The Relevance of Religion to Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Is religion relevant to politics? As long as I can remember, I was cautioned to avoid mixing religion and politics.  It has been a taboo topic in polite conversation, better left to newspaper columnists and others who were not subject to the decorum of polite society. 

            That should change.  Our religions shape our politics and we should discuss openly how they do that.  For believers, religion shapes their standards of legitimacy, or what they believe is right and wrong, and those standards govern their political views.  In a democracy where a majority of people are religious, their standards of legitimacy are a major factor in the making of laws and public policy, so that religion is as relevant to politics for unbelievers as for believers.

            Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment does not require a separation of religion and politics; it only prohibits government from establishing or promoting a religion.  In a healthy democracy people of faith should openly discuss how their religion shapes their politics and avoid either proselytizing or condemning those of other religions.          

            Not all Christians have been reluctant to mix their religion with their politics.  Evangelical Christians gave Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz their enthusiastic support in the GOP Presidential primaries, and black Christians gave Hillary Clinton their support in Democratic primaries.  But mainstream white Christians had little impact on election results in either party, perhaps because they were reluctant to allow their faith to inform their politics.

            Black Christians have never been reluctant to mix religion and politics.  The separate but equal political culture of the Jim Crow South made the black church a place where blacks could comfortably discuss their politics, and since then the black church has produced many leaders and decided many elections.  White evangelical (fundamentalist) Christians began mixing their religion with politics in the 1980s as part of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, but mainstream Christian denominations have remained reluctant to mix their religion and politics.

            America’s diversity is its greatest strength, but in matters of religion diversity has been a weakness.  That’s because Christianity and Islam advocate conflicting standards of legitimacy, and fundamentalists in each religion seek to impose their standards of morality on others, doing more to divide us than to unify us.  That influences every aspect of democratic politics, from making laws to defining our individual rights and providing for the common good.  In Islamic cultures, apostasy and blasphemy laws effectively preclude the freedom of religion and speech.   

            Even in the U.S., democracy is a fragile fabric that can unravel with disastrous consequences.  That happened 156 years ago when U.S. democracy came apart at the seams, caused by the greed of slaveholding aristocrats and the fear of poorer whites that freed slaves would take over Southern politics and their livelihood.  The Civil War resulted because religion was unable to end the peculiar institution of slavery.  Today greed and fear again threaten the stability of our democracy, with the future of the middle class in jeopardy; and politicians exploit that fear and stoke the resulting anger, with religion often aiding and abetting their cause.

            In a pluralistic democracy, religious exclusivity and conflicting standards of legitimacy must be reconciled to maintain political stability.  When politicians exploit contentious issues of race or religion to motivate their constituents, the resulting fear and anger poisons politics, polarizes races and religions, and threatens the stability of democracy.  American voters need to consider how their religion should influence their politics and balance their individual interests and rights with providing for the common good.  The politics of divide and conquer must be replaced by a politics of reconciliation to preserve our democracy.

            In Islamic cultures, religion and politics are in transition.  While the media emphasizes Islamist violence, there are subtle changes in Islamic cultures that could have an even greater impact on world politics.  Islamic law (Shari’a) seems to be giving way to libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law, and Secretary of State Kerry has emphasized the importance of religion to U.S. foreign policy objectives.        

            The ultimate standard of legitimacy for Jews, Christians and Muslims is the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, with our neighbors including those of other races and religions.  It is a common word of faith that can reconcile conflicting standards of legitimacy; otherwise, we risk being polarized by our religious differences, much as racial issues have polarized our politics in the past.  And if we allow our religions to become polarized, as has happened in Europe, we can expect unstable democracies and continuing religious violence.

            It’s time for Americans to recognize the relevance of their religion to their politics and promote a politics of reconciliation, making the greatest commandment the guiding principle of their faith and politics.  If most Americans were to embrace that moral imperative of faith, our racial and religious differences would no longer threaten the stability of our democracy, and political demagogues like Donald Trump would have little chance of being elected.  Let’s open our hearts and minds to the politics of reconciliation and reject the politics of division, strengthening our democracy by loving our neighbors—all of them—as we love ourselves.

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; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; The Future of Religion: In Decline and Growing, June 7, 2015; Racism, Religious Exclusivism and Reconciliation, July 5, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 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; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; and Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016.

A poll by the Pew Research Center indicates Americans are reluctant to talk about religion.  See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/many-americans-dont-argue-about-religion-or-even-talk-about-it/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=8cba27b006-Religion_weekly_April_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-8cba27b006-39997110.

Another poll of the Pew Research Center indicates that Islam is in transition and that Muslims are divided over whether their national laws should strictly follow the Qur’an or Shari’a.  See http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/04/27/the-divide-over-islam-and-national-laws-in-the-muslim-world/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=ffe66553c3-Religion_weekly_April_28_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-ffe66553c3-399971105.

Secretary of State John Kerry has underscored the importance of religion to U.S. foreign policy.  See http://www.sltrib.com/home/3826722-155/kerry-explains-why-religion-can-play.

Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

           

            Politics in America has never been known for its gentility and decorum, but this political season has been unusually rude, crude and even nasty.  Political nastiness goes beyond bad manners and becomes immoral when it shows intentional disrespect for others, and that has been evident in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns; but Donald Trump has set new standards of political nastiness with his personal insults and crude vernacular.

            Michael Gerson has referred to political nastiness in politics as bad manners, and said that “Manners are not the same thing as morality.  They are practical rules for living together.  Unlike morality, manners vary greatly by country and tribe, as well as across time.”  But morality, like manners, are practical rules for living together that “…vary greatly by country and tribe, as well as across time.”  Impugning another’s character and integrity is more than bad manners anywhere.  While it may not be unlawful, it is certainly immoral.

            Law, morality and manners are all standards of legitimacy that define what is right and wrong, and they vary among different cultures and religions.  It is important to distinguish the obligatory standards of law from the voluntary standards of morality and manners.  Libertarian democracy and human rights cannot exist when religious prohibitions like apostasy and blasphemy are made law and enforced by the state since they preclude the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech.  That feature of Shari’a has distorted human rights in Islamic nations. 

            The distinction between morality and manners is not as important as the distinction between law and morality, but morality is more important as a standard of legitimacy than good manners or etiquette.  Moral standards are at the foundation of what we define to be legitimate, while manners are limited to decorum and politeness.  Gerson has cited Miss Manners:

“America has — in theory — the best code of manners the world has ever seen.  That’s because it is based on respect for the individual, regardless of his or her origin. Good manners in America are about helping strangers. They’re also about judging people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds. These are principles that were deliberately worked out by our Founding Fathers to assure the dignity of the individual and to keep society nonhierarchical.” 

            Miss Manners has blurred the distinction between manners and morality.  The standards of etiquette and decorum are more superficial than those of morality, which are based on the greatest commandment to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself.  It is morality, not manners, that motivates us to help strangers and judge people on their qualities rather than on their backgrounds.  That moral imperative of faith was a guiding principle of “our Founding Fathers to assure the dignity of the individual and keep society nonhierarchical,” and it remains at the foundation of libertarian democracy and human rights.

            Political correctness is in a category by itself.  It refers to standards of legitimacy that are considered important to some but offensive to others.  It began with an emphasis on accepting diversity in cultural values on race, sex and sexual preference in colleges and universities, and has evolved into the prohibition of any activity deemed objectionable by self-proclaimed public censors.  There is widespread public opposition to such political correctness as a limitation on the freedom of speech, and that has provoked a great deal of political nastiness.

            Standards of political correctness, like those of manners and morality, vary from place to place.  In Great Britain students representing Black Lives Matter at Oxford University demanded that a statue of Cecil Rhodes be removed from their campus; but the Chancellor of Oxford, Chris Patton (Lord of Barnes), not only refused their demand but in a letter addressed to those “Scrotty Students” he excoriated them for trying to rewrite history.

            Chancellor Patten’s sentiments and candor would be out of place in U.S. academic circles, but they resonate with many outside academia.  At a speech in Philadelphia on April 7, President Bill Clinton, himself a Rhodes scholar, berated a Black Lives Matter heckler for criticizing his 1994 crime bill as being racially discriminatory, as well as Hillary Clinton’s 1996 remark that the new law would rid the streets of thugs as “super predators.”    

            There is deep-seated public resentment to standards of political correctness that demand the redaction of history to suit the preferences of those aggrieved by it, and that stifle open and candid discussion of controversial issues that might upset the delicate sensitivities of today’s students—and that public resentment is not limited to Trump and Cruz supporters.

            Conflicts over issues of legitimacy in law, morality, manners and what is considered to be politically correct reflect a deeply divided America that is in need of political reconciliation.  The spirit of inquiry and lively debate should not be discouraged by standards of political correctness, but public debate should meet the criteria of morality and good manners.  Contemporary politics has provided examples of how not to do this.  Our religious and political leaders can do better.  They should exemplify how we can carry on a civil discussion of controversial issues.

Notes and References to Related Blogs:

On related blogs, see Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11,2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Moral Restraints on the Freedom of Speech, May 17, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad Today, June 14, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag, July 19, 2015; What Is Truth?, August 30, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 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; and The Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good, April 2, 2016.

Michael Gerson’s commentary on manners is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-election-proves-why-manners-matter/2016/04/04/92748de0-fa8f-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Chancellor Patten’s response to the demand of black students at Oxford University is at https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=36afc48405&view=pt&search=inbox&th=153d8b3fb15d9597&siml=153d8b3fb15d9597.

For President Clinton’s response to a Black Lives Matter demonstrator in Philadelphia, see

http://nypost.com/2016/04/08/oops-bill-clinton-accidentally-told-the-truth-and-paid-the-price/.

For a more comprehensive account, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/campaign-stops/unlocking-the-truth-about-the-clinton-crime-bill.html?_r=0.

Catherine Rampell has described the pernicious effect of political correctness on higher education as a form of liberal intolerance at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tolerant-on-the-nations-college-campuses/2016/02/11/0f79e8e8-d101-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

  

Religious Violence and the Dilemma of Freedom and Democracy

  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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/islamic-state-getting-trounced-in-battle-for-arab-hearts-and-minds-survey-finds/2016/04/11/71c32774-0024-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

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.  

The Causes of Religious Violence and Ways to Combat Them

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

What causes religious violence?  Is it a propensity for violence that motivates most religious

terrorists, or is it poverty, underdevelopment and despair?  Or could it be radical religion that motivates fanatical zealots to kill unbelievers?  Or could it be all of the above?  In any event, unless we know the cause of religious violence, we cannot combat and defeat it.

Fareed Zakaria has asserted that terrorists are radicals with a propensity for violence before they become religious.  The Aga Khan, the leader of Ismaili Muslims, has asserted that “Islam and terror have not the slightest thing in common” and that “Poverty, underdevelopment and despair are without doubt among the most important causes.”  But those Muslims recruited by ISIS from the U.S. and Europe are neither criminals nor victims of poverty.  They are educated Muslims who have become radicalized.

It appears that radical religion is the primary cause of religious violence, but the Obama administration has obscured that cause by denying the religious nature of ISIS and referring to it as ISIL.  In order to counter the radical Islamism of ISIS, moderate Muslims must undermine its legitimacy with Islamic doctrines of peace and justice; but that requires the freedoms of religion and speech that are absent in Islamic cultures.  It took the Reformation and the Enlightenment to undermine the legitimacy of an oppressive Church, but most of its many variants now embrace libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Islam is overdue to experience its own reformation and enlightenment.

The first requirement in combatting religious violence is a government that is willing and able to enforce secular laws that prohibit violence, such as assault, rape, kidnapping and murder.  That applies to Christians who kill abortion doctors, Jews who kill Palestinians, and Islamists who kill unbelievers.  Where ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram thrive and promote violence, governments are either unwilling or unable to enforce secular law, and moderate believers don’t have the freedoms of religion and speech to challenge the legitimacy of radical Islamism.  It is a problem of legitimacy, and the moral and legal standards of legitimacy are shaped by religion.

Standards of legitimacy define justice, which is the ultimate measure of any religion; and when religious radicals define justice with violence, religion fails the test of legitimacy.  Radical Islamists assert that God’s justice is defined by a sacred rule of law (Shari’a) that preempts libertarian democracy and human rights and sanctifies violence.  But claiming that violence is the will of God doesn’t make it just; and where ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram thrive and commit their violence with impunity it isn’t because most people believe it is God’s will, but because of ineffective and illegitimate government.

In order to promote peace and justice a religion must advocate standards of legitimacy, law and politics that condemn violence and maintain peace, and in today’s world, that requires libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Modern Judaism and Christianity have embraced those principles of libertarian democracy and human rights, but in Islamic cultures those libertarian principles are subordinated to the ancient and immutable Islamic law of Shari’a, which includes apostasy and blasphemy laws that preclude the freedom of religion and speech. 

Shari’a is remarkably like Jewish (or Mosaic) law, which reflects their common Semitic roots, but since the Enlightenment most Jews and Christians have subordinated their ancient religious laws to the secular law and human rights of libertarian democracy; and where those libertarian principles have prevailed, radical religious movements have not gained political traction. (Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Russia were oppressive regimes that arose in Christian cultures, but were not religious in nature)

A minority of Christian and Jewish fundamentalists continue to assert the supremacy of their holy laws over the secular laws and human rights of libertarian democracy; and they frequently cause political repercussions, as with their support of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz in the U.S., and with periodic outbursts of violence against Palestinians in Israel.  But so far religious fundamentalists have remained a minority in libertarian democracies and unable to undermine human rights and equal justice under law.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are pluralistic religions that include progressive, conservative and fundamentalist sects, and most Muslim leaders are quick to disclaim any relationship with radical Islamist violence.  Nevertheless, radical Islamism is a primary motivating force for ISIS violence.  In libertarian democracies that violence can be controlled through the enforcement of criminal laws, and cooperative efforts between law enforcement and Muslims can identify and deter young Muslims attracted to ISIS. 

In Dearborn, Michigan, law enforcement has worked closely with Muslims to identify and deradicalize young Muslims attracted to ISIS.  In Europe there is less assimilation of Muslims, and neighborhoods like Molenbeek, a suburb of Brussels, Belgium, have become havens for radical Islamists and produced terrorist attacks.  More assimilation of Muslims and cooperative efforts with law enforcement are needed to counter Islamist violence in Europe.

The real challenge for combatting Islamist violence is not in the U.S. or Europe where Muslims are minorities who can be assimilated to libertarian values, but in Islamic cultures where governments—even those in Islamic democracies—subordinate secular law and human rights to Shari’a with its apostasy and blasphemy laws, and are either unable or unwilling to prosecute the violence of radical Islamists. 

Religious violence can thrive wherever religious laws take precedence over libertarian human rights and the secular rule of law.  Until Shari’a is considered a voluntary moral code of legitimacy for Muslims rather than a code of positive or coercive law, it will preclude libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law in Islamic cultures, and Islamist terrorists will be able to promote their violence with distorted interpretations of  Shari’a.     

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; and The Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good, April 2, 2016.

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 cooperative program between Muslims and law enforcement in Dearborn, Michigan, to identify and deradicalize young Muslims, see http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/fbi-muslim-outreach-terrorism-213765.

For a compilation of Islamic laws (Shari’a) and Jewish Mosaic Law, see the Appendices to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy (the J&M Book), posted in Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ at pages 469-651.

The Freedom of Religion and Providing for the Common Good

 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 19^th 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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/re-energizing-blasphemy-law-egypt-prosecutes-for-a-facebook-post-on-sheep/2016/03/30/2fb4ee9c-df42-11e5-8c00-8aa03741dced_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

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.