Does religion promote freedom and tolerance? It is a question that might be asked by any observer of the rioting that has followed publication of cartoons in Denmark that offend Muslims worldwide.
It is a question the United States government must be asking itself. After all, a linchpin of the war on terrorism has been the president’s determination to advance democratic norms around the world. While the media inundate the public with tales of roadside bombing woe and officialdom sticks to the line that democratic renewal is proceeding apace, few take the time to really look at what is emerging.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have new constitutions. Both are superficially modeled on the United States Constitution. Both give not only a preeminent position to the majority Muslim faith, but also give the Koran a veto power over civil legislation. And in Iraq in particular, the religious leaders have become the true arbiters of power. 
Perhaps it is not coincidental that in Afghanistan the Taliban is on the comeback trail. Perhaps there is a reason that so many of the million or so Iraqi Christians have left the new Iraq.
It seems to me that a basic flaw here is the assumption that the majority will always act in concert with democratic values. The Founders of the United States Constitution did not share that assumption. That was why they muted pure democracy by a principle of representative government, a complicated system of checks and balances, and the overall restraint of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, with its distancing of religion from state power.
I have to believe that most Muslims around the world are embarrassed by the at times violent reaction to the cartoons—even if they share the sense of insult. For most of them, Islam is indeed a religion of peace. I want to believe that, even as I am reminded that with any religion worth committing one’s life to there is a sense of privilege over lesser belief systems. And when true adherents are granted a degree of secular power, they do not easily share its benefits equally.
For 100 years this magazine has argued for the necessity of a separation between church and state. Of course individuals can often practice their faith conviction adequately within a system that does not have a bright line divide between church and state. But without a clear separation, the prerogatives of church and state, spiritual allegiance and public duty either conflict or cojoin. And while most of the developing Western clichés about Islam are either dead wrong or dangerous extrapolations, one thing is unarguably true: separation of church and state is incomprehensible to Islamic norms. This fact alone means that intolerance, extremism, and even violent expression—all present to some degree on the fringes, at least, of any “serious” faith persuasion—can easily leap the species barrier between private expression and state policy.
Far be it from me or this magazine to pretend to know how to rein in the most dangerous manifestations of Islam or any other religion. (When invoking “dangerous manifestations,” we should realize that much of the Islamic world still smarts in memory of the largely unjustified Crusades.) That is the work of nations, and of responsible communities. I only know that joining church and state is the surest way to give life to religious intolerance and bring an end to the freedom of religious minorities everywhere.
Writing these editorials is sometimes an exercise in shadowboxing against potential attacks—even friendly fire. I am well aware that for some the word “tolerance” is out of line when discussing religious liberty. To tolerate implies a certain dislike of the other, even if you grant them the right to exist and practice a faith. And what is tolerated now can be easily disallowed on a pretext if it is not legally protected, from a point of respect.
We are right to suspect mere tolerance. Yet, in some instances it may be the best we can hope for. The academic, the nominally religious, and the few moved by a deeply held compassion for others may move beyond it and grant all, as God does, the right to hold whatever faith view they will. Unfortunately the majority cannot be presumed to be more than a mix of tolerant and intolerant, according to the provocation of the moment. Therefore, unless religion is off the table for civil powers, even a democracy is capable of projecting gross intolerance or worse.
Back to where we started: the infamous cartoons. Someone seeking to avoid offending Islam might not have wanted to caricature its prophet—especially if they knew its prohibitions against visual representations. Islam is probably right to feel offended and to see at the very least a disregard for their sensibilities. Where the demonstrators, the embassy burners, the clerics who call for revenge killing, err is in demanding that their norms be adhered to by all others. Certainly they would have more than cause to resist if Buddhists insisted that all Muslims bow to the Lord Buddha, or if they were denied the right to say what they do about Judaism.
In recent years various religious communities have joined some very productive dialogue on the often contentious issue of proselytism. There is regular friction between faith groups over the mechanism whereby individuals are able to change their faith identification in response to information from another group. What has emerged is a well-intentioned but problematic requirement that all groups refrain from attacking or misrepresenting others. This is far too subjective and easily restricts the marketplace of ideas.
I believe this thinking has influenced authorities in my birthplace of Australia. They recently sentenced a Christian evangelist to a lengthy prison term after a Muslim attendee at one of his meetings objected to his comparing Bible passages to passages from the Koran. A judge said that it was immaterial whether his points were true or not; all that mattered was that it offended.
In Canada a judge recently opined that it would be a civil offense to repeat, even without comment, certain biblical passages condemning homosexual behavior. The point is that there is an inherent offense regardless of intent or the rights of the person to project their religious point of view.
Here in the United States I have heard it said by national media that to believe otherwise on certain hot-button moral agenda items is to be non-Christian, anti-American, and even pro-terrorist.
As I write this the demonstrations and violence sparked by the cartoons are still escalating. One can only pray that tempers will subside and some sense of faith dignity wins out. We can all regret the insensitivity that led to this. But insensitivity itself is not a new problem. And neither is the religious intolerance or religious violence that flows from it. May we have the global wit to work toward keeping church and state separated. In their union the worst impulses of what we are now witnessing can only be institutionalized.
Lincoln E. Steed
Editor,
Liberty Magazine
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend