GUEST COLUMNIST: Religious persecution escapes notice

Jason Hsu Jason Hsu Jiang Zemin's visit to the United States has drawn much attention. Politicians, business people and activists have all taken notice, but each with a different reaction. And certainly, the press has made it clear what it thinks of the current president of the People's Republic of China. Not only have national newspapers done a fair share of highlighting much of the brutality that the Chinese people have endured under his reign, but even The Daily Pennsylvanian has published a letter to the editor addressing the issue of human rights in China, as well as noting the opinion of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ("U. shouldn't invite Jiang to visit," DP, 10/27/97.) Unfortunately, even their exhortations have been inconsistent. Human rights groups so vocal with regards to particular forms of persecution, have "paid scant attention to the issue of religious persecution around the world." ("Human rights groups ignore today's martyrs," Wall Street Journal, 10/23/97). The columnist, Adrian Karatnycky, referring specifically to Christian persecution, noted that human rights organizations supposedly formed to protect the rights of all humans mysteriously tend to forget that Christians also fall under that category. Karatnycky also finds it strange that while more issues, such as the opposition to the death penalty, are being included under the rubric of what is considered human rights activism, to these groups, the issues for which Christian organizations stand "still don't count." Human rights activists protest the use of prison labor, but fall silent when people are sent to labor camps because they held an "illegal" meeting in their house. A mild uproar is the result of a government's decision to cane a young man guilty of spontaneous expression with a can of spray paint, but the beatings and persecution of people who just want to express simple truths about their lives goes unnoticed. This disregard for religious persecution is especially unfortunate in light of the actual circumstances. The worldwide persecution of Christians is more than discrimination against a group of people, it is the physical torture, and systematic elimination of Christians from society. As a result, there have been more Christians killed in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined. If this trend continues this year, over 150,000 people will be killed simply because they have pledged their allegiance to Jesus Christ. This amounts to 17 Christians murdered every hour of every day. To say all human rights activists ignore the circumstances of the persecuted Church would be unfair; and certainly, no set of organizations can be expected to do everything. Additionally, Karatnycky does make the qualification that "religious conservatives may yet be welcome among mainstream human rights activists," using Amnesty International's attempt at "reviving an outreach effort [one that has been inactive for years] to victims of religious oppression," as an example. But why was this an issue in the first place? Why are there people who think human rights groups and others overlook Christians when much attention is paid to those of other religions, or no religion at all? Maybe it's because Christians are not taking care of their own in the first place. If the churches of America are not significantly providing aid and relief for their members, then why should secular organizations? It was only in 1996 that the World Evangelical Fellowship established the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church -- an effort at increasing awareness to the situation of persecuted Christians worldwide. Maybe it's because Christians are historically remembered as the ones who did the persecuting, and now they're just getting what they deserve. Of course, nobody would explicitly voice such a notion. Instead some entertain the idea that "if they would just stop being so evangelistic and assertive about their religion, then they wouldn't have so much trouble." Taking this notion into consideration, maybe there is an assumption that today's missionary movements are conducted in the same imperialistic fashion as they were centuries ago. When the word "missionary" is mentioned, some might draw mental caricatures of uncaring Christians going on crusades, only looking to meet their "conversion quotas," and seeing their converts merely as projects. It is possible, then, that many people don't really know what today's missionaries actually do. Let me help. Countless Christian missionaries of this century have left potentially comfortable lives for the sake of sharing what they consider to be the source of true joy with people of other nationalities. They went to underdeveloped countries knowing that the combination of indigenous diseases and the lack of a modern medical infrastructure could significantly shorten their lives. Yet they still went for the purpose of providing for people's physical and spiritual needs. In the process, many gave up their lives for their friends. But maybe it's not even a problem with what Christians do that compels activists to disregard their state. What if the real reason people would rather spend their precious time and energy attending to others is because nobody likes what Christians say? After analyzing the Christian message, however, this animosity is understandable. Who wants to believe the smallest immoral thought is an offense deserving of death in the eyes of a just and perfect God? Who can believe that the infinitely gracious Son of God would choose to die all the deaths earned by these offenses? Who is able to understand that the greatest display of God's love is in the murder of the Savior He sent? Frankly, I don't know for certain why Christian persecution is generally overlooked. I do know, however, there are things that can be done. While concerned constituencies can write letters to their senators and representatives, a more effective method should be considered. Instead of placing the burden of ending religious persecution in the hands of our government officials, why not petition someone who holds more power than Jiang or anyone else? Why not appeal to someone cares more about the poor and afflicted than all the activists in this world combined? Why not pray.