf.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (92)
Add commentAgree but....
I agree that people should not be persecuted because of their religion. The bishop managed a slight reference to other religions, but does the Bishop or the Conference of Catholic Bishops speek out against the hatred or discrimination of Muslims (aka the uproar over building a mosque on private property in New York?) in this country? When they do, regularly - I'll be less likely to take this sentement by the Bishop with a truckload of salt.
I agree wholeheartedly that
I agree wholeheartedly that the very real violent repression and killings of those who practice different religious beliefs should be prevented at all costs. We should stand united in condemning all acts of violence and discrimination.
However, he gets that last part dangerously wrong. Religious liberty does not come from "God" and certainly not the Catholic god he chooses to believe in. Religious liberty comes from a strong secular democracy that protects the freedom of belief and non-belief of every human. Which is rather ironic given that his church is so eager to weaken ours.
No spiff, our RIGHTS are"
No spiff, our RIGHTS are" endowed by our creator."
And we are NOT a democracy, we are a "constitutional republic".
Our constitution is what protects the rights of the minority, & keeps the ambitious designs of men(kind) in check.sweimmer-How many muslims were rounded-up & shot in New York?
"Rights"
A clear distinction should be made between "rights" as posited to each human being under a religious or cultural framework, and "rights" as implemented by legal codes.
I might claim that every human being has a right to clean water, clean air, and clean food, whereas (recalling a meeting of a certain planning commission) a real estate developer might assert "No, those are simply desires. The only true rights are private property rights and the ability to do whatever I want with my land". (Suffice to say, this developer clearly had all the clean water and food he wanted.)
I agree with Spiff - we make the political assertion that all human being should have religious liberty, and we protect and implement that assertion through legal code in this country, resulting in Madison's observation that nobody is shooting Muslims in New York City. That's very true, and while we might claim prejudice against Muslims in this country, the very reason it is not on the same scale as prejudice against Christians in other countries or against Buddhists in another and Hindus in yet another is precisely the secular legal code enacted under a secular framework.
The assertion of "endowed by our creator" was the intent to implement a value under a political framework. God did not write the Constitution, nor does God arrest and prosecute those who try to curtail religious freedom.
If it bleeds it leads (classic newspaper saying)
Look, faith is an unreliable method to find facts. And without facts, solutions for man's inhumanity toward man will likely remain out of reach or worse, be squashed by other faiths. A sort of celestial codependency. As swimmergirl alluded to, faith does seem to have a sort of moral laryngitis except when speaking about its own so-called oppression!
My take? The bishop is short-sighted here. The writing is on the wall for religion. Our species' long, and yes, bumpy, retreat from violence during the course of our history is happening without the help of faith.
A better reality to focus on here is not why there is war and oppression but rather why is there peace?
Yes, why is there peace? The answer to that is the little secret Big Faith would rather you not know.
Mike
I was onboard with the Bishop until
his argument fell apart in the close.
I totally agree with Spiff above
And, the Bishop totally proves my point that religion is the cause of most of the world's suffering. "My God can beat up YOUR God" is what starts the conflicts the Bishop describes.
And the Catholic church is hardly blameless here. Their very religion calls on their followers to convert others to their religion. Two words: The Crusades.
Also, Christians don't have a monopoly on being an oppressed religion. Ask any Jew.
And when you mix religion with politics, and have a state sponsored religion, tolerance of other religions is eroded. This usually leads to violence. Violence born of ignorance.
And this is the very reason the Catholic church needs to stay out of politics (especially the silly contraception crusade) and focus on the mess and misery their own church creates. Here's an example of the misery caused at the hands of the Catholic church right here in Alaska, and how the church tried to cover it up:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/
Atheists
p.s., atheists rarely go around shooting people of faith. Atheists also don't fly planes into buildings.
Jo --
your conclusions are drawn from speculation -- yours. There's no arguing with you while you've got that axe in your hand.
Grendel, You can refute Jo by
Grendel,
You can refute Jo by providing some examples of atheists flying off the handle and murdering people to promote their belief system. Can you do it? You'd be a hero to a lot of the regulars on this forum.
J.E. Fume
Ever hear of the Weather Underground?
J.E. Fume, polyatheists don't have a belief system.
The only feature all atheists share is the lack of a belief in any number of gods.
The word itself, like a shadow, would disappear into non-use if people of faith and power didn't propagate lies about reality. This is why we don't find words like a-sasquatchist, or a-chupacabraist in common parlance. The words a-theism will find the same fate as a-sasquachist some day, well, that is, if reason prevails universally amongst our distant descendents.
So, lack of a belief is not a belief. To think otherwise is like saying lack of belief in sasquatch is a type of belief in sasquatch.
Nice try (unless you were being sarcastic?),
Mike
Its not about belief its about what people do
In our modern, global world, where people with many various beliefs or religions are relocating to different areas, we end up with communities where people have differing beliefs. That is no problem.
Every individual can have whatever beliefs or convictions they want, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs, practices, rules and regulations on others. It is not just a issue in the U.S. but around the world.
The problems arise when people attempt to impose their beliefs, their customs, traditions and practices upon others implying that "things must be my way or no way."
Its not a matter of human rights coming from God, a Creator, a diety, or a visitor from outer space. The real issue is that individual humans must be respected, treated with fairness and justice, allowed to live their lives as they wish as long as they do not harm or take advantage of others, and strive to find a way to live together in peace on our small planet we call earth.
As long as there is injustice, people harm or kill those who are innocent of any crime, refuse to help those who through no fault of their own are less fortunate than others, we're not going to find peace.
Belief is not the problem: practices are the problem.
That's my opinion.
Grendel,Having read a bit
Grendel,
Having read a bit about the Weathermen myself, I have never come up with anything that states that atheism was one of the group's cornerstones. Maybe my research was too casual. Could you be so good as to enlighten us on this issue and point us toward some hard evidence.
The Bishop's arguement needs more context.
I applaud Bishop Burns' appeal for tolerance but, he omitted important historical perspective. The Catholic Church, for millennia, has brutalized those that did not believe as they do. Consider the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisitions and even today a lack of tolerance for those that do not believe as they do. Look at Rick Santorum's hatefulness in the name of “religious freedom". He's not exactly the ambassador for religious tolerance.
I would argue that the biggest problem facing the Catholic Church is not religious liberty; it is a lack of moral authority. For example, in today's paper just two pages before Bishop Burns' article is a news item about the Vatican launching a criminal probe into leaks of confidential information that alleges corruption and financial mis-management. The Vatican seems more concerned about the leaks than the misconduct.
Given the long, brutal history of the Church, the recent serial child-rapes and cover-ups, the Catholic Church is losing moral authority and relevance. It is a long history of unethical behavior at odds with any moral code; religious or not.
I suggest the Catholic Church start cleaning its own house before cleaning others.
Just so we're straight...
Rounding up and murdering priests and deacons equals religious persecution.
Having to include contraception in your employee's health plans does not equal religious persecution.
@MikeDziuba
You said, "faith is an unreliable method to find facts."
But faith comes AFTER facts. You need facts to have faith. Faith is: believing something without proof.
When you believe something without proof, that's faith.
A person of faith has already done fact finding, and searching and then decides whether or not to believe what they have found, or what they have been told. Only then does faith come into the picture. But faith is not a "method to find facts."
@MikeDziuba
You said, "if people of faith and power didn't propagate lies about reality"...
But if you sincerely believe that 5 + 5 = 20, and you tell that to people, then you are not lying. You are simply wrong. I think most people of faith are sincere. If you think they are wrong, that is fine, but it's sounds paranoid to accuse them of lying, as though there are clusters of Hindus, Catholics, and Muslims at the top of their respective faith hierarchies, all rubbing their hands together, sitting in back rooms, making up "lies" about reality.
In order to lie, you must be deliberately trying to deceive people. To the contrary, every person of faith that I have known has believed that they were bringing people out of error, and into the light. So you could never say they were lying, as though they were trying to deceive people. However, I have no problem if you wanted to say they were simply wrong about their beliefs.
@Fume
it's never a good idea to re-qualify a stupid question. What was your question? (and googling Wx Underground does not count for "read a bit")
Also, Mike did a fair job of discounting your argument in one line.
Hmmmm....
so what facts are critical to the existence of Christianity without which it could not exist and which are proven outside the faith structure?
Alternatively, for any religion...?
It has never been about "God"
It has never been about "God" and never will be about "God". It is all about POWER and MONEY. That's why we have wars.
Well said, Dutch
I'd add that while those who initiate and wage war are primarily motivated by issues other than religion, religious fervor (and patriotism) are used as motivators by those who are the foot troops in the conflict. Thus, while royalty in Britain and mainland Europe were growing concerned regarding all the bored and unoccupied landholders and barons who were growing restive and might levy a challenge to power, they turned to the Church to inflame religious fervor to send them all off to Jerusalem where they bothered Islam and didn't cause problems at home. Ultimately, that motivation got everyone up in arms (no pun intended). Whereas Osama bin Laden was probably [filtered word] off at his loss of military funding and not being noticed by his Dad, those who piloted the planes on 9/11 were (most likely) motivated by religious zeal as a convenient whip.
Grendel, In other words you
Grendel,
In other words you were talking out your butt all along.
hmmmm....
I know Josephus had some commentary that MIGHT (more than could, less than maybe) speak of Jesus in Roman Palestine...but I get your point: could be it was just a bunch of disgruntled crazy Jews and fringe gentiles that didn't like the status quo and were willing to die for their convictions. I guess there's not much factual out there to support the early rise of Christianity and its persistence through today. I guess that's why it is that faith carries the day.
But what are you willing to accept as factual? Don't hold your breath for Christ's DNA. I suspect the Gospels aren't going to make the cut. No matter; they are not historical documents except for their contemporaneous consistency & commentary.
How about this one: we dont need no stinkin' facts
But I dont speak for the Christian faith, and, (not being trite here) think it's the wrong question because by its nature faith is meta-rational. I cant even begin to speak for any of the other honchos out there: Muhammed, Buddha, the Hebrew prophets...
What happens when you toggle "ignore user"?
just curious
I would agree, Grendel
and that is my point; faith is meta-rational and does not rely on facts. That's why I asked William the question; I'm curious to see what HE views as "fact" external to the Church.
Now, if we accept that the disciples were martyred (and these are records from the Church, not external to it) and we accept, as you indicate, that such conviction is evidence of truth, then we also have a number of plane hijackers who died for their convictions - is this also evidence of truth?
Josephus' commentary is interesting, and reads like Christian apologetics.
RE: 9/11 hijackers
no, they were nuts. There's a fundamental difference between Christian martyrs and muslim martyrs -- the Christians dont feel compelled to take out as many innocents as possible to further convince. And what kind of truth is being made evident? I guess the ultimate allahu akbar is a nuclear Iran with an itch to scratch.
Curious...
Is Bishop Burns employed by the Juneau Empire?
I wish someone else would write to the newspaper so we could take a break with the religious commentary that ensues.
I miss Bishop Kenny.
Grendel, I'm not sure your
Grendel,
I'm not sure your last post is all that correct. It will be a long time before the muslim fanatics catch up with the number of innocents taken out by Christians during the Crusades.
Prof. Olson, I think your position is naive.
I know you like to explore the merits of ideas so thank you in advance for indulging my observations!
I am not advocating thought police (that's Yahweh's ridiculous preoccupation) but beliefs built out of pretzel logic most certainly can harm the individual who harbors them without necessarily being acted out on others.
With minimal effort I can think of multiple examples where a person's belief harms society. And I can think of other examples how it harms themselves.
Regarding the first example, just look at the Young Earth Creationists trying to inject their delusional version of reality into the public school system. How many people of faith who disagree are not stopping this by acting? All I need is one not acting. The Xtian and Muslim rule of thumb here is to work to their own advantage.
Regarding the second example, about how unacted private beliefs can still harm the individual, well, if they never did, I suspect psychologists and psychiatrists would be jobless.
Mike