Year of the Dragon

The first day of the 2012 Chinese New Year was on January 23, 2012 (in China's time zone). This day is a new moon day, and is the first day of the first Chinese lunar month in the Chinese lunar calendar system.

The Chinese New Year's Day on January 23, 2012, is actually 12 days before the first day of the astrology calendar this year. There is a common misconception that the astrological animal signs begin on the Chinese New Year's Day. In reality, these animal signs mark the Start of Spring, the first day of the astrological year. 

For example, if a baby was born after the Chinese New Year Day in January 2012, then its animal sign is the Rabbit, not Dragon, because the birthday is before the Start of Spring. In the China's time zone, the Start of Spring this year is on February 4. This may sound confusing, and it is for many people, myself included.

I know very little about this system, but do want to share the little that I have learned about it. In Africa, where I am at the moment the Chinese new year is not very important, but in many parts of the world it is because of the growing influence of China on the world stage, and the increasing pervasiveness of Chinese culture. Chinese people can be found everywhere.

Toronto, where I live most of the year, has many China towns to accommodate a burgeoning Chinese population. In Africa, there are now an increasing numbers of Chinese working here, and thus the Chinese new year will become more important here too as time goes on.

According to the Chinese zodiac, 2012 is the Year of the Dragon, which began on January 23, 2012 and ends on February 9, 2013. The dragon is the fifth sign of the Chinese zodiac, which consists of 12 animal signs. The dragon is a mythical and legendary creature. In ancient China, the celestial dragon represented both the emperor and power. Today, it is the ultimate auspicious symbol signifying success and happiness. 

The year 2012 is the 4709th Chinese year. The Chinese believe that the first king of China was the Yellow King (who was not the first emperor of China). He became king in 2697 BC, and therefore China entered the 4709th year on January 23, 2012 (although some people contend this is the 4710th year).

In all stories about Chinese dragons, they come from the sky, which means heaven in China. The image of dragon is blurred, misty, mystic, occulted, noble and untouchable. For China, it is the symbol of power from heaven. The Chinese emperor was considered the son of heaven. An emperor alone has the authority to send a command to dragons. 

One Chinese story mentions an emperor who killed a dragon in his dream. After 581 AD, emperors in China began to wear imperial robes with dragon symbols. During the Ching Dynasty (1644-1911 AD), the dragon can be seen everywhere on the roofs, doors, pillars, bridges, utensils in the forbidden city. The most powerful dragon is the five-clawed dragon. It appears only on the yellow imperial robe. Because of this, the dragon is one of most auspicious animals in China.

The dragon is the only mythological creature in the Chinese zodiac; it epitomizes yang (male/warm) energy. Those born in the year of the dragon are considered to be lively people who are straight to the point, proud, full of enthusiasm and possess a great passion for life. They are also dynamic and stand out in a crowd, since they are flamboyant and tend to leave a blazing trail behind them, igniting passion in some but scorching others. Dragons are profoundly loyal to family and friends, and think nothing of laying their lives down to protect them. Although sincere and honest, dragons are known to act first, think later and suffer as a result.

Dragons also can never keep their mouths shut, indulge in idle gossip and tend to believe they can take on just about anything. They can be eccentric and egotistical, demanding others to laugh at their jokes or laud that their actions. Intelligent and charismatic, but the dragon seldom applies its wisdom carefully and chooses to flirt with imagined grandeur instead.

There are many more descriptions of people born in the year of the dragon; all of them assume that these people will resemble dragons in character and temperament. This is as likely, in my opinion, as the signs of the zodiac in the West are said to determine the future of those who are born under that sign.

Personally, I am not a believer in astrology. Our fates are not determined by the stars or by animal signs. God alone determines the future of each and everyone of us. Our future is in God's hands, and is not written in the stars. We may perhaps play with these various types of astrology, as long as we do not take them too seriously. My comments may offend those who do believe in astrology; if so, I am sorry, but I disagree.

The year of the dragon is important for many Chinese or for those who share the Chinese heritage, and we should not denigrate them in any way. On the contrary, we must respect their beliefs, even if we disagree. I do not ridicule people who consult horoscopes either, even though I never do so myself.

Stamps of Azerbaijan commemorating the Year of the Dragon

Do you want to know what's in store for 2012? Who will win the US election? Will the eurozone implode? China's feng shui masters tackle some of these issues with their predictions for the Year of the Dragon.

Many Chinese take such predictions seriously and adjust their lives accordingly. Feng shui, the ancient study of the forces of chi, or life energy, is a daily part of life in the Chinese world. If they want to build a house or renovate it, they will consult experts in feng shui.

A feng shui chart

Chinese astrologers have already predicted that the Year of the Dragon will bring natural disasters and financial volatility, especially to crisis-hit Europe. "The world economy will be unstable in the Year of the Dragon, because the economies in Europe and the US are still suffering from the effects of the recession," Hong Kong feng shui master Anthony Cheng says.

Celebrity astrologer Peter So says the United States will provide some good news late in the year, but his charts for Europe make grim reading. "Europe will not recover so soon -- it is expected to suffer at least until 2014. But what I can say is this, a recovery for the US economy is possible in 2013," he says.

If you're prepared to ride the dragon and invest in 2012, Russia and China could be your best bets. The two emerging markets will be the best performers in a volatile year, says Cheng. But be prepared for surprises, especially out of China where the Communist Party will hold its 18th Congress to select a new generation of leaders. "In the second half of the year, a scandalous corruption case will be exposed in China," warns Cheng, but refuses to elaborate about who will be implicated.

I don't put any more stock in such predictions than I do in the prediction made in some magazines at the checkout counter. Nor do I accept the predictions made by those who say that the world will end in December this year, according to an ancient Mayan calendar. The future is in God's hands; only he knows what will happen and when. 

   

Is capitalism evil?

Is capitalism evil? Yes, contends US documentary maker Michael Moore in his latest movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," where he proves that capitalism is evil. The idea for this post came as I was flying across the Atlantic and was able to watch this movie, which comes with a warning that it is not intended for children. I would add that it is not intended as entertainment either. Instead, it is a hard-hitting attack on capitalism, which blends his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts.

Moore argues that capitalism benefits only the rich while condemning millions to poverty. He explains, "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," he concludes. "You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

Big banks and hedge funds gambled with investors' money, using complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood. Meanwhile, large companies have had laid off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits. Moore also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials. With official connivance, regulations were changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

Moore says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment. The film features several priests, including a bishop, who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience at the Venice Film Festival. "They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently."

Moore on Wall Street trying to make a citizen's arrest

Moore is hardly the first person to preach this message, but he does so in a hard-hitting way that some, and not only the very rich, may regard as offensive. Even those who would stand to benefit most from him may not appreciate his in-your-face attack, such a when he goes to Wall Street and some corporate head offices to make a citizen's arrest.

Yet the story he tells is simple enough even for the most committed couch potato to understand: the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. This message was the one that motivated Occupy Wall Street and the other occupy movements all over the world. The 1 % through their manipulation of the political and economic levers of society are enriching themselves without any concern for the untold suffering that results for the rest, the 99%. Quite frankly, the rich don't care for what happens to the rest. Moreover, they blame everything, except the capitalistic system.

That the very rich critique Moore so bitterly is understandable, but that some of the 99% do so as well can only be explained by the successful media attacks prompted by the rich. Moore has been accused of being a hypocrite, since he is a multimillionaire--his net worth is reputedly $50 million. Such ad hominem arguments, however, miss the point that both Moore and the Occupy Movement are making: this is an issue of the heart.

Some critics (see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/fallacies-r-us-michael-moore-tells-us-about-jesus-and-economics/) charge that Moore takes verses out of context to match his view of the Bible and his version of God. They also charge him with making major errors in his understanding of capitalism. What these critics fail to grasp is that definitions, such as that of capitalism, are not neutral and objective, but are shaped by subjective attitudes which are matters of the heart.

These critics are also blind to the influence and power that capitalism already has, and that it is prepared to use whatever means are necessary in order to increase that influence and power. Today capitalism has become virtually unstoppable, unless enough people wake up and start protesting, as the Occupy Movement is doing. This movement is not dead, in spite of being evicted from parks and public places everywhere by the powers that be. That eviction illustrates the power of capitalism.

The Bible never condemns wealth as such. Abraham, for example, was a very wealthy man. Thus the Bible does not regard money as evil. Instead, as we read in 1 Tim. 6: 10: "For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil." Unfortunately, there are people who crave money. They are addicted to it. And thus to all and sundry they explain that the only purpose of doing business is to make money. Money! Money! That is all there is for them. What a sad existence for them, and even more so when this attitude is used to justify greed at both the individual and corporate level--a greed that blinds them to their extortionist practices.

Capitalism is evil, if by capitalism we mean more than the mere possession of capital; instead, it expresses an attitude to money that the Bible describes simply as greed. Capitalism is evil because it is marked by greed and does not concern itself with the poor.

Moore may be rich, but that does not make him a capitalist, nor does this movie make him a hypocrite because he belongs to the 1%. On the contrary, his heart is with the 99%. That is why he has produced movies such as "Roger & Me" and now "Capitalism: A Love Story." 

His gruff persona may put some people off, but it expresses his identification with the victims of capitalism. For that I want to thank him. It made my flight more enjoyable, even if it was somewhat disturbing. That, of course, is Moore's intention. I hope that more people will be disturbed and will join the protest, otherwise soon protest itself will be controlled.
 

Does Canada need an Office of Religious Freedom?

The proposal by the Canadian government to establish an Office of Religious Freedom is politically motivated. It fulfills a promise made in the 2011 federal election. The Conservatives won this election handily, in part by attracting votes in many ethnic communities, especially in Greater Toronto Area, which according to the United Nations is the most cosmopolitan urban area in the world. Nearly every nation and language on earth is represented here, as are most religions. This forms part of the context in which this proposal was made.

Does Canada really need an Office of Religious Freedom, or is it largely a political ploy, as is my impression?

The Conservatives  needed the support of various ethnic groups, which represent many different religions, in order to win the election: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, are only a few of them.

The most important of these religious groups, although not identifiable as a single ethnic category, were evangelical Christians. They tend to vote Conservative, are well organized, and have been persecuted in many different countries, especially during the last few years.

In fact, Christians are persecuted more than any other religious group today. There are many reasons for this. There are also many organizations, such as Freedom House, that keep careful track of instances of the persecution of Christians. Many Christians certainly support the creation of an Office of Religious Freedom.

The Conservatives also attracted the Jewish vote through their unqualified support for the State of Israel. Canada is now one of Israel's most faithful friends and supporters. The existence of the State of Israel is rooted in the Holocaust. Canadian Jews do not want a repetition of this, very understandably, and thus they too would support such an office.

Both Christians and Jews are somewhat ambivalent in their attitude to Muslims, however. The Palestinian cause is hardly popular among many of them, and Muslims are often viewed as terrorists. Both have for centuries been persecuted for various reasons, but they are often unwilling to extend protection to Muslims.

Muslims too need the protection of an Office of Religious Freedom. They have been vilified and demonized more than any other religious group, especially since 9/11. But will they get that protection this way?

In a year-end interview, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird denies that his department’s new Office of Religious Freedom will become a vehicle for playing domestic politics in Canada’s immigrant communities. He also dismissed criticism that the new office could lead to an uncomfortable mix of religion and politics.

“Freedom of religion is one of the first things in the (Canadian) Charter, it’s one of the first things in the (Canadian) Bill of Rights, it’s front and centre in the UN Declaration of Human Rights -- it’s an essential human right; I don’t see any concern about that at all,” the minister explained.

Baird has high hopes for the new office, even though it will come with a modest $5-million price tag. That includes a minuscule $500,000 budget for operations, so it won’t be a major drag on already thin resources for a government, like governments elsewhere, that is currently focussed on reducing the deficit.

But this office may not have the positive benefit the government is looking for. Alex Neve, the head of Amnesty International Canada, says that while religious persecution “is a serious human rights concern right around the world,” he is not confident about the government’s approach to the new office. Religious freedom can have a “contentious relationship” with other crucial human-rights concerns such as women’s equality, the equality rights of gays and lesbians, and freedom of expression, he explains.

The various human rights must be interpreted so that religious freedom and women's rights are both given their proper due. Communal and individual rights must be carefully balanced. In addition, for years I have reminded my students that rights are not absolute, but carry with them duties as well that can restrict these rights out of respect for others.

There are other problems as well. The governments needs to be careful that it does not -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- convey a message that some religions are preferred over others. The consultations that Baird organized with religious groups in October seem to indicate otherwise. These consultations were not open to the public. Amnesty International and other rights groups were excluded, but more crucially, so were many religious groups.

Panellists invited to closed-door consultations on the new Office of Religious Freedom were drawn almost exclusively from western religions, primarily Christianity. Six official panelists were invited to help lay out parameters for the proposed office during a half-day meeting with the minister. 

The official panelists were: 

Thomas Farr, first director of the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom.

Father Raymond De Souza, Roman Catholic priest and columnist.

Anne Brandner of the Global Peace Initiative and formerly of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Don Hutchinson, vice-president with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Frank Dimant, CEO of B'nai Brith Canada.

Susanne Tamas of the Baha'i Community of Canada.

Islam was not represented on the panel, nor were the major Eastern religions, all of which have suffered religious persecution: Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism, and others. The choice of panelists completely ignored the Canadian reality of multiculturalism, which is different from the American situation.

Pressed on what exactly the office will do, Baird replied in the interview: “It will be promoting religious freedom.” He said it would involve “persuasion, lobbying, putting light ... promoting.” The Tories note that the concept of such an office is not entirely new. They point to the fact the U.S. State Department has its own religious freedom office that was created in the late 1990s under the administration of Bill Clinton.

There are three priority areas for the new office: protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat: opposing religious hatred and intolerance; and promoting the Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird with the Papal Nuncio

Baird said he had consulted internationally on the creation of the new office meeting with the Holy See, the Aga Khan, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey, and the American ambassador at large for international religious freedom. But, he added, “ours will be a made-in-Canada approach.”

He cited persecution of Baha’i practitioners in Iran, Coptic Christians killed in Egypt, and Roman Catholic priests who have been forced underground in China. “Sometimes tough things need to be said. It’s really uncomfortable, I think, for the Egyptian government when you talk about the plight of Copts,” he explained

As the Tories mull their final roll out for the new office, religious violence is sparking the usual time-honoured response of Canadian governments, whether Liberal or Conservative: a written denunciation in the minister’s name condemning the perpetrators and an expression of solidarity for the victims.

That’s what happened on Christmas Day after a radical sect called Boko Haram claimed responsibility for a series of attacks on churches that killed at least 42 people in Nigeria. Mr. Baird’s statement that day said: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones. These people died practicing their religion -- a basic human right. Canada strongly denounces such cowardly attacks without reservation.”

The Conservatives are unapologetic about making a defense of the right to worship a central objective of Canadian foreign policy, noting, as a recent Pew Center study found, that assaults around the world on religious freedom have increased in recent years. This stance is in response in part to some bureaucrats in the Department of Foreign Affairs who, because of their belief in the separation of church and state, have tended to ignore the issue of religious freedom.

Shahbaz Bhatti

The Tories explain that it was a charismatic Pakistani foe of religious persecution who helped clinch their decision to create the office. Shahbaz Bhatti had visited with Prime Minister Stephen Harper only weeks before he was shot dead in Islamabad. A Catholic, he was the first Pakistan minister for minority affairs and the only Christian serving in the Islamic state’s cabinet when he died on March 2, 2011. A militant Islamist group claimed responsibility for killing Bhatti, who had been urging reform of that country's blasphemy laws.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who’s also the party’s point man for outreach to new Canadian voters, said Bhatti made a major impression on Harper when they met in early February, 2011. “The Prime Minister was deeply affected by this as was everyone who had the chance to meet him,” the minister said. “His visit to Canada shortly before his assassination helped to galvanize within the government the reality of this kind of persecution.” Kenny said he counselled Bhatti against returning home -- to no avail.

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, for one, offers qualified support for the new office. He said it can “turn a Canadian spotlight on people in danger” and can provide the persecuted “with the protection of visibility and concern.” But he adds it should not become be a tool for pressure groups the Tories hope to appease in Canada.

He advises that the office defend all cases of religious persecution, not just those that are bothering domestic constituencies at home, and that it does not ignore other human-rights violations, which usually accompany religious persecution, like limits on freedom of the press, denial of democratic rights and persecution.

The American office once headed by Farr has been criticized from several quarters, including from within the US State Department, for being Christian-centric, and primarily dedicated to protecting and promoting Christianity overseas. They contend that US officials tend to recognize and emphasize violations of the rights of Christian minorities and Christian evangelical groups to proselytize, rather than using the term "religious freedom" to cover the religious freedom of all communities.

In other words, in the US not all religions are equal and not all enjoy the same rights.

The Conservatives responded by saying that the office will take a multi-faith focus that is representative of Canada. Whether they will or not is debatable, especially if the October panel is any indication.

There is too much about the proposed Office of Religious Freedom that smacks of politics. If this office does succeed in defending religious freedom for all religious groups and not just some of them, and if it can untangle the various human rights that are implicated in issues of religious freedom, then it may yet prove to be a blessing for everyone, and not just a cheap ploy to buy votes from strategic religious communities.

In the previous post, it was obvious how complex the issue of religious freedom is. When politics is added to this already potent brew, the mixture becomes potentially explosive. Thus the government should be very careful in what it does with the new Office of Religious Freedom. It is a good idea, but it can be abused in many ways. No one who is serious about religious freedom wants that to happen.

I don't want Christians to hijack the very important issue of religious freedom. It does not belong to any one religious group. If it did, religious freedom would be a contradiction in terms. All religions must enjoy the same rights, if this term is to have any meaning whatsoever. Religious freedom belongs to all of us or to none.

    
       

The nature of religious freedom as seen from an international perspective

Recently the Canadian government proposed to establish an Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is to fulfill a campaign promise made in the 2011 federal election. The proposal prompted me to reflect on the nature of religious freedom in our world today. This topic is so complex, however, that I thought I would start this time with the international context, and then in the next posting look at the Canadian proposal more closely.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right, but it is at the same time highly disputed. Religious freedom can be defined as the right to practise the religion of one's choice, or to be a non-believer, and by extension, to change one's religion. That this freedom is not universally acknowledged is demonstrated by the long history of religious persecution that persists even today.
   
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948) states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This right is closely linked to the right to free expression and the right to free association:

Eighteen years later the Declaration became a convention, which became binding and had an enforcement mechanism. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations in 1976 and extends the specific protection to religion in Article 18:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

In 1981 this Covenant was further amplified in The UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief. This Declaration sets out in considerable detail what the international community regards as basic standards for the protection of religious freedom. This Covenant did not become a convention, however, because the international community was unable to agree on issues such as the freedom to change religion. For example, Islamic nations do not consider this to be a part of religious freedom. That is why "apostasy," or conversion from Islam, can result in the death penalty in some countries.

The reason for this impasse is not due to the desire of these nations to be ornery, but lies in a fundamentally different approach to human rights, one that the individualistic West finds difficult to understand and accept. The following Venn diagram may help to illustrate the difference.

This split into individual versus community rights is often interpreted in terms of liberalism and conservatism, but that is a mistake, in my opinion. The spit actually occurs between Western individualism and the rest of the world. Even this statement needs a further qualification, since not everyone in the West is individualistic when it comes to human rights.

Unfortunately, human rights have been interpreted in an individualistic way for a long time, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. Even the United Nation's documents governing human rights have sometimes been interpreted in this way. Thus one can understand the frustration of Muslims when it comes to a fundamental aspect of their beliefs and for their unwillingness to budge when it comes to further interpretations of these rights, especially when it comes to religious freedom.

Muslims are not alone in this frustration. In Canada, the conflict between English Canadians and French Canadians about language rights in Quebec is another example of this split. The question that both Muslims and French Canadians ask, together with many other groups, is this: Do individual rights always have to trump community rights, or are there times when the rights of the latter should be emphasized so that the community does not suffer?

The United States has a great problem with community rights. The American emphasis on individual rights is expressed already in the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, the UN Declaration of Human Rights has a more community orientation, although I would contend that this is still not strong enough. Some of the differences are described in the following table:

American readers will no doubt object by asserting that an emphasis on community rights eliminates the rights of the individual, but that is precisely the issue. Should individual and community rights be played off against each other, or should they both be allowed to play a role? Community rights have been neglected too much and too long, and only now are they coming to the fore again, where they belong. It is not a matter of either/or, but of recognizing both where appropriate and helpful.

By asserting this, I do not want to excuse the killing of people who leave a certain religion in order to adopt another. Yet Muslims, among others, should be allowed to maintain their beliefs, except for the killing, even if they seem grossly unfair to others. In Quebec, similar objections about unfairness can be made, but French Canadians should be allowed to take the necessary measures to ensure the survival of their language.

In both cases, I personally disagree with their positions, but I must respect the rights of these communities to take measures that will help preserve them. If that seems unfair to the rest of us, then so be it. We are just revealing our own bias. While they too recognize the importance of human rights, especially as they have been encapsulated in the UN documents I mentioned, the rights of communities to express a contrary opinion should not be diminished, otherwise there will not be any community rights left at the end of the day.

The ICCPR recognizes this limitation when it states, as we already noted: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Freedom of religion must not proscribe any beliefs as long as these beliefs do not limit the rights of others, in this case the right to life. Thus Islamic countries should not be allowed to pass laws that prescribe the death penalty for apostasy. But Muslims should have the right to condemn apostasy, even if we might disagree.

The situation in Quebec is different, since freedom of religion is not an issue, but a similar argument can be made to justify laws that protect the French language, again as long as the lives of others are not endangered.  The preservation of French is necessary for people who are drowning in an English ocean. 

There are many more issues involving freedom of religion that could be discussed, but this will have to suffice this time. The topic is large enough to justify writing a book or indeed many books. I am not alone in raising the issue of individual versus community rights; in fact, many articles have already been written on it.

My contention is that community rights need to be protected, not just the rights of individuals. I am more sensitive to this than many people, perhaps, because I have lived in Asia and Africa for many years. In Africa, for example, one's identity is determined by the community. Whereas in the West we say, "I am, therefore we are." In other words, the individual precedes the community. In Africa, the reverse is true; Africans say, "We are, therefore I am." The word ubuntu is often used to describe this. This expresses the essence of being human; it declares that my humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in yours.

The Bible cannot be understood apart from community. God created us to live in community. Even salvation must be understood communally, and not just individualistically, as we are often inclined to do. The dignity of human beings, the chief reason for human rights, arises from the idea of persons being created in the image of God; the dignity of communities proceeds from the notion of human beings being created in relation to God the Creator. Thus, community first and foremost means being in community with the Creator. By extension, therefore, we exist in community with each other.

If we lose sight of the community, we fall into the trap of individualism, as so many Christians have done, especially in the West. Then our individualistic understanding of human rights becomes an idol that blinds us to the communities that we see all around us. A false ideology has blinded us to reality. Let us, therefore, break away from the individualism that permeates Western thinking, and look instead at the picture that the Bible presents and that is expressed in many non-Western modes of thinking.

There are many different kinds of communities. The following wheel illustrates only some of them:

This international perspective that I have have sketched briefly provides a background to an examination of the proposal by the Canadian government to establish an Office of Religious Freedom. That is where I intend to go in my next posting.

Please feel free to respond to my observations about the nature of religious freedom. My emphasis on the rights of the community may not please everyone, but I do hope that I will cause people to think about this important topic. I am searching for the truth, as we all are. Let us therefore respect each other when we debate this controversial issue.

     

January 1, a renewing time

January 1 is a renewing time--a time for new beginnings. The old year has gone and a new one has started. This month is named, appropriately, after the Roman god, Janus, who had two faces—one looking forward and the other backward.

We look backward at the old year, perhaps with a dash of regret for what we should have done, perhaps with sorrow for the loss of loved ones, perhaps with joy and thankfulness, or perhaps with a sigh of relief that we survived the year.

A further retrospective is not necessary--the litany would be too long and unbearable. That we have been able to survive is due to grace--God's grace, which also comforts us as we look back on 2011.

Thus we look forward to the new year. Some of us, however, may be afraid of what the new year may bring. If it brings more of the same as last year, we don’t want it. We don't need more fighting, more violence, more death than in an already turbulent 2011. That was more than enough, thank you!

Many of us want change, starting with ourselves. In North America, people make New Year’s resolutions,  although most of them probably will not survive the first 24 hours. But all of us are waiting for a better world.

We want a new world that is marked with new beginnings. We eagerly anticipate it now already. In fact, we are ready to leap there, if only we could. January 1 is such a new beginning--an entrance to a new world. Let us make use of it, and celebrate the occasion.

But how should we celebrate January 1? Should we look backwards, or forwards, or both? What sort of celebration is appropriate? Obviously not a drunken party, as some tragically assume.

What about God: if you are a believer, what role will you allow him to play in your hopes and plans for the new year? And what part does he play in your celebration?

The first day of the seventh month was the Jewish New Year. Jews call that day “Rosh Hoshanah” or “Head of the Year.” It was a harvest festival that marked the start of the civil year. It marked the new year for people, animals and legal contracts, and was set aside for calculating the calendar, sabbatical and jubilee years.

According to the Jews, this was also the day that God created humanity, as well as “the day of judgment” when the fate of the wicked and the righteous would be determined and the names of the righteous inscribed in the book of life. It was a day of rest, marked by the blowing of the shofar or ram’s horn.

In Old Testament times, animal sacrifices were regularly made to atone for sin, but in later Judaism this was replaced with prayers, often near a stream of water, which included the symbolic throwing of one’s sins into the water. Although this day was never expressly called New Year’s Day in the Old Testament, evidently it was regarded as such by Jews from a very early date.

The Hijri or Islamic new year (Arabic: رأس السنة الهجرية‎ Ras as-Sanah al-Hijriyah) is the day that marks the beginning of a new Islamic calendar year, and is the day on which the year count is incremented. This day moves throughout the Gregorian calendar year that most of us use.

There are too many other new years, including of course the Chinese, that I don't have time to mention now.

January 1 universally marks the beginning of the new calendar year. This continues an old Roman practice. But this date was not widely accepted in Europe until the 16th century, while Britain and the British Empire did not accept it until 1752. 

The ecclesiastical year begins on the first day of Advent in many Christian churches; while for the Eastern Orthodox it begins on September 1, and for some churches, especially in North America, it seems to begin when school opens in September.

The first of January is a good time to reflect on what God is doing. This is indeed a renewing time, when he is renewing all of creation. Just as January marks the beginning of the new calendar year, it is also a sign of God’s renewal of his creation.

Revelation 21 reveals God’s plan for this renewal. The old world with all its evils will be gone--gone forever. The Lord of the universe explains what he is doing until then: “I am making all things new!”

Everything is being made new. God will not destroy everything that he has made, including people, but he is renewing his creation. That means the environment, for example.

Global warming is not a hoax. God has appointed humans as stewards of creation, which means that we are to take care of this world. It is a garden; thus we must not treat it as a place to dump our industrial waste.

This renewal also means bringing an end to warfare. In the nuclear age, wars are no longer justifiable. The just war theory is not relevant any more, if it ever was entirely. Whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, the Middle East, or wherever, non-violence is the only viable alternative.

God is also working in people like you and me, making us more able to love others and thus to love him better. That is not easy, as I can testify by looking at myself. Improvements are sorely needed, as my own list of New Year's resolutions mutely testifies.

My hope and prayer is that 2012 may be a better year for all of us. May this new year indeed be a time of new beginnings, and may it be truly peaceful as well as filled with countless blessings for you and your family.

Our violent world and the Prince of Peace

On Christmas Day there were several bombings in Nigeria of at least three churches. These bombings are a sad commentary on the world where we live -- a world that is filled with violence. These bombs punctuated the worship of people, some of whom were just leaving church.

In a town near Abuja several families were entirely wiped out. While in Jos, where I lived for many years, another bomb exploded, but no one was killed. Another church in Damaturu, about five hours northeast of Jos, was also attacked. It is sad to think that so many people who only wanted to worship on Christmas morning have lost their lives through needless violence.

St. Theresa's Catholic Church near Abuja was the scene of the first bombing

Yet Christmas is the day that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who is the Prince of Peace that Isaiah had prophesied many centuries before. He lists many impressive titles, of which this is the final and perhaps greatest one. Peace on earth was the song of the angels who first announced the birth of Christ. Christ came into this world to bring peace: peace among all peoples and nations.

Violence is not something new today; on the contrary, it has been with us since the very beginnings of human history. We have become inured to violence, it seems. Violence sells newspapers and it dominates our TV screens. We witness multiple killings and beatings on news programs on a daily basis, and are fed murders and stabbings as entertainment, with only a brief warning beforehand that this may be offensive to some viewers. Many of the computer games that are so popular today involve violence.

Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for these bombings. This tiny militant group that has ties to Al-Qaeda has attacked police stations, banks and churches for many years. Since 2009, when its leader was captured and summarily executed, it has intensified its violence.

Boko Haram, whose name in Hausa means "Western education is forbidden or sinful," wants to implement a radical form of Islam in Nigeria. By settings off bombs, it is seeking to spark a war between Christians and Muslims,  knowing that Christians are likely to retaliate. But its use of violence has increasingly alienated it from most Muslims, so now Muslims and Christians are on the same side.

Christians have not retaliated for a long time, unlike some occasions in the past. This peaceful response is due in part to the hard work that is being done by a number of peace organizations. Muslims and Christians are working side-by-side for peace. This is as it should be.
  
An attitude of active non-violence has produced amazing fruit for many years, as I experienced personally in the Philippines in 1986, with the "People's Revolution," where virtually no deaths were recorded. There have been many more examples since then, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even the Arab Spring, in spite of some deaths, is part of this fruit.

The Nigerian government has used military force against Boko Haram, but that is doomed  to failure. Peace cannot be ushered in at the point of a gun. Only negotiations will be able to accomplish that. The only weapons that Christians may rightfully use is the power of God.

As the following graph illustrates, the number of deaths world-wide has declined for many decades. There have been many wars, but the deaths have less numerous. There have been very few so far during the 21st century. But this does not mean that violence has ended.

Violence still installs fear in many people. Even though war has become increasingly rare, violence has not. There is violence everywhere, even in our homes, though it is not necessarily on the increase. In fact, nearly everywhere the crime rate is dropping, especially violent crime.

Sometimes governments seek to use that fear to gain political advantage. In Canada, a new bill in Parliament proposes building more prisons and implementing stiffer sentences. People should not live in terror, but this is not the way to do it. Such legislation does not bring about peace.

A friend in Nigeria, who wrote about these bombings, reminded me: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12).

In his note he added: "The people who perpetuate these and other horrible atrocities around the world are as much victims as others—deceived by the one who is the liar and the father of liars. They are not to be hated but to be pitied and prayed for that God will open their blinded eyes to the truth."

Peace comes from knowing that our lives are in God's hands. Peace is God's gift to us, through the activity of the Holy Spirit. As Christ promised: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid" (John 14:27).
   
Thus we should not let Boko Haram or other groups that use violence to achieve their goals of making us afraid. The US experienced such fear during 9/11, and the consequences are still with us today. The wars in Iran and Afghanistan are now officially ended, but peace has not yet come to that troubled region.

Peace is more than the absence of war. Thus military means will never be able to achieve peace, whether in Nigeria, Iran, Afghanistan, or any other part of the world. That will only be possible through the work of the Prince of Peace.

As this year quickly draws to a close, let us pray for peace throughout the world for the new year 2012. May each one of you experience that peace in your own life and that of your families.

The deification of dictators

Kim Jong-il was a dictator. His death was unexpected, although he had a history of health problems, and was not announced until two days later. In the first reports that I heard, sorrowful cries could be discerned in the background.

Kim was 69, although there is some dispute about the year of his birth. It is expected that his youngest son, Kim Jong-un will succeed him. He has already been labeled the "Great Successor."

This mournful reaction was not surprising, since Kim Jong-il had been treated as a demigod immediately after taking over as supreme leader of North Korea upon the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, on 8 July 1994.

Kim Jong-il was revered. He was called the "Supreme Leader" in the constitution. He was also referred to as the "Dear Leader," "our Father," "the General" and "Generalissimo." The cult of personality that he inherited from his father involved their deification. It is claimed that through his moods he could control the weather, and that through his distinctive style of clothing he set world-wide fashion trends.

His cult, however, was probably attributable more to the respect that the nation had for his father and for fear of punishment than for any genuine hero worship, as government officials claim. They point to a song, "No Motherland Without You," that was specially created for him.

His photo, along with that of his father, who was revered even more, was omnipresent, also during elections. It is expected that after the funeral service on 28 December Kim Jong-il will be buried beside his father in the enormous palace that serves as a mausoleum.

My purpose in this posting is not to dwell too long on the details of the lives of Kim Jong-il or his father. Rather I want to reflect on how political leaders have been deified, especially during the 20th century.

Kim often appeared with other political leaders who enjoyed a cult of personality. Vladimir Putin is one example. While Putin's star is diminishing lately, for many years he projected a style of leadership that accented his machismo.

Putin, however, was never able to achieve the deification that some other Communist leaders have enjoyed, especially Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. The reason for this, as will become apparent in a moment, is the resurgence of organized religion, specifically the Russian Orthodox Church, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The cult of personality in his case has not been as successful.

Chairman Mao, deified. Xinyi Temple, Shandong, China

Chairman Mao was treated as larger than life even before his death. The forged photo of him swimming the Yellow river is classic. After death he was deified, just as Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and many others before him.

Lenin merited a mausoleum in Red Square, which I have visited several times. Unfortunately, his corpse encased in its glass coffin does not make him very god-like. In fact, it is rather pathetic. The debate about whether his body should be moved to St.Petersburg to lie beside that of his mother has still not been resolved. Maybe there is a bit of supposed deity left in the old man.

Stalin when he died in 1953 was briefly buried beside Lenin, but his body was moved to a grave in the wall of the Kremlin. But during his life he wanted to be deified. The propaganda machinery complied, although not everyone accepted his deification.

An elderly Jewish couple in Moscow, whom my wife and I knew very well, told us that on the day Stalin died they practiced in front of a mirror putting on a sad face rather than the joyful one they preferred, otherwise they would have been arrested. They were not the only ones who were happy that day.

George Orwell, in Animal Farm, satirizes Stalin's deification in his description of "our Leader, Comrade Napoleon." In the officially atheistic state, the leader replaced Czar and Patriarch. Huge portraits of Stalin were hung on walls and banners throughout the Soviet Union, much like those for Lenin before him, and after him for Mao in China.

In Animal Farm, Moses, who represents religion, is driven out, just as Stalin had done. Stalin promoted atheism. Like Lenin, he regarded religion as the opiate of the people. In 1939, he could have abolished the Russian Orthodox Church, when only four bishops were left. But he relented, and later in order to get ROC support for the war effort he made an agreement that spared it and led to its official recognition of the government.

Why do dictators want to be deified? They realize that people need to worship something or someone. When an official religion is oppressed or even abolished, a substitute is needed. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does religion. God created human beings to be religious. We are thus inherently religious.

Not everyone will agree with the positive role that I assign to religion. It assumes a much wider definition than is often used. For me, religion is as wide as all of life. This will resonate with many Africans and Asians. Religion is not restricted to only the organized forms thereof but it also includes the motivation for everything we do. Sometimes we may not be aware of our motivation, yet it functions as part of our world view and can thus be described as religious. Even secularism is a religion.

When political leaders want to be deified, that process of deification can proceed much faster if organized religion is weak or non-functioning. Our innate religious nature makes us search for something to worship. As Augustine expressed, "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee [God]."

Dictators may try to drive out our religion, but their efforts are less successful when organized religion is strong and even stronger when that is matched with an awareness of the extensive nature of religion. Then we are most sensitive to these efforts to displace the true God with false gods.

Deification is idolatry and needs to be exposed as such. But only those who worship the true God will be fully conscious of the pernicious nature of idolatry and will be able to expose it.

Kin Il-sung, the father of Kim Jong-il, was raised in a Presbyterian home. This makes the idolatrous nature of deification that much more evil. He turned against the true God and put an idol, himself, in God's place. That sin has carried over to the next generation, and future generations as well, if the past is any indication.

Tertullian (AD 150-220), the North African theologian and philosopher, described idolatry as the chief sin from which all other sins stem. This is how serious he regarded idolatry. So should we.

That is why we must always be ready to expose and condemn deification, whether intended by politicians or others. As Christians we must not tolerate it, even in distant countries like North Korea. The sins of the Kim's, both father and son, extend far beyond starving their own people and other heinous crimes. They have committed idolatry and for that they stand condemned.

I am not so naive as to think that accusing the Kims of idolatry is enough to stop this practice in North Korea, now that the third generation of that family has been appointed as successor. I am only doing this to indicate the source of the enormous crimes this family has committed over the years. By exposing the source, we are much better prepared to understand their behavior and the awful consequences that resulted.