Get religion out of politics
Share with others:
The norm for judging modernity in a society -- in human rights and in political and economic terms -- has moved steadily toward greater secularity.
This evolution has included growing tolerance of different religious beliefs. Some practitioners of some religions have taken advantage of this trend to insist on practicing their beliefs even if they are at variance with the views of the society within which they live and to seek to punch above their numerical weight in political affairs.
At one point in my life I was a member of a British Army officers' mess in which a hard-and-fast rule was no discussion of religion or politics. This rule was enforced because discussion of these two issues could be divisive to the unit, and, thus, destructive of its ability to fight as a unified body in the event of combat.
Nothing of this rule prevented some members of the mess to worship together in the unit chapel, nor to gather together after the service to "thirst after righteousness." It worked, to the degree that to this day I couldn't tell you what the personal religious beliefs of virtually any of the group's members were, even though I knew some of them quite well.
Now, in 2012, when it seems that more and more of the world's population is indifferent to or only formally practicing religions, religious differences are playing a disproportionate role in politics. And as I've said, certain sects are taking advantage of the secular, liberal -- I know, anything but that! -- practice of tolerance by modern governments to organize themselves and use their religious beliefs as a basis for political action.
One prime example are the governments and political structures emerging in the wake of the Arab Spring and other political evolutions in the Middle East.
In Egypt, if the popular drive toward democratization gets free of the stranglehold of the Egyptian military (financed at $1.3 billion a year by the United States), the political contest to rule the country will be between secularists, the relatively moderate Islamic Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafi Islamists, with the traditionally tolerated Copts and other old Christian sects trying to stay safe under the table.
This is not to say that Egyptians were better off under the Hosni Mubarak regime, or that they would be better off if the military keeps its hands on their throats and in their pockets, but there is a supreme irony in the fact that implementing democracy -- which implies modernization -- also involves a very old-fashioned religious dust-up, including violence and possibly the burning of places of worship and the like.
Another example: It is no secret that the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 set off inter-religious strife among Iraq's majority Muslims that resulted in the departure of most of the country's Christians, practitioners of very old rites, some dating literally from the time of Christ.
As for the political competition between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, with the departure of American forces from Iraq at the end of last year it will be Katy-bar-the-door. How it will end is hard to predict. Suffice it to say that, with more or less the same demographics as prevail there now -- 60 percent Shiite, 20 percent Sunni and 20 percent Sunni Kurds -- the competition will be vigorous. The Sunnis ruled from independence in 1932 until the 2003 U.S. invasion; the Shiites have been on top since 2003.
Then there's China, in theory an atheist society but with Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism probably still beneath the surface, where a major piece of the opposition to the communist government comes from the Buddhists of Tibet, the Muslims Uighurs in the west and the Falun Gong sect. None of them seem to be going away. The Tibetans' most recent tactic is the self-immolation of some monks.
Israel, meanwhile, appears to be having an increasingly hard time with its ultra-orthodox minority. That group has organized itself into political parties, which, given the reliance of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party on a coalition that includes those parties to remain in office, are wielding influence in determining Israeli policies far beyond their numerical strength.
The ultra-orthodox are shaking the fundamental principles that have governed Israel since its independence in 1948, with relatively secular governments generally in power ever since. Given, for example, the attitude of the ultra-orthodox toward women in society, not to mention in politics, it is shocking to imagine what their approach would have been to one of Israel's greatest prime ministers, Golda Meir, who led the country skillfully for five years from 1969 to 1974.
As for the United States, it is almost unbelievable that 235 years after our independence one of our two major parties is fighting out the choice of its nominee for president in no small part on the basis of religion. Americans' unhealthy preoccupation with the religious element in a candidate's wiring has enabled social conservatives to push their views to the fore in electoral contests on abortion, on the content of education and marriage -- even on freedom of religion.
How relevant is it to the likely performance of a candidate as president if he is Mormon (Mitt Romney), Catholic (Rick Santorum), Evangelical (Rick Perry), Baptist (Ron Paul) or Lutheran converted to Baptist converted to Catholic (Newt Gingrich)?
Then there is the worshipful Denver Broncos quarterback whom people, even other than Steeler fans, were delighted to see grounded by the no-doubt religiously suspect Patriots from New England.
These people give the Inquisition a bad name. Get religion out of politics.
First Published January 18, 2012 12:00 am
