Reading about the return to Pakistan of an expat and how he saw, with alarm, the transition from the zealots being in a minority:
.. to this:
... it is perhaps one area where the atheists, agnostics, humanists and Christians* can agree.
I'm using the term Christian* here to mean one who has made a personal commitment and plans to live his life doing good things to the best of his ability. The term, as used in this article, excludes theocracy, the militant right, creationist science, door knockers and so on. It is using the term in the way it was meant to be used in the gospels - a commitment to faith, hope and charity.
So, in that sense, all the above groups would support the contention that religion should not be imposed by the state, to the extent that it rules or dictates to them regarding their personal lives. This is a far cry from a country recognizing a religion as its historical roots and honouring that tradition, as it honours all its patriots and national heroes. In this I am a firm antidistestablishmentarianist. - the nominal religion is the nominal religion and to distestablish it is to deny one's past.
Ditto religious freedom. Just as the state should not impose the "state religion" on the people at a personal level, neither should there be any suppression of people's personal faith except where it is shown by incident after incident and by its very nature, to be contrary to the way of life of that nation.
An extreme example is a cult of assassins or the Temple of Set or something like that. A less extreme but still pervasive example is a religion which aims to take over the society and enforce worship, as well as in the subjugation of women and introduction of barbaric practices.
The tradition of the state/church divide was an issue with Thomas Jefferson:
... but he was referring to the fledgling state of America, not to an old world country where the religion followed by all constituted the backdrop to the nation.
Wiki refers to the Turkish and French laïcité:
There was a quite promising compromise between church and state in 1848 France:
The "honeymoon" was destroyed by a combination of extreme papists and extreme secularists. I have long contended that the intolerant attitude of humanistic atheists is every bit as damaging as the most extreme religious zealot and just as unjust on the common man and so it seems to have been at that time.
In the republic I lived in, in Russia, there was a perfect example of how the Muslim religion could live with the Orthodox Christian church and the secularist Russian state. The key was in centuries of inter-marriage and a tolerant attitude to religion in general. I hasten to add that this was not so during that history itself, especially during the Soviet oppression and that of the much earlier Khanate but in the modern day.
One of the key factors in this was a president who, whilst personally loyal to his Muslim faith, nevertheless saw that the state's progress in the world arena would be benefited by a compromise position. Thus the zealots were shut out of power and no religious war erupted.
This is, IMHO, as it should be. Christian historians might argue that without Constantine, Christianity would not have survived and they have a point. I wonder though, as the early church was most certainly an underground thing, spread by samizdat in a way, whether the raw message of the cross would not have found many adherents the world over anyway.
Looking at the Sharia states, it's also clear that when they are in control, the state as a whole fails to go forward either economically or socially. Of all the modern states where state/church separation is an issue, Turkey is an example of the attempt to make it modern and at the same time, it is being dragged back down by the fundamentalists.
But these zealots, despite their high profile, remained marginal in society as religion was a personal affair, not something you discussed in your drawing room.
.. to this:
I was overwhelmed by the all-pervasive religious symbols in public spaces, and the theocratic debates raging in the independent media, as well as in the homes of friends and relatives.
... it is perhaps one area where the atheists, agnostics, humanists and Christians* can agree.
I'm using the term Christian* here to mean one who has made a personal commitment and plans to live his life doing good things to the best of his ability. The term, as used in this article, excludes theocracy, the militant right, creationist science, door knockers and so on. It is using the term in the way it was meant to be used in the gospels - a commitment to faith, hope and charity.
So, in that sense, all the above groups would support the contention that religion should not be imposed by the state, to the extent that it rules or dictates to them regarding their personal lives. This is a far cry from a country recognizing a religion as its historical roots and honouring that tradition, as it honours all its patriots and national heroes. In this I am a firm antidistestablishmentarianist. - the nominal religion is the nominal religion and to distestablish it is to deny one's past.
Ditto religious freedom. Just as the state should not impose the "state religion" on the people at a personal level, neither should there be any suppression of people's personal faith except where it is shown by incident after incident and by its very nature, to be contrary to the way of life of that nation.
An extreme example is a cult of assassins or the Temple of Set or something like that. A less extreme but still pervasive example is a religion which aims to take over the society and enforce worship, as well as in the subjugation of women and introduction of barbaric practices.
The tradition of the state/church divide was an issue with Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
... but he was referring to the fledgling state of America, not to an old world country where the religion followed by all constituted the backdrop to the nation.
Wiki refers to the Turkish and French laïcité:
Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practised the laïcité school of secularism since 1923. While France comes from a Roman Catholic tradition and Turkey from an Islamic one, secularism in Turkey and secularism in France present many similarities.
There was a quite promising compromise between church and state in 1848 France:
Both bishops and the Catholic press waxed enthusiastically about the February revolution. Three archbishops, Monsignor Affre, of Paris, Monsignor Donnet, of Bordeaux, and Cardinal de Bonald, of Lyons, all publicly pledged support to the new regime. "The republican flag will protect the religious flag," said Donnet.
Modern republicans too viewed the Church as a bulwark of stability especially after the June Days. The Church had not been allied with the Orleanist Monarchy, it remained a powerful institution in society, and religion was a stabilizing influence. So long as leading Catholics and conservative republicans agreed upon issues, Church-State relations were harmonious.
The "honeymoon" was destroyed by a combination of extreme papists and extreme secularists. I have long contended that the intolerant attitude of humanistic atheists is every bit as damaging as the most extreme religious zealot and just as unjust on the common man and so it seems to have been at that time.
In the republic I lived in, in Russia, there was a perfect example of how the Muslim religion could live with the Orthodox Christian church and the secularist Russian state. The key was in centuries of inter-marriage and a tolerant attitude to religion in general. I hasten to add that this was not so during that history itself, especially during the Soviet oppression and that of the much earlier Khanate but in the modern day.
One of the key factors in this was a president who, whilst personally loyal to his Muslim faith, nevertheless saw that the state's progress in the world arena would be benefited by a compromise position. Thus the zealots were shut out of power and no religious war erupted.
This is, IMHO, as it should be. Christian historians might argue that without Constantine, Christianity would not have survived and they have a point. I wonder though, as the early church was most certainly an underground thing, spread by samizdat in a way, whether the raw message of the cross would not have found many adherents the world over anyway.
Looking at the Sharia states, it's also clear that when they are in control, the state as a whole fails to go forward either economically or socially. Of all the modern states where state/church separation is an issue, Turkey is an example of the attempt to make it modern and at the same time, it is being dragged back down by the fundamentalists.
"that act of the whole American people which declared that ...": Jefferson realy was the Goebbels of his day.
ReplyDelete