December 1, 2004
Pakistan and U.S.: Mixing Religion and Politics
THINKING ALOUD: Politics, elections and God
Daily Times columnist Razi Azmi warns in the Pakistani publication about mixing religion and politics. Written before the U.S. presidential election, Azmi writes that President Bush's call to evangelical Christians creates a volatile situation. Azmi says that Bush is on a dangerous path taken by countries that are now experiencing sectarian violence.
He blames Islamisation of Pakistan as a cause of the state's civil strife and violence. He describes the threat ultra Orthodox Jews cause for peace in Israel when negotiating with Palestians. Azmi fears Prime Minster Ariel Sharon could meet the same fate as his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin, who was assasinated by an Israeli, as Sharon supports withdrawal from Gaza. Azmi also describes Hindu extremism and violence over a mosque destroyed by Hindus. Iran and Saudi Arabia are also fanning the flames of religious extremism by incorporating faith with political will.
THINKING ALOUD: Politics, elections and God —Razi Azmi
Muslims have yet to learn the lesson the Europeans learnt long ago, namely, that religion and politics don't mix well. Since the so-called Islamisation carried out under Zia ul Haq, Pakistan has steadily gone down the road of sectarian strife and violence
Religion and politics make for a very lethal combination, not just for others but also for the very society in which this occurs. Pakistanis have witnessed its malignant influence for many years. Now, the Israeli ‘settlers’ — numbering no more than two hundred thousand out of a total Jewish population of five million — are holding society and state by the throat, claiming a biblical prerogative. Territorial expansionism directly stoked by religious conviction is now out to devour its own mentor, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Opposition leader Shimon Peres fears that radicals might try to kill Mr Sharon, just as the then prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in 1995 by a young Israeli opposed to an interim peace agreement with the Palestinians. Police have reported numerous death threats against Mr Sharon, once a champion of the settler movement and now denounced by settler supporters as a traitor and Nazi collaborator.
Orthodox Jews refer to the occupied territories by the biblical name of Judea and Samara. Many have forsaken comfortable and secure lives in Western countries to live there, encircled, despised and threatened by the surrounding Palestinian population. Although a vast majority of Israelis support the partial pullout proposed by Sharon, settlers and their allies describe it as a forcible expulsion of Jews from areas they see as part of their biblical birthright.
Prominent rabbis have called on religiously observant soldiers to defy orders to evacuate the settlements, saying that carrying out such commands would violate Jewish law. Army chief of staff Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon said such resistance “endangers us as an army, as a society and as a state”.
In the United States, God appears to have joined Bush’s election campaign, in violation of the American constitution. [The article was written before election results became available.] “God is out there, actively campaigning for President Bush”, said Beverly Ryan, a retired legal secretary and born-again Christian. Referring to the military invasion of Iraq, he added: “George Bush did what God wanted him to do. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?” Indeed, with God on his side, why should Bush care about anything at all!
Whatever his personal religious convictions, by invoking religious symbolism to win the votes of the 40 million Americans who consider themselves evangelical Christians, George Bush has set a precedent that is full of perils and betrays a total disregard for the lessons of history. Barry Lynn, a United Church of Christ minister and the executive director of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said: “It is, I think, extremely dangerous for people to believe that God is a Republican or a Democrat or a Naderite or even a Libertarian.”
In last year’s Malaysian elections, Nik Aziz, the spiritual leader of the Islamist PAS Party, didn’t beat about the bush. He declared that those who would vote for his party would go to heaven and those who did not were destined for hell. In the event, it is a pity that relatively few Malaysians chose to book a bed in paradise by voting for his party. As Mr Aziz has had the benefit of higher studies in Islam in Pakistan, it is no surprise that he arrogated to himself the right to distribute one-way tickets to heaven and hell.
Pakistanis may be falling head over heels trying to go to other countries for a good education, but their country is a Harvard of sorts for the Islamists of the world. Name any spiritual, political or jihadist leader of any Islamist movement anywhere in the world, from the Indonesian Hambali to the Jordanian Zarqawi, from the Afghan Mullah Jalaludin Haqani to the above-mentioned Malaysian Nik Aziz, and the chances are that they have done their apprenticeship or perfected their religious education in Pakistan.
Maulana Samiul Haque, principal of the Darul Uloom Haqqania at Akora Khattak, also referred to as the University of Jihad, has also issued his fatwa on the American elections. Needless to say, he declares it to be a religious obligation of American Muslims to vote against George Bush. The former prime minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who had earlier denounced Nik Aziz for invoking religion to win votes in Malaysia, has gone one step further, telling American Muslims in writing that voting against Bush will be “an act of ibadah,” no less.
Modern and contemporary history is replete with instances of rift, violence and bloodshed when state and politics are infused with religion. Western and central Europe, now an island of peace, stability, progress and prosperity in a sea of instability, poverty and violence, was a theatre for war and bloodshed in the name of religion only a few centuries ago. Heretics were burnt alive and battles raged to preserve religious purity. It is due to this historical experience that Europe is now averse to mixing religion and politics and so tolerant of religious differences as to be a magnet for those fleeing religious persecution in other countries.
In India, fanatical Hindus destroyed a mosque to build a temple to their God Ram, unleashing such a torrent of discord and violence for the sake of religion as to shake the very foundations of the country. Among its immediate results has been a pogrom against Muslims in the state of Gujrat carried out with the abetment of its Hindu extremist chief minister. Its long-term results are dreadful even to contemplate.
Following the withdrawal of the Soviet troops in 1989, the various Mujahideen factions in Afghanistan fought a civil war which, besides causing indescribable suffering to the Afghan people, reduced Kabul to rubble. The Taliban emerged from the debris promising peace and security, but instead delivered more misery in the name of religion. For over ten years between then and the American military intervention in 2001, it was a war of all against all, with every protagonist denouncing his adversary as the “enemy of Allah”. Those who decry American intervention now, complained then about American apathy.
Neighbouring Iran, under the tight grip of the Ayatollahs, is a volcano waiting to erupt. A major producer and exporter of oil and gas, its economy is struggling and society fraught with tensions. The elected president, Mohammad Khatami, exercises less authority than the mayor of a large Western city. The courts, the police and the army are controlled by a self-appointed Council of Guardians, an un-elected group of mullahs.
Saudi Arabia, which officially makes no distinction between religion and government, is seething with discontent despite its immense oil wealth. One recalls that, in an act of rebellion that has never been fully explained, hundreds of disgruntled Saudis went so far as to seize the Holy Kaaba in 1979. It took several days and a commando operation for the authorities to regain control of Islam’s holiest shrine.
Muslims are yet to learn the lesson that Europeans learnt long ago, namely, that religion and politics don’t mix well. Since the so-called Islamisation carried out under Zia ul Haq, Pakistan has steadily gone down the road of sectarian strife and violence. Daily Khabrain of October 30 carries a photo that speaks volumes about the state of the nation. It shows two women armed with Kalashnikov rifles standing guard, while men in their hundreds offer Friday prayers. Pass it off with a shrug of the shoulder; blame it on our enemies, if you will; but to ignore the message embedded in this image is to invite even greater disasters.
The author, a former academic with a doctorate in modern history, is now a freelance writer and columnist
Posted by Ki-Min Sung at 9:02 PM
Just how separate are church and state?
In an editorial for the New Zealand Herald, Richard Randerson comments on the merging of religion and politics in both the United States and Australasia. Citing examples of the Family First Party in Australia, backed by members of the Assemblies of God, and the recently-established Destiny Party in New Zealand, with strong ties to the Destiny Church, he describes "the association of religion with the exercise of political, economic or military power [as] a risky business, yet one that is on the rise."
Randerson goes on to explain his view that it is almost impossible for a single political party to encompass the wide range of issues considered important by a particular church or religion, causing the party to ignore part of the religious group's agenda or, even worse, take "a stance in conflict with [their] religious values." The author does not directly link this idea to the recent reelection of George Bush. Randerson could be suggesting, however, that the President's popularity with religious groups may decline, despite their approval of his handling of controversial matters like abortion and civil unions, if he continues to enact policies at odds with those supporters' views on social issues such as poverty and justice.
Rihard Randerson is the assistant Anglican bishop of Auckland, New Zealand's largest city.
New Zealand Herald - Just how separate are church and state?
To claim divine endorsement for policies of national self-interest requires but a few short steps. A nation adopts a policy to further its own ends, but needs a publicly acceptable rationale to justify it. A rationale is developed based on values such as freedom, justice, peace and serving the best interests of all.
Since such values can easily be seen as having a religious base, the claim is made (with a little bit of spin and slippage) that God is on our side. In the lead-up to the assault on Fallujah both sides claimed divine support, and sought divine aid for victory.
Missing from the argument is a crucial factor of analysis of the context. In value judgments the basic values (freedom, justice, peace) are not difficult to agree on. The tricky part lies in figuring out what they mean in a given context.
In retrospect the allied invasion of Iraq displayed faulty analysis with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and in the development of an adequate post-invasion peace plan.
Questions of whose interests were being served leave much room for debate, and different conclusions.
The association of religion with the exercise of political, economic or military power is a risky business, yet one that is on the rise.
Political analysis of the American election suggests conservative religious votes played a significant role in the outcome.
In Australia the Family First Party, consisting of many members of the Assemblies of God, entered candidates in last month's election and assigned preferences to the Liberal Party.
Here, the establishment of the Destiny Party, with its links to the Destiny Church, has joined other Christian parties in seeking political power.
For Christians as individuals to stand for political office, and to exercise their votes as citizens, is entirely proper. Church members weigh the issues and cast votes according to their own judgment and conscience. But for a church or other religious body to align itself formally with a political party, or to establish one of its own, opens up a different set of issues.
No political party is likely to encompass the range of issues and perspectives held by a particular church or faith. In general terms, conservative churches tend to focus on issues of personal morality, and take a traditional stance on matters such as family values, abortion or civil unions. By contrast liberal churches emphasise broader social or international issues such as poverty and justice, race relations or global peace.
Political parties often follow the same divide, with George Bush's Republicans attracting more of the conservative church vote, while John Kerry's Democrats won the support of more liberal Christians.
But here is the dilemma: the Christian Gospel addresses both sets of issues, so for a religious group to identify officially with either party runs the risk of only addressing half of the Christian agenda. The dilemma is compounded when the platform of a given party not merely ignores the other half of the agenda but takes a stance in conflict with religious values.
President George W. Bush, for example, in emphasising the importance of marriage and family, expresses strong Christian values. But by denying the rights of others, or invading Iraq without justification, or placing lower emphasis on the needs of the poor, he would be seen by many as acting contrary to scriptural precept. Parties of the left can exhibit similar ambivalences.
Hence a church that identifies with a particular party identifies with a mixed bag of policies, some of which might be quite anti-Christian, or fail to address key issues that Christians regard as important. The church is compromised in the process, losing its independence, integrity and comprehensiveness.
The range of policies supported by churches is almost certainly spread among a variety of parties. Individuals make choices at election time, but churches as a whole need to avoid party linkages in order to maintain the capacity for objective reflection, and thoughtful advocacy of policies which display the optimum expression of values in the contemporary context. The primary question is which policy to support, and only secondarily which party.
Care is also required to distinguish between what a party says and what it does. Our politics are often described as secular. Much was made of the fact that grace was not said before dining at an official Government banquet. The omission of the religious observance was noted negatively in some quarters.
Yet many policies adopted by our governments, both National and Labour, reflect a commitment to values broadly consistent with those of religion. Our commitment to justice based on the Treaty of Waitangi, the promotion of the role of women, the independence retained over Iraq, a commitment to peace-keeping in the South Pacific and beyond, all reflect a commitment to basic values of justice, peace and the unity of the global family.
By contrast the US is marked by a greater degree of outward religious observance, but many would argue its domestic and international policies do not reflect religious values to the same extent that ours do. In Jesus' words: "By their fruits you shall know them."
In the midst of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln said of the warring parties: "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully." (Second Inaugural Address, 1865).
Lincoln displayed in many speeches the recognition that the will of God could not be assumed to lie with his own side, and that in exercising power the ability to think broadly about divine justice was a central ingredient. His was a healthy objectivity one might hope for in all political leaders.
Such objectivity is even more essential in the life of religious bodies, whose advocacy of ultimate objectives in human affairs is fatally compromised by aspirations to political power.
Posted by Lena Malcolm at 11:11 AM
November 24, 2004
American Anti-Americanism
The British writer Timothy Garton Ash notes is "seriously worried by anti-Americanism in America". Traveling for two weeks after the election he has heard quite violent reactions from frustrated democrats who want to emigrate to Canada or apologize publicly to the world.
There might not be many new elements in this article for an American public, but it is significant information in Europe where people tend (only "tend") to think that if Bush was democratically elected, it means that "Americans" are behind him. To them Garton Ash writes:
"Overstated though the dichotomy is between red and blue America, it does mean that no one who is at all well informed can believe that America is Bush and Bush is America. If the west is divided, the dividing line runs slap-bang through the middle of America."
Another cause for concern is the looming battle " preserve the strict separation of church and state that the founding fathers intended." About which Garton Ash writes:
"Hands need to be joined across the sea in an old cause: the defence of the Enlightenment. We are all blue Americans now."
It might be of interest to note that this column first published in The Guardian (U.K.) on November 18th then appeared in El País (Spain) on November 21st and then in La Tribuna Hispana, a Latino site in the U.S. on the 23rd. For those who are really serious about it, there are some differences in the stories. They might be revealing.
La Tribuna Hispana (U.S.) – El 'blues' de Estados Unidos
The Guardian (U.K.) – American blues
Posted by Francis Pisani at 8:40 AM