Nepal criminalizes religious conversion

banned: Nepal criminalizes religious conversionNepal criminalizes religious conversion under new law.  I’d really like to say I picked this up from a “mainstream” news source.  But I didn’t.  It came in an email from Christianity Today. 

So I googled Nepal criminalizes religious conversion.  Other than a couple United Nations and United States government sites, everything was from a religious source – primarily Christian.

I had been planning on writing about government and religion.  What I hadn’t planned on was that the first government would be the one in Nepal.  The main page for this topic of government and religion is Religion and Government – their impact on our salvation.

Who is being targeted / protected by Nepal’s law banning religious conversions?

First off, let’s look at the religious makeup of Nepal, according to livepopulation.com.

Religions and Population in Nepal

 ReligionPopulationPercent of Population
Hindu23,604,57281.3%
Buddhist2,613,0529.0%
Muslim1,277,4924.4%
Kirant (an indigenous ethnic religion)900,0513.1%
Christian406,4751.4%
other (including Sikhs)145,1700.5%
unspecified (or none)58,0680.2%
Population and religious affiliations in Nepal, from the 2011 census

Clearly, Hindu is the predominant religion in Nepal.  The possible targets would then be the remaining religions, all of which have single digit percentages of the population.  Therefore, we’ll look at Buddhism, Islam, Kirant, and Christianity to see if they have anything to say about this new law.  

What is in the new law?

I haven’t been able to find the text of the new law that was just signed in the last few days.  However, the new law adds punishment to an existing law in the current constitution, according to The Washington Times.

While Nepal’s constitution already forbids religious proselytizing, the new law — which also contains an anti-blasphemy stipulation forbidding the “hurting of religious sentiment” — adds teeth to the existing restriction.

the teeth of the new law

The “teeth” in the new law comes from this excerpt that was published by Christianity Today

No one should involve or encourage in conversion of religion.

No one should convert a person from one religion to another religion or profess them own religion and belief with similar intention by using or not using any means of attraction and by disturbing religion or belief of any ethnic groups or community that being practiced since ancient times.

If found guilty; there will be punishment of five years of imprisonment and penalty of fifty thousand rupees [approximately $770 USD]. If foreigners are found guilty; they will have to be deported within seven days after completing the imprisonment in third clause.

As of October 28, 2017, the conversion rate puts 104.05 Nepalese Rupee equal to 1 U.S. Dollar.  If you do the math, it’s obvious there’s something wrong with the penalty numbers in the quote above.  Fifty thousand rupees is about $481 US, while $770 US is about eighty thousand rupees.  Let’s assume the fifty thousand rupees is the correct number, and therefore the USD equivalent would be $481.

myrepublica.com reports the following for average income in Nepal:

Each Nepali earned US $ 862 (Rs 88,268) on average this fiscal year, up from US $ 757  the previous year.  Per capita income is projected to increase by 6.1 percent (at constant prices), according to the economic survey.

This means that the average annual income of each Nepali has doubled in the past 11 years. Each Nepali was earning US $ 414 per annum in 2006/07.  Growth in the industrial sector is  also at a record  10.97 percent, following a negative growth of 6.45 percent  last fiscal year. The service and agricultural sectors are projected to grow by 6.9 percent and 5.32 percent respectively. 

The conversion rate is slightly different from what we used above, due to the fact that the article was published about six months ago.  Using the current rate, that put the average income per person in Nepal at $848.  

Is the penalty really that high?

With the penalty at 50,000 rupees ($481), they have to pay 57% of their annual income if they are convicted of violating this new law.  That’s huge. 

We may need to adjust for the number of people in a household, since more than one person could be working.  According to data from the 2011 Nepal census, there are 4.88 people per household.  Given the number of children per household, that means just over 2 adults per household (average).  With an employment rate of about 80% and a female employment rate of only 15%, on average there is one wage earner per household.  Therefore, no adjustment is really necessary for the number of wage earners.

However, we must note that like most countries, there is a large disparity between the rich and the poor.  Therefore, the average is somewhat deceiving, since a significant number of households will fall below the level of 88,000 rupees ($848) per household.

Putting all of this together, it’s obvious that being fined for violating this new law will bring an extreme hardship to most Nepalese households.  The situation is even worse if the person convicted is the sole wage earner for the household.  Five years in prison would be devastating.

Clearly – while the amounts may seem small to many of us, this new law puts extremely dangerous “teeth” in the hands of the government prosecutors!

Why should we care if Nepal criminalizes religious conversion

What’s the big deal here?  Is this really a major concern?  Do most people care if Nepal criminalizes religious conversion?  Do you care?

Well, we should care.  Let’s start by looking at each of the minority religions in Nepal to see the impact of our title theme – Nepal criminalizes religious conversion.  In western countries, we tend to think of religious conversion as coming from talking to others about our religion.  As we’ll see later, that act of talking to others about our religion is what appears to be targeted in this new law.  But is that always true?  Do members of all religions talk to others to make their beliefs known?

Buddhism

It’s very difficult to find anything about Buddhists actively trying to convert others to their religion.  Maybe this excerpt from peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com explains why.

Buddhist evangelization? Look up the word evangelize. It means to preach the Gospel, to convert to Christianity. Even if we accept the word as being a synonym for “converting people to a religion”, there is no conversion per se in Buddhism. If you want, you can have a confirmation of your commitment to certain Buddhist teachings by seeking out someone who has been ordained in a particular form of Buddhism and taking the vows of refuge, but this is not like the Christian notion of baptism. Nor is it necessary to take such vows in order to practice Buddhism. Nor do you have to renounce being a Christian, Jew, or what not. At best, the only sensible interpretation of this quote is that people are attracted to Buddhism because of the perception that people are sincere and actually live their ideals (maybe we need the “by their fruits” quote again). Honestly, advertisement by example has always been the best way to promote any philosophy or religion, and if that is the indictment against Buddhism, it is really a compliment.

“The way Buddhists evangelize is by bringing peace to people so that in their peacefulness they’re prepared for the doctrines of Buddhism,” Clark said. “They really do preach by example.”

I take exception to the part about – Nor do you have to renounce being a Christian, Jew, or what not.  I believe this is a problem for any monotheistic religion.  But that’s for another day and another topic.  If you’d like to receive notification when it’s published, please sign up for email notifications or follow using one of the links at the top or bottom of this page.

The important thing here is that since Buddhists don’t actively talk to others about their religion, the chances of falling victim to the new law banning religious conversions is minimal, at best.

Islam

The quote below is from the introduction to Qur’an – The Final Testament;

With the advent of this Testament, God’s message to the world is now complete. We have now received the long-awaited answers to our most urgent questions—who we are, the purpose of our lives, how we came into this world, where do we go from here, which religion is the right one, was it evolution or creation, etc.  1)Khalifa Ph.D., Dr. Rashad. Quran – The Final Testament – Authorized English Version of the Original (Kindle Locations 67-69). . Kindle Edition.

Given that, we certainly expect to see something along the lines of telling Muslims they should get the message of the Qur’an out to the rest of the world.  There is a section of Suras in the Qur’an that makes this quite clear:

[39:38]  If you ask them, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” they will say, “GOD.” Say, “Why then do you set up idols beside GOD? If GOD willed any adversity for me, can they relieve such an adversity? And if He willed a blessing for me, can they prevent such a blessing?” Say, “GOD is sufficient for me.” In Him the trusters shall trust.

[39:39]  Say, “O my people, do your best and I will do my best; you will surely find out.

[39:40]  “(You will find out) who has incurred shameful punishment, and has deserved an eternal retribution.”

[39:41]  We have revealed the scripture through you for the people, truthfully. Then, whoever is guided is guided for his own good, and whoever goes astray goes astray to his own detriment. You are not their advocate.  2)Khalifa Ph.D., Dr. Rashad. Quran – The Final Testament – Authorized English Version of the Original (Kindle Locations 7634-7641). . Kindle Edition.

Therefore, expect this Nepal law banning religious conversion to be a problem.  The people in Nepal are certainly part of the world.

Kirant Mundhum

The excerpt below on Kirane Mundhum comes from religious-information.com.

The Kirant Mundhum Religion also known as the Kitati Mundhum and is the religion of the Kirat people of Nepal.

According to some scholars, such as Tom Woodhatch, it is a blend of animism, ancestor worship, Hinduism and Buddhism.

Mundhum or Kiranti Veda (also known as Peylan) is the religious scripture and folk literature of the Kirat people of Nepal and is central to Kirat Mundhum. Mundhum means “the power of great strength” in the Kirati languages. The Mundhum covers many aspects of the Kirat culture, customs and traditions that existed before Vedic civilization in South Asia.

The Mundhum for each tribe consists of customs, habits, rituals, traditions, and myths passed down from the Kirati tribe’s ancestors. The Mundhum also distinguishes each Kiranti tribe from other Kiranti and non-Kirantis as well.

Since this is a regional, ethnic and language based religion, trying to convert others from their current religion to the Kirant beliefs is probably not an issue.  I say this under the assumption that, from all appearances, someone would be born into it – and therefore no conversion is needed.

Christianity

For Christianity, this is a problem, given the Great Commission given to its followers:

The Great Commission

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

As was the case with Islam, the people in Nepal are definitely included in all nations.

Nepal is now a secular country

Nepal used to be the only officially Hindu country in the world.  As of the 2015 constitution, that’s no longer the case.  Nepal is now an officially secular country.  This should be a good thing for religious freedom, should it not?  

The English translation of the Nepal constitution is 266 pages!  It’s huge.  By comparison, the U.S. Constitution is a mere 4 pages, with an additional page for the Bill of Rights.

Here’s what the Nepal constitution says about being secular:

State of Nepal: (1) Nepal is an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secularinclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented, federal democratic republican state.

Explanation: For the purposes of this Article, “secular” means religious, cultural freedoms, including protection of religion, culture handed down from the time immemorial.

OK – this could be a problem already,  Having religious and cultural freedoms, while at the same time protecting the religion and culture that was handed down from time immemorial could be an issue.  Protecting one thing often comes at the expense of the freedoms related to another thing.  Let’s proceed, with that in mind.

What is causing fear for Christians and Muslims in Nepal’s law criminalizing religious conversion?

The word “religion” appears nearly 20 times in the English translation of the Nepal Constitution.  Let’s take a look at them.

Preamble

We, the Sovereign People of Nepal,

Protecting and promoting social and cultural solidarity, tolerance and harmony, and unity in diversity by recognizing the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural and diverse regional characteristics, resolving to build an egalitarian society founded on the proportional inclusive and participatory principles in order to ensure economic equality, prosperity and social justice, by eliminating discrimination based on class, caste, region, language, religion and gender and all forms of caste-based untouchability

Do hereby pass and promulgate this Constitution, through the Constituent Assembly, in
order to fulfil the aspirations for sustainable peace, good governance, development and
prosperity through the federal, democratic, republican, system of governance.

This all sounds great.  Well, maybe other than the inherent contradictions involved in claiming to be a federal, democratic, republican, system of governance.

Part 1

State of Nepal: (1) Nepal is an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented, federal democratic republican state.

Explanation: For the purposes of this Article, “secular” means religious, cultural freedoms, including protection of religion, culture handed down from the time immemorial.

We saw this before – since it’s the part that also contains secular.  Same issues apply here.

Part 3

Fundamental Rights and Duties

17. Right to freedom: (1) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty except in accordance with law.

(2) Every citizen shall have the following freedoms:

(a) freedom of opinion and expression,
(b) freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms,
(c) freedom to form political parties,
(d) freedom to form unions and associations,
(e) freedom to move and reside in any part of Nepal,
(f) freedom to practice any profession, carry on any occupation, and establish and operate any industry, trade and business in any part of
Nepal. 

Provided that:

(1) Nothing in sub-clause (a) shall be deemed to prevent the making of an Act to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality and independence of Nepal or the harmonious relations between the Federal Units or the people of various castes, tribes, religions or communities or incite castebased discrimination or untouchability or on any act of disrespect of labour, defamation, contempt of court, incitement to an offence or on any act which may be contrary to public decency or morality.

Freedom of opinion and expression, as well as harmonious relations between people of various castes, tribes, religions. as asking for a lot.  Throughout history, this appears to have been impossible.  Right or wrong – justified by religion or not – wars have been fought over and between religions.  Truth is, too many have been fought in the name of God – and God most likely had little or nothing to do with the actual cause of the war.  And while it’s all well and good to not want to have wars fought over religion – the question for our topic today is really over the phrase – impose reasonable restrictions.  The questions are over who gets to define what is reasonable, and when there are conflicts between different religions’ “rights and duties” who gets to decide which one takes precedence?

continuing with item 17:

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) shall be deemed to prevent the making of an Act to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality and independence of Nepal, constitute an espionage against the nation or divulge national secrecy or on any act of rendering assistance to any foreign state, organization or representative in a manner to undermine the security of Nepal or on an act of sedition or on any act which may undermine the harmonious relations between the Federal Units or on any act of incitement to caste-based or communal hatred or on any act which may undermine the harmonious relations between various castes, tribes, religions and communities, or on any act of acquisition of, or restriction on, membership of any political party on the basis solely of tribe, language, religion, community or sex or on any act of formation of a political party with discrimination between citizens or on incitement to violent acts or on any act which may be contrary to public morality.

This one is a bit longer, probably since it applies to political parties.  It’s problematic on at least two counts. 

(1) It has the same questions surrounding who gets to make decisions when conflicts arise.  Most likely, it’s going to be the party in power.  Given that over 80% of the population is Hindu, I think it’s pretty obvious where those decisions are going to come down. 

(2) Because of the nature of the religion and its beginnings with Muhammad, Islam tends towards a theocracy – where the government and religion are very tightly coupled.  This is obviously a problem with the Nepal constitution.  With a very small percentage of the population, and the declaration of a secular country, conflicts are pretty much guaranteed to come up.

staying with item 17:

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (d) shall be deemed to prevent the making of an Act to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality and independence of Nepal, or on any act which may constitute espionage against the nation or on any act of divulgence of national secrecy or on any act assisting any foreign state, organization or representative in a manner to undermine the security of Nepal or on an act of sedition or on any act which may undermine the harmonious relations between the Federal Units or on any act of incitement to caste-based or communal hatred or on any act which may undermine the harmonious relations between various castes, tribes, religions and communities or on incitement to violent acts or on any act which may be contrary to public morality.

Now we are into freedom to form unions and associations.  Since religions probably don’t have unions, this must be targeted at forming associations.  That could even be the religion itself, meaning the religion could be banned from meeting, having services, or even existing.  While this clause starts off with things like national secrecy and security, it ends with harmonious relations.  Anything – from one extreme to the other – could be cause for this statute being invoked.

still staying with item 17:

(5) Nothing in sub-clause (e) shall be deemed to prevent the making of an Act to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the interest of the general public or which may undermine the harmonious relations between the Federal Units or the harmonious relations between the peoples of various castes, tribes, religions or communities or which may constitute or incite violent acts.

This one is about the ability to move around, or even live in, Nepal.  That means it’s grounds for removal from the country!  And once again, harmonious relations is grounds for the statute being invoked.  There’s nothing to indicate where someone might be expelled to – but clearly the possibility of being removed from the territory of Nepal does exist.  Further, barring the lack of an appropriate place of expulsion, forcibly making someone live within a prescribed area of the country is also a viable and acceptable option available to the government.

As we can see, the Nepal Constitution gives a lot of rights at the beginning of item 17.  And then the government turns right around and gives itself the ability to take away a lot of those rights for things as subtle as “harmonious relations”.

We’re still in Section 3, moving to item 18:

18. Right to equality:

(1) All citizens shall be equal before law. No person shall be
denied the equal protection of law.

(2) No discrimination shall be made in the application of general laws
on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, physical condition, condition
of health, marital status, pregnancy, economic condition, language or region,
ideology or on similar other grounds.

(3) The State shall not discriminate citizens on grounds of origin,
religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, economic condition, language, region, ideology or
on similar other grounds.

Once again, we see the right to equality applies to everyone, just as the right to freedom did in item 17.

However, this is immediately followed by:

Provided that nothing shall be deemed to prevent the making of special provisions by law for the protection, empowerment or development of the citizens including the socially or culturally backward women, Dalit, indigenous people, indigenous nationalities, Madhesi, Tharu, Muslim, oppressed class, Pichhadaclass, minorities, the marginalized, farmers, labours, youths, children, senior citizens, gender and sexual minorities, persons with disabilities, persons in pregnancy, incapacitated or helpless, backward region and indigent Khas Arya. 

Explanation: For the purposes of this Part and Part 4, “indigent” means a person who earns income less than that specified by the Federal law.

Notice the list of those who can have special laws passed to protect them.  Given the location of this clause, it seems that these special protections can and will override the right to equality of the non-protected classes.  Hindus don’t need special protection, since they are the majority, by an extremely wide majority.  The one minority that’s left off this list is Christians.  Maybe this is why Muslims don’t seem to be anywhere near as concerned as Christians.  The appearance is given that Islam will be protected.  Christianity, even though it has a smaller percentage of the population than Islam, has no such expectation of protection.

We’re still in Section 3, moving to item 18:

19. Right to communication:

(1) No publication and broadcasting or dissemination or printing of any news item, editorial, feature article or other reading, audio and audio-visual material through any means whatsoever including electronic publication, broadcasting and printing shall be censored.

Once again, the appearance is given that freedom abounds.  There will be no censorship.

However, there is also the exception list:

Provided that nothing shall be deemed to prevent the making of Acts to impose reasonable restrictions on any act which may undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality of Nepal or the harmonious relations between the Federal Units or the harmonious relations between various castes, tribes, religions or communities, or on any act of sedition, defamation or contempt of court or incitement to an offence, or on any act which may be contrary to public decency or morality, on any act of hatred to labour and on any act of incitement to caste-based untouchability as well as gender discrimination.

And we see yet again that religions can be censored.

Still section 3, moving to item 26:

26. Right to freedom of religion:

(1) Every person who has faith in religion shall have the freedom to profess, practice and protect his or her religion according to his or her conviction.

(2) Every religious denomination shall have the right to operate and protect its religious sites and religious Guthi (trusts).

Provided that nothing shall be deemed to prevent the regulation, by making law, of the operation and protection of religious sites and religious trusts and management of trust properties and lands.

Rather than continue to put in separate sections, here is the give and the take-away together.  There is freedom of religion, except in the cases where the government decides there isn’t.  I believe that last sentence pretty much sums up what we’ve seen so far.

However – it gets worse:

(3) No person shall, in the exercise of the right conferred by this Article, do, or cause to be done, any act which may be contrary to public health, decency and morality or breach public peace, or convert another person from one religion to another or any act or conduct that may jeopardize other’s religion and such act shall be punishable by law.

This is the one that has Christians so worried.  Even with everything else we’ve seen so far, this is the one that brings out the real concern.  Remember what we read earlier:

The Great Commission

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The other things in the Nepal constitution are hardships and will undoubted cause problems.  But this clause about not being able to convert another person from one religion to another goes to the very core of the Great Commission.  However, the next part – or any act or conduct that may jeopardize other’s religion – means that even if a person from a non-Christian religion happens to ask a Christian about Christianity, the act of answering the question would put the Christian in violation of this part of the constitution.

Still section 3, on to item 29:

29. Right against exploitation:

(1) Every person shall have the right against exploitation.

(2) No person shall be exploited in any manner on the grounds of religion, custom, tradition, usage, practice or on any other grounds. (3) No one shall be subjected to trafficking nor shall one be held in slavery or servitude.

(4) No one shall be forced to work against his or her will. 

Provided that nothing shall be deemed to prevent the making of law empowering the State to require citizens to perform compulsory service for public purposes.

This item says that only the government can force people to do something that violates their religions beliefs.

Still section 3, on to item 38:

38. Rights of women:

(1) Every woman shall have equal lineage right without gender based discrimination.

(2) Every woman shall have the right to safe motherhood and reproductive health.

(3) No woman shall be subjected to physical, mental, sexual, psychological or other form of violence or exploitation on grounds of religion, social, cultural tradition, practice or on any other grounds. Such act shall be punishable by law, and the victim shall have the right to obtain compensation in accordance with law.

There are no exceptions listed here.  If you look at the census report in detail, this is badly needed.  Hopefully, this really does help women in the country.

Still section 3, on to item 50:

50. Directive principles:

(2) The social and cultural objective of the State shall be to build a civilized and egalitarian society by eliminating all forms of discrimination, exploitation and injustice on the grounds of religion, culture, tradition, usage, custom, practice or on any other similar grounds, to develop social, cultural values founded on national pride, democracy, pro-people, respect of labour, entrepreneurship, discipline, dignity and harmony, and to consolidate the national unity by maintaining social cohesion, solidarity and harmony, while recognizing cultural diversity.

This is all well and good, especially since there are no exceptions listed directly beneath it.  However, it’s really nothing but window dressing and nice talking points.  There are so many exceptions included in the Nepal constitution already that this section, as it pertains to religion, has no meaning.  The government has given itself every possible opportunity to discriminate against both Islam and Christianity, because of all the exceptions.  But, as noted above, there is one clause that appears to give Muslims an exception to the exceptions – meaning that they might not be as heavily prosecuted for violations, if at all.

Still section 3, on to item 51:

51. Policies of the State:

The State shall pursue the following policies:

(a) Policies relating to national unity and national security:

(1) to keep intact the national unity, while protecting the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Nepal,

(2) to promote the national unity while developing mutual cooperative relations between the Federal Units by maintaining mutual cohesion, harmony and solidarity between various castes, tribes, religions, languages, cultures and communities,

(3) to maintain law and order by developing a national security system,

Putting national unity and national security together shows both the importance of unity, and the impossibility of the task they are trying to accomplish.  Castes, tribe, religions, cultures, Etc. are hard enough to unify when talking about only two of them.  But to do all of these together at the same time, that feels like too much.  Furthermore, when it’s considered part of national security, it escalates the possible penalties and punishments to an incredibly high level.

I’m not saying these aren’t important goals to try to work towards.  But I am saying that with this method of achieving them, and with these extreme penalties, and the conflicts inherent with multiple religions and government – official government discrimination almost certainly will take place.  Further, I’m saying it’s quite clear who the target of said discrimination will be.  It’s going to be Christians to the greatest extent, and probably Muslims to a lesser degree.

moving to 51 (c):

(c) Relating to social and cultural transformation:

(5) to end all forms of discrimination, inequality, exploitation and injustice in the name of religion, custom, usage, practice and tradition existing in the society,

Maybe it’s accidental, but clause is very telling.  It talks about removing discrimination practice and tradition existing in the society.  It says nothing about removing discrimination by the government.  In fact, as we saw already, the government is more than willing to do its own discrimination in order to try to get rid of societal discrimination.  This begs the obvious question – is there really any difference?

Conclusion

There are other problems with the Nepal constitution, to be sure.  What I’ve brought up doesn’t even cover everything related to religion.  We didn’t look at variations of the word religion.  We also cannot (at least at this time) look at other laws passed in conjunction with the recent decision.  They just can’t be found on any official government web site – at least not in English.

We’ve only looked at the issue of conversion from one religion to another.  We also saw that while it’s now illegal to begin a discussion of one’s own religion, it’s very likely that someone could also be in violation simply by answering a question.  In the U. S. we have protection from entrapment – like where an undercover law enforcement official would ask a known Christian about their religion, and then arrest them for answering the question.  No such protection appears to exist in Nepal.

While this article only covers Nepal, the same thing is happening in other countries as well.  For sure, we’ll be looking at China.  In the process of researching this article, I found the same / similar situations in other southeast Asian countries like Myanmar.  Of course, this begs the question for everyone – if we don’t have it already, when will this kind of thing be coming to our neighborhood?

If it’s not cause for concern yet, it should be.  Before it’s too late.


If you’ve made it this far, I have to assume this topic has been of interest to you.  To get notified when there are more articles like this, please follow the site using one of the social media buttons below or the email subscription button at the top right of the page.

References   [ + ]

1. Khalifa Ph.D., Dr. Rashad. Quran – The Final Testament – Authorized English Version of the Original (Kindle Locations 67-69). . Kindle Edition.
2. Khalifa Ph.D., Dr. Rashad. Quran – The Final Testament – Authorized English Version of the Original (Kindle Locations 7634-7641). . Kindle Edition.

Please leave a comment or ask a question - it's nice to hear from you.

Scroll to Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close

I footnotes