By Rudy
Barnes, Jr.
Our
fundamental freedoms begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, and
balancing those individual freedoms with providing for the common good is a challenge
for democracy. It is the function of law
to strike that balance by imposing restrictions on individual freedom that are necessary
to provide for the common good; and in a democracy the law is shaped by standards
of legitimacy (what is right and wrong) that are derived from religious beliefs.
Religious
standards of legitimacy can differ dramatically, and they can be a danger to
democracy when they are considered to take precedence over secular law. Religious fundamentalists who believe that
homosexuality is a sin have argued that religious freedom allows them to disobey
laws that prohibit discrimination against homosexuals and permit same-sex
marriage. Proposed laws in Georgia and
North Carolina that would allow such discrimination as an extension of
religious freedom have created predictable public controversy.
The
Jeffersonian freedoms of religion and speech protected in the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution do not extend to religious activities that violate the
law. Believers in a democracy can resort
to civil disobedience to demonstrate their opposition to laws they consider
immoral, as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his demonstration of love over law; but they must be willing
to be punished for their disobedience and rely on popular support to change the
law.
Apostasy
and blasphemy laws prevalent in Islamic nations not only deny the freedoms of
religion and speech but also allow religious acts that should be prohibited. In Egypt the renowned poet, Fatma Naoot, was recently
convicted of blasphemy for criticizing the Muslim practice of animal
sacrifice. While a practice of ancient Judaism
as well as Islam, animal sacrifice is now prohibited in most jurisdictions for
humanitarian reasons—all the more reason to eliminate apostasy and blasphemy
laws to allow the freedoms of religion and speech.
The
freedoms of religion and speech are now political priorities in libertarian
democracies and protected by civil and human rights, but that has not always
been the case. Blasphemy laws existed in
New England as late as the 19th century, and until recently Blue
Laws prohibited business activities on Sunday in South Carolina.
Today
U.S. foreign policy promotes the freedom of religion overseas and the
Department of State annually reports violations. Most offenders are Islamic nations with
apostasy and blasphemy laws that are experiencing religious violence. Promoting the freedoms of religion and speech
overseas not only seeks to protect people from political oppression, but it
would also protect U.S. national security interests. If Islamic nations were to enforce the
freedoms of religion and speech it would undermine the legitimacy of Islamist
terrorist groups like ISIS.
The
above issues arise out of conflicting concepts of legitimacy and law relating
to the freedoms of religion and speech, and present two contrasting objectives:
To promote the freedoms of religion and speech while limiting those freedoms with
laws that provide for the common good.
Democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law are at risk if believers
can ignore those laws they consider to be in conflict with their religious
beliefs.
The
standard of legitimacy applicable to such issues is the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves,
and our neighbors include those of other religions and of other nations. The freedoms of religion and speech are
fundamental rights that should be universal, but as with other individual
rights they must be restricted by laws that provide for the common good, and exercised
with moral restraints that respect religious and political differences.
God
does not need apostasy and blasphemy laws as a protection from human insults, but
God’s will is that we avoid using our freedoms to insult others—despite the
example of Donald Trump who has thrived on insults and still garnered the
support of many evangelical Christians.
True Christians avoid condemning those who do not share their beliefs
and seek to reconcile with them, as do Muslims who consider the greatest commandment to be a common word of faith. By way of contrast, Christian and Muslim
fundamentalists who seek to divide and conquer by condemning those of other
religions are the enemies of true freedom and democracy.
References
to previous blogs on related topics:
See Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18,
2015; 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; Religion, Human Rights and National Security,
May 10, 2015; Moral Restraints on the
Freedom of Speech, May 17, 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 Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization,
September 20, 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; and Religion, Democracy, Diversity and
Demagoguery, March 26, 2016.
On state legislation in Georgia
and North Carolina seeking to expand religious freedom, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stands-on-social-issues-tear-conservative-bases/2016/03/29/a565d1ce-f5e0-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.
On the conviction of Fatma Naoot
for blasphemy in Egypt for criticizing animal sacrifice, see
U.S. policy and developments on
the freedom of religion worldwide are reported annually in The International
Freedom of Religion Report issued by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor of the U.S. Department of State.
The following excerpts are from the Executive Summary of the Report at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper:
Governments have the obligation
to protect the human rights of all their citizens
and should promote an environment
of tolerance and non-discrimination. In both
principle and action, where
people are endangered, threatened, or face
discrimination, it is the
responsibility of governments to safeguard universal
human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including the right to life and the freedom
of conscience, belief, practice,
worship, and to explain and change one’s faith. The
right to freedom of religion is
found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and in states’ own
domestic laws. When governments
fail to respect those laws, obligations and
standards, whether by deed or
inaction, they legitimize and facilitate non-state
actors who persecute and
discriminate against members of vulnerable religious
communities, nurture an
environment of intolerance, and weaken the ties that
support peaceful and resilient
societies.
In every region during the year
[2014], discriminatory laws, repressive policies,
marginalization, and
discriminatory application of laws had a negative impact on
the ability of groups and
individuals to practice their faiths.
People cannot enjoy religious
freedom unless they have both the right to express
their beliefs freely and change
their religion without facing persecution, violence,
or discrimination. The threat and
enforcement of blasphemy and apostasy
laws
during the year had a significant
impact on the ability of individuals to exercise
freedoms of expression and
religion and resulted in deaths and imprisonment.
Individuals accused of violating
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws continued to face
societal harassment,
discrimination, and violence. On May 8 in Multan, Punjab, an
unidentified gunman shot and
killed Rashid Rehman, an attorney representing
Junaid Hafeez, a university
lecturer accused of blasphemy. On November 4, in
Kot Radha Kishan, Punjab, a mob
of some 1,500 villagers accused a Christian
couple of blasphemy and burned
them alive in a brick kiln. Media, government,
and civil society organizations
reported the kiln owner accused the couple of
desecrating a Quran after the
couple failed to repay a loan, and locked them in a
room while announcements from
local mosques rallied the crowd. On October 16,
the Lahore High Court upheld the
death sentence of Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman
convicted of blasphemy four years
ago. Bibi has been on death row since
November 2010, after a district
court found her guilty of making derogatory
remarks about Prophet Mohammed
during an argument. Her lawyers submitted an
appeal on November 24 to the
Supreme Court.
The Freedom of Religion Report
emphasized that U.S foreign policy and programs
support the freedom of religion
as the …first of many inalienable rights enshrined in
the U.S. Constitution and other
laws. We believe freedom of religion is a universal right
that governments should neither
be able to grant nor withhold. The United States
strongly believes that protecting
freedom of religion promotes mutual respect and
pluralism, and is essential to
human dignity, robust civil society, and political and
economic development. Around the
world, we focus on concrete, positive steps to
support government and civil
society groups in combatting religious intolerance
and promoting respect for
religious freedom for all.
The Easter 2016 bombing in
Pakistan is just the latest incident of Islamist terrorism directed against
Christians and its relationship to continuing popular support of blasphemy laws
in Pakistan. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-easter-bombing-is-the-latest-reminder-that-pakistan-must-stop-tolerating-terrorism/2016/03/30/0e5dbc34-f693-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment