Umberto Eco, in the preface to the American edition of his book, Travels in hyper reality, said he liked to teach to expound still imperfect ideas and hear the students’ reaction. He called it a “difficult game” because it didn’t always work that you were reassured when you met agreement or had doubts when faced with dissent. Then he says something I found truly profound;
“Sometimes you have to follow the opposite course; Distrust agreement and find in dissent the conformation of your own intuitions.”
That for me epitomizes the nature of Luther’s political philosophy. Martin Luther, for all intents and purposes, was a man who spent pretty much all his life swimming up the proverbial stream. He was a monk who married a nun and then spent the rest of the tie causing all manner of mayhem in the Catholic Church.
I think it’s difficult not to like Luther. He is the kind of rebel you root for and hope his cause is furthered. It seems like he got tired of all the theory and rhetoric of the Catholic Church and decided to come up with a better plan.
His philosophy is based on the idea of dual membership, as ‘O’ Donovan and O’Donovan puts it. The idea is that every Christian is subject to the temporal law and sword, that this is something within the will of God. He talks about Romans 13 that goes on at length about being subject to governing authority and 1Peter 2:13-14 which pretty much reiterates Romans. He says that it is God’s will that temporal authority be used to punish wickedness and protect righteousness.
Luther believes that temporal laws exists or at least needs to exist because of how few Christians there actually are. He talks about true believers having the holy spirit who makes them good; convicts them of sin and righteousness so to speak. He supports this with 1Timothy 1:9; “The law is not laid down not for the first but for the lawless.”
In the same breath, this renegade teaches the Christians to be followers of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. He clearly demonstrates the fact that Christians should be in the world but not of it – salt and light. He agrees entirely with Christ in Mathew 22:21 when He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
He goes on and on about different things; church and state, conduct of believers and the like. Not unlike Eco, he was expounding on his still imperfect ideas and learning through experimentation. Regardless of how much I like the guy though, we don’t see eye to eye on every count. I don’t think one should pick and choose the parts of the Bible to believe in just because some contradict your beliefs. His dislike of the book of James, because in it James talks about faith without works being dead, is one of the things I disagree with Luther on.
There is a song by Maroon 5 titled ‘Moves like Jagger’ and it surprisingly got me thinking about Martin Luther. The song title and the lines of the song pretty much give you the impression that, Adam Levine, the guy singing it, is cool or awesome of whatever such word you’d use to describe him because he associates himself with Mick Jagger. Everyone knows Mick Jagger and the Rolling stones and how profound their music is and so by drawing a comparison between himself and Mick, he is saying to everyone, “I am that good!”
I think of Luther and the greatest compliment I can give him is; he has the moves like the apostle Paul. In a lot of ways, they are like the same person. Paul, formerly Saul, became this ‘rebel’ after seeing the light on the road to Damascus and started a remarked journey fighting the very institution he had once so fervently represented. Through his letters, he helped the churches see for themselves how remarkable the gifts of salvation were and how they should live know the inheritance they had.
Luther, the Paul of the reformation, pretty much followed in his footsteps. He taught faith where the Catholic Church taught the law, the spoke up for what he believed even though doing that was dangerous and he made a major difference with his writings.
So, what are my thoughts on Luther’s political philosophy and writing style? He was radical and passionate and driven: A true game changer with moves like Paul.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Does God have dominion over the world? by Ruth Achilla
The first couple of times I read the question, I was stumped. I mean, how am I supposed to respond to that? I am a Christian and I believe in God and all so the right answer is certainly. Then, I thought about it and tried to figure why I was so sure.
The philosophers certainly thought He did. Irenaeus quotes Paul’s letter to the Romans which basically states that people should be subject to those in authority because they are ordained of God who is pretty much the last point of call in the power hierarchy – the supreme who everyone has to answer too ultimately.
Something else that Irenaeus said caught my attention. I mean it’s all very well that God put a bunch of people in authority over the rest of us. That has been said over and over but the idea that He put the devil under the power of men I feel is profound. The truth is, not only does God have dominion over the world; He has no qualms sharing this sovereign power with men. Talk about a God who is not threatened! The way God exercises His power and authority is a far cry from most of the leaders that I have seen around. There is always the lingering fear of being usurped and so instead of sharing their authority as God does, they often hoard their power and everybody suffers as a result their insecurity.
I think that God’s dominion is evident in the fact that He is just. He cannot stand sin and that causes a rift between Him and man. At the same time though, He is aware of our weakness and because of this, He sends His son to bear all our sin and unrighteousness upon himself. He does this because He is a fair judge. I think in every judgment, the ‘accused’ should have had a choice. By sending Christ, God gives the world the choice for good and for life. In the end, judgment has to be passed because the one who effects the sentence has to see it carried out. As Augustine of Hippos says, “remove justice and what are Kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?” Judgment, I think, is His way of saying, “I am keeping tabs on the lot of you, so be good.”
In the end of course, like the children that we are, not everyone listens and He has to punish the disobedient. This is the responsibility that comes with His authority over the world.
Then at the same time I think, He has all this power, right? He is the one who put our leaders in place and so on. If He really does control everything, He kind of is making a mess of running things. The political scene right now is going to the dogs and our belief systems are warped. Very few people seem to be living as He intended at all but He still lets that happen even when everything seems to go from bad to worse.
The truth is, so many things about the way God runs things are impossible for me to understand. Often times I find myself comparing the way God runs things to the way a ‘good’ leader would. When you really think about it, there is no way you can draw comparisons. God’s ways are a labyrinth of complexities that the human mind cannot even begin to conceive.
I was listening earlier today to a song by Cece Winans and the lyrics kind of stood out to me. She sung;
I am the I am, I am all that you need
I can Yes, I can and no it ain’t too hard for me.
Do you know do you really believe?
Every day, every night of your life… I am.
So I thought; we could throw arguments back and forth all day and spend endless hours deliberating over all the things that are representations of His dominion but in the end, it’s His air we breathe. You really cannot do better than that!
The philosophers certainly thought He did. Irenaeus quotes Paul’s letter to the Romans which basically states that people should be subject to those in authority because they are ordained of God who is pretty much the last point of call in the power hierarchy – the supreme who everyone has to answer too ultimately.
Something else that Irenaeus said caught my attention. I mean it’s all very well that God put a bunch of people in authority over the rest of us. That has been said over and over but the idea that He put the devil under the power of men I feel is profound. The truth is, not only does God have dominion over the world; He has no qualms sharing this sovereign power with men. Talk about a God who is not threatened! The way God exercises His power and authority is a far cry from most of the leaders that I have seen around. There is always the lingering fear of being usurped and so instead of sharing their authority as God does, they often hoard their power and everybody suffers as a result their insecurity.
I think that God’s dominion is evident in the fact that He is just. He cannot stand sin and that causes a rift between Him and man. At the same time though, He is aware of our weakness and because of this, He sends His son to bear all our sin and unrighteousness upon himself. He does this because He is a fair judge. I think in every judgment, the ‘accused’ should have had a choice. By sending Christ, God gives the world the choice for good and for life. In the end, judgment has to be passed because the one who effects the sentence has to see it carried out. As Augustine of Hippos says, “remove justice and what are Kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?” Judgment, I think, is His way of saying, “I am keeping tabs on the lot of you, so be good.”
In the end of course, like the children that we are, not everyone listens and He has to punish the disobedient. This is the responsibility that comes with His authority over the world.
Then at the same time I think, He has all this power, right? He is the one who put our leaders in place and so on. If He really does control everything, He kind of is making a mess of running things. The political scene right now is going to the dogs and our belief systems are warped. Very few people seem to be living as He intended at all but He still lets that happen even when everything seems to go from bad to worse.
The truth is, so many things about the way God runs things are impossible for me to understand. Often times I find myself comparing the way God runs things to the way a ‘good’ leader would. When you really think about it, there is no way you can draw comparisons. God’s ways are a labyrinth of complexities that the human mind cannot even begin to conceive.
I was listening earlier today to a song by Cece Winans and the lyrics kind of stood out to me. She sung;
I am the I am, I am all that you need
I can Yes, I can and no it ain’t too hard for me.
Do you know do you really believe?
Every day, every night of your life… I am.
So I thought; we could throw arguments back and forth all day and spend endless hours deliberating over all the things that are representations of His dominion but in the end, it’s His air we breathe. You really cannot do better than that!
What role does God play in modern politics? by Ruth Achilla
My first reaction to the question was a desire to revise it. I thought it should be, ‘What role should God play in modern politics?’ The way I see things, the political scene right now has been so secularized, it’s nearly impossible to imagine God actually participating actively in such a broken down system.
Strangely, a few countries like Uganda throw in a few lines about God in the National anthem. We even have our leaders swear on the Bible as they assume office but in truth, the way political offices are run makes the absence of any true commitment to God painfully obvious.
Let’s go back in time a little, to when God was the central point of the political scene. In Genesis 1:26 (paraphrased) God says, let’s make man in our own image and let them have dominion over the earth. Undoubtedly, it’s clear that God is not anti leadership and he wanted man to have a major role in the creation process.
God seemed to desire a partnership with man and also He shared his power with him. Well as the story goes, man fell and the dynamic shifted from the partnership and fellowship that has earlier existed to there being a few handpicked ‘judges’ who were God’s mouth piece. Then in 1Samuel 8, the people demand for a thing because they want to be like everyday else. By making this demand, God said to Samuel that the people had forsaken Him and betrayed Him after everything they had been through together.
Fast forward back to the present and you realize that things have not really changed from the time of the Israelites and Saul. There is still that constant search for the new revolutionary ‘king’ to lead them only new, the ‘them’ is us and we are repeating the same mistake over again. I think what we do not realize is that God really is not a dictator. I mean he could have a political overhaul in the blink of an eye and throw all the corrupt leaders out of cabinet if he wanted to. He does not do that. As Jesus said to Pilate before his crucifixion, all the authority that Pilate had was God given. This is reiterated in Romans 13 which teaches that there is no authority except for God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Contrary to what a lot of people think, God is not the man in the sky, looking down on us; irrelevant, archaic and removed from the scheme of things. He actually is responsible for the leaders because there can be no authority that He has not appointed. I think, what we need to understand finally is that to operate with authority, we have to be under authority. There has to be a willingness on our part to stop sideling Him and imagining that God will be pacified by insincere demonstrations of commitment and loyalty. What he wants, like Amos says, is righteousness and justice, not sacrifice.
I think that the role of God is hindered in modern politics not only by the controlling, corrupting thirst for power but also a refusal by leaders who could make a difference to take the leadership reins and restore the partnership that existed before with God.
God is not at war with man, neither is He a weakling with a low self esteem who needs flattery to make Him feel better about Himself. No, He is sovereign and He already has all the power. I think what He is saying to us is when we have a choice, we should choose right.
Strangely, a few countries like Uganda throw in a few lines about God in the National anthem. We even have our leaders swear on the Bible as they assume office but in truth, the way political offices are run makes the absence of any true commitment to God painfully obvious.
Let’s go back in time a little, to when God was the central point of the political scene. In Genesis 1:26 (paraphrased) God says, let’s make man in our own image and let them have dominion over the earth. Undoubtedly, it’s clear that God is not anti leadership and he wanted man to have a major role in the creation process.
God seemed to desire a partnership with man and also He shared his power with him. Well as the story goes, man fell and the dynamic shifted from the partnership and fellowship that has earlier existed to there being a few handpicked ‘judges’ who were God’s mouth piece. Then in 1Samuel 8, the people demand for a thing because they want to be like everyday else. By making this demand, God said to Samuel that the people had forsaken Him and betrayed Him after everything they had been through together.
Fast forward back to the present and you realize that things have not really changed from the time of the Israelites and Saul. There is still that constant search for the new revolutionary ‘king’ to lead them only new, the ‘them’ is us and we are repeating the same mistake over again. I think what we do not realize is that God really is not a dictator. I mean he could have a political overhaul in the blink of an eye and throw all the corrupt leaders out of cabinet if he wanted to. He does not do that. As Jesus said to Pilate before his crucifixion, all the authority that Pilate had was God given. This is reiterated in Romans 13 which teaches that there is no authority except for God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Contrary to what a lot of people think, God is not the man in the sky, looking down on us; irrelevant, archaic and removed from the scheme of things. He actually is responsible for the leaders because there can be no authority that He has not appointed. I think, what we need to understand finally is that to operate with authority, we have to be under authority. There has to be a willingness on our part to stop sideling Him and imagining that God will be pacified by insincere demonstrations of commitment and loyalty. What he wants, like Amos says, is righteousness and justice, not sacrifice.
I think that the role of God is hindered in modern politics not only by the controlling, corrupting thirst for power but also a refusal by leaders who could make a difference to take the leadership reins and restore the partnership that existed before with God.
God is not at war with man, neither is He a weakling with a low self esteem who needs flattery to make Him feel better about Himself. No, He is sovereign and He already has all the power. I think what He is saying to us is when we have a choice, we should choose right.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Does freedom of religion improve the political well-being of a country? by Sarah Rubombora
In many ways, I would say that freedom of religion is important for any country’s political well-being. The statistics presented in Pew’s report reveal the dangers of not having specific laws allowing freedom of religion as well as an established social practice of adhering to those laws. Human beings are complex creatures and when bunched together on basis of faith it is harder for them to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Freedom of religion is one of those ideas intended to stop the marginalization of one religious group in favour of another with each having the freedom to worship. It is interesting how even when freedom of religion is recognised by state law, its implementation does not necessarily translate into peaceful co-existence or an accepted adherence of those laws by the society in which they exist.
The BBC news recently featured a story of Egyptian Coptic Christian protests in the capital against the oppression they were receiving by their Muslim counterparts. Instead of being heard, their peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the military interim government who reportedly drove an army truck into the crowd of protestors. Egyptian Law does not prohibit Coptic Christians from practicing their religion but among the people of Egypt who are mainly Muslim, there is a growing consensus that Egypt should fully assert its Muslim identity. This leaves little room for religious tolerance of competing religions especially Christianity.
However, it would make sense if a state chose a religion to adhere to based on its majority following among the people. It would give clear boundaries to those of contrasting religions on how far they can go to assert themselves in a society that does not appreciate their views or presence. It would also avoid a long line of battles that would stem from the inevitable bias of government towards the dominant religion. There would be a lot more peaceful co-existence based on the people’s values. Not everyone can be made happy, but by pleasing the majority a government can go a long way to bringing maximum happiness to its people.
Having a State religion favoured by majority of the people and implemented by the government is important. Pews report put forward an interesting discovery of how countries that have gone to great lengths to implement freedom of religion and non-discrimination such as the United Kingdom and France have ended up on the opposite side of the scale by oppressing the very religions they are trying to streamline. Nurses in Britain can be dismissed from their jobs if they pray with patients and France has the ban on wearing Muslim headscarves in schools. Rather than pretending to be neutral, states should just go with the majority and be fair by recognising the need for other religions to have a voice even if it is not the dominant voice.
Freedom of religion from the perspective that everyone has equal benefits and freedom from being not openly opposed is unrealistic. If Pew’s report only recorded religious intolerance from the period of mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the age of democracy, global co-operation and the United Nations with its numerous Conventions and agreements that actively promote freedom of religion, it should be clear that it cannot always work the way it is codified in law. The political well-being of a country rests on the ability of a government to recognise the needs and wants of its people and find a peaceful way of implementing and maintaining those desires.
In Countries with two or more dominant religions, an emphasis on recognising each religion in various aspects of governance and maintaining a proper balance especially in areas where people of those religions mix will be the test of success in such a country. Mutual respect must be demanded but in recognition of dominant religions and clear boundaries for where those religions have an upper hand in society. Christians and Muslims in Uganda have gone as far as creating an Inter-religious Council that allows Ugandans of the dominant religious groups to have a say on what laws should be put in place against human sacrifice and against homosexuality. This kind of co-existence improves the political well-being in a State and achieves what freedom of religion is meant to achieve on a more realistic scale.
Freedom of religion may attempt to improve the political well-being of a country but it does not always achieve this because it fails to recognise the need for recognition of dominant faiths within society and respect for their position. Its call for non-discrimination and peaceful co-existence is important and needed but it is doomed to fail in implementation where streamlining all religions is the method used. There has to be a recognition of dominant religions by governments as a starting point and from there a culture of respect and peaceful co-existence fostered from that source. People want peace, they do not want to be made to believe one thing or the other. However, if respecting the beliefs of another religion while freely and openly practicing one’s own is the way one can attain such peace in an ever-changing world, then majority of people will choose peaceful co-existence to religious and political conflict.
The BBC news recently featured a story of Egyptian Coptic Christian protests in the capital against the oppression they were receiving by their Muslim counterparts. Instead of being heard, their peaceful protest was brutally suppressed by the military interim government who reportedly drove an army truck into the crowd of protestors. Egyptian Law does not prohibit Coptic Christians from practicing their religion but among the people of Egypt who are mainly Muslim, there is a growing consensus that Egypt should fully assert its Muslim identity. This leaves little room for religious tolerance of competing religions especially Christianity.
However, it would make sense if a state chose a religion to adhere to based on its majority following among the people. It would give clear boundaries to those of contrasting religions on how far they can go to assert themselves in a society that does not appreciate their views or presence. It would also avoid a long line of battles that would stem from the inevitable bias of government towards the dominant religion. There would be a lot more peaceful co-existence based on the people’s values. Not everyone can be made happy, but by pleasing the majority a government can go a long way to bringing maximum happiness to its people.
Having a State religion favoured by majority of the people and implemented by the government is important. Pews report put forward an interesting discovery of how countries that have gone to great lengths to implement freedom of religion and non-discrimination such as the United Kingdom and France have ended up on the opposite side of the scale by oppressing the very religions they are trying to streamline. Nurses in Britain can be dismissed from their jobs if they pray with patients and France has the ban on wearing Muslim headscarves in schools. Rather than pretending to be neutral, states should just go with the majority and be fair by recognising the need for other religions to have a voice even if it is not the dominant voice.
Freedom of religion from the perspective that everyone has equal benefits and freedom from being not openly opposed is unrealistic. If Pew’s report only recorded religious intolerance from the period of mid-2006 to mid-2008 in the age of democracy, global co-operation and the United Nations with its numerous Conventions and agreements that actively promote freedom of religion, it should be clear that it cannot always work the way it is codified in law. The political well-being of a country rests on the ability of a government to recognise the needs and wants of its people and find a peaceful way of implementing and maintaining those desires.
In Countries with two or more dominant religions, an emphasis on recognising each religion in various aspects of governance and maintaining a proper balance especially in areas where people of those religions mix will be the test of success in such a country. Mutual respect must be demanded but in recognition of dominant religions and clear boundaries for where those religions have an upper hand in society. Christians and Muslims in Uganda have gone as far as creating an Inter-religious Council that allows Ugandans of the dominant religious groups to have a say on what laws should be put in place against human sacrifice and against homosexuality. This kind of co-existence improves the political well-being in a State and achieves what freedom of religion is meant to achieve on a more realistic scale.
Freedom of religion may attempt to improve the political well-being of a country but it does not always achieve this because it fails to recognise the need for recognition of dominant faiths within society and respect for their position. Its call for non-discrimination and peaceful co-existence is important and needed but it is doomed to fail in implementation where streamlining all religions is the method used. There has to be a recognition of dominant religions by governments as a starting point and from there a culture of respect and peaceful co-existence fostered from that source. People want peace, they do not want to be made to believe one thing or the other. However, if respecting the beliefs of another religion while freely and openly practicing one’s own is the way one can attain such peace in an ever-changing world, then majority of people will choose peaceful co-existence to religious and political conflict.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
What role does Christianity play in the Constitutions of Majority Christian African Nations? by Kakuru Timothy
It appears that having a majority Christian population these days is about as influential in the making of a constitution as religious leaders speaking out on violence. I find it odd that the states that boast a rich heritage in the Christian faith eventually seem to, in well-meaning be led down the most unchristian path.
Today, A constitution is not considered democratic unless it enshrines the Fundamental Human Rights that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dictates – however these have long departed from the concept of Christianity to just stemming from some “inalienable right.” Since the Western world deems the structure of a democracy to be a suitable solution to all the social problems that mar the face of Africa, African states have vehemently strove to adopt it. Even faced with histories so tainted by, repugnant culture, civil disobedience and cultural inequalities based on population demographics that render democracy a comic show of hopeless bravado; democracy is the choice. And what shouts “democracy” more than a state led by a constitution put together with the support of the population? Apparently, nothing!
Uganda, Kenya and South Africa are just some of the African countries that have over the course of history been described as Christian and have adopted Constitutions based on democracy believing earnestly in the ability of democracy to change an ailing nation for the better. However, the question is; has Christianity played a role in the Constitution making process? These three countries are used as a case study;
Uganda is an East African country with over 88% of its population Christian. In the constitution making process of Uganda, the Uganda Joint Christian council played a role to reflect the sentiments of the religious population of Uganda. The human rights attributed to the constitution and also the freedoms granted for worship all reflect a Christian sentiment. However, some provisions such as that of the state being able to authorise the termination of a life may be deemed as against Christianity. In the Odoki Commission (the study carried out to determine the content of the constitution), the Chief Justice as he then was found that a majority of Ugandans supported the death penalty as a form of punishment as it was part of culture for someone who had killed a person, to also themselves be killed. Therefore, it appears that the majority of Ugandans which certainly includes Christians preferred to be ruled under customary norms at the expense of the Christian understanding of the sanctity of life.
South Africa. With its history of Apartheid rule characterised by a racial discrimination so intense that people were actually jailed for having sexual intercourse with those of a different race enacted its constitution in 1996. Although there was an intention at adhering to what are considered Christian principles, the underlying motive behind the enactment of this constitution was making sure that the atrocities that were committed against people during the apartheid rule were never repeated again. This is why the constitution is so preoccupied with human rights. Although human rights are a Christian sentiment- after all, viewing every human as equal in the eyes of God and as a neighbour is as Christian as we can get, I believe the South African constitution goes overboard with the human rights to the extent that it side-lines morality for those rights. Although Christianity can be credited for bringing morality and human rights to the foreground when making a constitution- it has taken backseat to the numerous “freedoms” and inherent rights in South Africa, getting more and more away from religious principle even though (as of 2001) an apparent 79.8% of all South Africans are reportedly Christian.
In The Republic of Kenya, Just like in South Africa, the constitution was drafted and enacted after political turmoil that left many Kenyans injured and others killed. it appears the newly enacted constitution had a strong opposition from the Christian community. A joint statement signed off by leaders from 30 different Christian groups and denominations claimed that “the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways.” In a country where 78% of the population is Christian , I would expect that if ever Christians had a say what went into their countries Constitution- Kenyan’s Christians would be them. On 4th August 2010 the people of Kenya voted for the Constitution which in promulgation brought into legality abortion, despite the Church leaders crying themselves hoarse over the matter. I found this frankly exasperating and I’m sure so did the church leaders who vehemently opposed this law.
Is Christian morality back seated for what is regarded as freedom of individuals? It appears so, our law promulgators cannot entirely be blamed for they enact laws they know the population will support and follow- and in the case of Kenya, laws voted for by the people. Where disaster has claimed lives and livelihoods, erased peace and restricted freedoms the result appears to be a nation seeking unbounded rights. I find it hard to distinguish these countries constitutions from hedonistic societies. It is apparent to me that although a country has got a large Christian community- where it has gone through disastrous strife, the “conservative” Christian restrictions enshrined in morality are foregone for the freedom which the people have been deprived. In this way Christianity is given second place to freedom of choice even when the deciding country is majorly Christian.
Sources
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kenyan-christian-leaders-stand-together-against-proposed-constitution-46117/
Today, A constitution is not considered democratic unless it enshrines the Fundamental Human Rights that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dictates – however these have long departed from the concept of Christianity to just stemming from some “inalienable right.” Since the Western world deems the structure of a democracy to be a suitable solution to all the social problems that mar the face of Africa, African states have vehemently strove to adopt it. Even faced with histories so tainted by, repugnant culture, civil disobedience and cultural inequalities based on population demographics that render democracy a comic show of hopeless bravado; democracy is the choice. And what shouts “democracy” more than a state led by a constitution put together with the support of the population? Apparently, nothing!
Uganda, Kenya and South Africa are just some of the African countries that have over the course of history been described as Christian and have adopted Constitutions based on democracy believing earnestly in the ability of democracy to change an ailing nation for the better. However, the question is; has Christianity played a role in the Constitution making process? These three countries are used as a case study;
Uganda is an East African country with over 88% of its population Christian. In the constitution making process of Uganda, the Uganda Joint Christian council played a role to reflect the sentiments of the religious population of Uganda. The human rights attributed to the constitution and also the freedoms granted for worship all reflect a Christian sentiment. However, some provisions such as that of the state being able to authorise the termination of a life may be deemed as against Christianity. In the Odoki Commission (the study carried out to determine the content of the constitution), the Chief Justice as he then was found that a majority of Ugandans supported the death penalty as a form of punishment as it was part of culture for someone who had killed a person, to also themselves be killed. Therefore, it appears that the majority of Ugandans which certainly includes Christians preferred to be ruled under customary norms at the expense of the Christian understanding of the sanctity of life.
South Africa. With its history of Apartheid rule characterised by a racial discrimination so intense that people were actually jailed for having sexual intercourse with those of a different race enacted its constitution in 1996. Although there was an intention at adhering to what are considered Christian principles, the underlying motive behind the enactment of this constitution was making sure that the atrocities that were committed against people during the apartheid rule were never repeated again. This is why the constitution is so preoccupied with human rights. Although human rights are a Christian sentiment- after all, viewing every human as equal in the eyes of God and as a neighbour is as Christian as we can get, I believe the South African constitution goes overboard with the human rights to the extent that it side-lines morality for those rights. Although Christianity can be credited for bringing morality and human rights to the foreground when making a constitution- it has taken backseat to the numerous “freedoms” and inherent rights in South Africa, getting more and more away from religious principle even though (as of 2001) an apparent 79.8% of all South Africans are reportedly Christian.
In The Republic of Kenya, Just like in South Africa, the constitution was drafted and enacted after political turmoil that left many Kenyans injured and others killed. it appears the newly enacted constitution had a strong opposition from the Christian community. A joint statement signed off by leaders from 30 different Christian groups and denominations claimed that “the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways.” In a country where 78% of the population is Christian , I would expect that if ever Christians had a say what went into their countries Constitution- Kenyan’s Christians would be them. On 4th August 2010 the people of Kenya voted for the Constitution which in promulgation brought into legality abortion, despite the Church leaders crying themselves hoarse over the matter. I found this frankly exasperating and I’m sure so did the church leaders who vehemently opposed this law.
Is Christian morality back seated for what is regarded as freedom of individuals? It appears so, our law promulgators cannot entirely be blamed for they enact laws they know the population will support and follow- and in the case of Kenya, laws voted for by the people. Where disaster has claimed lives and livelihoods, erased peace and restricted freedoms the result appears to be a nation seeking unbounded rights. I find it hard to distinguish these countries constitutions from hedonistic societies. It is apparent to me that although a country has got a large Christian community- where it has gone through disastrous strife, the “conservative” Christian restrictions enshrined in morality are foregone for the freedom which the people have been deprived. In this way Christianity is given second place to freedom of choice even when the deciding country is majorly Christian.
Sources
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kenyan-christian-leaders-stand-together-against-proposed-constitution-46117/
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Links to Student Op-Ed Pieces
Here are links to two pieces written by students of the Law and Christian Political Thought class.
Both pieces are imaginative Op-Ed articles on the "Walk to Work" controversy written in the voice of prominent Christian philosophers from the past.
This piece is written in the voice of Thomas Aquinas by Atukunda Rachael Zaramba.
This piece is written in the voice of Martin Luther by Turinawe Patrick
Both pieces are imaginative Op-Ed articles on the "Walk to Work" controversy written in the voice of prominent Christian philosophers from the past.
This piece is written in the voice of Thomas Aquinas by Atukunda Rachael Zaramba.
This piece is written in the voice of Martin Luther by Turinawe Patrick
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa? by Sarah Rubombora
Editor's Note: This student journal entry references the article Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics A Plea for a Non-party Polity by Kwasi Wiredu which is available on the Internet via this Link
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa?
This depends on what one considers ‘Christian’ in application to a political order. Based on our last class, I would consider freewill or the ability to choose to be part of a system or support a candidate of one’s choice to govern is that factor on what is Christian in a political model. In that case what/whichever system grants one the most ability to choose without fear or coercion is the “most Christian” political model. I would add another element of a system that upholds moral choices and does not advocate for violence as a ‘Christian’ political model.
I consider there to be three types of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa namely actual/authentic democracies; dictatorial democracies and autocracies. I consider actual democracy to be the “most Christian” political model, only if it contains a representative based Parliament whom citizens vote into office. The aspect of freewill is most evident in that system of politics because from the start, the people get to choose who they want to lead them or make laws on their behalf.
On the other hand, Wiredu’s proposition of a non-partisan, consensus driven political model would naturally take the lead over democracy if it were applicable. It lacks, as he says, the winner takes all approach and caters for the needs of the minority or marginalized groups in society. From a Christian perspective I think of the nature of Jesus and His total disregard for society norms and hierarchies. He is hailed by Christians and non-Christians alike for His down-to-earth approach to human lives and His ability to cut across age, sex, social standing and find common ground on the principles of God. Wiredu would have applauded this bringing together of people and would believe that his model of political order best exemplifies the nature of Christ which is the basis of Christian living.
But, like Wiredu, I do not believe that with all the mix and tension of different cultures and beliefs in modern day societies, that his political model can work. There are too many conflicting interests and those who benefit from the top-down political orders with perks such as power, wealth and recognition are unlikely to welcome a ‘more Christian’ way of politics. But I believe that democracy, if well implemented, is the best example of a Christian political model in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Functioning democracies in countries such as South Africa and Botswana place emphasis on granting their citizens rights and freedoms. Even though there is a clear separation between the church and the state in such countries, the freedom to choose leaders and ideals that are largely symbolic of the moral structure of Christian ethos make democracy a worthwhile choice.
By Sarah Rubombora
What political model is the “most Christian” in sub-Saharan Africa?
This depends on what one considers ‘Christian’ in application to a political order. Based on our last class, I would consider freewill or the ability to choose to be part of a system or support a candidate of one’s choice to govern is that factor on what is Christian in a political model. In that case what/whichever system grants one the most ability to choose without fear or coercion is the “most Christian” political model. I would add another element of a system that upholds moral choices and does not advocate for violence as a ‘Christian’ political model.
I consider there to be three types of political systems in sub-Saharan Africa namely actual/authentic democracies; dictatorial democracies and autocracies. I consider actual democracy to be the “most Christian” political model, only if it contains a representative based Parliament whom citizens vote into office. The aspect of freewill is most evident in that system of politics because from the start, the people get to choose who they want to lead them or make laws on their behalf.
On the other hand, Wiredu’s proposition of a non-partisan, consensus driven political model would naturally take the lead over democracy if it were applicable. It lacks, as he says, the winner takes all approach and caters for the needs of the minority or marginalized groups in society. From a Christian perspective I think of the nature of Jesus and His total disregard for society norms and hierarchies. He is hailed by Christians and non-Christians alike for His down-to-earth approach to human lives and His ability to cut across age, sex, social standing and find common ground on the principles of God. Wiredu would have applauded this bringing together of people and would believe that his model of political order best exemplifies the nature of Christ which is the basis of Christian living.
But, like Wiredu, I do not believe that with all the mix and tension of different cultures and beliefs in modern day societies, that his political model can work. There are too many conflicting interests and those who benefit from the top-down political orders with perks such as power, wealth and recognition are unlikely to welcome a ‘more Christian’ way of politics. But I believe that democracy, if well implemented, is the best example of a Christian political model in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Functioning democracies in countries such as South Africa and Botswana place emphasis on granting their citizens rights and freedoms. Even though there is a clear separation between the church and the state in such countries, the freedom to choose leaders and ideals that are largely symbolic of the moral structure of Christian ethos make democracy a worthwhile choice.
By Sarah Rubombora
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)