Religion and Government
In most forms of Islam (the Turkish "secular" Islam being the most obvious exception), law and religion are synonymous. That is why Islamic countries have traditionally pursued military conquest. Both Christians and Muslims in the middle ages claimed that conquest was to open the option for people to follow their religion, not to force them to convert. There is, in fact a Qu'anic injunction against converting people by force, and the Bible assumes that Christians are the persecuted masses, not the ruling power.
What developed in the Christian world, thanks to humanism and the resultant secularism, was a view of the priority of faith over "conversion." In other words, the secular nations that developed out of Christian nations have seen the freedom to choose not to be a Christian as equally important as the freedom to choose Christianity.
Many governments that developed from Islamic territories, on the other hand, though they were the most tolerant of the monotheistic and imperial religions through the middle ages, have, in relatively recent times, developed a policy of persecution and conversion by force in many places. Though these policies were pursued by new converts, unfamiliar with the tenants of their new religion even in ancient times, mainstream imperial Islam frowned upon such actions.
Is it possible that the post-Christian nations are able to integrate people of various cultural backgrounds more readily because of this belief in the freedom to choose non-Christian faiths? Is it possible that the recent interpretations of Islam, which seek the forced conversion of non-Muslims have caused many of the crises in the Middle East? Perhaps. It might also be possible that the current trend of the non-secular Islamic regimes to attempt to micro-manage the lives of their citizens, in an attempt to force conformity to their interpretations of Islam, have lost for them the support of many of those under their rule who wish to be true to Islam, but have differing interpretations.
What do you think? I think coersion and domination are evil no matter the religion. I also believe that oppressors of any faith create their own barriars to the faiths which they proclaim, even if their faith is atheism.
What developed in the Christian world, thanks to humanism and the resultant secularism, was a view of the priority of faith over "conversion." In other words, the secular nations that developed out of Christian nations have seen the freedom to choose not to be a Christian as equally important as the freedom to choose Christianity.
Many governments that developed from Islamic territories, on the other hand, though they were the most tolerant of the monotheistic and imperial religions through the middle ages, have, in relatively recent times, developed a policy of persecution and conversion by force in many places. Though these policies were pursued by new converts, unfamiliar with the tenants of their new religion even in ancient times, mainstream imperial Islam frowned upon such actions.
Is it possible that the post-Christian nations are able to integrate people of various cultural backgrounds more readily because of this belief in the freedom to choose non-Christian faiths? Is it possible that the recent interpretations of Islam, which seek the forced conversion of non-Muslims have caused many of the crises in the Middle East? Perhaps. It might also be possible that the current trend of the non-secular Islamic regimes to attempt to micro-manage the lives of their citizens, in an attempt to force conformity to their interpretations of Islam, have lost for them the support of many of those under their rule who wish to be true to Islam, but have differing interpretations.
What do you think? I think coersion and domination are evil no matter the religion. I also believe that oppressors of any faith create their own barriars to the faiths which they proclaim, even if their faith is atheism.
posted by Unknown at
12:47 PM
2 Comments:
The fastest way to make someone rebel is to force them to do something they don't believe in. That's no way to build a strong unit, and it's no way to insure loyalty. Forcing something as personal as religious faith on people will never be successful because individuals will never interalize a faith they're required to hold.
If I were God, I would rather have one faithful servant who worshiped because he/she wanted to than a million forced faithful going through the motions.
I also believe that coersion and domination are evil and barriers to faith. However, it's hard to argue with their results for governments around the world. I really don't know that faith in Christianity/Islam even matters. Aren't they tools to facilitate faith in a given regime/administration? (Hey, Ty, is regime/administration a dichotomy? Is there a hierarchy there? If there is, I guess it would have to be administration/regime.)
That's why I remain unaffiliated with any religious movement. If I were to claim a religion, it would have to be dadaism. Yeah, the "anti-art" movement is my religion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home