By Rudy
Barnes, Jr.
If radical religion is the
primary cause of religious violence, as asserted in last week’s blog, then political
freedom and democracy are essential to lasting peace and justice. But what if radical Islamists are radical
(violent) before they are religious, as suggested by Fareed Zakaria; or what if
the violence is not related to Islam but caused by poverty, underdevelopment
and despair, as asserted by the Aga Khan?
A recent survey taken in the
Middle East “…suggests that religious fervor plays a secondary role” in
regional violence, and that Arab youth “…use religion mostly as a
rationalization” for joining ISIS. It
also found that “…respondents tended to rank stability over democracy as a
coveted virtue for an Arab state.” If
radical Islamism is not at the root of Islamist terrorism, and if stable
government and economic well-being are more important to Arabs than freedom and
democracy, then promoting freedom and democracy should not be a strategic
objective of the U.S. in the Middle East and Africa—or should it?
If lasting peace and justice could
be achieved in Islamic cultures without the secular rule of law and libertarian
human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, then strict
enforcement of secular or religious laws that prohibit violence should be
sufficient. But when authoritarian
regimes use strict laws to prohibit violence and deny fundamental human rights,
history teaches that there can be no lasting peace and justice. If Arabs don’t consider the freedoms of
religion and speech a priority for their political stability and economic
well-being, history indicates that they are mistaken.
To defuse the violence of radical
Islamism in the Middle East and Africa, most Muslims must embrace a form of
Islam that is compatible with libertarian democracy and human rights. The first step is to eliminate apostasy and
blasphemy laws that preclude the freedoms of religion and speech, the first of those
fundamental freedoms essential to libertarian democracy; but the survey
indicates that Arabs prefer social and economic entitlements over libertarian freedoms
as fundamental human rights.
The preference for economic and
social rights (benefits) over political freedom is reflected in the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The economic benefits of the ICESCR contrast
sharply with the fundamental freedoms of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR). As a
standard of human rights the ICESCR is preferred over the ICCPR in the Middle
East, Africa and Asia, where Islam is the dominant religion and there is
widespread poverty coupled with political oppression. The public preference for government benefits
over political freedom in those regions may be explained by the lack of any experience
with libertarian democracy.
The U.S. provides a poor example
of libertarian democracy for the Middle East and Africa. The current political season has produced obnoxious
and mean-spirited candidates for President like Donald Trump and Senator Ted
Cruz. There is nothing new about such populist
demagogues, but what is new and alarming is the number of their
supporters. They reflect a growing self-centered
decadence in U.S. politics that is interwoven with a corrupt form of evangelical
Christianity that opposes communal ideals.
While mature democracies in the
U.S. and Europe seem moribund by the fear of immigrants and an emphasis on
individual rights at the expense of providing for the common good, political
freedom in the fledgling democracies of the Middle East and Africa seems stymied
by an emphasis on economic security (which is part of providing for the common
good). The future of libertarian democracy
is in peril in both the West and the East.
Religion should provide a moral balance between individual freedom and
communal obligations, but Christianity in the U.S. has evolved into sanctimonious
individualism based on personal salvation that has neglected communal needs,
while Islam neglects individual rights.
For there to be lasting peace and
justice in a world of pluralistic religions, some of which assert the supremacy
of religious law over secular law and human rights, religions must embrace fundamental
human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech. While libertarian democracy is preferable to
authoritarian or theocratic regimes, any government that provides law and order
and protects fundamental freedoms with human rights can be legitimate and provide
a measure of peace and justice.
An authoritarian government that
provides law and order and economic benefits for its people but denies them
religious and political freedom cannot provide lasting peace and justice. Wealthy Arab nations can provide economic
benefits, but when they maintain apostasy and blasphemy laws and deny women and
non-Muslims equal justice under law they are oppressive regimes, even if most
Arabs do not recognize that. On the
other hand, when a democratic government like that of the U.S. emphasizes
individual freedom at the expense of providing for the common good, it is corrupt
and destined to fail.
Whether or not Islamist violence
is caused primarily by radical religion or by secular causes, it highlights the
dilemma of freedom and democracy in the modern era. In a world of pluralistic religions and
violence, the legitimacy of any government requires that it provide law and
order and fundamental human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and
speech, and it must balance individual freedom with providing for the common
good for lasting peace and justice. That
is a challenge for both fledgling Islamic democracies and more mature
libertarian democracies like those in the U.S. and Europe.
Notes and
References to Related Blogs:
On related blogs, see Religion
and Reason,
December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom,
December 15, 2014; Is Religion Good or
Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion
and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; Faith
as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and
Politics Intersect, May 2, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security,
May 10, 2015; Moral Restraints on the
Freedom of Speech, May 17, 2015; Jesus
Meets Muhammad Today, June 14, 2015; Freedom
and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing
Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism
Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear,
September 12, 2015; Politics and
Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;
Taking Lives and Liberty in the
Name of God, December 19, 2015; Resettling
Refugees: Multiculturalism or Assimilation? December 26, 2015; Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as
Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American
Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March
12, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity
and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; The
Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good, April 2, 2016; and The Causes of Religious Violence and Ways to
Combat Them, April 9, 2016.
On Arab views that religion plays a
secondary role in regional violence, next to criminality and economic
deprivation, and that stability is favored over democracy as a coveted virtue,
see
On Fareed Zakaria’s commentary on terrorists who were radical before they were
religious, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/todays-new-terrorists-were-radical-before-they-were-religious/2016/03/31/9cb8e916-f762-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.
On the commentary of the Aga Khan that “Islam and
terror have not the slightest thing in common” and that poverty is a major
cause of religious violence, see https://www.instagram.com/p/BDi1gCLvNqN/.
On the conflicting models of democracy and human
rights represented by the ICCPR and ICESCR treaties, see Barnes, Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of
Legitimacy, at pages 6-9 and end notes, posted at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.
No comments:
Post a Comment