jump to navigation

Tibet is burning: Get Religion, January 18, 2013 January 19, 2013

Posted by geoconger in Buddhism, China, Get Religion, Persecution, Politics.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

Let me commend for your reading this AP article by reporter Gillian Wong on the military crack down in Tibet. Entitled “As Tibet burns, China makes arrests, seizes TVs” this article reports on the wave of self-immolations that have swept across Tibet in protest to the Chinese regime’s occupation of the region.

It opens with a strong lede, provides the facts in a straight forward – balanced way, offers good comments from knowledgeable experts, provides the principle points of view — all while being written under a Beijing dateline (which means the reporter can find herself severely discommoded by the government for reporting unpalatable truths.)

The article opens:

Chinese authorities are responding to an intensified wave of Tibetan self-immolation protests against Chinese rule by clamping down even harder – criminalizing the suicides, arresting protesters’ friends and even confiscating thousands of satellite TV dishes.

The harsh measures provide an early indication that the country’s new leadership is not easing up on Tibet despite the burning protests and international condemnation.

For months, as Tibetans across western China doused themselves in gasoline and set themselves alight, authorities responded by sending in security forces to seal off areas and prevent information from getting out, but those efforts did not stop or slow the protests. The self-immolations even accelerated in November as China’s ruling Communist Party held a pivotal leadership transition.

There is a strong religious component to the story:

Nearly 100 Tibetan monks, nuns and lay people have set themselves on fire since 2009, calling for Beijing to allow greater religious freedom and the return from exile of the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

Speaking technically, (e.g., removing the subject of the story and looking at its construction, language and the reporter’s craft) this is a superior news story — it has all the elements of good journalism. And when you add in the compelling subject matter of religious freedom and political self-determination for Tibet you have a great story.

Where I to add anything to this story, it would be a paragraph or two on what the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan Buddhist tradition has to say about self-immolation. Buddhism holds that human life is sacred — how does suicide as political/religious protest stand in light of these teachings?

My sense is that a reporter writing from Beijing can only go so far down this path before they find their visa cancelled. One telephone call to a leader of the Tibetan exile community in a story might pass police muster — direct quotes or a response from the Dalai Lama would be too much. An informed reader should look at the dateline of an article — the location where the story was written often placed in parentheses at the beginning of an article — so as to understand how to read the story. A dateline of Beijing as opposed to Hong Kong or Tokyo for this story says very different things. Let the reader understand.

Informed Western readers of this article are likely to come to this story with the knowledge the Arab Spring began with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. Older readers will remember the self-immolation of Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war in protest to the South Vietnamese government’s policies. Is this the tradition in Tibet?

Not according to the Tibetan government in exile. They released a You-Tube video this past summer that looks into this question — noting the first Tibetan self-immolation took place in 2008.  The video received little news attention when it was released, and I do hope that it is picked up by the press now that the Chinese government has pushed this issue into the limelight with its crackdown.

What say you GR readers? Is an extra sentence or paragraph necessary to explain the religious “why” question behind this story? Or, given the threat of censorship from Chinese government that hovers over all Tibet or religion (think House Churches, Falun Gong) stories, is it incumbent upon the reader to approach these stories with a modicum of wisdom — knowing that he will only hear part of the story?

First printed in Get Religion.

U.S. Supreme Court allows public schools to give credit for private religious instruction: Anglican Ink, November 13, 2012 November 13, 2012

Posted by geoconger in Anglican Ink, Education, Politics.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of Moss v. Spartanburg Cty School District letting stand a Fourth Circuit decision allowing students to gain academic credit by attending off-campus religion classes during the school day.

In 2009 the Freedom From Religion Foundation brought suit against South Carolina’s Spartanburg County School District No.7 over its “released time” program. The Foundation claimed allowing public school students to attend religious instruction classes at private schools during school hours violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The South Carolina District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Foundation’s arguments. In a unanimous decision the Fourth Circuit held: “[T]he program properly accommodates religion without establishing it, in accordance with the First Amendment.”

Read it all in Anglican Ink.

Local govt minister backs employees right to wear a cross: The Church of England Newspaper, March 15, 2012 March 15, 2012

Posted by geoconger in Church of England, Church of England Newspaper.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

An employee should be allowed to wear a cross or other religious symbol at work, so long as it does not interfere with his duties, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told Parliament this week.

The comment by Mr. Eric Pickles is in direct contradiction to arguments being presented by government lawyers, the Sunday Telegraph reports, in a case set to appear before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

According to the Telegraph, government lawyers will argue before the ECHR in Strasbourg that British court rulings that upheld bans on the wearing of a cross while at work, but permitting non-Christian religious jewelry, clothing and attire did not breach Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9,” the government paper said.

However, in response to a question from the member for Southport, Mr. John Pugh (LD) in the Commons on 12 March 2012, Mr. Pickles voiced disagreement with the government’s views as articulated in the Telegraph report.

Mr. Pugh asked whether as “part of his duties as Secretary of State will he defend the right of Christian local authority workers discreetly to wear crosses or crucifixes at work, just as he would I hope defend the right of Sikhs to wear the turban, given a pending European judgment?”

Mr. Pickles answered: “It is certainly my view that, provided any object does not get in the way of someone doing their job, a discreet display of their religion is something that we should welcome.”

The minister also told the Second Church Estates Commissioner he backed the rights of local councils to begin their meetings with prayer.

The member for Banbury, Mr. Tony Baldry (Con.) asked Mr. Pickles: “Since the reign of Mary Tudor and throughout the vicissitudes of history, Banbury council has started all its meetings with prayer and a recitation of the 84th Psalm. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the general power of competence he has granted local councils will enable those that wish to continue to start their meetings with prayer to do so?”

The minister responded that his “hon. Friend is a very distinguished man, and perhaps only someone of his greatly distinguished nature could regard the reign of Mary Tudor as topical.”

“Nevertheless, he makes a good point. We enjoy the power of prayer in this Chamber under the Bill of Rights 1688, and what is good enough for us should be good enough for councils. That is why I was pleased to introduce the general power of competence. The authorities that do not qualify will make arrangements very soon,” the minister said.

First printed in The Church of England Newspaper.