The danger of religion in politics
By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 121
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Religion is often portrayed in blasphemous ways. Or, at least, it’s portrayed in ways that certain people would consider blasphemous. One of the most dramatic examples is from September 17, 2005; the “Muhammad head cartoon”, in which a Danish newspaper printed a series of twelve pictures illustrating the article’s title, “Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam”.
One picture stood out from the rest. It was this one:
The image of Muhammad with a bomb on his head is understandably offensive. Unfortunately, Islam teachings state that those who insult Muhammad are to be killed.
As a double-whammy, there are also more Islamic mandates stating any pictures of Muhammad are prohibited. Detail from Wikipedia:
“Within Muslim communities, views have varied regarding pictorial representations. Shi’a Islam has been generally tolerant of pictorial representations of human figures, including Muhammad. Contemporary Sunni Islam generally forbids any pictorial representation of Muhammad, but has had periods allowing depictions of Muhammad’s face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light. A few contemporary interpretations of Islam, such as some adherents of Wahhabism and Salafism, are entirely aniconistic and condemn pictorial representations of any kind. The Taliban, while in power in Afghanistan, banned television, photographs and images in newspapers and destroyed paintings including frescoes in the vicinity of the Buddhas of Bamyan.”
After the newspaper pictures were printed, protests occurred throughout the Muslim world, leading to the following:
Arsonists set fire to Syria’s Norwegian and Danish embassies.
Protesters destroyed or desecrated the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City.
Over one hundred deaths occurred from police firing into crowds of the more violent protests.
Some Muslim leaders called for the death of those responsible for the pictures.
The Vatican chimed in with its own recommendations:
In its first official comment on the cartoon jihad, the Vatican spoke of the caricatures as an “unacceptable provocation.” The right to freedom of thought and expression, a Vatican statement read, “cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.”
What?! The right to free speech can’t offend anyone’s religious views? What about the contradiction of one religion’s view being another religion’s blasphemy? Even ignoring the motivations of satire or entertainment, what about when someone expresses an opinion?
Take, for example, this article you’re reading now: what if I were to say that “the above quote from the Vatican is in principle no different than a violent Muslim protest over insulting cartoons, and that such beliefs are closed-minded and dangerous to a free society”? Apparently the Vatican thinks I shouldn’t be allowed to print or say that, because it’s insulting to the Vatican’s religious beliefs.
And that’s a polite statement. Other phrases, including “dangerously oppressive and embarrassingly asinine”, might be construed as more offensive. Would the “amount of offensiveness” make a difference over something being allowed or prohibited?
I fail to understand how blocking the speech of one group can ever be justified, particularly when the same rules can be turned around on the group doing the blocking.
Click for the full story on the Muhammad cartoons, including a great history, follow-up and political ramifications of the situation. Also see a 2008 update, where the Muhammad cartoon was reprinted by several Danish newspapers as a statement for free speech, and a statement against reputed plans to murder Kurt Westergaard, the original Muhammad cartoonist.
This article is not just about the Muhammad cartoon. It’s about the impact of religion on free societies.
At the time of this writing (early 2008) George W. Bush is the United States president. The USA is churning through its political race now that we’re in the final year of Bush’s presidential term. Many candidates are vying for position to succeed Bush, and the race seems to be getting more and more religious:
One candidate is Mitt Romney, a Mormon.
Another is Rudy Giuliani, who says he “seeks guidance through prayer to Jesus”.
Ron Paul says “I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God.”
Joe Biden prays the rosary every day.
Mike Huckabee is a Baptist minister who does not believe in the theory of evolution, yet does not expect schools to teach creationism. And as a testament to his poor science education, he is “…not sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States.”
This overexposure of religion in politics is a danger on multiple fronts.
First, politics should be separate from religion: When you have religious leaders running a nation, laws will gradually shift to support the tenants of that religion. This, as we see in the fundamentalist Muslim world, will greatly interfere with free speech and personal freedoms, and will stamp out any religion or belief system not belonging to those in power.
Second, leaders of our country should have a good understanding of science and logic: Knowing science is not simply memorizing facts. One who understands how science works is one who understands the scientific method and critical thought. Both of those skills are used in other aspects of life, and – yes – controlling a country. These skills allow one to make decisions based on evidence, facts, logic and reality.
Do we really want elected leaders running our country based on their subjective interpretation of faith, rather than critical thought? Do we want our leaders to act as if their decisions are supported by the will of their particular god? Is it right to base policies in a belief system that can’t be proven?
Believe in whatever god you prefer. You have that right. So do I. But those beliefs shouldn’t be used to justify public policy. What candidates believe shouldn’t be under trial in a public forum, except for those aspects which involve them running their country.
I’d prefer to imagine an elective process contrary to what we have now. Critical thought and science education should be emphasized, and should not fall to the wayside behind religious pandering and supernatural defenses of political positions.
Podcast
Support
Email alerts
RSS
Facebook