Where are the voices of God when children are deported?

A silence that demands answers from religious authorities in the face of the Ukrainian tragedy

History sometimes requires people of faith to do more than pray. It demands that they speak out, stand together to protect the powerless, and not hesitate to denounce injustice. At the very least, it asks them not to look away. The case of Ukraine's children is one such moment.

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, tens of thousands of children have been deported to Russia and its occupied territories. The European Union puts the figure at more than 20,500. In March 2026, a UN commission described these acts as crimes against humanity. As early as December 2025, the UN General Assembly had called on Russia to return all these children safely and unconditionally, while ending forced adoptions, indoctrination, and changes of identity.

So, the question inevitably arises: where are the great religious voices of the world?

This is not about pointing to complete inaction. The Vatican has been active. Pope Francis pushed the Holy See to find ways to bring the children home, and Cardinal Zuppi made this a central focus of his humanitarian mission. Before the United Nations, it was stressed that this was a matter of justice, not politics. That must be acknowledged.

But I ask: why has this not become a major interfaith cause? Why do we not hear, every day, from Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist institutions that these children must be brought home? Should there not be a clear, unequivocal global declaration: “Return the children to their families.”

The religions have already given us the answer. There is no need to invent some theological justification. The foundational texts already speak with a clarity that should leave us deeply unsettled.

Christianity: the child is Christ

In the Gospel of Mark (9:37), Jesus places a child among his disciples and says: “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” This is a spiritual responsibility before it is an act of compassion.

Matthew 25 goes even further in its radical message: what we fail to do for the least among us, we fail to do for Him.

This raises a fundamental question for the Church when faced with a child torn away from his or her family: prayer is necessary, but according to the Gospel, inaction is not neutral.

Judaism does not tolerate indifference

The Torah is unambiguous. Leviticus 19:16 commands us not to stand idly by when the blood of our fellow human being is at stake. The Talmud understands this as an obligation to come to the aid of someone in danger. Jewish tradition teaches that whoever saves one life saves an entire world.

Faced with thousands of children separated from their families, how can a rabbi remain silent?

This is not about turning rabbis into diplomats. It is about asking them to be what their tradition calls them to be: defenders of life.

Islam does not forget the oppressed

The Qur'an is equally clear. Verse 75 of Surah An-Nisa asks why believers do not act on behalf of the vulnerable men, women and children who cry out: “Our Lord, take us out of this city whose people are oppressors.”

The reference to children as vulnerable people in need of help is explicit. The Qur'an also places particular emphasis on the obligation toward orphans, considering it good and just to care for them.

So religious authorities throughout the Muslim world should listen to this question: When children are torn from their families, forcibly displaced and stripped of their identity, where is the religious voice demanding that they be returned?

This is not a question of nationality. Nor is it a call for Muslims to take sides in a military conflict. It is a matter of defending children, and these are precisely the vulnerable children referred to in the sacred text.

Buddhism: compassion cannot be merely contemplative

According to its teachings, Buddhism offers a vision of compassion of remarkable universality.

The Karaniya Metta Sutta calls for loving-kindness toward all beings, whether weak or strong. It goes so far as to invoke the image of a mother who would not hesitate to put her own life at risk for her only child. This is a fundamental image. A mother protects her child, she does not first ask about the child's religion or nationality; she protects.

So, the great Buddhist institutions must also answer this question: can compassion remain at the level of meditation when children are separated from their parents?

This is where we find a shared responsibility across four religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Each has its own theology, history and traditions. Yet they converge on one fundamental principle: the imperative to protect the vulnerable child. That is precisely what makes the religious silence so difficult to understand.

The danger of “neutrality”

Today, it often takes the form of a strange kind of caution. We speak of peace, dialogue, reconciliation, ceasefires, and the suffering of humanity. Yet, in our determination not to offend anyone, we sometimes end up failing to name those who are suffering.

Peace does not mean that all responsibilities are equal.

We can call for a ceasefire and condemn deportations; we can seek reconciliation without asking victims to forget what happened to them.

In other words, we can be politically neutral without being morally neutral. and that is precisely where the danger lies.

A child is not an instrument of war

A child is not a prisoner, a trophy, a tool for changing the demographics of a territory, or a blank page on which a state can rewrite a national identity. Nor is a child an object of indoctrination.

When a child is separated from their parents, given another citizenship, or placed with another family, we move beyond a humanitarian issue and into the realm of human dignity. The European Union has documented such cases involving Ukrainian children, including adoption and changes of identity.

So why are the great religions not speaking with one voice? This is the heart of my appeal.

Why do we not see a global coalition of religious authorities dedicated to the return of Ukrainian children?

Why should the Pope, the Chief Rabbis, Orthodox Patriarchs, Protestant leaders, Buddhist representatives and other religious authorities not issue a joint declaration?

A declaration that would say nothing about NATO, borders or weapons.

A declaration that would not attempt to settle the war.

A declaration that would simply state an obvious truth:

“A child must be returned to his or her family. A child must not be deported or politically instrumentalized. A child must not be used as an instrument of power or subjected to re-education designed to erase his or her identity. Ukraine's children must be allowed to return home.”

And now I have a question for religious leaders I would be failing in my responsibility if I did not ask this question publicly to religious leaders around the world.

You have moral authority, you have your communities, you have your places of worship,  you have your networks; You have the ability to speak to millions of people, and, let us not forget, you have your own sacred texts.

So what are you waiting for?

What are you waiting for to make the return of Ukrainian children a major religious cause?

What are you waiting for to meet their families?

What are you waiting for to demand that the Russian authorities identify and locate every child so that they can return to their families?

What are you waiting for to make this a central issue in your interfaith meetings?

Faith cannot be reduced to words

Religious leaders would do well to reflect on this. Prayer without action risks becoming nothing more than a form of comfort.

Faced with the suffering of a child, faith must become protection.

Faced with separation from parents, it must find a voice.

Faced with the loss of identity, it must become moral resistance.

Faced with deportation, it must become a demand for justice.

Let us return to our own traditions.

Christianity teaches us to protect the least among us.

Judaism rejects indifference to the blood of another.

Islam calls for the defense of the vulnerable, including children.

Buddhism teaches universal compassion, like that of a mother toward her child.

So the question is no longer what the religions say.

The question is what those who speak in their name do.

One final question

In a few decades, historians will look back on this period. They will examine the sanctions, the diplomats, the UN resolutions, the decisions of governments. They will also examine the attitude of religious leaders, and they will ask:

“What did those men and women, who had devoted their lives to human dignity, do when thousands of children were torn away from their families?”

We would be far better placed to answer they acted, they refused to remain silent, they demanded the children's return.