Beverly

India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, recently passed an anti-conversion ordinance with the stringents of penalties. It’s not the first Indian state to pass such a law — at least eight others have some version of an anti-conversion law. But Uttar Pradesh is the first to include a provision to punish inter-religious marriages suspected of being carried out for the purpose of conversion. Under this new law, people who want to change their religion have to apply to the district magistrate and undergo a police inquiry to get permission to do so. Interfaith couples who violate the law could be penalized with up to 5 years in jail. To the casual observer, it’s obvious this new law is directed at the so-called notion of "love jihad," the idea that a Muslim man marries a Hindu woman to convert her to his faith. It’s no coincidence that Uttar Pradesh also has the highest Muslim population in India. Already a Muslim man was arrested for marrying a Hindu woman, even though she said she did it of her own volition. In terms of civil rights, this ordinance will violate the individual rights of adult Indians. What if the bride and groom voluntarily choose to keep their respective religions? Or on the other hand, voluntarily decide to adopt their spouse’s faith? Does the state have the authority to impinge on such intimate human affairs such as love and marriage? Unfortunately, these laws also have a history of inciting harassment and attacks at the local level against minorities such as Muslims and Christians. This summer, several Christians were attacked in Haryana after the chief minister announced a similar anti-conversion bill. For the Christian community at large and in India these anti-conversion laws raise the fundamental question [...]

For more than two weeks now, the world’s attention has been on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. As I write this, America remains divided on who is the rightful victor of the 2020 presidential election — and it could take weeks before the matter is officially settled. Yet outside of the U.S., life has gone on, and other countries are dealing with political crises of their own. In particular, France has been in an intense debate over the limits, or lack thereof, of freedom of expression following the death of Samuel Paty, a French teacher. According to news reports, Paty was beheaded by an 18-year-old refugee of Chechen descent after the teacher showed his class cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. These were the same cartoons published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, which inflamed tensions with the Muslim community, culminating in a mass shooting at the magazine’s offices that killed 12 people. Paty’s murder is inexcusable — that is something we should all be able to agree on. We should also be able to agree that freedom of speech allows for people to express what they think or believe, even if we find it offensive, and condemning this horrible crime as an act of terrorism is not in the least Islamophobic. Yet some state and religious leaders do not seem to agree. President Recep Erdogan of Turkey called for a boycott of French products after French President Emmanuel Macron condemned Paty’s murder and cracked down on religious leaders and groups spreading extremist ideologies in France. Imran Khan, prime minister of Pakistan, also accused Macron of encouraging “Islamophobia” when the French president condemned “Islamist separatism” in his country. In fact, Macron’s stance triggered [...]

The question is whether we, with different philosophies, but both with feet on the ground, and having come from the people, can make a breakthrough that will serve not just China and America, but the whole world in the years ahead,” Nixon said to Chairman Mao Zedong at his Peking residence during their first-ever meeting. The idea was that as China opened to the United States, both nations not only would prosper economically, but China’s totalitarian ideology and structures would be reformed as it came in contact with Western democracy. Of course, we know what happened with the economic aspect. In a few decades, China became the world’s second-largest economy and a major military power. Now, China is using that freedom to validate the worst of its historic instincts. It may seem like a theological technicality, but there’s a world of a difference between Jesus being carted away passively to the cross than he facing it head on. In fact, everything about Jesus’ journey to the cross was active, from him “becoming obedient to death” (Phil 2:8) to him “scorning its shame.” Jesus’ victory on the cross was neither accidental nor incidental — it was deliberate and intentional. In light of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic we are living through, the message of Jesus as a servant who willfully confronted death and suffering is all the more relevant to us. We can learn from his example as we minister to those who are suffering in these two ways: The prosperity that made China an economic superpower in some ways had the opposite effect on individual rights and democratic reform as it helped its leaders tighten their grip on the Chinese people. The world’s willingness to turn a blind [...]

Most Rev. Joseph D’Souza after Ayodhya Supreme Court decision: India must now find a way forward toward peace and communal harmony Press Release: The KAIROS Company for Dalit Freedom Network  Nov. 10, 2019 HYDERABAD, India — After a marathon hearing which lasted 40 days, the Supreme Court of India has finally decided on the Babri Masjid land dispute. The court will hand over the 2.7 acres of land for the building of a Hindu temple through a trust to be set up by the Indian government. The court’s decision brings to a legal closure a long dispute that has inflamed passions, resulted in violence between Hindus and Muslims and led to the deaths of thousands of people who have been killed because of this religious dispute. Following the court’s decision, the Most Rev. Joseph D’Souza, president of the All India Christian Council, releases the following statement calling Indians to now find a way forward toward peace and communal harmony: “It is time for Indians to accept the Supreme Court’s decision, however they may feel about it. Those who are aggrieved with the decision need to find the strength to work for peace and communal harmony, while those who feel they have won must also find the humility to accept this judgement with the kind of attitude that respects the Muslim community and their rights in a democratic India. “With the kind of deep-seated religious divisions that currently plague India, it is critical that people of all faiths in India work toward peace, communal harmony and economic development. India can ill afford another long term trauma like the one it has faced over the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the campaign to build the Ram temple at [...]