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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment