Liberation from Economic Oppression: A Human Right or a Moral Obligation of Faith?

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr. 

            A comment to last week’s blog on De oppresso liber prompted this question:  Can the poor and needy be liberated from economic oppression with social and economic human rights, much like those suffering political oppression can be liberated by civil and political rights?

            First, a distinction should be made between human rights and the moral obligations of faith.  All the ancient scriptures make it a moral obligation of faith to care for the poor and needy (e.g. widows and orphans), but there is no mention of human rights.  But can the moral obligation of faith to care for the poor and needy be made into a legal right?  Yes.  Many nations have created welfare programs that do just that; but there is a real problem making public welfare laws into universal human rights.

            The problem is that universal human rights must be based on a clear and unambiguous standard to be enforceable, and social and economic (public welfare) rights do not meet that criteria since they depend upon a nation’s economic capability to provide them.  Even so, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966) purports to define universal economic and social human rights for the poor and needy.  It complements The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) which defines civil and political (or libertarian) human rights that prevent political oppression.  The difference is that the rights of the ICCPR are universally enforceable, while those of the ICESCR are not.

            Craig A. Stern has described the economic and social rights of ICESCR as positive human rights and the civil and political rights of the ICCPR as negative human rights.  In the context of East Africa, Stern points out that the entitlements of ICESCR cannot be enforced, thus undermining respect for the rule of law and degrading the concept of human rights (see Notes).

            Economic and social benefits for the poor and needy are more like aspirational political objectives than legal rights, and most nations have laws and policies that provide economic and social benefits.  The U.S. Social Security program is in that category, as are Medicare, Medicaid and the new Affordable Care Act; but they are clearly beyond the capability of most nations and therefore could not be enforced as universal human rights.

            Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explains why nations with a high poverty rate, like those in Africa, favor positive economic and social rights over negative civil and political rights.  The emphasis of Western libertarian democracies on libertarian human rights reflects their relative prosperity and ability to provide adequate welfare programs for their poor and needy.

            Political sentiment in the U.S. does not favor extensive public welfare benefits, since any government program represents an encroachment of individual rights, and there has always been an extensive network of charities providing assistance for the poor and needy.  But changes in the economy and demographics since 2008 are forcing the U.S. and other libertarian democracies to balance individual rights with providing for the common good, including public welfare benefits for those who have fallen out of a shrinking middle class.

              The real test of a nation’s faith is whether its people choose to live by the voluntary moral obligations of their faith rather than by the coercive standards of the law.  The law necessarily restricts freedom, but it is also necessary to protect our freedoms, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech.  In Islamic democracies such as Egypt, those freedoms are denied by apostasy and blasphemy laws that are part of Islamic law (Shari’a), which also denies women and religious minorities the equal protection of the law.  Those fundamental freedoms are in the ICCPR, and where they are denied by religious laws, as in Egypt, religion exacerbates poverty.

            The comment to last week’s blog raised the question whether U.S. foreign policy liberates people from economic oppression or contributes to it.  That depends upon one’s perspective.  Capitalism and free enterprise are an essential outgrowth of economic freedom, but they can be as oppressive as they are liberating.  The unrestrained greed and competition that fuels capitalism can be oppressive, but free enterprise is essential to economic opportunity and prosperity.  The challenge for libertarian democracy is to balance political and economic freedom with government regulations that prevent economic oppression and the exploitation of the poor.  That is a delicate balancing act that will be different for different nations.

            The opposing philosophies of Ayn Rand’s self-centered objectivism and the altruistic and communal principles of Judaism, Christianity and Islam illustrate the challenge for libertarian democracies in an age when individual rights are undermining traditional communal values.    Wall Street capitalists are more objectivist and individualistic than altruistic or communal, with the average CEO now earning almost 300 times the salary of the average worker.  If that trend is not corrected the declining middle class could be the death-knell of libertarian democracy.

            The solution is not religious or secular law to mandate equality, but people of faith who voluntarily exercise their political and economic freedom with compassion for the poor and needy.  The greatest commandment to love God and neighbor as oneself puts love over law.  If people of faith could live by that principle they may not completely eliminate poverty but they could liberate many of the poor and needy from economic oppression.                       

Notes and References to Resources:

  

Related blogs at Blog/Archives are Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; Love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, posted January 18, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; Wealth, Politics, Religion and Economic Justice, posted March 8, 2015; and Faith as a source of morality and law: the heart of legitimacy, posted April 12, 2015. 

See Craig A. Stern, Human Rights or the Rule of Law—the Choice for East Africa, SSRN, March 6, 2015, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574823.  Accord, see Mark R. Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories and Cases in Global Politics, Third Edition, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, pp 95-102, cited in Barnes, Religion,Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at  page 10 and note 26 (and other cites therein).   

Harkristi Harkrisnowo is a Muslim lawyer, professor and Director General for Human Rights in the Indonesian Ministry of Justice, who emphasized the need to distinguish between legal rights and political aspirations.  See Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at page 16 and note 61.

De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            De oppresso liber: To liberate the oppressed.  That’s the motto of the U.S. Army Special Forces, but it has a Biblical origin, relating to those Jews who were liberated from exile in Babylon and returned to the Holy Land around 538 BCE (see Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1).  Later Jesus read those words from Isaiah in his hometown synagogue to initiate his ministry (Luke 4:18-19).  During the proxy wars of the Cold War those same words became the battle cry of activist Catholic priests who supported Communist insurgencies in Latin America and who were, ironically, often opposed by U.S. Army Special Forces.

            De oppresso liber is where religion and politics--and often violence--intersect.  Religion can be oppressive: Judaism conducted holy wars, Christianity gave us the Crusades and Inquisitions, and Islamism now motivates ISIS jihadists.  But religion can also be a liberating force when it supports democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  There is no substitute for military force to counter Islamist violence, but lasting freedom from religious and political oppression requires democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.

            Secular law, when grounded in civil and political human rights, provides liberty in law, but without human rights the law can be a source of oppression in the hands of authoritarian rulers; and democracy without human rights to protect minorities can produce a tyranny of the majority.  For religion to be a liberating force, it must promote the freedom of believers to rule themselves and make their own laws rather than be subject to ancient religious laws like those of apostasy and blasphemy; and that individual freedom must be balanced with a collective responsibility to care for the poor and needy.   

            Following the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring in the Middle East there are mixed signals on the relationship between Islam, democracy and human rights.  Initial indications were that Muslims preferred human rights to authoritarian rule, but except for Tunisia, libertarian democracy in that region has been stillborn, perhaps because Islam does not recognize libertarian human rights and makes no distinction between religion and politics.  Apostasy and blasphemy laws intended to protect Islam are used by authoritarian regimes to stifle political opposition.

            

            The freedoms of religion and speech are first among the fundamental freedoms of any libertarian democracy, but they are prohibited by apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic regimes that legitimize hatred for those who leave Islam or criticize it.  In Bangladesh, Muslim secularists have been hacked to death (see  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/12/bangladeshi-secular-blogger-ananta-bijoy-das-hacked-to-death-in-third-fatal-attack-this-year/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1), and in Great Britain they are threatened or shunned by other Muslims (see http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/may/17/losing-their-religion-british-ex-muslims-non-believers-hidden-crisis-faith).

            It is easy for modern Americans and Europeans to forget that religion was an oppressive force in their cultures before the Enlightenment of the 18^th century.  Apostasy and blasphemy laws prevailed in Puritan New England, and the divine right to rule and religious wars were the norm in Europe.  The Enlightenment transformed religion and politics with advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian ideals, and in less than 100 years the ideals of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law had transformed Western religious and political culture.  But those libertarian ideals had little influence in the tribal cultures of the Middle East and Africa, where Islamic law (shari’a) denies women and religious minorities equal protection of the law, and apostasy and blasphemy laws prevent any freedom of religion or expression,.

           

            Liberating the oppressed is as much a moral imperative of faith today as it was 2,500 years ago, but the world has changed, and religions must adapt to be relevant.  Democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law were not options in the ancient world, but they are essential to liberating the oppressed from religious and political bondage today.  Such liberation requires that religious standards of legitimacy are considered voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws.  Freedom is incompatible with coercive religious laws, and apostasy and blasphemy laws must be eliminated to allow the freedoms of religion and speech.   

            Ancient Mosaic Law and shari’a served a purpose for their time and place.  Only by invoking the authority of God’s law were Moses, Joshua and Muhammad able to lead their people.  Today most Jews and Christians do not consider religious laws as obligatory standards of legitimacy, but most Muslims in Islamic cultures still consider shari’a to be obligatory law. 

            The greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself can be a liberating principle of faith, and it was offered by Muslim scholars to Christians as a common word of faith.  If love of one’s neighbor as oneself—even an apostate neighbor—were made a foundational principle of Islam it would give democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law precedence over conflicting provisions of shari’a.  That liberating principle of love over law would free Muslims from the oppression of apostasy and blasphemy laws.

Notes and References to Resources:

See Blog/Archives for related blogs: Religion and Reason, posted December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, posted December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, posted January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? Posted January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, posted March 29, 2015; and Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, posted April 12, 2015. 

On Jesus quoting de oppresso liber from Isaiah to announce his mission, see Liberation at p. 385 of the J&M Book.

Liberty in law is taken from the lyrics of the patriotic hymn by Katherine Lee Bates, America the Beautiful: Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.

The parable of the good Samaritan in Luke’s version of the greatest commandment defines an apostate Samaritan as a good neighbor to a wounded Jew (Luke 10:25-37).

Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            In April posters appeared on NYC subways and buses with a young man in a checkered headscarf and the words, Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah, followed by That’s His Jihad.  What’s Yours?  It was not sponsored by radical Muslims but by the pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), headed by Pamela Geller.  The Metropolitan Transportation Authority tried to prohibit the ads, but a U.S. District judge ruled with Geller and held that the ads were protected by the First Amendment freedom of speech.

            A few weeks later two Muslim gunmen were killed after they opened fire at a Texas competition to draw the prophet Muhammad.  The event was sponsored by Geller’s AFDI, and like the NYC posters it was considered protected by the freedom of speech, even though violence could have been anticipated.  Because of these and other anti-Muslim activities sponsored by the AFDI, the Southern Poverty Law Center considers it a hate group.

            The activities of Geller’s AFDI have certainly pressed the limits of the freedom of speech.  They were clearly intended to antagonize and likely to provoke violence among Muslims who do not have an appreciation of how the freedom of speech allows blasphemy, and it raises the issue of whether there should be limits to the freedom of speech beyond yelling fire in a crowded theater.  But beyond legal arguments, there is the moral responsibility to limit our freedom of expression to avoid offending others.

            The greatest commandment instructs Jews and Christians to love God and to love their neighbors as themselves.  The two commandments were taken from the Hebrew Bible and taught by Jesus as the most important of all commandments, and affirmed by Muslims as a common word of faith.  The version in Luke’s gospel is the most relevant since in it Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan in answer to the question, Who is my neighbor? In it the good neighbor to the wounded Jew was a Samaritan, who was considered by Jews to be a detested apostate.

            The greatest commandment reflects the primacy of love over law that restrains legal rights with moral responsibilities.  Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have standards of legitimacy as religious norms of what is right, and to be compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law those religious norms must be voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws.  That is the case in the libertarian democracies of the West, but not so in the tribal cultures of the Islamic East, where apostasy and blasphemy laws preclude human rights.

            Religions in libertarian democracies must rely on moral restraints to limit the legal right to speak freely.  Christians are admonished to tame the tongue: “It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison…Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing.” (James 3:8-10)  In like manner Michael Gerson has characterized blasphemous acts that are protected by the freedom of speech as immoral and urged restraint in exercising the freedom of speech:

There is no contradiction between First Amendment absolutism and a moral commitment to the cultivation of mutual respect among the Abrahamic faiths (and outside them).  Just as there is no inconsistency between the vigorous defense of the United States against terrorists and a respectful engagement with Islam.  They are, in fact, inseparable.

            Gerson asserts that “high profile, attention-seeking acts of blasphemy” directed against Islam can undermine U.S. efforts against al-Qaeda and ISIS, since those terrorist groups “…thrive on the narrative of West vs. Islam.”  He notes that “both Judaism and Christianity have made progress over the centuries…interpreting their violent scriptural texts and finding resources of respect for the other.”  That progress culminated in the Enlightenment of the 17^th century in the West when reason gained an equal voice with religion and put human rights and man-made law over religious law, but that did not happen in the Islamic East where Shari’a continues to reign supreme.  See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-radical-necessity-of-loving-thy-neighbor/2015/05/11/70db588e-f807-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

            David Ignatius sees psychology rather than religion at the heart of Mideast violence and recommends freedom as “the most potent weapon against the ‘viral’ jihadist narrative on Arab social media.”  Freedom is the same weapon needed to counter religious fundamentalism.  See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-islamic-state-antidote/2015/05/12/68ae72ce-f8dc-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

            The freedoms of religion and speech are the best antidotes for Islamist extremism, whether its roots are psychological or religious—or most likely, both; but as illustrated by AFDI those freedoms can be abused and actually incite such extremism.  The problem can be resolved if people of faith restrain their legal right to the freedom of expression with their moral responsibility to love God and their neighbors as themselves—even their unbelieving neighbors.  

Notes and References to Resources:

See Blog/Archives at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ for the following blogs related to this topic: Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, posted December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, posted January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, posted January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? posted January 25, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, posted March 15, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, posted April 12,2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, posted May 10, 2015.      

On the central role of legitimacy in faith, see the Introduction at pages 10, 11 in The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: TheHeart of Legitimacy.

Religion, Human Rights and National Security

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

Religious fundamentalism can lead to hate and violence and become a threat to national security where there is no tolerance of religious differences.  The violence of al Qaeda and ISIS is fueled by sectarian differences that could be defused by the freedoms of religion and speech.  The U.S. should promote those fundamental freedoms to help create a climate of religious tolerance in the Middle East and Africa that could minimize the threat of Islamist terrorism.

President Obama has vacillated on promoting the freedoms of religion and expression as a priority for U.S. national security policy.  He has considered those fundamental freedoms as worthy ideals, but not given them serious consideration as a means to counter Islamic violence and terrorism.  That reasoning should be reconsidered.       

The best long-term defense against the violence of Islamist extremism is to promote the tolerance of sectarian differences in Islamic cultures.  That does not obviate the need for effective short-term defenses to protect lives and property from sectarian violence, but U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq has proven that military force is not a solution, and may well be an aggravating factor for the religious hate and violence that plagues Islamic cultures.

Apostasy and blasphemy laws encourage sectarian violence by preventing any real freedom of religion or speech.  Promoting those fundamental freedoms in Islamic cultures should be a primary strategic objective of U.S. national security policy; and the first step in promoting such a policy should be to cease providing security assistance to nations that enforce apostasy and blasphemy laws, like Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Such a policy change would likely create issues similar to those surrounding the Leahy Amendment, which bars U.S. aid to train or equip foreign troops who commit gross human rights violations.  In March, 2013, Admiral William H. McRaven told Congress that the Leahy law complicated the ability of the U.S. to train and equip foreign security forces fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  It illustrates how conflicting standards of legitimacy can pit tactical and operational objectives against strategic objectives.  At the operational level U.S. trainers and advisors must gain the trust and confidence of their indigenous counterparts to accomplish their mission, but ignoring violations of fundamental human rights for the sake of operational expediency is counterproductive to strategic objectives.

Compliance with fundamental human rights, including the freedoms of religion and expression, should be a requirement for U.S. security assistance, but an exception should be made for those governments fighting Islamist terrorism that cannot provide the essentials of law and order, such as those in Libya, Kenya, Mali and the Central African Republic.  But all assisted governments should be required to build their rule of law on a foundation of fundamental human rights consistent with those in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which includes the freedoms of religion and expression.

            The Cairo Declaration subjects the human rights of ICCPR to Islamic Law, or Shari’a, giving Shari’a precedence over international human rights law.  Apostasy and blasphemy laws are part of Shari’a and are analogous to treason in secular law, but since there is no distinction between religion and politics in Islam, regimes like Egypt have used blasphemy laws to stifle political as well as religious criticism.  It should be expected that U.S. allies like Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan will oppose any U.S. policies that promote the freedoms of religion and speech in Islamic cultures.

            It is a strategic dilemma with daunting operational consequences, as illustrated by our experience with the Leahy amendment.  Promoting fundamental human rights can conflict with local standards of legitimacy in Islamic cultures, but the freedoms of religion and speech are necessary to defuse sectarian violence and promote justice in the Middle East and Africa.

            President Obama has been ambiguous on the role of Islam in the terrorism of al Qaeda and ISIS, and on the priority of human rights in national security policy.  That ambiguity must be dispelled to counter the religious hate and violence that motivates radical Islamic terrorists; and the clarification of U.S. national security policy should begin with terminating aid to any regime that uses apostasy and blasphemy laws to stifle religious or political criticism.

Notes and References to Resources:

On related blogs, see Faith and Freedom, posted December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, posted December 29, 2014; Religion and Human Rights, posted February 22, 2015; and A Fundamental Problem with Religion, posted May 3, 2015.

On the ambiguity of President Obama on human rights in U.S. foreign policy, see the editorial in the Washington Post, Trouble at the core of U.S. foreign policy, September 26, 2013 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trouble-at-the-core-of-us-foreign-policy/2013/09/26;

and on the reluctance of the Obama administration to acknowledge the role of radical religion in the terrorism of ISIS, see Shadi Hamid and Will McCants, John Kerry won’t call the Islamic State by its name anymore.  Why that’s not a good idea. Washington Post, December 29, 2014 at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/29/john-kerry-is-calling-the-islamic-state-by-the-wrong-name-and-its-helping-the-islamic-state/.

On how conflicting concepts of human rights and legitimacy complicate contemporary U.S. training and advisory missions and national security objectives, see Barnes, Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission; on similar issues with  the Leahy amendment, see Eric Schmitt, Military Says Law Barring U.S. Aid to Rights Violators Hurts Training Mission, New York Times, June 20, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/military-says-law-barring-us-aid-to-rights-violators-hurts-training-mission.html?_r=0.

On conflicting concepts of human rights and legitimacy in Western libertarian democracies and Eastern Islamic cultures, see Barnes, Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at pp 7-8 and end notes 17 and 18; on differing views of Islamic scholars, see pp 10-17.  Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and by Israel in 1991) protect the freedoms of religion and free expression, but the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights of 1990 has no comparable provisions, and Articles 24 and 25 of that treaty condition all human rights on Shari’ah “…as the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

On America’s effort to promote the freedom of religion under the Religious Freedom Act (1998) in combating Islamic terrorism, see Erasmus, America, religion and anarchy, The Economist, at http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/05/america-religion-and-anarchy.  The article notes that the Central African Republic should not be considered a bad government that can be persuaded to be better, but one that is beholden to paramilitary forces, not the other way around.

The 2013 International Religious Freedom Report of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the U.S. Department of State reported increased violations of religious freedom around the world (see http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper).  Of the nine countries identified as engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom, five are Islamic nations: Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with Burma, Eritrea, China and North Korea the exceptions.  Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Bangladesh and Indonesia were also mentioned in the report as having serious violations of religious freedom.

On the problem of providing aid to Egypt’s military government while ignoring human rights violations, see Jackson Diehl, Fulfilling the Arab Spring, Washington Post, April 26, 2015 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/investing-in-the-legacy-of-the-arab-spring/2015/04/26/c44b1638-e9c7-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the practical problems of enforcing human rights in Kenya, where al-Shabab has evaded government forces and the government has attacked those who have criticized their tactics, see Hussein Khalid, Prodding Kenya forward, Washington Post, May 1, 2015, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/prodding-kenya-forward/2015/05/01/e1177c74-ef86-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On an Islamic perspective of human rights based on the Qur’an and Shari’a rather than the secular libertarian freedoms of natural law popularized by the Enlightenment, see Muhtari Aminu-Kano, et al., Islamic and UN Bills of Rights: same difference, at https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/muhtari-aminukano-ayaz-ali-atallah-fitzgibbon/islamic-and-un-bills-of-rights-same-d. 

A Fundamental Problem with Religion

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr. 

            Religion is prepackaged faith, promoted and sold by institutions that measure their power by the number of their believers.  Recent polls indicate that religions are growing globally while declining in the West, where more and more Nones are disclaiming their religious preferences, but without abandoning their faith in beliefs that no longer conform to their former religion. 

            Both Christianity and Islam are growing in Asia and Africa with young believers, while in the West (America and Europe) older Nones have found religion increasingly irrelevant.  But even as traditional Protestant denominations decline in the West, off-brand evangelical churches catering to the young continue to grow; and like their traditional predecessors, most of these new variations of the Christian church proclaim their brand of religion to be the one true faith.

            In 1831 Alexis De Tocqueville visited the U.S. and reported an amazing variety of religion interwoven with politics.  Later Henry James extolled the virtues of a variety of religious experiences.  Perennialists assure us that all religions share universal and unifying principles, but Stephen Prothero has challenged that comforting principle.  Today competing religions are interacting globally with increasing complexity and conflict.  Is there a problem with religion?

            There is a fundamental problem with religion, but it is not with the increasing variety of religions.  The problem is with those religious fundamentalists who proclaim the absolute truth of their ancient scriptures and exclusivist religious doctrines and dogmas, and who condemn all unbelievers.  To make matters worse, religious fundamentalists seek to impose ancient holy laws on others that are wholly unsuited for modern times.

            There are religious fundamentalists in the West, but they are a minority in their religions, and religious conflict and violence are restrained by democratic institutions, libertarian human rights and a culture of religious tolerance.  That is not the case in the Islamic East, where most Muslims are fundamentalists and militant groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hamas and Hezbollah are unabated in their promotion of hate and violence in the name of God.

            Religious diversity can be a positive force in defusing the hate and violence of religious fundamentalism.  With the freedoms of religion and expression to protect unorthodox believers, religious diversity encourages progressive believers to cross religious boundaries and relate to those of other religions who interpret their doctrines and scriptures in the light of advances in knowledge and reason.  In the process progressive believers often find more in common with those in other religions than with fundamentalists within their own religion. 

            A majority of progressive believers in Judaism and Christianity reject fundamentalism, but in the Middle East and Africa there appear to be more fundamentalist Muslims who support sectarian violence than those who oppose it.  That is not the case in the West where there are more moderate and progressive Muslims than fundamentalists.  Muslims in the West represent the potential to shape Islam into a religion of peace and justice that is compatible with modern concepts of libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.

            Islamist fundamentalism is at the heart of the sectarian violence in the Middle East and Africa, where governments are either incapable or unwilling to provide law and order and enforce the human rights that protect the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech and the equal protection of law for women and minorities.  Those freedoms are meaningless if those who violate them are not prosecuted for the crimes of murder, assault and rape.

            Islamic law, or Shari’a, is problematic when imposed as positive law.  It preempts the freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws and subordinates secular law to Shari’a as the immutable law of God.  In the Middle East there is little religious diversity and no freedom of religion or expression to mediate against the comprehensive and immutable dictates of Shari’a.  The result is that democracy has produced a tyranny of a religious majority. 

            Egypt illustrates the problem.  After ousting an elected Islamist regime, a military regime now holds political and economic power and violates human rights with impunity.  Egypt is considered the bellwether of Sunni Islam, but its religious leaders have yet to challenge the oppressive politics of the military regime, and in Islam there is no separation of religion and politics.  The U.S. is also providing aid and assistance to the military government of Egypt, as it is to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where after years of U.S. aid, military assistance and intervention, there is little religious tolerance and sectarian conflict continues unabated.

            Africa has also seen its share of religious conflict, but unlike the Middle East where most people are Muslims, many Africa nations have a substantial Christian population.  While sectarian conflict in the Middle East is between Sunnis and Shiites, in Africa it is most often between Christians and Muslims.  Religious tolerance is the only way to combat religious conflict, and the diversity of religions in Africa make it more conducive than the Middle East to accept the freedoms of religion and expression. 

Fundamentalism is the fundamental problem with religion, and it is at the heart of the religious hatred and violence that motivates Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.  The freedoms of religion and expression are needed to neutralize religious fundamentalism and encourage the reconciliation of religious differences.  Promoting the tolerance of religious differences in Islamic cultures is a better long-term defense against Islamist terrorism than aiding oppressive regimes or deploying U.S. military forces to combat terrorists in a hostile cultural environment.

Notes and References to Resources:

For related blogs, see Faith and Freedom, posted December 12, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, posted December 29, 2014; and Religion and Human Rights, posted February 2, 2015.

On future projections of the growth of Christianity and Islam, see Raziye Akkoc, Mapped: What the world’s religious landscape will look like in 2050, The Telegraph, April 8, 2015, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11518702/Mapped-What-the-worlds-religious-landscape-will-look-like-in-2050.html.

On the growth of Nones, see Tobin Grant, 7.5 million Americans lost their religion since 2012, Religion News Service, March 12, 2015, at http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/75-million-americans-lost-their-religion-2012.

The 2013 International Religious Freedom Report of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the U.S. Department of State reported increased violations of religious freedom around the world (see http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper).  Of the nine countries identified as engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom, five are Islamic nations: Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with Burma, Eritrea, China and North Korea the exceptions.  Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Bangladesh and Indonesia were also mentioned in the report as having serious violations of religious freedom.

On the problem of providing aid to Egypt’s military government while ignoring human rights violations, see Jackson Diehl, Fulfilling the Arab Spring, Washington Post, April 26, 2015 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/investing-in-the-legacy-of-the-arab-spring/2015/04/26/c44b1638-e9c7-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.