Saturday, May 27, 2017

Intrafaith Reconciliation as a Prerequisite for Interfaith Reconciliation

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Globalization has increased religious diversity around the world, with a resulting increase in religious friction and conflict.  But most religious conflict is caused by intrafaith differences rather than interfaith differences.  Religious sects within Judaism, Christianity and Islam can be more hostile to each other than to other religions.  Sectarian differences led to past religious wars in Europe and are the cause of current sectarian violence in the Middle East.

            There is a broad spectrum of sectarian beliefs within each religion.  They range from fundamentalists who believe that their exclusivist beliefs are the one true faith and that their scriptures are the inerrant and immutable word—and law—of God, to progressives who do not denigrate other religions and accept advances in knowledge and reason as God’s truth. 

            Fundamentalist Christians have been more active in American politics than Christian progressives and moderates.  Until the election of Donald Trump it appeared that fundamentalists were a minority of Christians, but that election indicated they might well be a majority.  That is problematic for Christianity since Donald Trump represents the antithesis of Christian morality.

            Religions change from within.  Only Christians can shape the future of Christianity, and only Muslims can define Islam.  Progressives and moderates in each religion must first engage fundamentalists on the religious priorities of their own faith and achieve some degree of intrafaith reconciliation before they have any credibility in promoting interfaith reconciliation.

            The first priority of Christians is to acknowledge the rank hypocrisy of supporting Donald Trump.  Religious beliefs are reflected in politics, and by supporting Donald Trump the vast majority of white Christians seemingly abandoned the altruistic gospel of Jesus for a false gospel of cheap grace and self-love that promises worldly power and wealth to the faithful.

            The emphasis on big money in foreign policy was evident in President Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, where he proclaimed a doctrine of principled realism to replace human rights and asserted shared values with an oppressive, oil rich, regime—one that gave birth to al Qaeda and that continues to deny the freedoms of religion and speech and women’s rights.

            To debunk the fundamentalist priorities of religion and politics that have corrupted Christianity, progressive Christians must restore the altruistic teachings of Jesus as the foundation of their faith.  The greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves is a summary of the teachings of Jesus and is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  It is a sacred shared value that can promote interfaith harmony.    

Once the love of God and our neighbors—including our neighbors of other races and religions—has been reestablished as the heart of Christian legitimacy, then that principle of faith must be translated into politics.  That requires balancing individual rights with providing for the common good; and in American politics the challenge is to guard against an over-emphasis of individual rights that subverts the collective obligation to provide for the common good.

            Over 70% of Americans identify as Christians, so the future of American religion and politics depends upon the relative strength of fundamentalists and progressives—and that is far from clear.  It is clear, however, what Christian priorities should be.  God’s will is to reconcile and redeem humanity while Satan’s will is to divide and conquer; but history indicates that Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best acting in the church and politics.

Christianity is in an existential crisis.  Christians have buried the altruistic and universal teachings of Jesus under exclusivist fundamentalist beliefs that denigrate other religions and promote divisive politics with an Old Testament vengeance.  The only way to save Christianity from itself is to restore the teachings of Jesus as a priority of Christian faith and politics, and that requires that progressives engage fundamentalists over the priorities of the Christian religion. 
                       
Interfaith reconciliation among Jews, Christians and Muslims is essential for world peace, but intrafaith reconciliation is a prerequisite for interfaith reconciliation. Christians must make the love of their neighbors—including those neighbors of other races and religions—a moral imperative of their faith.  Only then can that common word of faith be considered a sacred shared value that is so essential for interfaith reconciliation.       


Notes and commentary on related topics:


  
On President Trump’s emphasis on principled realism to replace human rights, and shared values with an oppressive Saudi regime that denies the freedoms of religion and speech and women’s rights.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-and-gulf-nations-agree-to-crack-down-on-terror-financing/2017/05/21/e1222b34-3dfd-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

On Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s convoluted rationale that combatting terrorism will lead to human rights.  See http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334441-tillerson-on-saudis-human-rights-issues-focus-on-terrorism.


On the eight points of progressive Christianity, see  https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/.


On a light-hearted look at the different sects of Judaism, see who let Jared and Ivanka fly on Shabbat at https://religionnews.com/2017/05/22/ivanka-jared-fly-saudi-arabia-shabbat/.

On interpreting scripture based on tradition, experience and reason, see Our Theological Task in The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church , pages 78-91, at https://www.cokesbury.com/forms/DynamicContent.aspx?id=87&pageid=920.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.


On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.

On different perspectives of Jesus, see Jesus: A prophet, God’s only Son or the Logos? at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/04/jesus-prophet-god-only-son-or-logos.html.




On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.





On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.




On how Easter and the Christian paradox have distorted the role of Jesus and the church in politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/04/easter-and-christian-paradox.html.


On the relevance of Jesus and the irrelevance of the church in today’s world, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/04/the-relevance-of-jesus-and-irrelevance.html.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The Freedoms of Religion and Speech: Where Human Rights Begin

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The freedoms of religion and speech are first among those individual rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and they are also protected in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.  Those fundamental freedoms originated in the natural law of the 18th century Enlightenment, and their nemeses are religious laws that prohibit apostasy and blasphemy.

            The Enlightenment transformed politics and religion in libertarian democracies with the progressive ideals of democracy and human rights, but not in Islamic cultures.  Indonesia, once considered a bellwether of human rights among Islamic nations, recently convicted a prominent politician of blasphemy.  In Pakistan, there is growing public support to enforce blasphemy laws, and in Turkey and Egypt the freedom of speech has been denied to stifle political opposition. 

            Thomas Jefferson was a child of the Enlightenment who championed religious freedom and “the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in America.  As a slaveholder Jefferson was a hypocrite in advocating liberty, but his advocacy of religious freedom illustrated its political priority in the U.S. and its uneasy relationship with religion.
           
            Before the Bill of Rights provided the freedoms of religion and speech, blasphemy laws were enforced in colonial America; and today authoritarian leaders and terrorists in Islamic cultures use apostasy and blasphemy laws to stifle political opposition.  The freedoms of religion and speech can thus be a means of U.S. national security to counter radical Islamist terrorism.
           
            While there is too little religious freedom in Islamic nations, there may be too much religious freedom in the U.S.  Christian fundamentalists have demonstrated their political power by electing Donald Trump, and President Trump supports their claim that their right to exercise their religious freedom allows them to ignore laws that conflict with their religious beliefs.

            Individual rights are essential to provide liberty in law, but those rights must be balanced with providing for the common good.  In America, individual rights have been emphasized at the expense of providing for the common good, while in Islamic nations those priorities are reversed.  Finding a balance between those two purposes of government is a challenge for any democracy.

            Human rights, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech, must be at the foundation of the rule of law to prevent political oppression.  Even in a democracy there can be a tyranny of the majority if minorities are denied human rights; and history has shown that a religious tyranny can be even more oppressive than a secular one.
           
            Religious laws that preclude human rights are instruments of political oppression.  That is the case when apostasy and blasphemy laws deny the freedoms of religion and speech and when the freedom of religion allows unlawful discrimination.  The freedoms of religion and speech are fundamental human rights, but should never be used to deny others the equal protection of law.   

            Religion is part of the problem so that it should be part of the solution.  The greatest commandment to love God and love our neighbors—including our neighbors of other races and religions—is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  It is based on reason and shared values that oppose religious fundamentalism and political oppression.

            Human rights begin with the freedoms of religion and speech, and since we love those freedoms we should share them with others as a matter of our faith and politics.  There can be no liberty in law without the freedoms of religion and speech, but the friction between individual rights, religion and politics will continue to challenge democracies until apostasy and blasphemy laws are eliminated and the limits of religious freedom are better defined.
       
           
Notes and references to related commentary:

On a Christian governor in Indonesia found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to prison, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/world/asia/indonesia-governor-ahok-basuki-tjahaja-purnama-blasphemy-islam.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share; see also, Indonesia president calls for respect of governor blasphemy verdict, at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-politics-president-idUSKBN18510K?il=0; see also, The Guardian view on blasphemy in Indonesia: exploiting religion for political purposes at  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/the-guardian-view-on-blasphemy-in-indonesia-exploiting-religion-for-political-purposes.
 


   
The Pew Research Center has confirmed the prevalence of apostasy and blasphemy laws throughout Islamic cultures in the Middle East and Africa, and that they are being enforced.  See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/.

On Jefferson’s role in promoting the freedoms of religion and speech and libertarian concepts of human rights as standards of legitimacy in the context of conflicting religious beliefs, see the Introduction to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, pages 10-15, posted in Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/.

On the new French president having similar views on religious liberty as those of Thomas Jefferson, see Emmanuel Macron has a history buff’s view of Islam and religious strife at  http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/05/france-secularism-and-religion.
 

The Qur’an provides: Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear
from Error. Whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy
hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things. (Qur’an, Al Baqara
2:256)  But whenever Shari’a prohibits apostasy (abandoning religion or conversion to another religion) or blasphemy (any speech or act disrespectful of God), there is compulsion in religion.

On the diversity of opinions among Muslim scholars on human rights under Shari’a, see Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, at pages 9-16, posted as a Resource at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html.

The Executive Summary of the International Freedom of Religion Report for 2015 (released on August 8, 2016) is at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper.
  


On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.




On moral restraints on the freedom of speech, see       http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/05/moral-restraints-on-freedom-of-speech.html.

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.



On the freedom of religion and providing for the common good, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/04/the-freedom-of-religion-and-providing.html.

On the freedom of religion and speech: essentials of liberty in law, see      http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/08/the-freedoms-of-religion-and-speech.html.

On liberty in law: a matter of man’s law, not God’s law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/liberty-in-law-matter-of-mans-law-not.html.

On the evolution of religion and politics from oppression to freedom, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-evolution-of-religion-and-politics.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.






See voices of reason and hope in the cacophony over religion, human rights and politics at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/05/voices-of-reason-and-hope-in-cacophony.html.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Voices of Reason and Hope in the Cacophony over Religion, Human Rights and Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

Pope Francis and Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the UN high commissioner for human rights, are voices of reason and hope in the cacophony surrounding issues of religion, human rights and politics.  Donald Trump and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, are foils to Pope Francis and Prince Zeid with their advocacy of political expediency, or realpolitik.

The central issue is reconciling human rights with religion and politics, and Pope Francis and Prince Zeid are trying to do just that—the Pope from a religious perspective and Prince Zeid from a political perspective.  Both are fighting uphill battles against religious fundamentalists and the radical right populist demagogues they are supporting around the world.

In contrast to his predecessor, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis has initiated personal encounters with authoritarian Muslim leaders like Erdogan of Turkey and el-Sissi of Egypt and urged them to comply with fundamental human rights.  Prince Zeid has emphasized how the ideal of human rights is also politically expedient, “as the best antidote against extremism.” 

Human rights in this context are those political freedoms and rights provided in the U.S. Constitution and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) provides another variety of human rights that are based on economic benefits rather than political freedom. 

The U.S. is a party to the ICCPR but not the ICESCR.  The ICCPR provides libertarian rights that can be enforced by international law, while the ICESCR defines political aspirations for economic entitlements rather than political freedom.  Such entitlements cannot be uniformly defined and enforced since they depend on the varying capabilities of nations to provide them.

With rights come responsibilities, and justice requires that individual rights are balanced with the collective obligation to provide for the common good.  Religion plays a pivotal role in balancing these conflicting objectives, but there is a problem: All ancient religions taught the moral obligation to provide for the common good, but none addressed individual rights. 

It was not until after the Enlightenment of the 18th century that democracy and human rights became political and religious priorities in libertarian democracies, but in many Islamic nations human rights have remained subordinate to immutable Islamic Law known as Shari’a, as provided in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights of 1990.

Equal justice under law requires that human rights are not constrained by religious law, and that individual rights are balanced with providing for the common good.  That creates a two-fold problem: In the U.S. individual rights have been emphasized at the expense of providing for the common good, while the opposite is the norm in Islamic nations where Shari’a prevails.

Promoting human rights overseas is an ideal of U.S. foreign policy, but it has been compromised by moral ambiguity and political expediency.  That has been evident in the way the U.S. has ignored flagrant violations of human rights to accommodate its allies.
  
Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors—including those neighbors of other races and religions—as they love themselves as a common word of faith; but they have failed to apply that moral imperative to their politics.  Americans love their individual rights, but don’t promote them for those beyond their borders.

Safi Kaskas has noted that a common word is not enough to bring peace between Christians and Muslims, but he is hopeful that the 2016 Marrakesh Declaration in Morocco and conferences this year at Al-Azhar University in Egypt coupled with the visit of Pope Francis can reverse dangerous religious polarization and promote human rights in Islamic nations.

Muslim scholars differ on human rights, and Prince Zeid’s activist promotion of human rights “has been criticized in the region for airing its dirty laundry.  [But] Zeid made the case that there is a link between a country’s respect for human rights and its political stability—a link that explains how dictatorships have come undone in the Middle East over the past several years.”        

Pope Francis and Prince Zeid are ambassadors of Christianity and Islam in a world plagued by religious and political extremism and violence.  They exemplify how the love of God and neighbor is a shared value of Jews, Christians and Muslims that can promote human rights and a politics of reconciliation in a world that seems hell-bent on its own destruction.


Notes and commentary on related topics:

On the initiatives of Pope Francis, see Francis and Benedict: two popes, two divergent approached to Islam at http://religionnews.com/2017/05/02/francis-and-benedict-two-popes-two-divergent-approaches-to-islam/.


On Safi Kaskas’ call for Christian and Muslim leaders to address religious grievances and promote human rights, see http://religionnews.com/2017/05/08/peace-will-require-leaders-christian-and-muslim-to-address-real-grievances/.  On the Marrakesh Declaration of 2016, see https://www.pambazuka.org/human-security/marrakesh-declaration-rights-religious-minorities-predominantly-muslim-majority.  On the Al-Azhar Declaration on Citizenship and Coexistence of March 2017, see http://www.azhar.eg/observer-en/al-azhar-declaration-on-citizenship-and-coexistence-issued-by-his-eminence-the-grand-imam-of-al-azhar.

 
On the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, see https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#fndtn-panel1-3.

On how geopolitical realignments and the rise of popular nationalism [including the election of Donald Trump] have unleashed a global backlash against human rights, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/07/welcome-to-the-post-human-rights-world/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP&utm_term=Flashpoints.

The Preamble to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam of 1990 provides that human rights are …an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them as they are divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah; and Article 24 provides specifically what the Preamble implies: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a.  Article 25 provides: The Islamic Shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.  See Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, at page 7, notes 22 and 23, posted as a Resource at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html.

On the diversity of opinions among Muslim scholars on human rights under Shari’a, see Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, at pages 9-16, posted as a Resource at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html.



On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.



On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.




On liberty in law: a matter of man’s law, not God’s law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/liberty-in-law-matter-of-mans-law-not.html.

On the evolution of religion and politics from oppression to freedom, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-evolution-of-religion-and-politics.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.