Home Office cites Bible to deny asylum
The Home Office refused asylum to an Iranian who converted from Islam to Christianity because, it said, Christianity was not a peaceful religion.
Immigration officials wrote to the man, who had converted to Christianity on the ground that it was a peaceful religion, citing violent passages from the Bible to support their claim.
They said that the Book of Revelation was ‘‘filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence’’.
The Church of England condemned the ‘‘lack of religious literacy’’ after the man said that he now faced persecution in Iran for his faith. Church officials called for a ‘‘serious overhaul’’ of Home Office policies.
The letter cited a passage from Leviticus in the Old Testament, which says: ‘‘You will pursue your enemies and they will fall by the sword before you.’’ It also referenced chapter ten of Matthew’s gospel, in which Jesus says: ‘‘I came not to send peace, but a sword.’’
It said: ‘‘These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.’’
Nathan Stevens, an immigration caseworker who is also a Christian and is helping the unnamed asylum seeker with his appeal, shared the letter and said he was shocked by ‘‘this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum’’.
‘‘Whatever your views on faith,’’ he said, ‘‘how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith?’’
The Bishop of Durham, the Right Rev Paul Butler, said in a statement shared on Twitter by the Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘‘I am extremely concerned that a government department could determine the future of another human being based on such a profound misunderstanding of the texts and practices of faith communities. To use extracts from the Book of Revelation to argue that Christianity is a violent religion is like arguing that a government report on the impact of climate change is advocating drought and flooding.’’
A spokesman for the Home Office, which could not confirm whether the official who sent the letter had been reprimanded, said: ‘‘This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith.
‘‘We continue to work closely with key partners ... to improve our policy guidance and training provided to asylum decision-makers so that we approach claims involving religious conversion in the appropriate way.’’
The bishop said: ‘‘The fact that these comments were made at all suggests the problem goes deeper than a lack of religious literacy among individual civil servants and indicates that the management structures and ethos of the Home Office, when dealing with cases with a religious dimension, need serious overhaul.’’
Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society said that asylum decisions should be based on facts, adding: ‘‘It’s not the role of the Home Office to play theologian.’’
Campaigners have complained of a ‘‘culture of disbelief’’ among officials dealing with asylum claims based on religious conversion.
A 2016 report from the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief said that Christian asylum seekers and converts were being asked ‘‘Bible trivia’’ questions. It warned that questions from crib sheets were a ‘‘very poor way of assessing a conversion asylum claim’’ and could result in wrong decisions and expensive appeals.
A report published yesterday by the Commons home affairs committee accused the Home Office of showing a ‘‘shockingly cavalier’’ attitude towards immigration detention, including a lack of sufficient judicial safeguards and failings when dealing with individual cases.
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: ‘‘Detention is an important part of our immigration system – but it must be fair, humane and used only when absolutely necessary.’’
She added that most people detained were held only for ‘‘short periods’’ and that such people could not by law be held indefinitely.
‘‘I am extremely concerned that a government department could determine the future of another human being based on such a profound misunderstanding of the texts and practices of faith communities.’’
Right Rev Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham,