Religion, The Pope, and Politics in the Real World

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr. 

            Pope Francis has put a new face on institutional Christianity.  He has been called a Pope for all seasons for his willingness to address controversial issues and consider changes in traditional Catholic doctrines, but he is also “old school.”  When asked about gay priests, he said, “Who am I to judge?”  But he called the rise of the LGBT community “a new sin against God.”  He has offered forgiveness for those who have had abortions and streamlined the annulment process for the divorced, but he has stood fast opposing birth control while telling Catholics they should not breed “like rabbits.”

            Pope Francis has condemned consumerism and the unrestrained greed of capitalism as the enemy of the poor, and issued an encyclical on climate change that he described as moral guidance rather than a resolution of scientific disputes.  Conservatives like George Will have criticized the Pope’s idealistic positions as “fact-free flamboyance,” but Fareed Zakaria has noted that any criticism of the message of Pope Francis is a criticism of the message of Christ.

            While emphasizing moral ideals, the Pope has also addressed politics in the real world.  When he met with Turkey’s Erdogan last year the Pope condemned the fundamentalism and fanaticism of ISIS and asserted that the freedoms of religion and speech should be a matter of faith as well as law, and repeated that theme in his address to Congress last week.  The Pope has also challenged the 21,000 Catholic parishes in Europe to each take in a refugee family.

            Pope Francis has exemplified the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself.  Translated into real-world politics, that is not just an ideal but a moral imperative to put love over law and balance individual freedom with providing for the common good.  That means emphasizing the common good in libertarian democracies where individual rights have often obscured public obligations, and emphasizing individual rights in Islamic nations where apostasy and blasphemy laws preclude the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech.

            Religion and politics are interrelated forces in the real world that can help us or hurt us.  They can bring us together or polarize us.  When Jesus spoke of reconciliation and redemption in a universal family of God it was not based on belief in any religion, but on sharing the power of God’s reconciling love to overcome our fear and suspicion of others—especially those of other religions.  Islamic scholars have asserted that the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  But is it?

            Religious fundamentalism is an obstacle to religious reconciliation.  Its exclusivism creates fear and hate among religions, polarizing them in a world of increasing religious pluralism.  Religious fundamentalists—whether Jew, Christian or Muslim—believe that their holy scripture is the inerrant and infallible manifestation of God’s word and law, thus preventing them from supporting the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and its secular rule of law.  Religious fundamentalists are a minority among Jews and Christians, but recent polls indicate that fundamentalists are a majority among Muslims—and that has political implications.

            Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, inter alia: The Constitution, and the laws of the United States…and all Treaties…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.  All officers of the U.S. and the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required. 

            Kim Davis is a fundamentalist Christian and county clerk in Kentucky who went to jail for refusing to perform her duty to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it conflicted with her religious beliefs.  It would be the same for any fundamentalist Jew or Muslim who could not put loyalty to the U.S. Constitution ahead of submission to Mosaic Law for Jews or to the Qur’an and Islamic law, or shari’a, for Muslims.               

            The 1960 Presidential election provided an example of such questioned loyalty.  As a Catholic John F. Kennedy had to assure the American public that his ultimate loyalty was to the U.S. Constitution and not to the Pope, the Vatican or to cannon law.  Today any person of faith seeking public office—whether Jew, Christian or Muslim—would have to pass the same political loyalty test.  And it is hard to imagine any fundamentalist believer passing that test.

            Believers in the U.S. who are not public officials can resort to peaceful civil disobedience to assert the moral supremacy of their religious standards of legitimacy over those of secular law, but they must still acknowledge the supremacy of secular law over religious law.  That is a prerequisite for anyone holding public office in the U.S. and applies to Christian fundamentalists like Kim Davis as well as to Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who cannot subordinate their religious laws to the supremacy of the U. S. Constitution and its secular rule of law.

            The visit of Pope Francis to the U.S. has come during a messy debate over religion, politics and law, and his emphasis on moral ideals underscored the need for religious standards of legitimacy to be voluntary moral standards rather than coercive laws—but moral standards that shape our politics and law.  The greatest commandment summarizes the moral imperative of Jews and Christians to love their neighbors as themselves—including their unbelieving neighbors.  If Muslims can join with Jews and Christians and truly embrace that moral principle, then the three great religions of the book can be reconciled and coexist with a lasting peace.

Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Wealth, Politics, Religion and Economic Justice, March 8, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; Accommodating Religious Freedom under the Rule of Secular Law, September 13, 2015; and Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015. 

On Pope Francis as a pope for all seasons, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/09/14/a-pope-for-all-seasons/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening.

On George Will’s criticism of the fact-free flamboyance of Pope Francis, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines. 

On Fareed Zakaria noting that those who criticize the message of Pope Francis are criticizing the message of Christ, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-main-message-of-pope-francis-and-jesus/2015/09/24/997e1e54-62ea-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On welcoming Pope Francis to the messy U.S. religious and political debate, see

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/pope-francis-religion-united-states/. 

On the address of Pope Francis to Congress, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us/pope-francis-congress-speech.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-to-address-divided-congress-in-washington-on-thursday/2015/09/23/971b0a9e-6260-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html.

On Pope Francis condemning religious fundamentalism and promoting religious freedom, see

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism.

 

Politics and Religious Polarization

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            At a town hall meeting last week Donald Trump was told by a supporter: “We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims” and that “We know our current President is one.  You know, he’s not even an American.”  He then asked Trump what he intended to do about Muslim “training camps” in the U.S.  Trump was criticized for not correcting the supporter, but he was voicing broadly held views that reflect increasing religious polarization in the U.S.

            Religious polarization is one of the objectives of the Islamic State, or ISIS, and the Republican Party in the U.S. and right-wing political parties in Europe like that of Hungary’s Viktor Orban are aiding and abetting ISIS in achieving that objective by fueling the fires of religious fear and hatred.  The best defense against Islamist terrorists like ISIS is to deny them legitimacy among Muslims, and that requires supporting moderate Muslims who are seeking to define Islam as a religion compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.

            It is wrong to denigrate Islam as an inherently violent religion, and equally wrong to deny that ISIS is a militant and fundamentalist form of Islam.  ISIS is just as much a distorted form of Islam as the Christian Crusades and Inquisitions were distorted forms of Christianity.  The distorted Islamist doctrines of ISIS are based on fundamentalist Salafist and Wahhabist doctrines of Islam that are currently being debated within Islam.  The future of Islam as a religion of peace and justice depends upon moderates prevailing over fundamentalists in defining the nature of Islam in a way that denies legitimacy to radical Islamist doctrines like those of ISIS.

            Religion has been a major cause of hatred and violence and continues to be so today, and religion must play a major role in finding a lasting peace.  Both Christianity and Islam have exclusivist and fundamentalist forms that condemn unbelievers and seek to impose their standards of legitimacy on others.  Historically the institutional church has distorted the teachings of Jesus to create religious doctrines consistent with worldly power, and Islamism uses similar exclusivist and fundamentalist religious doctrines to achieve the same political objective.

            Today Christianity is the world’s largest religion.  Christians and Muslims make up over half of the world’s population, but by 2070 it is expected that Islam will supplant Christianity as the world’s largest religion.  The increasing political polarization of Christians and Muslims has been exacerbated by the refugee crisis which has greatly increased the chances for religious violence; but violence can be minimized if Christians are true to the teachings of Jesus and Muslims insist upon modern interpretations of the teachings of Muhammad in the Qur’an.

            In 2007 a distinguished group of Islamic scholars offered the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbors as oneself—even one’s unbelieving neighbors—as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  The love for others requires providing the freedoms of religion and speech, and since apostasy and blasphemy laws continue to deny those fundamental freedoms in Islamic cultures there is some doubt whether loving one’s unbelieving neighbor is consistent with the Islamic faith.  And while many Christian leaders applauded a common word of faith, only a few have since taken steps to make the moral imperative to love our neighbors—even our Muslim neighbors—a central theme of the Christian religion.

            If Christianity and Islam put the moral imperative to love others, even unbelievers, at the heart of their religious doctrines, there would be much less religious polarization and resulting religious violence.  To that end Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus should lead the way.

  

            Jesus taught that God’s will is to reconcile and redeem all people in the universal family of God, but without favoring any one religion over others.  Satan’s will is to divide and conquer people of faith, and Satan does a convincing imitation of God, with some of his best acting in the synagogue, church and mosque.  Reconciliation and redemption take place when God’s love and mercy are shared with others, and Satan’s fear and hate oppose God’s reconciling love.  It should be obvious which religions are aligned with God and with Satan in the great cosmic battle for the hearts and minds of believers.

            Partisan politics in the U.S. invariably produce polarizing political and religious issues that are used to mobilize the constituencies of those seeking power.  The Republican Party includes Christian fundamentalists and others who favor traditional values, while Democrats include socialists, feminists, LGBT people and other minorities.  Republicans favor “boots on the ground” to assert U.S. power overseas, while Democrats favor restraint.  And in Islamic cultures those seeking political power play on similar exclusivist and polarizing themes.  In the quest for political power, polarization is the norm rather than the exception.  To avoid the exacerbation of religious violence, the politics of polarization must be replaced by a politics of reconciliation.

 

            Religions must lead the way to a politics of religious reconciliation.  Christians must bring their religion back to the teachings of Jesus, and Muslims must define Islam as a religion of peace and justice compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law in order to deny the legitimacy of radical Islamism.  Religious reconciliation must begin with a genuine affirmation of the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.  If that happens, there will be far less danger of religious polarization and violence.  

Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015;  Promoting Religion through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness, February 8, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015;  Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015;  Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; and The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam, September 6, 2015.

            

Donald Trump was criticized for not correcting a supporter who asserted that President Obama is a Muslim and not even an American.  Trump responded by saying that “The bigger issue is that Obama is waging war against Christians in this country.  Their religious liberty is at stake.”

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/17/trump-doesnt-correct-rally-attendee-who-says-obama-is-muslim-and-not-even-an-american/.

       

Michael Gerson has noted that Republican politics have taken a sharp turn toward religious polarization since 9/11.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-fringe-tone-on-islam-shows-a-sharp-turn-since-911/2015/09/10/5a1d6d80-57d9-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Accommodating Religious Freedom under the Secular Rule of Law

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

           The freedom of religion is first among our freedoms in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it forbids government from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.  But religion can itself encroach on our freedom, as evidenced by Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples based on her religious beliefs.  When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue such marriage licenses and she refused, she was found in contempt of court and spent a short time in the county jail.

            There can be no freedom of religion without a secular rule of law to protect it, and the law is ineffective if religious beliefs give people a license to disobey the law.  There is a seeming exception made famous by Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but their peaceful civil disobedience was not really an exception.  Both Rosa Parks and Dr. King went to jail when they purposely violated the law to protest separate but equal laws in the Jim Crow South.  As a result of their protests, the law was changed through normal democratic political processes. 

            Michael Gerson of The Washington Post has asserted that Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks; but in the unlikely event that Davis ignites a quiescent majority of Americans to make same-sex marriage unlawful, then she would be more like Rosa Parks than Gerson would like to admit.

            Private employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation for employees whose religious beliefs conflict with their job requirements, but Davis is a public official.  She requires a statutory accommodation like those provided in North Carolina and Utah that would allow other public officials to perform her duties when they conflict with her religious beliefs.

           

            While secular law can accommodate issues of religious belief that conflict with lawful duties, the issue can be avoided altogether if religious standards of legitimacy (what is right and wrong) are considered voluntary moral standards rather than obligatory laws.  When religious standards of legitimacy are enforced as law, as with apostasy and blasphemy laws, there can be no religious freedom.  Unfortunately Jewish, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists all consider the holy laws in their scriptures to be coercive laws rather than voluntary moral standards.

            Kim Davis is a Christian fundamentalist who believes that the Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible word and that it takes precedence over secular law, just as fundamentalist Muslims, or Islamists, believe that Islamic law, or shari’a, is God’s law and takes precedence over secular law and human rights, so that apostasy and blasphemy laws preclude any freedom of religion or speech.  In similar fashion, ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that it is God’s will that they rebuild their temple in Jerusalem on the ancient temple mount now occupied by a sacred mosque.  Such fundamentalist beliefs based on ancient scriptural mandates are not only a threat to democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, but also to world peace.

            By way of contrast, progressive believers consider their sacred scriptures a source of truth for matters of faith and practice, but not as the perfect and immutable word of God that must be applied as a matter of law and policy today just as it was in ancient times.

            Jesus was a Jew who never refuted Mosaic Law, but unlike Moses, Jesus never taught that it was God’s perfect and immutable standard of law and righteousness.  Jesus taught the supremacy of love over law, and that the greatest commandment was to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.  And Islamic scholars have confirmed that the greatest commandment is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. 

            The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on morality and law are at the heart of legitimacy.  Both men understood that true faith was based on voluntary acts of love and mercy rather than on obedience to religious laws.  The laws of Moses and Muhammad were suitable for their time and place, but not for ours.  In modern times, we are governed by the rule of secular law, not by God’s law; but believers can assert the moral supremacy of God’s law over secular law in democratic political processes and ultimately through peaceful civil disobedience, so long as they are willing to pay the price for violating the law. 

            Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. exercised their religious freedom and protested the immorality of racially discriminatory laws in the Jim Crow South, and those laws were changed.  They used peaceful civil disobedience to demonstrate the moral primacy of love over law and the interrelated roles of religion, legitimacy and the secular rule of law.  Kim Davis protested the morality of the law on same-sex marriage based on her beliefs.  While her protest was ultimately accommodated by the law, it is unlikely to change the law she protested.   

  

Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: 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; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Love, Marriage and Homosexuality, February 1, 2015; Promoting Religion through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness, February 8, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; and Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; and Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015.  

On Michael Gerson’s commentary comparing Kim Davis to Rosa Parks, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kim-davis-is-no-rosa-parks/2015/09/07/e821d528-533b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Eugene Volokh’s has provided an overview of religious accommodation law at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/.  Geoffrey R. Stone has considered the impracticability of applying the Supreme Court’s incidental effects doctrine in Kim Davis’ case to the free exercise rights of the First amendment at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/kim-davis-and-the-freedom_b_8101334.html.

The European Refugee Crisis and Radical Islam

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr. 

            The images are heart-rending and mind-boggling: A three-year old Syrian boy lying dead on a Turkish beach, a symbol of the refugee crisis that has European nations reeling; ancient and precious artifacts in Palmyra, Syria, being demolished; and religious authorities instructing ISIS terrorists to pray before and after raping their female hostages.  And the list it goes on, like pages from a Medieval horror story played out in real time.

            Is this God’s will according to Islam, a religion that is projected to supplant Christianity as the world’s largest religion by 2070?  It is according to the radical Islamists of ISIS, and a number of young Muslims from Europe and America are heeding their call, joining ISIS to create a new caliphate that promotes murder and mayhem in the name of God.  Radical Islam, or Islamism, is as much a part of Islam as the Crusades and Inquisitions were part of Christianity.

            We are now witnessing the horrific effects of radical Islamism.  They are caused by the imposition of a form of Islamic law, or shari’a, that denies the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws and subjects women and non-Muslims to harsh discriminatory treatment.  Brutal punishments imposed under this archaic code of religious law have caused thousands of refugees to flee areas controlled by radical Islamists.

 

            There is a major disconnect here.  In 2007 a distinguished group of Islamic scholars offered the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  That common word of faith is that we must love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, including our unbelieving neighbors (see the story of the good Samaritan).  By way of contrast, the Islamist shari’a is entirely lacking in love for unbelieving neighbors. 

            Which is the true Islam?  That is a question that only Muslims can answer.  Islam is in transition and there is a window of opportunity for moderate and progressive Muslims to define their religion.  How can we help moderate Muslims make a common word of faith a reality? 

            In the real world, religion, politics and the rule of law are inextricably woven together, but distinctions must be made for there to be legitimate governance.  The freedoms of religion and speech require that governments do not favor or establish any religion.  The libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law are essential to progress and modernity, and while they are an integral part of legitimacy in the Western world they are absent and considered contrary to God’s will wherever radical Islamism is the dominant form of Islam.

            The root cause of the problem is an immutable and coercive shari’a, a problem that could be remedied if shari’a were interpreted to conform to the libertarian values of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  The refugee crisis is a predictable result of radical Islamism, and the U.S. should assist with the resettlement of refugees.  One thing that the U.S. should not do is deploy combat forces or “boots on the ground” in Islamic cultures.  That would only exacerbate the problem by undermining the legitimacy of moderate Muslim reformers.  That is a lesson in legitimacy that we should have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

            Radical Islamism is not the only religious factor in the refugee crisis.  Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, has warned Europe that Muslim asylum-seekers are threatening “Europe’s Christian roots.”  It is an echo of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant ravings about undocumented Mexican immigrants in the U.S.  Germans, to their credit, are seeking to help the refugees in Europe.  It is clear that religion has been a big part of the problem, but equally clear that religion must be part of the solution.

            Saudi Arabia—a wealthy ally of the U.S.—has contributed to the problem but not to the solution.  It has long promoted a Wahhabist brand of radical Islamism that gave birth to both al-Qaeda and ISIS, yet Saudi Arabia is doing nothing to help those Muslim refugees displaced by radical Islamism.  Egypt is not as wealthy as Saudi Arabia, but as the bellwether of Sunni Islam it continues to deny the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech with an oppressive shari’a, lending legitimacy to radical Islamism.  And another U.S. ally, Pakistan, does the same.                      

             The indiscriminate bombing campaign of the Assad regime has killed many more Syrians than has ISIS, so the motivation of the refugees leaving Syria is not clear. The possibility that some refugees could sympathize with ISIS rather than oppose them is a complicating issue in the refugee crisis, but the number of Muslim refugees coming to Europe dwarfs the number of Muslims leaving Europe for ISIS.  All Muslims will determine the future of Islam, and Muslims in libertarian democracies have opposed radical Islamism.  Hopefully the influx of Muslims into Europe will help transform Islam with libertarian values and undermine the legitimacy of Islamist terrorist organizations like ISIS.   

            Xenophobic reactions in Europe to Muslim refugees could work in favor of the ISIS objective to polarize religions and instigate a holy war, but if the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor is indeed a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, then those people of the book will join together to alleviate the suffering caused by ISIS, and in so doing undermine the legitimacy of radical Islamism with God’s love.  That is God’s truth.         

             

Notes and References to Resources:           

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict, August 23, 2015; and What Is Truth? August 23, 2015.

Reference is made to the following commentary: David Brooks on Islamist authorization for rape, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/david-brooks-when-isis-rapists-win.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0; Michael Birnbaum and Griffe Witte on the European reaction to the refugee crisis, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hungarys-leader-to-migrants-please-dont-come/2015/09/03/d5244c6d-53d8-4e82-b9d7-35ec41ca2944_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlinesl; Ishaan Tharoor on the reaction of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to the refugee crisis, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines; Thomas Friedman on Saudi Arabia’s support of radical Islam, at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html?emc=eta1&_r=0; the Editorial Board of the Washington Post on the refugee crisis, at  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/europes-abdication/2015/09/03/319e2cb0-5265-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines; Hugh Naylor on the Assad regime killing more Syrians than ISIS, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/islamic-state-has-killed-many-syrians-but-assads-forces-have-killed-even-more/2015/09/05/b8150d0c-4d85-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

 

What Is Truth?

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            What is truth?  That was the skeptical response of Pontius Pilate to Jesus saying, I came into the world to testify to the truth. (John 18: 37-38)  Pilate’s question has echoed down through the ages.  Some, like the poet John Keats, have found truth in the beauty of art: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."  But for Jews, Christians and Muslims, God’s truth came through their prophets. 

            The Jews had many prophets, beginning with Moses, and Jesus was a Jew who is considered the ultimate prophet and the last word of God by Christians, just as Muhammad is for Muslims.  Muhammad affirmed that the Jewish prophets, including Jesus, were messengers of God’s truth like himself, but considered most Christians and Jews to be unbelievers. (see Notes below)

            Religion can reveal mystical truths but it can also blind believers to new truths and reason.  Fundamentalist believers reject any new truths and reason that conflict with their ancient religious scriptures, and that included Galileo’s discoveries in astronomy and Darwin’s theory of evolution.  But the most serious problem with fundamentalist concepts of truth has been with religious laws.  Christians cited holy laws to mount the Crusades, conduct Inquisitions and establish a Puritan theocracy in colonial America, and today militant Islamists seek to create a caliphate based on ancient Islamic laws known as shari’a that are barbaric by modern standards of justice.

            Judaism and Islam are deontological religions that emphasize holy laws—Mosaic Law for Jews and shari’a for Muslims—as God’s truth and standard of legitimacy and righteousness.  The teachings of Jesus are more teleological and emphasize the supremacy of love over law as God’s truth; but fundamentalist Christians believe the entire Bible, including Mosaic Law, is the inerrant and infallible word of God, just as fundamentalist Muslims (Islamists) believe the Qur’an and its shari’a are the perfect and immutable word of God. 

            To support their exclusivist claims Christians cite John 4:16 where Jesus says, I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  It is one of the I am sayings that are unique to John’s Gospel in which Jesus is presented as the Logos, or word of God (John 1:1-14).  The symbolic Jesus of John’s Gospel is not compatible with the more historic Jesus of the other three Gospel accounts, where Jesus refuted religious exclusivism when he taught that all who do God’s will are his brothers and sisters in the family of God.

            Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are zealous proselytizers who believe that theirs is the one true faith and that God condemns all unbelievers; and they believe that they have a holy obligation to impose their religious laws on others as God’s will and truth.  That exclusivist idea does not comport with the forgiving, loving and merciful God revealed by Jesus, but it is the norm for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who consider their ancient scriptures to be the sole source of God’s truth and who measure their success by the number of their believers.

            Jesus was a Jew who never promoted any religion—not even his own—and he summarized God’s will in the greatest commandment to love God and neighbor.  It is made up of two commandments taken from the Hebrew Bible that were conflated into one:  We love God by loving our neighbors as ourselves, and the story of the good Samaritan made it clear that our neighbors include unbelievers.   Islamic scholars have embraced the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.     

          

            The teachings of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have many similarities, but also many differences.  The teachings of Moses and Muhammad emphasize obedience to God’s law as the standard of righteousness, and God’s rewards for the obedient and punishments for the disobedient.  By way of contrast, the teachings of Jesus emphasize love over law and the transforming power of God’s forgiving love and mercy, or grace, to reconcile and redeem sinners as children of God, rather than their obedience of holy laws.

             

            God is love, and no one can claim to love God and hate his neighbor (I John 4:16-21).  God seeks to reconcile and redeem us through forgiveness and love, while Satan seeks to divide and conquer us through fear and hate.  Unfortunately, Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best work in the synagogue, church and mosque. 

            Our journey of faith is a search for truth—as to the meaning of life, the mysteries of death, and how we relate to our neighbors in a world of increasing religious conflict and violence.  Religion can give believers insight into truth or blind them to it.  To survive in a changing world, religions must conform their beliefs to advances in knowledge and reason, but throughout these changes, love remains.  God’s love is the only immutable truth in the world, and the only power that can save us from ourselves.  That is God’s truth.   

Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation into the Family of God, January 4, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is There a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Jesus: A Prophet, God’s only Son, or the Logos? April 19, 2015; An Introduction to God Is not One (Stephen Prothero), April 26, 2015;  A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; and Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015. 

“When old age shall this generation waste,

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” (lines 46–50 from Ode on a Grecian Urn)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_on_a_Grecian_Urn.

John Keats’ Ode on a Grecian Urn (1819).  Keats must have had a glimpse of heaven.  In his letter of November 22, 1817, to Benjamin Bailey, Keats mentioned "another favorite Speculation of mine, that we shall enjoy ourselves here after by having what we called happiness on Earth repeated in a finer tone and so repeated."  See http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/k/keats-poems/summary-and-analysis/ode-on-a-grecian-urn.

Muhammad asserted that Allah/God was truth (See Surah 22:6), and that Jewish prophets and Jesus were messengers of God’s truth like himself (see Surahs 2:87; 3:3; 3:45-57; 3:84; 3:113-115; 5:18-20; 5:44-46; 5:110-511; 42:13; 43:57-61; 57:27; 61:6;  ); but Muhammad condemned most Jews and Christians as unbelievers since they were not obedient to their scriptures as perfected in the Qur’an (see Surahs 3:110; 3:187-188; 4:153-161; 5:12-16; 5:82-85; 7:159-169; 57:27; 62:5-6); and Muhammad condemned Christians who believed that Jesus was the Son of God as blasphemers, asserting that God/Allah has no family or son (see Surahs 4:171-172; 5:17; 5:72-75; 9:30; 10:68-70; 18:4-8; 23:91; 43:81; 46:100-101; 39:4).  See selected provisions of the Qur’an cited in The Teachings of Jesusand Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, at pages 470-485; 503-506; 528-542. 

For additional commentary, see the following topics in The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy:  The family of God and spiritual kinship (Mark 3:33-35) at page 21; The greatest commandment (Mark 12:28-33) at page 25; Love over law (Mark 2:27; 3:4; and 7:17-23) at pages 31 and 35; Criticizing self before others: the blind leading the blind (Luke 6:39-42) at page 214; Loving your neighbor: the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) at page 223; Jesus before Pilate (John 18:34-38) at page 330; Faith and eternal life (John 3:14-18) at page 394; and The way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) at page 416.      

Legitimacy as a Context and a Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The concept of legitimacy provides both a context for understanding religious conflict and a paradigm to resolve it.  Religions provide standards of legitimacy—what is right and wrong—and conflicting standards of legitimacy are the primary cause of religious conflict.
 
            Legitimacy includes both voluntary moral standards and the obligatory standards of law.  Progressive believers reject religious law in favor of secular law and accept advances in knowledge and reason in shaping their moral standards, while fundamentalists reject any challenge to the truth of their ancient scriptural doctrines and laws.  That contentious conflict must be resolved in order to find lasting peace in a world of increasing religiosity.

            There is little religious conflict when religious standards of legitimacy are considered voluntary moral standards and not coercive laws, but apostasy and blasphemy laws are criminal offenses under both Jewish Mosaic Law and Islamic Law (shari’a).  Those coercive religious laws suppress the freedoms of religion and speech that are first among the fundamental freedoms of libertarian democracy.
 
            The freedoms of religion and speech have been accepted as matters of faith as well as law by religions in libertarian democracies, even though they are not mentioned in the ancient scriptures.  Those freedoms provide religious tolerance, which is the reason why religious fundamentalists are a minority in libertarian democracies; but fundamentalists are a majority in Islamic nations where apostasy and blasphemy laws foster religious conflict and violence.

            Religious conflict and violence would decrease in Islamic cultures if shari’a were considered a voluntary code of moral standards rather than enforced as a code of laws; and if the freedoms of religion and speech were human rights, militant Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS would be denied their legitimacy since it depends upon apostasy and blasphemy laws.  Justice and law and order require more than criminal laws that protect against violence; they also require human rights that protect individuals from the oppressive powers of government.

            Devout Christians and Muslims believe the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on law and morality are the word of God and the heart of legitimacy.  Jesus taught principles based on love over law and the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor—even one’s unbelieving neighbors—that were echoed by Muhammad before he became a political leader and warrior.  The teachings of Muhammad, like those of Moses, included laws that may have been appropriate for their ancient time and place but that are not appropriate for our time and place.

            The teachings of Jesus were universal and timeless moral standards that were consistent with the teachings of other Jewish patriarchs and prophets, and even Muhammad—until he assumed political and military power.  In ancient times the legitimacy of those powers depended upon the divine right to rule and divine law.  But if Moses and Muhammad exercised worldly power today they would likely be more like other progressive modern leaders than religious fundamentalists, and accept advances in knowledge, reason and libertarian values as improvements in standards of legitimacy that are consistent with the greatest commandment.

            Religious fundamentalism is based on the false assumption that the ancient scriptures are the last word of God for humankind.  God’s standards of legitimacy are not frozen in ancient and immutable scriptures, but accept advances in knowledge, reason and the libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law so long as they comport with the moral imperative to love others.  God has never favored any one religion over others.  All religions have been a source of good and evil.  The final accounting must be left to God’s judgment.

            God has given humanity the free will to determine its own fate, for good or bad.  Even though political freedom is not mentioned in the ancient scriptures, it is like the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  It allows humankind to determine its own destiny, either to liberate the oppressed or to allow the powerful to oppress the vulnerable.  The challenge for people of faith in libertarian democracies today is to learn how to balance individual freedom with providing for the common good, and to promote freedom as a means to liberate the oppressed.   
                
            How can ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies with its distorted ideals?  Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has described ISIS as a toxic version of political Islam on steroids, but has acknowledged that  …today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a makeover.  Mainstream theologians…are unable to address…the meaning of sharia in a modern nation…because theological education is steeped in ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation.  The ISIS ideal of a caliphate that imposes religious laws that are hideously illegitimate will ultimately fail, but not without causing more violence and suffering.

            The majority of Muslims, not ISIS, will determine the future of Islam; and when Muslims interpret shari’a in the light of advances in knowledge and reason, then Islam will become compatible with democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  The concept of legitimacy provides both a context and paradigm to do that by establishing the primacy of love over law; and it is expressed in the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  Like Judaism and Christianity before it, Islam will over time evolve into a religion that accepts the freedoms of religion and speech as a matter of faith and law, and will embrace those libertarian values and standards of legitimacy that are essential to world peace.


Notes and References to Resources:

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; 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; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today? January 25, 2015; Religion as a Source of Good and Evil, February 1, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law, April 12, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015.

 

The Introduction to TheTeachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy explains how the concept of legitimacy is related to the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad, with an emphasis on love over law and the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike (see pages 10-15, 25-30 and 31-38).      

Roger Cohen has asked:  How does ISIS attract young Muslims from libertarian democracies? (See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/roger-cohen-why-isis-trumps-freedom.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0.).  Ebrahim Moosa is an Islamic scholar who has joined Cohen in responding to that question:  How could this have happened? Islamic orthodoxy, which controls mosques and institutions worldwide, is out of step with the world in which the majority of Muslims live. In few places is orthodox Islam independent of the state; it is often a political tool used by authoritarian regimes, which explains why the Muslim intelligentsia does not respect it. Its hallmark is archaism in theology and ethics, and its reach covers most of the global community of faith. Once a robust intellectual tradition, today Islamic orthodoxy is in serious need of a makeover. Mainstream theologians who cater to the majority of lay Muslims, both Sunni and Shiite, are unable to address such critical moral and theological challenges as evolution, gender and sexuality, or the role and meaning of sharia in a modern nation. That’s because theological education is steeped in ancient texts with little attention to reinterpretation.  Moosa says, …thankfully, some orthodox elements are prepared to rethink issues.  Sadly, they are a minority. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-madrassa-classmate-hated-politics-then-joined-the-islamic-state/2015/08/21/b8ebe826-4769-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns.)

How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Last week’s blog addressed the conflict between individual rights and the collective obligations all people have for one another.  Fundamentalist religions and secular authoritarian regimes resolve that conflict by eliminating individual rights with a religious or political ideal and imposing oppressive laws.  So it was with Cotton Mather’s 17^th century Puritans in New England, with Communists in the 20^th century, and with today’s radical Islamists like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

            Roger Cohen has asked: What leads young European Muslims in the thousands to give up lives in France, Britain or Germany, enlist in …the Islamic State, and dedicate themselves to the unlikely aim of establishing a caliphate backed by digital propaganda?  Cohen acknowledges that we don’t know the answer why the violent rejection of modernity and the extreme, literalist interpretation of certain teachings of Sunni Islam have “…proved of unquenchable appeal.”  He suggests one reason may be that the freedoms of libertarian democracies have all but eliminated traditional moral boundaries, allowing people to do what they want without concern for others.

            Absolute freedom is anarchy, but the absence of freedom is tyranny.  The challenge for libertarian democracies is to balance individual rights with providing for the common good.  Religion can help the process by providing the moral standards of legitimacy that balance individual freedom with collective obligations to provide for the common good, but fundamentalist religions distort the process with sacred ideals and laws that eliminate freedom. 

            Secularism is an antidote for religious fundamentalism.  It does not exclude religion from politics, but prohibits government from favoring any religion to protect libertarian human rights.    Secularism considers advances in knowledge and reason in shaping standards of legitimacy that balance religious ideals with the secular ideals of politics.  Human rights are critically important, but they only define what government cannot do, not what government can or should do to provide for the common good.  That is the province of democratic politics and religion.

            Fundamental human rights begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, and they are defined and protected as universal human rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  Economic and social needs are also treated as human rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); but government benefits cannot be universally enforced as rights since they depend on a nation’s capability to provide them.  As a result government benefits must remain a national political responsibility.

            The U.S. is a party to the ICCPR (signed in 1977 and ratified in 1992), but not to the ICESCR.  Most Islamic nations in the Middle East and Africa embrace Islamic law, or shari’a, and have an Islamic version of human rights law that subjects human rights to shari’a.  The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 condones apostasy and blasphemy laws that deny the freedoms of religion and speech, and shari’a condones discrimination against women and religious minorities.  Islamic scholars have debated issues of justice and human rights in Islam, but there is no consensus on providing libertarian human rights or eliminating discrimination against women and non-Muslims, so shari’a reigns supreme over libertarian human rights.

            Unlike Muslims in Islamic cultures, those in libertarian democracies have come to appreciate the freedoms of religion and speech and equal treatment of women and religious minorities.  Those progressive Muslims have not lost their religion, they have only secularized it—much like their Jewish and Christian neighbors.  They consider politics and law the province of man, not God, and know that if government is controlled by any religion there can be no freedom of religion or speech.  The secularization of religion thus allows the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of libertarian democracies, but that are missing in Islamic cultures.

            Secularism acknowledges advances in knowledge and reason as sources of truth, while religious fundamentalism rejects any advances in knowledge or reason that challenges the truth of God’s will as revealed in its holy scripture—the Hebrew Bible for Jews, the Christian Bible for Christians, and the Qur’an for Muslims.  Such a conflict came to a head in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, where the teaching of evolution challenged the Biblical creation story.  And the issue is not resolved; Christian fundamentalists continue to promote the teaching of Biblical creationism along with scientific evolution in public schools. 

            In their search for truth, progressive believers use inductive reasoning to accept advances in knowledge and reason, but also use deductive reasoning to retain belief in ancient mystical truths such as eternal life that remain beyond knowledge and reason.  By way of contrast, fundamentalists rely entirely on the unyielding truths of their ancient holy scriptures.

           

            Religions are expected to grow worldwide even as they shrink in libertarian democracies, and secularism is necessary to enable Islam to embrace the freedoms of religion and speech that are necessary for Muslims to debunk the demagoguery of ISIS.  While the excesses of liberty can be a license for immorality, liberty in law is essential to enable reason and truth to prevail over religious demagoguery.  That is why religious fundamentalists are a minority among believers in the U.S., while they are majority in Islamic cultures that have no freedom of religion or speech.  Secularism can provide the needed balance between libertarian human rights and the moral imperative to provide for the common good.  It is expressed in the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself—even one’s unbelieving neighbors.

             

Notes and References to Resources:     

Previous blogs on related topics are: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; God and Country: Resolving Conflicting Concepts of Sovereignty, March 29, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Christians Meet Muslims Today, June 14, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015. 

Roger Cohen has asked why the propaganda of ISIS trumps the freedom of libertarian democracies for many young Muslims.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/roger-cohen-why-isis-trumps-freedom.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0.

On religion and secularism, Alan Wolfe has argued “…religion’s priority of belief and secularism’s commitment to individual rights are not in opposition; rather they complement each other.”  He believes that secular values are essential to the survival of religion in the modern era.  See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/and-the-winner-is/306654/. 

Ken Gibson has stated that Islam is not the problem.  Islamism is.  “Secularism, the separation of politics and religion, is the only force that can deliver a peaceful accommodation [of politics and religion].”  And Gibson concludes, Extremism is religion’s enemy.  Secularism is its ally. See http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ken-gibson-secularism-is-religion-s-ally-against-extremes-1.2305739. 

On how the U.S. has promoted democracy, human rights and the rule of law in its foreign policy, see generally, Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium, chapter 4 in the Resources.  On the differing opinions of Islamic scholars on justice and human rights, see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights at pages 10-17 in the Resources.  On the separation of church and state from a Christian and Muslim perspective, see Church and state: conflicting concepts of sovereignty in The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: the Heart of Legitimacy at page 57 in the Resources. 

Craig Stern has explained why libertarian or negative human rights under the ICCPR are enforceable, while economic entitlements or positive human rights under the ICESCR are not, and why the latter can corrupt the former as part of the rule of law.  See Craig A. Stern, Human Rights and the Rule of Law—the Choice for East Africa, SSRN, March 6, 2015, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574823.  On democracy, human rights and fundamentalism, and differing views of Islamic scholars, see Barnes, Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a,Democracy and Human Rights at pages 2-18.  Mark R. Amstutz  has noted “The limited consensus on human rights doctrines, coupled with the ever-expanding list of rights, has had a deleterious effect on the moral foundations and priority of international human rights claims.” And that human rights provide “…norms that if not fulfilled by a state can undermine its international legitimacy.” Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories and Cases in Global Politics, Third Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, pp 97-99.  

Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provide for the freedom of religion and free expression, and Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the ICCPR make those rights a matter of international law.  The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 has no provisions comparable to Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the ICCPR, but following a Preamble that asserts the primacy of Shari’a in defining human rights, Article 11 provides in part: Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High….  Article 18 provides in part: Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property….  Article 22 provides: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.  (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. (c) Information is a vital necessity to society.  It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.  Article 24 provides specifically what the Preamble implies: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.  Article 25 provides: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was an American legal case in 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.  Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.  Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 (equivalent to $1,345 in 2015), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy, which set Modernists [Secularists], who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion, against Fundamentalists, who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether modern science regarding the creation–evolution controversy should be taught in schools. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial.